Molten and Glowing Metal

[Jazzy]

thats clearly not the case that it would be blue/white

The molten iron would have been blue/white had you been able to see it.

Aluminium would be orange in colour at 1000 degrees but as the metal is already a liquid and is a flowing liquid it if were aluminium it would have melted at a temperature lower than 1000c and have already flown away from the heat source.

There were sixty tons of aluminum alloy right above that spot. We can only see a couple of tons of it, so you were right - the rest flowed elsewhere. One can theorize that the liquid was released when attachments holding that distorted piece of floor broke.

Only aluminium contained to a crucible has managed to keep its orange yellow colour as experiments have shown, as soon as it is poured out onto other metals it loses it temperature and reverts to silver in colour instantly.

You have fallen victim to misunderstanding the scale effect. A small amount of material will lose heat on a cubic scale: twice the amount will cool eight times more slowly. Falling out of the tower we see hundreds of pounds of material falling per second.

Liquid Iron/Eutectic mixture doesnt display this effect.

And you know that - how?

Where is a source for sulphur, gypsum or thermate ? I think the gypsum has already been debunked so Thermate is the main suspect now.

It cannot be thermite/thermate because, as I have already told you, it would have fallen inside the building due to its formation temperature of 2,500 deg C.

Find me one metallurgist who thinks this is aluminium

At your service, sir. (Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hants, UK).

Actually, I don't think it's aluminum. I think it's a high-strength copper/aluminum alloy...

 

[hamishsubedei]

In the video it looks like it causes structural damage to the building around it , so it likely dripped from higher floors , there was a lot and so a bit leaked out the side.

Aluminium copper alloy where did that come from ? Have you done experiments with melting aluminium and copper .

How come NIST disagrees with you

"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

 

[Mick West]

How come NIST disagrees with you

I think the more important point here is that there are several quite plausible explanations for what you see before we have to make the leap to inexplicably molten steel.

 

[MikeC]

Aluminium copper alloy where did that come from ? Have you done experiments with melting aluminium and copper .

How come NIST disagrees with you

2024 aluminium-copper alloy is the basic type of aluminium used to construct aircraft - so no, NIST does not actually disagree with him at all when it says "the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft" - those aluminium alloys ARE aluminium and copper.

And hence the bit about pure aluminium doesn't disagree with him either since it is not pure aluminium.

 

[hamishsubedei]

So does anyone have access to that alloy perhaps we could try heating it to 1000c and seeing what happens.

 

[MikeC]

You can probably buy sheets of that alloy from any aircraft supply outlet.

Edit: This guy has a cheap method of melting the stuff to about 900C -

 

[hamishsubedei]

I don't have that equipment and it looks dangerous.

 

[Pete Tar]

Well yeah, experimenting with liquid metal is inherently dangerous.

 

[MikeC]

I don't have that equipment ....

Which is why I pointed out that it is cheap - and if you go to the video IIRC he tells you what it is and provides info how to contact him to make it.

....and it looks dangerous

Of course it's dangerous - it's molten metal at 900+C - what were you expecting?? But it isn't hard to take appropriate precautions and do the experiment you want safely.

 

[hamishsubedei]

In other words can someone else test this , I have no idea what I'm doing

 

[Robert Tankersley]

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

[Jazzy]

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum. http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

I thought I'd point out that you cannot possibly be correct in what you write in this instance.

The molten temperature range of pure aluminum is 660 deg C - 2,467 deg C, which incorporates the full gamut from dark blackish red to a screaming blue/white glare. Check Planck's Law.

This is about color - not emissivities.

 

[Robert Tankersley]

I thought I'd point out that you cannot possibly be correct in what you write in this instance.

The molten temperature range of pure aluminum is 660 deg C - 2,467 deg C, which incorporates the full gamut from dark blackish red to a screaming blue/white glare. Check Planck's Law.

This is about color - not emissivities.

The way I read that passage it would explain a glowing aluminum at a lower temperature. Isnt color and emissivity directly related? Im still learning. Hope Im not to far off base.

