Molten and Glowing Metal

[Boston]

I provided film evidence of molten steel but just for fun, I'll provide some more.

would you like to suggest the picture is faked or would you be willing to agree that at least in this picture we can see molten steel ?

I'll provide another

How about piles of fused debris and many examples of metal contorted in ways that require extreme temperatures

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/pc190018.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/&usg=__7hjt9dsd55-qprr4YxK1ya-jWaI=&h=1704&w=2272&sz=626&hl=en&start=12&sig2=7JvFensDxxFqMULtxe-k5w&zoom=1&tbnid=l2LPN5DByy8CuM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150&ei=EE_nUeXzEMSlqAGOjYH4BQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcross%2Bmelted%2Btogether%2Bat%2B911%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEIQrQMwCw

I think we can pretty well lay to rest any question of there being melted steel, multiple references and film evidence later from multiple sites all confirm the existence of this molten steel.

OK not sure how to post a web link but that "code" is it. Lists multiple pictures of molten steel, steel globules, and about 50 eye witness accounts, although if you want to ignore the eye witness accounts I'll understand, I would probably question it, except for that there are so many of them.

 

[Cairenn]

There is small problem with the picture of the backhoe with 'molten steel'. The heat from the molten steel would have friend it's hydraulics and made a useless machine. There is something odd with that picture, since it appears that the 'molten steel' has sharp edges and doesn't seem to be transferring heat to the other metals.

The BIG problem is the lack of pictures of the 'molten steel.'

molten steel

Now maybe it's just us, but we have some problems with that.

First, there's no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.

Second, whatever's glowing red here clearly isn't isn't "molten" in the sense of "melted".There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don't know what that is.

Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it's completely black. There's no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it's just a straight orange to black. Steel isn't a good conductor of heat, it's true, but is that enough to explain the photo?

And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we'd expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845°C to 1,040°C to explain our glowing steel. Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm



http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

. The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various
others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of
underground fires or "molten anything" (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are
conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were
actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know,
and those that were have acknowledged that they don't know for sure.
2. Photographs that we have examined
purporting to show demolition equipment
extracting "molten steel" from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and
most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris
is one thing, but "molten steel beams" is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an
excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000
degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the
hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.
The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and
there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various
websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires -
while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel.
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment
operators and site foremen who personally
extracted beams and debris from Ground
Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi
ty to prevent harassment). These men
worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were
chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive
demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel
beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
beams at any point during debris removal activities.

 

[Boston]

My issue with the can analogy is that the only thing the can, can do, it collapse straight down. A its monolithic exterior skin and circular shape mean the path of least resistance is inward. B its only one stack tall, add 47 more, add a bunch in a rectangular shape with shear/ lateral support, and then remove that lateral support, The cans won't go anywhere. You'd have to add energy to make it collapse.

The can analogy is entirely inadequate

soooooooooooo if we are to keep our investigation honest, I think its necessary to compare the video evidence of the actual event with the recreation by NIST. If the NIST explanation is to be believed then they should be able to model it accurately. My contention is they didn't, that in fact there model or models ( I may not have seen them all ) or at least the ones I've seen don't even remotely resemble the video evidence. Ergo, they are unable to describe the failure sufficiently to accommodate the film evidence, IE their explanation is wrong.

Peter, I'm not sure how much experience with metal work you have but in forge work ( I've a forge in my shop as well as a variety of machining tools, 3 axis mills, lathes as well as sheet stock tools like breaks and what not. ) Metal glows certain colors at certain temps. Its how guys who do a lot of forge work know if they've hit the right temp to work the metal. The unfortunate thing with aluminum is it doesn't change color like steal does, but steal actually has a chart of colors and temps. Its really not that difficult to figure out the temp just based off the color

and the chart

I'd estimate that metal to be somewhere in the 900+ degree C range or roughly 1700 degrees F

in the previous picture I'd posted, the one with the metal literally dripping off itself I'd estimate the metal to be in the 1100 + degree C range or roughly 2000 F

The reason the excavator can reach in and grab such a hot chunk of metal is the same reason I can put on a leather glove, grab a set of tongs and pick up a piece of glowing metal out of the forge. The rate of heat transfer.

