Molten Steel

[The Pig]

Is the presence of molten steel, found weeks after the collapse accepted by all sides? I thought this was disputed. I couldn't find an answer (that I understood) on the net.

I heard that in a S. Jones lecture he described pools of metal which later solidified & rusted, indicating molten steel was present. I don't fancy sitting through 2 hours of it to find out the specifics.

Thanks.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the possibility of the presence of "Molten Metal" would be roughly accepted by all sides, but very little definitive proof has bene presented.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think the possibility of the presence of "Molten Metal" would be roughly accepted by all sides, but very little definitive proof has bene presented.

TAM

It is not unlikely that there was molten metal discovered during cleanup due to the oven effect. NIST has also stated that some video footage prior to collapse shows what is probably molten aluminum with various ignited debris in it pouring out of the tower(s).

 

[CurtC]

But the presence of molten steel or iron is strongly doubted by the non-CT side. There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.

Even in Jones' thermite fantasy, thermite burns up immediately, so could not explain molten steel even hours later, much less weeks.

I think the solidified/rusted sample you heard mention of was a photo showing a blob of something, with some rust-colored stains on it. The ridiculous thing is that this blob had rebar sticking out of it. It was a chunk of concrete stained by rust.

 

[Kent1]

But the presence of molten steel or iron is strongly doubted by the non-CT side. There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule that out. NIST and others have also stated it could certainly be possible.

"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

Also note
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

 

[Hellbound]

There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.

Considering that we know there were hot spots in the rubble, and that it took quite some time to get to these, even molten steel found in these hot spots would be plausible from long-term fires. My question would be:

"If this molten steel was found two weeks later, where's all the molten steel that must've been produced initially? Why was none of it found anywhere except in these buried areas, where fires had burned for days or weeks?"

 

[GlennB]

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.

I hate to dissent at this point in my conversion but this isn't right. No amount of boiling in water will melt steel, so 'total energy' alone cannot do the job.

A stove fueled by material that has a maximum combustion temperature of (say) 400c can never get hotter than that, no matter how well it's insulated or how long it burns. If it did we'd be in the realms of perpetual motion machines.

However I would totally agree that thermite/ate would not explain the reported molten steel either. And the so-called molten steel claimed to be seen tumbling down the side of WTC makes no sense. Even with a CD that would have been localised at the core and very temporary.

regards

 

[David Wong]

That's the part I've never understood. Why does molten steel found in the rubble support a controlled demolition? Are pools of molten steel common in those projects?

So why do they keep bringing it up?

 

[rwguinn]

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.

Considering that we know there were hot spots in the rubble, and that it took quite some time to get to these, even molten steel found in these hot spots would be plausible from long-term fires. My question would be:

"If this molten steel was found two weeks later, where's all the molten steel that must've been produced initially? Why was none of it found anywhere except in these buried areas, where fires had burned for days or weeks?"

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

 

[qarnos]

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

I'm no expert in phsyics, but I think Huntsman was talking about the difference between temperature and heat.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

this would be true if you were simply setting a cold piece of metal next to a hot piece of metal, the hot piece cant transfer more energy than it has

however, a fire is continuously producing heat and if that heat is not dissipated temperature can increase indefinitely

heat is an energy, it cant be destroyed, so it has to go somewhere

 

[T.A.M.]

David:

I think the reason they keep bringing it up, is that it is one of the "links" in their "Thermite was used" theory. They claim only thermite could cause the steel to melt, and that jet fuel fires alone could not.

We counter that the fires were much hotter than that of just jet fuel, because of all the other materials in the WTCs, which caused temps to go much higher. This, combined with prolonged fires (like embers in the sand) under the wreckage, are what debunkers use to explain the remote chance that true "Molten Steel" was there, although still very little evidence that any was found.

The argument is much more ocmplex, but that is the nutshell version.

Anyone have anything else to add, or correct.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

thermite could not burn long enough to keep steel molten for weeks

so there must have been another source of energy (fires) with enough insulation to prevent heat from escaping too fast

given that, and the fact that no molten iron/steel was found immediatey after the collapse, its entirely possible for those fires alone are responsiblefor heating the metal to its melting point

as such, theres no need for thermite in the equation at all


thank you william of ockham, may your razor remain forever sharp

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thermite is self-oxidizing, isn't it?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Thermite is self-oxidizing, isn't it?

yeah, from the iron-oxide, and very fast burning, even is you have a huge pile of it, it would all start to react at once and still burn out very quickly

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Couple answers for you.

