Molten Steel

[JimBenArm]

Why would anyone spend so much time and go to so much trouble just to find reasons to not believe something?

Yes, why do you do this?

 

[A W Smith]

Got that physical evidence yet chris?

just figured out what could melt steel, 71 pages of Chris Sarns hot air.

 

[ravdin]

Why would anyone spend so much time and go to so much trouble just to find reasons to not believe something?

You tell us. Why would you spend all the time and trouble to find reasons not to believe that the WTC buildings collapsed because they were impacted by passenger planes hijacked by murderous Islamic extremists?

 

[TjW]

You are talking to yourself.

It amazes me how no one here can grasp this simple concept. Combustibles smoldering in the debris pile will slow the cooling of the molten steel. They need not be as hot as the molten steel, they only need to raise the temperature of the debris significantly. Think of the pulverized debris as a blanket and the smoldering combustibles as turning it into an electric blanket.
.

But the problem is, you have to exclude the possibility that the "electric blanket" didn't catch fire. It is within the realm of speculation that there was only enough energy to keep already-molten steel molten for weeks. But it would have to be a very narrow range of energies.
If there's not enough energy, then the puddle of molten steel cools and hardens from the outside in, and you would have to crack through the "eggshell" surrounding the liquid steel to get at it. That certainly isn't what the witnesses you've quoted described.
If there's more than enough energy, then there's enough to melt steel that wasn't melted, and there's no way to differentiate such steel from steel melted by thermite.

I have speculation of my own, but I don't think you'll like the conclusion I come to. And of course, it's only speculation. I have absolutely no way to prove it. It only had to be enough to satisfy me. I tell you what. I'll tell you about it, and then you can do the research to show me what an ignoramus I am.

The rubble pile was hot to begin with, because of the fires in it. It didn't have a free flow of oxygen, but it did have a fair amount of insulation, so that smoldering continued to keep it hot, much like the multi-year burning underground coal fires.
It did have an air supply, since there was a subway entrance in the lower levels. Within the "bathtub", of course, the air couldn't escape to the sides, so any air that came in (at a very slow rate, I imagine) would become heated and rise through the pile.

One of the things that happened was that fireboats pumped seawater over the pile to try to put out the fires. I'm sure that cooled off the top part of the pile, but to do that it had to heat the water. Some of it no doubt flashed into steam immediately. Some of it no doubt dripped, considerably hotter, further down into the pile.
Hot, salty water is a really good recipe for rusting steel. Hot, salty steam is even better.
When steel rusts, it's an exothermic reaction. It gives off heat. The rule of thumb I learned in high school chemistry is that in general, there's a doubling of reaction rate for every 10 degrees F rise in temperature. So if the heat can't be drawn away fast enough, it leads to a thermal runaway. It gets hot, the reaction happens faster, it gets hotter, which makes the reaction happen faster...
I think it's possible that, in spots, unlikely as it sounds, the steel caught fire.
This has been known to happen on ocean-going freighters carrying steel, and I assume they don't start with the cargo already hot, or have a vent on the bottom of the cargo hold to make a chimney. I imagine it can get seawater on it, though.
It wouldn't be a "fast" fire, because the oxygen was limited. But that was probably part of what made it so hot. The air wasn't moving fast enough to carry off the heat by convection, and the air that was coming into such a spot would already have been warmed by its slow trip through the lower hot parts of the pile. So a hot spot got hotter. There would be thermal energy coming into that spot, and nowhere for it to go quickly.

So it wouldn't really surprise me if while cleaning up, someone dug up a piece of metal that was plastic enough to bend under its own weight while being removed. Considering how stiff a big chunk of steel is at room temperature, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that piece of metal described as "melted", even it it wasn't liquid.
There were something like 100 acres of zinc-plated floor pan in each tower, and who knows how much lead from batteries and solder from electrical and electronic devices. So seeing metal, or glass, or metal mixed with glass in a liquid state wouldn't surprise me either.

All of this seems much more plausible to me than the idea that the configuration of the debris piles was such that it balanced on that knife edge of just enough energy in to maintain liquidity, yet not so much that previously un-melted steel would not melt. Also, there's the difficulty of proving that this knife-edge scenario is the ONLY one that could POSSIBLY have happened.

Now, I will admit right up front that much of this is personal lack-of-incredulity that things could have gotten really, really hot in the debris pile. So I don't really expect it to sway you in the least, and I'm not claiming it as a "debunking".