The excavator isn't going to melt that fast. Nor is the hydrolic lines going to catch fire in the short time its in contact with the debris.

There is countless pictures of glowing hot metal being pulled from the debris pile days, weeks, and reportedly even months after the event occurred. So what fire source could have produced temperatures of this high ?

Course thats kinda a side note actually I'm going to stick to the film evidence concerning the collapse of 7 itself because obviously the NIST model doesn't represent what happened therefor obviously the NIST explanation is fatally flawed.

PS
does prove one thing tho, the NIST engineer lied about the molten metal. Which begs the question "why"

 

[Boston]

My issue with the can analogy is that the only thing the can, can do, it collapse straight down. A its monolithic exterior skin and circular shape mean the path of least resistance is inward. B its only one stack tall, add 47 more, add a bunch in a rectangular shape with shear/ lateral support, and then remove that lateral support, The cans won't go anywhere. You'd have to add energy to make it collapse.

The can analogy is entirely inadequate

soooooooooooo if we are to keep our investigation honest, I think its necessary to compare the video evidence of the actual event with the recreation by NIST. If the NIST explanation is to be believed then they should be able to model it accurately. My contention is they didn't, that in fact there model or models ( I may not have seen them all ) or at least the ones I've seen don't even remotely resemble the video evidence. Ergo, they are unable to describe the failure sufficiently to accommodate the film evidence, IE their explanation is wrong.

Peter, I'm not sure how much experience with metal work you have but in forge work ( I've a forge in my shop as well as a variety of machining tools, 3 axis mills, lathes as well as sheet stock tools like breaks and what not. ) Metal glows certain colors at certain temps. Its how guys who do a lot of forge work know if they've hit the right temp to work the metal. The unfortunate thing with aluminum is it doesn't change color like steal does, but steal actually has a chart of colors and temps. Its really not that difficult to figure out the temp just based off the color

and the chart

I'd estimate that metal to be somewhere in the 900+ degree C range or roughly 1700 degrees F

in the previous picture I'd posted, the one with the metal literally dripping off itself I'd estimate the metal to be in the 1100 + degree C range or roughly 2000 F

The reason the excavator can reach in and grab such a hot chunk of metal is the same reason I can put on a leather glove, grab a set of tongs and pick up a piece of glowing metal out of the forge. The rate of heat transfer.

The excavator isn't going to melt that fast. Nor is the hydrolic lines going to catch fire in the short time its in contact with the debris.

There is countless pictures of glowing hot metal being pulled from the debris pile days, weeks, and reportedly even months after the event occurred. So what fire source could have produced temperatures of this high ?

Course thats kinda a side note actually I'm going to stick to the film evidence concerning the collapse of 7 itself because obviously the NIST model doesn't represent what happened therefor obviously the NIST explanation is fatally flawed.

PS
does prove one thing tho, the NIST engineer lied about the molten metal. Which begs the question "why"

Is this not difinitive proof as well as the countless other pictures of glowing hot metal that temps far in excess of what could have existed in a typical office fire were evident at the wtc site ?

 

[Boston]

I would reiterate and add that I believe this post to be of critical importance, why is it NIST failed to use the film evidence to calculate the actual temps "observed" in the film evidence ?

soooooooooooo if we are to keep our investigation honest, I think its necessary to compare the video evidence of the actual event with the recreation by NIST. If the NIST explanation is to be believed then they should be able to model it accurately. My contention is they didn't, that in fact there model or models ( I may not have seen them all ) or at least the ones I've seen don't even remotely resemble the video evidence. Ergo, they are unable to describe the failure sufficiently to accommodate the film evidence, IE their explanation is wrong.

Peter, I'm not sure how much experience with metal work you have but in forge work ( I've a forge in my shop as well as a variety of machining tools, 3 axis mills, lathes as well as sheet stock tools like breaks and what not. ) Metal glows certain colors at certain temps. Its how guys who do a lot of forge work know if they've hit the right temp to work the metal. The unfortunate thing with aluminum is it doesn't change color like steal does, but steal actually has a chart of colors and temps. Its really not that difficult to figure out the temp just based off the color

and the chart

I'd estimate that metal to be somewhere in the 900+ degree C range or roughly 1700 degrees F

in the previous picture I'd posted, the one with the metal literally dripping off itself I'd estimate the metal to be in the 1100 + degree C range or roughly 2000 F

The reason the excavator can reach in and grab such a hot chunk of metal is the same reason I can put on a leather glove, grab a set of tongs and pick up a piece of glowing metal out of the forge. The rate of heat transfer.

