Molten and Glowing Metal

Town

New Member
If your talking about 9/11, then yes there was molten metal present, there are several real time videos of it pouring out of the building, but it wasn't steal, it was aluminum. Commercial aircrafts are built with aluminum for a variety of reasons, it's lightweight, has a smooth service, easier to meltdown & shape compared to other metals, etc.. But aluminum in its molton form is highly explosive when it comes into contact with water, and those 747 jets are built with several tons of aluminum, so when those planes crashed into the towers igniting the jet fuel, it melted down the aluminum & set fire to the building activating the fire sprinklers which caused a large explosion when it came in contact with the molton aluminum, and that explosion was large enough to weaken the building & blow off the heat shield that they spray & coat all of the steel gurter's with during construction. So with the heat shield gone, the jet fuel burning at thousands of degrees, the aluminum & water causing multiple explosions, all of that put together will very easily melt down & weaken the steal gurter's that hold up the building, and when those top floors started crashing downwards it caused a domino effect taking the entire building floor by floor.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Sorry Town, the crash severed the sprinkler system pipes draining the water supply. By the time the fire would have been hot enough to melt aluminum there was no water.

It was most likely the high speed shredded aircraft bits that eroded away the spray on fire insulation exposing the steel to the heat.
The fires were ignited over large areas on several floors, by the aircraft fuel but the main source of heat was the burning office contents.

The towers had few girders. They used long span trusses between perimeter and core (actually attached to a belt truss at the core end.) In the core area they had beams between columns.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The towers had few girders. They used long span trusses between perimeter and core (actually attached to a belt truss at the core end.) In the core area they had beams between columns.
Correction... the floor trusses were supported on the core side on a belt girder... not a belt truss.
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
I'm simply questioning the evidence "molten steel". There was plenty of low-melting-point metal and flammable substances in the WTC.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

Please pay attention to the colour of the pouring metal at a specific time that is most visible:
1:40 - 1:50
It is fair to say this pouring liquid metal is glowing red hot and has been established.

Here are two videos of the only two options I've heard:
A video of Molten Aluminium
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVg8jx51nXM


And a video of Molten Steel
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlfMSOb8f18


Which one is most representative of what is seen there?
Molten aluminium does not radiate when poured. When it contained and static, it may glow red, but when it pours and separates from a constant heat source it just appears like liquid silver.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEEOkMW1CYI

Watch carefully between 2:23 where you see red hot aluminum, static in a container with constant heat till 2:40 as it turns silver when pouring.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

Please pay attention to the colour of the pouring metal at a specific time that is most visible:
1:40 - 1:50
It is fair to say this pouring liquid metal is glowing red hot and has been established.

Here are two videos of the only two options I've heard:
A video of Molten Aluminium
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVg8jx51nXM


And a video of Molten Steel
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlfMSOb8f18


Which one is most representative of what is seen there?
Molten aluminium does not radiate when poured. When it contained and static, it may glow red, but when it pours and separates from a constant heat source it just appears like liquid silver.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEEOkMW1CYI

Watch carefully between 2:23 where you see red hot aluminum, static in a container with constant heat till 2:40 as it turns silver when pouring.
The molten scrap steel is white-hot, not red-hot.
The poured Al seems to be just barely above Al's melting point (which is 660 °C for pure Al, lower for impure or alloyed) - it seems to cool to solid very quickly. What does it look like when heated to, say, 1000 °C?

As for speculation that perhaps the flow from the buiding's corner is molten Al from the plane: That would be alloys with significant additions of other metals such as Mg, Zn or Cu. How do they glow?

Lastly, Mick mentioned "flammable substances" - a hint that the orange glow may be the result not (only) of a substance merely being hot (black body radiation), but actively burning. Embers, so to say.

You make a valid point that te flow is not made up solely of "that" aluminium at "that" temperature (both "that"s refering to the Al shown in the videos), but by the same toke, your video also shows it's not solely made up of molten steel, as that would be white-hot.

No examples you could show in a video would be able to rule out EVERY other possibility.