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the thermite theory. The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal. His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium. He has repeatedly called for others to corroborate his findings.

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron. Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity. It is unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that aluminum could be heated to yellow hot in that situation, because it melts when red hot. Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.

Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions. Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition. Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires. Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the themite theory.

no one said this

The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.

but it doesnt account for the molten metal, as i already stated

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal.

you still have not provided a source for this, jones's research is from a sample scraped off a beam that was used as part of a memorial, AFAIK this was never molten

His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium.

source for barium? again, his research only shows a high content of sulphur, which is not unusual

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron.

no, it isnt, if it was molten iron it would be white hot, the metal shown flowing out of the floor is yellow at best

Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity.

its red, but its silver, now thats just silly

aluminum can glow brightly under the right circumstances, ive burned enough beer cans in bonfires to know

Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.

untrue, most organic materials woul dbe burned beyond recognition by the heat of any molten metal

you also miss the possibility that its neither iron nor aluminum, but some other material, it could be sparks from a blown transformer

Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions.

hurray!

Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition.

and yet molten metal is evidence of this demolition?

Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires.

wanna try that one again? (ill give you a hint, your wrong)

Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.

and it does (not that it will change your mind)

 

[gumboot]

Just to clear this up,

The "molten steel" story comes from a video in "Rebuilding America" that depicts workers removing glowing steel from the wreckage at ground zero.

Now, a couple of things:
1) It is definately steel
2) It is not molten

Point two can be concluded very easily; an excavator cannot pick up a puddle of molten steel and move it somewhere. It obviously has to be solid. At the hottest end of the column, the steel does dribble a bit, meaning the very tip MIGHT be molten, but it appears to be a salmon colour - this would put it at about 900 C. It is important to note that from about 800 C onwards estimating steel temperature by colour is VERY inaccurate. Especially as different alloys have different properties.

In any event, in the region of 1000 C is well short of the 1300 C or so at which most steel alloys melt.

Of course the "molten" is a red herring. What is important is there was steel at INCREDIBLY high temperatures weeks and weeks after 9/11. This is supported by video evidence and personal accounts of people there. And I mean incredibly high temperature STEEL.

So the question is "What would cause that?" As has been pointed out, arguing of whether the steel is actually quite liquid or not is missing the point. The point being, neither thermite nor any form of explosive can POSSIBLY produce near-molten steel weeks after detonation. The suggestion that it could is laughable.

Steel at this temperature indicates extensive subterranean fires. This in turn supports the theory that there were enormous fires in the buildings before collapse. The fires (along with enormous amounts of fuel) were buried under tonnes of rubble, and smouldered for weeks and very high temperature.

Simple.

-Andrew

 

[kevin]

Something that always confuses me: are the claims that still hot molten (stuff) was found weeks later, or that the cooled off remains (slag) of molten (stuff) was found?

I can certainly see the latter, but the first, without a source of heat, seems unlikely weeks later.

 

[T.A.M.]

Couple answers for you.

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the thermite theory. The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.

I did not say that. I said the reason it persists in the CT "collection" of "evidence" is that it is a "link" in the "Thermite" theory which is the holy grail of the movement.

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal. His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium. He has repeatedly called for others to corroborate his findings.

So Steve went down to ground zero and got the molten specimens himself...or was it that lady that slipped it to him from her bucket?

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron. Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity. It is unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that aluminum could be heated to yellow hot in that situation, because it melts when red hot. Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.

taking his word for it, as all of the "video" he shows us of these "scientific" experiments is his assistant pouring out the "aluminum-woodchip" mix after the two have been supposdely mixed. He does not show us how much, if any organic material was actually added...we dont see that in the video. And they only tests they did were on wood chips and plastic filings, once again amount added not given, nor were any other materials tested.

Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions. Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition. Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires. Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.

Source please, on both accounts - demolition experts and fire experts wrt to seeing molten metal at demolition sites. Source???

TAM