 

[Jason]

So does anyone have access to that alloy perhaps we could try heating it to 1000c and seeing what happens.

http://www.uefap.com/reading/exercise/ess3/alex2.htm. Sometimes the making of alloys is complicated because the higher melting point metal is in the smaller proportion. For example, one light alloy contains 92 per cent aluminium (melting point 660�C) with 8 per cent copper (melting point 1,083�C). To manufacture this alloy it would be undesirable to melt the few pounds of copper and add nearly twelve times the weight of aluminium. The metal would have to be heated so much to persuade the large bulk of aluminium to dissolve that gases would be absorbed, leading to unsoundness. In this, as in many other cases, the alloying is done in two stages. First an intermediate 'hardener alloy' is made, containing 50 per cent copper and 50 per cent aluminium, which alloy has a melting point considerably lower than that of copper and, in fact, below that of aluminium. Then the aluminium is melted and the correct amount of the hardener alloy added; thus, to make l00lb of the aluminium-copper alloy we should require 84lb. of aluminium to be melted first and 16lb of hardener alloy to be added to it.

What about all of the sprinkler systems in the WTC that failed and couldn't transport water. Aren't they made of the above alloy, which could've easily accounted for some of the molten aluminium seen...

 

[Jazzy]

The way I read that passage it would explain a glowing aluminum at a lower temperature. Isnt color and emissivity directly related? Im still learning. Hope Im not to far off base.

At any temperature you care to choose, ALL materials emit a SINGLE COLOR.

What about all of the sprinkler systems

They're made of iron.

 

[Jason]

The molten iron would have been blue/white had you been able to see it.

But when we see a thermal lance cutting steel (iron alloy) we don't see the blue or white color radiating from the cut, we see orange and red. Why is that?

 

[Jazzy]

I believe that it is highly likely that the building collapsed as a result of a series of extremely energy-rich aluminium-water explosions. "Aluminium-water explosions are like dynamite explosions. They were probably powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building. The top section would than fall down on top of the sections that remained below, and the sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building."

Any hydrogen-air or steam explosion capable of taking down a building would be heard over a thousand square miles.

But when we see a thermal lance cutting steel (iron alloy) we don't see the blue or white color radiating from the cut, we see orange and red. Why is that?

It is mostly obscured by the smoke the reaction creates.

That happens to newly-forming stars, too, except that they are being formed by collecting dust, but cannot be seen until they are powerful enough to clear the space around them by radiation pressure.

 

[hamishsubedei]

Why don't we see a blue or white colour in thermite reactions?

Note that some of the molten iron is falling off the side of the cars bonnet and not melting through it just like the south tower

 

[Mick West]

At any temperature you care to choose, ALL materials emit a SINGLE COLOR.

They emit multiple wavelengths of light, if they are ideal black body radiators, these make a specific color temperature, but the effective emissivity of a material varies with wavelength, so different material produce different ratios of these wavelengths, and hence different colors.

http://pyrometry.com/pyrometry-info/emissivity-selected-materials/

You have to multiply the above graphs by the theoretical black body for a temperature to get the actual color & intensity.

In addition the overall emissivity varies, so the intensity of the light varies.

But this isn't a huge issue for the question at hand. Molten aluminum at the same temperature as solid orange-hot steel will glow with roughly the same orange color. In the dark they will look pretty much the same. In the daytime reflectivity will come into play, but that would only make it brighter, compared to iron.

 

[Mick West]

Why don't we see a blue or white colour in thermite reactions?

It gets pretty close to white. You have to take the camera's white balance into account. The areas in the center of the frame are white hot, however the camera is adjusting for an outdoor white balance, so it's adjusting this color.

Here's the car thermite, and a thermite sparker. Neither show up as pure white in the camera (the white squares are the whitest possible white in a digital photography) . If you used a different white balance setting they would probably show up as slightly blue.

What you see, and what a camera sees, and what is actually being radiated are all very different things. Color is a tricky thing to go by.

 

[hamishsubedei]

Right thats what I thought , either way it debunks Jazzy claims that thermite would be blue white on camera.

 

[Mick West]

Right thats what I thought , either way it debunks Jazzy claims that thermite would be blue white on camera.

No it does not. That's not what he said. He said that any iron hot enough to be blue white would not be visible.

It couldn't have been eutectic iron from thermite because that would have been produced at blue/white temperature (2,500 degrees Centigrade) and NOT have fallen outside the building (because it would have immediately melted and penetrated whatever it was resting upon).

The molten iron would have been blue/white had you been able to see it.

If you are claiming to debunk something someone said, then please quote it, properly linked to the original post(s).