The excavator isn't going to melt that fast. Nor is the hydrolic lines going to catch fire in the short time its in contact with the debris.

There is countless pictures of glowing hot metal being pulled from the debris pile days, weeks, and reportedly even months after the event occurred. So what fire source could have produced temperatures of this high ?

Course thats kinda a side note actually I'm going to stick to the film evidence concerning the collapse of 7 itself because obviously the NIST model doesn't represent what happened therefor obviously the NIST explanation is fatally flawed.

PS
does prove one thing tho, the NIST engineer lied about the molten metal. Which begs the question "why"

 

[Boston]

Tell you what kids, lets back up some. Are any of our believers willing to admit there was ( lets for the sake of argument call it ) glowing hot metal removed from the debris pile.

 

[Cairenn]

Got some pictures of that 'glowing hot metal' that make sense? I find it very odd that there are a lot of reports and only a few dodgy pictures. Like that one of the back hoe.

 

[Boston]

Can I assume none of our believers are willing to admit the film evidence of glowing hot metal ? If so why do you believe the buildings fell at all, if your not wiling to accept multiple film evidence as well as corroborating eye witness accounts

 

[Boston]

and again molten metal

 

[Mick West]

and again molten metal

That just looks like a fire.

 

[Cairenn]

It looks to be blown up a lot. If there was 'molten metal' under the debris, then the workers boots would have melted. They had search dogs working the pile for a long time and their paws would have been burned even quicker. A dog can get a nasty burn on their paws from walking on hot concrete for too long.

No burned paws, no melted shoes.

 

[Oxymoron]

It looks to be blown up a lot. If there was 'molten metal' under the debris, then the workers boots would have melted. They had search dogs working the pile for a long time and their paws would have been burned even quicker. A dog can get a nasty burn on their paws from walking on hot concrete for too long.

No burned paws, no melted shoes.

The boots can withstand very high temperatures. Plus when constantly moving, heat has little chance to permeate. Think walking on hot coals. Same with dogs. Mice and rats live in meat storage rooms with extremely low, (freezing) temperature.

Edit On top of that 'other material' acted as an insulator and there were 'areas' or 'hot spots', in which machinery was used.

Also how do you know there were no burns, I would be highly surprised if there wasn't.

 

[Boston]

That just looks like a fire.

so lets move to one more definitive

 

[Boston]

Pure supposition based on the fact that A: the penthouse fell first and B: there's an unverified computer model that hypotheses the collapse of the internal structure.

As I said in a previous thread, I think the NIST model debunks itself because it shows how the internal collapse hypothesis does not produce the symmetrical features that make the collapse of WTC7 so unique.

I still chuckle at the memory of your suggestion that NIST ended its simulation of WTC7 halfway through the collapse sequence because it was so accurate to the evidence that there was point in running it any further....

ah but NIST knows its simulation doesn't accurately represent the film evidence. It just says it doesn't matter and that its close enough. as if that would ever fly in a physics class.

 

[Boston]

It looks to be blown up a lot. If there was 'molten metal' under the debris, then the workers boots would have melted. They had search dogs working the pile for a long time and their paws would have been burned even quicker. A dog can get a nasty burn on their paws from walking on hot concrete for too long.

No burned paws, no melted shoes.

actually there were many reports of melted shoes and search and rescue dogs were called off the pile due to high temps ;-)

 

[Oxymoron]

Got some pictures of that 'glowing hot metal' that make sense? I find it very odd that there are a lot of reports and only a few dodgy pictures. Like that one of the back hoe.

But you are quite happy to rely on witness reports of 'raging fires with the whole building engaged' and buckling walls etc, without any visual evidence to substantiate it and from people who have a vested interest in complying with 'the official narrative'.