But the fact remains that to claim therm*te causing the collapse to be the only possible explanation, you would have to show that a perfectly balanced energy budget with respect to energy in vs energy out existed in the debris pile. I don't think you can do that, so reports of liquid this and melted that during the cleanup, while interesting, are not evidence of much except that it was very hot in the debris pile.
I believe it was very hot in certain spots in the debris pile. I don't think that necessarily means there was therm*te involved in the collapse.
You may have that belief, but I don't see any way for you to prove that it is true.

 

[Egil]

So was the pile cum insulating electric blanket powered like an electrical blanket?

And there comes a point where more insulation defeats the purpose of insulation.

 

[Christopher7]

I will agree to agree with Sunstealer above. Yes of course heat from any source would slow down the solidification of melted steel.

Thank you.

You contend though, that "smouldering debris" kept significant amounts of steel at melting point for weeks at GZ. Correct?

I am pointing out the factors that would slow the cooling of the molten steel.
Your contention is that tons of molten steel could not stay molten for weeks and therefore the people who reported it were lying or idiots. Don't give me that "mistaken" crap. The people were quite specific that it was molten steel.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping[FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT],” Fuchek said.

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT]."

 

[bonavada]

and the fact that the molten steel was buried under an insulating blanket of pulverized debris.

What fact? Did you pull this fact from your backside? Show me where you learned about this "fact"?

BV

 

[bonavada]

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping[FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT],” Fuchek said.

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT]."

So now it's five months that the steel was kept molten. I ask again what material do you think was "smouldering"

Show me your source for the "insulating blanket" "fact"

ETA Oh I forgot. Once again I ask, who wrote the script for Riggs?


BV

 

[ravdin]

I am pointing out the factors that would slow the cooling of the molten steel.
Your contention is that tons of molten steel could not stay molten for weeks and therefore the people who reported it were lying or idiots. Don't give me that "mistaken" crap. The people were quite specific that it was molten steel.

General question for C7 or anyone else who has done the calculations: how much thermite would be required to be at the site to maintain the temperature at this level for several weeks?

 

[bonavada]

General question for C7 or anyone else who has done the calculations: how much thermite would be required to be at the site to maintain the temperature at this level for several weeks?

I don't think that's C7's theory. He contends that the molten steel is the residue of the thermite reactions used to demolish the buildings.

BV

 

[Mercutio]

I am pointing out the factors that would slow the cooling of the molten steel.
Your contention is that tons of molten steel could not stay molten for weeks and therefore the people who reported it were lying or idiots. Don't give me that "mistaken" crap. The people were quite specific that it was molten steel.

Sorry, C7, but whenever you repeat this lie you are going to get caught. The only person making your claim is you--even your witnesses do not mean what you are claiming they mean. If they did, you could easily ask them to verify it and come here and shut us all up; the fact that you have no interest in doing so shows that you are fully aware that you are lying.

No one here is calling your witnesses liars or idiots. It is true that tons of molten steel could not stay molten for weeks under the conditions in the pile; fortunately, no one, including your witnesses, believes that it did. The only one who qualifies for your "therefore" is you.

 

[ravdin]

I don't think that's C7's theory. He contends that the molten steel is the residue of the thermite reactions used to demolish the buildings.

BV

I think I gathered that. But there would have to be a certain amount of thermite in the buildings to maintain a high enough temperature for the steel to stay molten for several weeks. It seems like you'd need quite a lot. Has anyone addressed exactly how much material would have to have been in the buildings?

 

[Minadin]

Time for a Mythbusters video.

Mythbusters puts 1,000 pounds of thermite on a SUV in the attempt to cut it in half. Figure the SUV weighs 3,000 pounds. Thermite doesn't even come close. "rivers" of molten steel would require rivers of thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

Notice how quickly the Thermite burns and cools quickly. Even though there is some glowing steel afterwords, the Mythbusters can get close without protective clothing. It's not molten. You can't do that with molten steel.

I particularly like how they mention in that video that you can't approach the thermite while it's burning without wearing UV protection. It's so terrifically bright that you can see it clearly in full sunshine. Furthermore, even though they were very careful to direct the energy of the thermite in a direction to cut the car in half, they were unsuccessful.

"Steel beams dripping", "running down the channel rail", "Being scooped out by the buckets" Can you not add 2 and 2 and come up with 4?

Just because they used 'buckets' doesn't mean that they were required due to the desire to remove liquid materials. 'Buckets' are a common piece of construction / demolition equipment, similar to a backhoe or steam shovel. Oh, and as others have mentioned, they were removed early on in the cleanup process because they weren't particularly effective.

You haven't got a clue what different kinds of thermire can do. You don't even know that there are different kinds of thermite.