 

[Mick West]

Aluminum/Water explosion theory moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/al...s-theory-of-collapse-christian-simensen.3161/

 

[Mick West]

This video:


Shows molten aluminum glowing red (headed in a home-made blast furnace). At 0:55

Notice the crucible is glowing with basically the same color, as discussed above.

Later in the video, both crucible and aluminum have cooled down, but the aluminum is still molten:

 

[hamishsubedei]

Thoughts?

 

[Jazzy]

Thoughts?

That you are not too bright.

Of course aluminum is silver when it is solid, because that's when it's at 660 deg C. Or at 1220 deg F.

Heat it up to 1100 deg C (or 2012 deg F) and it will be orange. And it will be liquid. Heat an iron/sulfur eutectic and at the same temperature it too will be orange and a liquid.

The trouble is that eutectic iron from thermate forms at 2,500 deg C, is a shining blue/white, and it is so hot that it cuts itself a path straight down.

It will NEVER be found pouring itself outside of a building whose materials melt as soon as they touch it. If it had been what was observed, it would not be orange. It would be white, and very energetic. It wouldn't be a weak and drippy liquid. It would explode with every bit of dirt it met. It would be shining white, cascading with sparks. and emitting copious volumes of smoke. It is so very much more energetic.

How much physics did you ever do? Don't you know you're setting yourself up to fail, here? Are you going to argue interminably with people who have done what you haven't done, and do know what you don't know?

Leave me alone, Mick.

 

[Mick West]

Thoughts?

Liquid aluminum is silver at low temperature. If you heat it up more it will glow orange, at about the same temperature that solid steel will glow orange. See the photo of the aluminum and crucible both glowing orange.

You seem to be arguing a rather dead point though. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that that's orange-hot molten aluminum pouring out of the towers. Not even NIST:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

So what point are you trying to make here?

 

[Jazzy]

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that that's orange-hot molten aluminum pouring out of the towers. Not even NIST:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm

the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

And I entirely agree. Carbonaceous material would be black on the liquid metal surface surface, and aluminum oxide white, wherever they were cooled lower than the melt. And on the exterior they were likely to be cooled. The overall effect of this would be grayish.

 

[hamishsubedei]

That you are not too bright.

Of course aluminum is silver when it is solid, because that's when it's at 660 deg C. Or at 1220 deg F.

Heat it up to 1100 deg C (or 2012 deg F) and it will be orange. And it will be liquid. Heat an iron/sulfur eutectic and at the same temperature it too will be orange and a liquid.

The trouble is that eutectic iron from thermate forms at 2,500 deg C, is a shining blue/white, and it is so hot that it cuts itself a path straight down.

It will NEVER be found pouring itself outside of a building whose materials melt as soon as they touch it. If it had been what was observed, it would not be orange. It would be white, and very energetic. It wouldn't be a weak and drippy liquid. It would explode with every bit of dirt it met. It would be shining white, cascading with sparks. and emitting copious volumes of smoke. It is so very much more energetic.

How much physics did you ever do? Don't you know you're setting yourself up to fail, here? Are you going to argue interminably with people who have done what you haven't done, and do know what you don't know?

Leave me alone, Mick.

No need to be offensive haha, I provided a video before showing thermite poured onto a cars bonnet, the thermite didn't melt straight through and wasn't blue/white.
It did eventually melt through but some of the thermite did fall off the side.

The video I posted shows pouring of molten aluminium at yellow orange temperatures but it turns silver instantly when it loses contact with the heat source.

 

[Mick West]

No need to be offensive haha, I provided a video before showing thermite poured onto a cars bonnet, the thermite didn't melt straight through and wasn't blue/white.
It did eventually melt through but some of the thermite did fall off the side.

The video I posted shows pouring of molten aluminium at yellow orange temperatures but it turns silver instantly when it loses contact with the heat source.

It's still actually radiating orange light, just the ambient light is higher, and aluminum is very reflective. Try it in the dark.

But... so? What exactly are you trying to debunk here. Nobody is saying it's orange hot aluminum falling from the towers.

 

[hamishsubedei]

How fast after molten metals come in contact with others will they lose their heat? Is it turning silver because it lost its heat ?

 

[Jazzy]

How fast after molten metals come in contact with others will they lose their heat? Is it turning silver because it lost its heat ?