 

[Pete Tar]

Ok, to get a little bit back on topic...
I'm curious about this molten steel. It appears there's video/photo evidence it was there (refer back to around page 6, Boston had a good video showing multiple credible eyewitnesses and video evidence) and yet people who follow the official story still deny it altogether.
I noticed the tactic seems to be either 1) ignore it and argue something else or 2) deny it and say 'I don't see molten steel prove it'
So? Was it there? Was this building really so unique that molten steel came about through uncontrolled fires?

Well I see glowing spots, it's not molten in the sense of liquefied, as the term is commonly understood. So I can see a legitimate denial of 'molten' metal that is not a deliberate lie.
At what point are these photos of molten (glowing) metal taken? It is possible these temperatures were reached in the oven of the debris pile rather than before.
But also, I don't see why it couldn't get incredibly hot anyway, as a building with holes in it is essentially a bellows-fed kiln.
And what is significant about the molten metal? What does it suggest? It seems to be suggested that 'this is impossible unless...' Why is it impossible, and what is the 'unless...'?

 

[Landru]

Sorry Mick, but you'd want to stack ten or so cans atop one another in order to begin getting an accurate demonstration. Side by side or full of water makes zero impression as to exactly how a complex structure fails

also I provided film evidence of molten steal but just for fun, I'll provide some more.

would you like to suggest the picture is faked or would you be willing to agree that at least in this picture we can see molten steal ?

I'll provide another

How about piles of fused debris and many examples of metal contorted in ways that require extreme temperatures

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/pc190018.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/&usg=__7hjt9dsd55-qprr4YxK1ya-jWaI=&h=1704&w=2272&sz=626&hl=en&start=12&sig2=7JvFensDxxFqMULtxe-k5w&zoom=1&tbnid=l2LPN5DByy8CuM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150&ei=EE_nUeXzEMSlqAGOjYH4BQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcross%2Bmelted%2Btogether%2Bat%2B911%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEIQrQMwCw

I think we can pretty well lay to rest any question of there being melted steal, multiple references and film evidence later from multiple sites all confirm the existence of this molten steal.

OK not sure how to post a web link but that "code" is it. Lists multiple pictures of molten steal, steal globules, and about 50 eye witness accounts, although if you want to ignore the eye witness accounts I'll understand, I would probably question it, except for that there are so many of them.

This is a picture of molten metal:


801 × 1200 - 123rf.com

What you have is a picture of very hot metal. Backhoes can't pick up molten metal (or any hoes for that matter). As for your other picture, Sarah Atlas didn't say steel she said metal. Aluminum is a metal.

 

[Josh Heuer]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

It seems in the limited amount of research that was officially done on steel samples, the result was that the steel (from wtc7) reached no more than roughly 1000 degrees, enough to weaken the steel (but not cause it to actually melt, I believe that's over 1300 degrees or something) to the point where it would cause the structure to collapse.
What do you guys make of this?
Does the report seem accurate?
Does one sample of steel prove no molten steel existed?

 

[Boston]

actually I've found the site quite informative Mick

getting back to 7 I'm still curious why no believers will actually address the photo evidence of glowing hot steel found weeks if not months after the clean up began. Obviously there is ample evidence to show this material existed however, there is no proposed mechanism available for such temps to exist. Simple forge charts available and used by countless metal smiths show what colors represent what temps. The conclusion is inescapable. Temps of 2000F existed within the ruble pile weeks after the buildings came down. I'd note that the max temp of jet fuel burning in open air is 1500 degrees F

Pretty much the smoking gun that explains a lot of things concerning the manor of this tragedy

No Cairenn the photo isn't faked, the equipments hydrolics do allow it to handle these temps for short periods of time and there are numerous photos of glowing hot steel.

Its inescapable, very very high temps of the type not possible to achieve in an office fire were evident the the WTC site.