The short then is: We don't know, and probably can't know, what this flow is made of - and neither do you.
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
The molten scrap steel is white-hot, not red-hot.
The poured Al seems to be just barely above Al's melting point (which is 660 °C for pure Al, lower for impure or alloyed) - it seems to cool to solid very quickly. What does it look like when heated to, say, 1000 °C?
Go to 1:39, you can clearly see the 'red hot' molten aluminum heated to the temperatures you requested. It cools upon contact with air when released from it's melting pot. What we see cannot be aluminium as it ALWAYS rapidly cools upon contact with air, almost never retaining its glow outside it's melting chamber.

As for speculation that perhaps the flow from the buiding's corner is molten Al from the plane: That would be alloys with significant additions of other metals such as Mg, Zn or Cu. How do they glow?
Please do not go off-topic. These 'elements' you loosely mention have no relevance and have never been considered to my knowledge.
Mg (Magnesium) glows white-hot when ignited and molten, and I don't see how so much would be found on one floor of an office building.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOB_6SLhKA

Zn (Zinc) gives off a blue flame when ignited and is silver like aluminium when molten.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IzZMzNfUT0

Copper is, however, a likely alternative as it does glow red:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0tqcZkQ0dQ

but again I do not see a likely source for that much copper pouring out - wiring is all I can think of if you can suggest any other alternatives.
What we see requires a good amount of material to have been melted and produced - steel is the most likely candidate as it's in abundance.

You dismiss my point about steel, by pointing out a slight distinction in colour, which by why way 'white' is not all a correct observation for the steel in the foundry, and then go on to mention other ad hoc metals? 2 of which are are pulled out of nowhere. It is simply glowing a brighter/lighter hue, then compare that to burning Mg (which is completely white) and you will find it much closer to that of the molten metal we see coming out the tower.

I can find another video of molten steel with a better colour if you like:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGedYdPpxGA

This seems to be the more red-orange tone we see.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngmAFvxBH7Y

Surely all that 'white metal' can't be creating radiating orange light? Even in the original video, I linked you can clearly see the orange tint. That is borderline denialism to suggest otherwise.

Here is an example of how Aluminium can appear red, note that the container is red and keeping it hot (makeshift plaster foundry), keeping the aluminium warm; notice how it turns to silver when it falls out the bottom of the grinder within seconds (if you pay close attention you can even see it turn silverish upon contact with the grinder although this occurs very fast so try slowing it down):
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGedYdPpxGA

I'm ruling out what it isn't - which it isn't aluminium clearly. I showed steel since it is the only other mentioned option, and provided a link to that, I did nothing more than that. I agree I don't know what it is.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
It's the dross and slag in the aluminum that glows red.

dross = solid impurities
slag = molten impurities

Adding flux and skimming dross and slag


Separating 385 grams of aluminum from 1 kilogram of recycled dross and slag.

Separating remaining aluminum from recycled dross and slag.


If the OP video is actually showing a stream of aluminum falling out of the tower, it would be full of impurities; as you would expect under those conditions. There may have been more dross and slag than aluminum in the mix - especially dross (solid impurities).
 
Last edited:

Inti

Senior Member.
Go to 1:39, you can clearly see the 'red hot' molten aluminum heated to the temperatures you requested. It cools upon contact with air when released from it's melting pot. What we see cannot be aluminium as it ALWAYS rapidly cools upon contact with air, almost never retaining its glow outside it's melting chamber.



Please do not go off-topic. These 'elements' you loosely mention have no relevance and have never been considered to my knowledge.
Mg (Magnesium) glows white-hot when ignited and molten, and I don't see how so much would be found on one floor of an office building.

.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOB_6SLhKA

Zn (Zinc) gives off a blue flame when ignited and is silver like aluminium when molten.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IzZMzNfUT0

Copper is, however, a likely alternative as it does glow red:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0tqcZkQ0dQ

but again I do not see a likely source for that much copper pouring out - wiring is all I can think of if you can suggest any other alternatives.
What we see requires a good amount of material to have been melted and produced - steel is the most likely candidate as it's in abundance.

You dismiss my point about steel, by pointing out a slight distinction in colour, which by why way 'white' is not all a correct observation for the steel in the foundry, and then go on to mention other ad hoc metals? 2 of which are are pulled out of nowhere. It is simply glowing a brighter/lighter hue, then compare that to burning Mg (which is completely white) and you will find it much closer to that of the molten metal we see coming out the tower.

I can find another video of molten steel with a better colour if you like:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGedYdPpxGA

This seems to be the more red-orange tone we see.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngmAFvxBH7Y

Surely all that 'white metal' can't be creating radiating orange light? Even in the original video, I linked you can clearly see the orange tint. That is borderline denialism to suggest otherwise.