The arrogant idiots who say they know how much thermite it would take are just blowin smoke.

They aren't the only ones.

Do any of you remember the infamous 'Truth Burn' thermite display at the Burning Man festival a couple years back? The original idea was to have the thermite they burned cut the columns for their 'sculpture' but, true to truther form, they couldn't figure out how to make it work (I could have, and I pointed out why the design was poor at the time, but I digress) and they ended up just igniting a pile of the stuff on the ground under the sign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJW38WJMxvY

Oohh, just look at that! Bright as the sun! Never would have noticed (several hundred of) that in the WTC, right?

What exactly do truthers expect these pictures and video clips to show?

I honestly haven't the foggiest idea.

 

[bonavada]

I think I gathered that. But there would have to be a certain amount of thermite in the buildings to maintain a high enough temperature for the steel to stay molten for several weeks. It seems like you'd need quite a lot. Has anyone addressed exactly how much material would have to have been in the buildings?

I think they have. There was some discussion about it yesterday in this thread, look back in the thread a bit. I don't know exact amounts but apparently it would be a LOT.

BV

 

[Christopher7]

What fact? Did you pull this fact from your backside? Show me where you learned about this "fact"?

BV

From the numerous credible witnesses.
[As if you didn't know]

 

[BigAl]

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT]."

Something is wrong with that quote. By Jan 9, the pile was all but gone. I also can't find a source for Firefighter Joe O'Toole's quote. Since C7 quoted him, I assume C7 has a primary source for it. Riiight.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53997,00.html

• Jan. 9: One million tons of debris now removed from the site.
  
• Jan. 22: Crews lay the foundation for a ramp that will allow recovery workers to remove the last of the rubble. City predicts work will end in early summer.

 

[Christopher7]

So now it's five months that the steel was kept molten. I ask again what material do you think was "smouldering"

The combustible contents of the building.
[As if you didn't know]

 

[Sunstealer]

So what? That is obviously not the case here so why bring it up?

I bring it up because it's a clarification of a point. I'm agreeing with you. It's very difficult to work out what you mean for a lot of people, therefore I'm merely making sure that people understand the claim.

No, the difference is the amount of steel being melted, in this case tons, and the fact that the molten steel was buried under an insulating blanket of pulverized debris.

OK - so if I get this correct you are saying that in order to cut the beams with thermite, a greater quantity of liquid metal is produced than that cut by a thermal lance. A thermal lance will cut through beams leaving a far smaller amount of liquid steel than thermite aswell as a lower liquid steel temperature.

You are trying to use circular reasoning to deny/discount all the witnesses who saw the molten steel.

No, I'm trying to ascertain how much liquid steel was produced and how quickly it would cool.

Why would anyone spend so much time and go to so much trouble just to find reasons to not believe something?

It's no trouble at all - it takes me minutes to write and/or provide papers that support or contradict a statement. That's the benefit of knowledge and experience.

So we have now established that it is tons of liquid steel that were produced from thermite cutting.

If a thermal lance will do the job very efficiently and leave little liquid metal then we are left with thermite cutting that produces a far greater quantity (most likely due to it's inefficiency compared with a lance). Is that right?

Have you got comparisons that show the difference in liquid steel produced by a thermal lance and thermite when cutting any quantity of steel? This would show that thermite produces more liquid.

Surely the minimal amount of liquid steel produced by thermite would be roughly the amount generated by cutting beams on the various floors of the towers. (plus some of the liquid iron generated via the thermite reaction).

If we assume that all the beams needed to be cut via thermite were on numerous floors then how did all of the liquid steel from some or all of these floors manage to join up to form tons of liquid steel?

Surely during such a massive collapse this liquid steel would be just as thoroughly dispersed amongst the rubble pile as all the other constituents.

 

[bonavada]

From the numerous credible witnesses.
[As if you didn't know]

Link?

BV

 

[Christopher7]

Something is wrong with that quote. By Jan 9, the pile was all but gone. I also can't find a source for Firefighter Joe O'Toole's quote. Since C7 quoted him, I assume C7 has a primary source for it. Riiight.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53997,00.html

• Jan. 9: One million tons of debris now removed from the site.
• Jan. 22: Crews lay the foundation for a ramp that will allow recovery workers to remove the last of the rubble. City predicts work will end in early summer.

I checked the source I had and it no longer works.
You are right about the 5 months being wrong and you will use that as a reason to deny O'Toole saw molten steel dripping from a beam. Interesting how evidence disappears. Most convenient for the government OCT.