 

[Mick West]

I do thing it extremely telling that they as are you folks ignoring the film evidence of temps in excess or at least of 2000F on site weeks after the disaster

(Just quoting this here, as the rest of the post is back in the other thread)

 

[Boston]

Well I see glowing spots, it's not molten in the sense of liquefied, as the term is commonly understood. So I can see a legitimate denial of 'molten' metal that is not a deliberate lie.
At what point are these photos of molten (glowing) metal taken? It is possible these temperatures were reached in the oven of the debris pile rather than before.
But also, I don't see why it couldn't get incredibly hot anyway, as a building with holes in it is essentially a bellows-fed kiln.
And what is significant about the molten metal? What does it suggest? It seems to be suggested that 'this is impossible unless...' Why is it impossible, and what is the 'unless...'?

I'd agree that the pictures of the heavy equipment picking up pieces of glowing metal in all but one case appear to be of metal that is simply glowing hot. However that one in post 20 clearly shows slag or otherwise molten residue falling off the steel as its lifted from the pile. If you look at the color chart you can clearly compare the colors and get a pretty good estimate of what temps we are looking at. Something between 1050 and 1200 C which translates to 1900 ~2200 F

Jet fuel would have burned off within minutes yet these pictures are taken weeks afterwords and its not just one picture, there's dozens of this same phenomenon, there video and countless eye witness reports. There is also samples of molten slag fused with concrete and whatever.

The evidence of the material being there is irrefutable to any reasonable person.

 

[Mick West]

The "molten" metal is probably unrelated to the collapse, seeing as how it's hot several days after the collapse, so it's most likely from underground fires.

Jazzy will tell you it's well insulated pockets of steel heated by internal friction during the collapse. But I'm not convinced.

Explanations abound elsewhere on the internet.

 

[Mick West]

actually I've found the site quite informative Mick

getting back to 7 I'm still curious why no believers will actually address the photo evidence of glowing hot steel found weeks if not months after the clean up began. Obviously there is ample evidence to show this material existed however, there is no proposed mechanism available for such temps to exist. Simple forge charts available and used by countless metal smiths show what colors represent what temps. The conclusion is inescapable. Temps of 2000F existed within the ruble pile weeks after the buildings came down. I'd note that the max temp of jet fuel burning in open air is 1500 degrees F

Pretty much the smoking gun that explains a lot of things concerning the manor of this tragedy

No Cairenn the photo isn't faked, the equipments hydrolics do allow it to handle these temps for short periods of time and there are numerous photos of glowing hot steel.

Its inescapable, very very high temps of the type not possible to achieve in an office fire were evident the the WTC site.

If it's not faked, then what exactly is it supposed to be a photo of? It's clearly not liquid. Is it steel that is cooling down from a molten pool, or heating up from being in or near a molten pool?

Where's the pool?

 

[Mick West]

And regarding eyewitnesses, some of them would be using the term "molten" very loosely. They said the WTC Cross was molten metal, but it was entirely unmelted.

 

[Cairenn]

In another thread the heat problem was addressed.

Let me discuss ceramics for an illustration. Porcelain fires at over 2,500 degrees, but most wood will not reach that temperature, but with a kiln you can get that temperature. There was plenty of items in that rubble that would burn at temperatures hot enough to heat steel.

 

[Boston]

The "molten" metal is probably unrelated to the collapse, seeing as how it's hot several days after the collapse, so it's most likely from underground fires.

Jazzy will tell you it's well insulated pockets of steel heated by internal friction during the collapse. But I'm not convinced.

Explanations abound elsewhere on the internet.

Unrelated to the collapse ? respectfully, are you kidding ? I must be somehow misunderstanding you. Are suggesting that the molten metal was not a consequence of collapse but rather a cause, in which case then I'd have to agree. I'd also a agree that simple friction wouldn't cause temps like what are observed. Which brings us right back to the beginning with the question of why NIST ignored these simple facts. High temps in the 2000 degree F range were most definitely observed and in large quantities. There is no source for that amount of energy being forwarded by the NIST team. Nor have they made any effort to accommodate this simple fact into there explanation. They just ignore it completely. Kinda like they ignore the fact that there models don't even remotely mimic the collapse dynamics of 7

Check this PDF on just why friction couldn't possibly have caused the temps seen

You'd have to explain in detail the idea that simple "underground" fires could achieve temps of this range without there being both a substantial fuel source and a substantial oxygen source, neither of which was evidenced in any way. Substantial and consistent air flow is required to achieve a bellows like effect. Do you have any evidence of this kind of air flow, IE jets of smoke rather than wisps of slowly rising smoke. Jets of superheated air ( which is typical of a forge like environment, I'd know I own one ) There's just no evidence of a fuel air system of the type required is occurring at wtc.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

 

[Boston]

If it's not faked, then what exactly is it supposed to be a photo of? It's clearly not liquid. Is it steel that is cooling down from a molten pool, or heating up from being in or near a molten pool?