Yes. Metals in general, and aluminum in particular, are good conductors of heat.

The amount of time it takes to lose that heat depends on the area of contact, the temperature difference, and the conductivity of the material, and the amount of heat that the material contains. As the heat is conducted away, the material's temperature will fall.

There is a considerable difference in times involved if one alters the amounts of materials available, as the Scale Effect rules it.

A falling column of an orange liquid (aluminum alloy!) will fall many feet without appearing to cool very quickly, firstly because it has a LARGE volume/surface area ratio (it's a cylinder) and secondly because the air through which it falls has a low conductance and also a low specific heat. The falling stream is relatively insulated by the air through which it falls.

A ladle-full of the very same orange liquid (aluminum alloy!) will turn silver almost instantly it strikes a metal plate. It has a SMALL volume/surface area ratio where it contacts it. (It's a thin flat sheet).

No need to be offensive haha

I wasn't. I was being descriptive.

Get your thinking cap into gear and put it to understanding established physics before debunking it, please. You will appear brighter to me.

 

[Ronald Wieck]

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.

The photo of what appears to be glowing pieces of cladding lying in the rubble is often cited by Judy Wood zombies as evidence for the existence of their goddess's Dustifyin' Death Ray of Doom. They never quite get around to explaining why the magic weapon merely makes cladding glow. I see fires in the rubble (to the right), but the bright yellow glow is another story. Could it be nothing more than the reflection of those bright lights shining from the fire truck in the left background?

 

[Hetware]

In the video it looks like it causes structural damage to the building around it , so it likely dripped from higher floors , there was a lot and so a bit leaked out the side.

Aluminium copper alloy where did that come from ? Have you done experiments with melting aluminium and copper .

How come NIST disagrees with you

"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

NIST provided no scientific nor experimental support for their fanciful musing that it could possibly have been molten aluminum. The most important observation regarding the stream of molten iron flowing from WTC2 is that it exhibited a blackbody radiation profile attesting to a temperature much higher than the surrounding flames. That means that the visible fire (where oxygen was most plentiful) could not have been the source of the heat observed.

The photographic record of the brightly glowing stream shows it to be white. That is to say, fully saturated. The record of the surrounding flames is nowhere saturated. Since the light from a diffuse hydrocarbon flame is due to the thermal radiation of soot, which is an almost perfect black body radiator, a flame of the same temperature as that attested to by the stream of molten iron would have been even brighter due to the emissivity of iron.

Such are the laws of physics. See:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2007/3/soot-giver-and-taker-of-light

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_39.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_41.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_42.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_43.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_44.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_45.html
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_46.html

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_33.html

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_04.html#Ch4-S5

Yes, I have read all of those materials, more than once.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It's been over TWELVE years....and, the same debunked claims are being trotted out?

 

[Hetware]

It's been over TWELVE years....and, the same debunked claims are being trotted out?

Saying the demonstrated facts have been debunked doesn't make it so.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Saying the demonstrated facts have been debunked doesn't make it so.

WOT? Sorry, but there is HUGE volume of evidence to the contrary. Still, I will admit that this particular topic, of "Molten and Glowing Metal", as it relates to the events of 11 September, 2001 aren't in my "wheelhouse".

I will let others who are more experienced in metallurgy and that science add to the thread. MY expertise resides in the 'flying' aspects.

 

[NoParty]

WOT? Sorry, but there is HUGE volume of evidence to the contrary. Still, I will admit that this particular topic, of "Molten and Glowing Metal", as it relates to the events of 11 September, 2001 aren't in my "wheelhouse".

I will let others who are more experienced in metallurgy and that science add to the thread. MY expertise resides in the 'flying' aspects.

Hey, if a non-pilot can lecture the pilots about what a pilot can and can't do,
surely you have the metallurgy chops to tussle with someone who's read some physics books...

(don't worry, "Shanksville Shoot-down" is pilot-friendly, and surely the next stop in tonight's parade of every Small Change accusation in existence...
wake me when we get to "The Nazis didn't really use Zyklon B"...you know it's on the list)

 

[Hetware]

Saying the demonstrated facts have been debunked doesn't make it so.

Sorry, but there is HUGE volume of evidence to the contrary.

Sometimes we just have to let the other party do the talking for us.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Sometimes we just have to let the other party do the talking for us.

I do not understand what that means....I admit it freely.