Where's the pool?

are you seriously suggesting its faked ?

The situation is obvious, there is even a film of this event in all that I've posted somewhere. Obviously this material is being "removed" from the rubble pile and its coming out red hot, exactly as the eye witness is saying to the reporter in the film, exactly as confirmed by the dozens of fire fighters interviewed.

 

[Boston]

And regarding eyewitnesses, some of them would be using the term "molten" very loosely. They said the WTC Cross was molten metal, but it was entirely unmelted.

the semantic argument is pretty disingenuous, malleable metal is to many people considered molten. I have a forge down at the shop, I regularly heat metal to malleable temps and occasionally screw up and end up with a pool of metal in the forge. Its a real mess, but the range of heat required to actually melt steel vs to just work it isn't all that much. The two terms represent a difference in temps that is inconsequential to the discussion. 2200 degrees and above and steel pretty much turns to mush, about a split second from running out the bottom of the forge. Basically once it gets white hot, its about to run.

Oh and that was a pretty slim use of the semantic argument about the WTC cross, bordering on denial.

The simple facts are that there was superheated steel on the WTC site and that those temps are very very difficult to explain away without considering accelerants that provide there own oxygen.

I think in order to forward a rational proposal that a forge like environment existed below ground in multiple spots you'd have to show a forge like air flow complete with the superheated exhaust typical of that system. If you have such evidence I'd be most interested in seeing it ?

 

[Boston]

In another thread the heat problem was addressed.

Let me discuss ceramics for an illustration. Porcelain fires at over 2,500 degrees, but most wood will not reach that temperature, but with a kiln you can get that temperature. There was plenty of items in that rubble that would burn at temperatures hot enough to heat steel.

I'm not buying it, where's the jet of superheated air typical of the type of furnace you'd need to allow this condition to exist ? Better yet you'd have to show multiple jets of superheated and accelerated air typical of the forge type system. All I see is slowly rising smoke and steam. Even as they are uncovering the piles of molten steel there is no consistent jet of superheated air evident in a single film that I've seen at least.

If your going to forward a hypothesis you really should have at least something more than just one bit of evidence to support it. Otherwise your just taking a wild guess. Simply looking at superheated steel and saying it must have been x without any supporting data just doesn't get it. Show me a single furnace like system that was evidenced at WTC rubble pile.

 

[Boston]

also if the suggestion that there as some kinda multiple furnace like system that just happened to exist under the rubble pile why is there no evidence of this kinda phenomenon every existing in any other collapse either intended or accidental ?

I've never seen glowing hot steel come out of a demolition pile weeks after the drop.

 

[Cairenn]

I don't think you have seen a wood burning kiln either. They do not need forced air.

What do you think cause the hot steel?

 

[Josh Heuer]

I don't think you have seen a wood burning kiln either. They do not need forced air.

What do you think cause the hot steel?

Doesn't that type of kiln require a continuous supply of wood to burn?
Are you suggesting that's what was created under the rubble?

 

[Mick West]

also if the suggestion that there as some kinda multiple furnace like system that just happened to exist under the rubble pile why is there no evidence of this kinda phenomenon every existing in any other collapse either intended or accidental ?

Because it's unusually large. It's kind of like a combination of natural burning underground coal seams (which burn for decades), and much smaller collapsed buildings after earthquakes (which can burn for days or weeks)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/haiti-anniversary-denis-obrien-vulliamy

The Iron Market, like almost everything else in town, was all but levelled by the earthquake. Its roofs and walls crashed to earth, though its two towers remained, albeit unsafe and in need of complete re-fortification. They are strange beasts: minarets built in Paris during the 1890s and originally intended for a station in Cairo but bought by Haitian president Florvil Hyppolite when the Egyptian deal fell through. The clock on the great facade between the towers stopped when the earthquake struck, and its rubble burned for weeks afterwards.

It's a problem with scale again. The WTC towers were very large.

 

[Boston]

I don't think you have seen a wood burning kiln either. They do not need forced air.

What do you think cause the hot steel?

har har, I've heated with wood and coal for decades, converted to veggie oil heat just a few years ago, hell I run my truck on used motor oil and even my car on bio diesel. I've designed and build my own systems since I've first owned the house. Not only that I've two forges at the shop, ones large enough to make pots in, the other for smaller stuff. Anvils hammers tongs the works. Suggesting I don't have the knowledge or experience to know how to get metal up to temp is just ridiculous.

again, smoldering for weeks and burning at 2000+ degrees F for up to two months after the event are completely different things.

the only way to get a hydrocarbon fuel to burn at those temps is to force the reaction with either fuel pressure, as in a jet engine or forced air, as in a bellows type system. So where is the evidence of either a pressurized volume of fuel being constantly and consistently fed into these multiple areas of superheated material. Or, where is the evidence of jets of fresh air/oxygen being forced both into and then exhausting from the rubble pile.

Even if you tried the chimney effect argument, you'd still need evidence of an exhaust jet, which no one saw at the WTC site. Instead we have only reports of a steaming rubble pile and pictures of red hot pockets being uncovered, that are not in association with superheated jets of exhaust air, which by the way would have been extremely hazardous and most certainly would have been reported.

again this seems like basic denial, can anyone show pockets of red hot and near molten piles of steel being removed from any other demolition site, controlled or otherwise, weeks after the event ?

Barring that evidence, I don't see much but a basic physiological need to believe in the altruistic nature of man, stepping to the forefront and protecting ones sense of welbeing from the realities of life.

Sometimes reality is just a little to harsh.

Thermite on the other hand provides its own oxygen and does result in temps like what we see at WTC 7, enough thermite later and those temps when insulated by tons of rubble, will persist for quite some time.

 

[Cairenn]

There was a huge supply of combustible material in the pile. Remains of office furniture, computers, paper and there would have also been aluminum from various materials also.

What do you think caused the red hot metal then? You don't like our answers, so give us yours.

 

[Boston]

what temp do those coal seems burn at ?

try maximum 1000 F

Yet we see temps of twice that at the WTC site

Cairenn reread my last. Which might be part of the problem, I don't think some of our flock are actually reading the material being presented.


-1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
-1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
-825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.


Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.

Temperature needed to melt structural steel is 1510 Celsius.

Directly observable temp as indicated by color in the debris field of WTC 1050~1200 C

Ergo this could not have been a simple hydrocarbon fueled fire.

 

[Cairenn]

Red hot steel or any metal is NOT molten, in fact it quite a way from molten. I work with metals.

There were all sorts of underground avenues for air, There was a transit station in the area.

Thermite would not have still been burning weeks later. Unless there was tons of it there.

 

[Boston]

sentence one, we went over this already your arguing semantics rather than realities.

sentence two, we went over this already, see post 37 ( 1500 F ) maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame IE burning in ideal conditions, which certainly were not evident in a rubble pile Video and picture evidence clearly shows metal glowing at colors that put the temp in the range of 2000+F weeks after the event

Sentence 3 never said thermite was still burning, what is being said is that the residual heat remaining weeks later is still substantially higher than what could have been caused by a hydrocarbon fueled fire.

Kinda throws a wrench into the whole NIST BS

OH and I was wrong, just last year architects and engineers for 9/11 truth were able to obtain blue prints, without calculations for bldg 7 and there is now an active research program to study and evaluate the NIST BS

See
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...tc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

 

[Josh Heuer]

I wanted to bring this point up before but I forgot...
It's right in NIST's FAQ. They don't deny there being molten steel there. They just say the cause is irrelevant (caused AFTER the collapse, ie not the impact or fires).
Link: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
Quote:

23. Why didn't the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

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.

Did they determine this before or after they started investigating the pile?

Also, for clarification, that FAQ only seems to mention WTC1 and 2, not 7.