Here is an example of how Aluminium can appear red, note that the container is red and keeping it hot (makeshift plaster foundry), keeping the aluminium warm; notice how it turns to silver when it falls out the bottom of the grinder within seconds (if you pay close attention you can even see it turn silverish upon contact with the grinder although this occurs very fast so try slowing it down):
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGedYdPpxGA

I'm ruling out what it isn't - which it isn't aluminium clearly. I showed steel since it is the only other mentioned option, and provided a link to that, I did nothing more than that. I agree I don't know what it is.

I am unconvinced that we are seeing molten metal flowing at all in the video. I agree with Oystein in his comment #488 that this could well be a stream of burning debris of some form, blurred by the long distance to look more liquid than it would close up.
Burning or smouldering fragments falling through air would behave as a fluid, and the increased flow of oxygen would cause them to glow more brightly.

I have visited a steelworks and seen both poured molten steel heated in an arc furnace and solid blocks of still-glowing steel being rolled into i-beams. The colour of the supposed stream of molten matter in the video is much closer to the latter (solid steel) than the liquid steel - more orange-red hues rather than the brighter white of molten steel.

I also recall earlier images of alleged molten metal in the ruins which are shown clearly to be burning paper in more high resolution versions of the same pictures. Edit: here is the link; https://www.metabunk.org/a-molten-metal-9-11-photo-is-just-burning-paper.t9982/

Edited again to remove worst typos!
 
Last edited:

JohnP

New Member
The molten scrap steel is white-hot, not red-hot.
The poured Al seems to be just barely above Al's melting point (which is 660 °C for pure Al, lower for impure or alloyed) - it seems to cool to solid very quickly. What does it look like when heated to, say, 1000 °C?

.
Er . . . thermite?

Edit: After a bit of checking, probably not; the ignition temperature of solid Al seems to be higher than that. I would expect it to be red hot, however.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Er . . . thermite?

Edit: After a bit of checking, probably not; the ignition temperature of solid Al seems to be higher than that. I would expect it to be red hot, however.
What thermite? Thermite is a fantasy.

Solid Al has no ignition temperature. If it had one, you couldn't melt it under air, and your alu foil wrapped hot potatos in the camp fire would soon face hell unprotected.

You can get Al powder to ignite if you disperse it in air and add a spark or flame. It's an explosive hazard even (low explosive - before you ask). You can probably get solid Al to burn under a high concentration of O.

But bulk Al, whether solid (<660 °C) or molten (>660 °C) should not ignite at all.

(Thinking about it, I can imagine that if you pour molten Al and allow it to disperse in a long fall through air, some tiny droplets might burn after all, and perhaps that glowing flow from WTC2 had elements of that? That would be the kind of experiment that Crazy Chainsaw might be inclined to do :D)
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Go to 1:39,
...of what? See no-click policy, please.

you can clearly see the 'red hot' molten aluminum heated to the temperatures you requested.
Can you explain how you "see" the temperature?

It cools upon contact with air when released from it's melting pot. What we see cannot be aluminium as it ALWAYS rapidly cools upon contact with air, almost never retaining its glow outside it's melting chamber.
Bare assertion.
Of course it cools in a medium (air) cooler than itself, but how fast would depend on a number of factors, wouldn't it?

Please do not go off-topic. These 'elements' you loosely mention have no relevance and have never been considered to my knowledge.
Mg (Magnesium) glows white-hot ... Zn (Zinc) gives off a blue flame ... Copper is, however, a likely alternative as it does glow red:...
but again I do not see a likely source for that much copper pouring out - wiring is all I can think of if you can suggest any other alternatives.
Uhm ... I had said:
The important word here is "alloy". An alloy is a metal that has lower amounts of other elements mixed in.
The aluminium used in aircraft construction is not pure Al, it's Al alloys with varying amounts of metals such as Mg, Zn or Cu mixed into the Al matrix. I am NOT talking about Mg metal, Zn metal, Cu metal.

The physical properties of alloys can deviate significantly from those of the pure base metal - they typically have a lower melting point, for example, but Al alloys used in aircraft typically have much more structural strength than pure Al. So I wondered whether these alloys used in the construction of Boeing 767s, which some people conjecture to be part of that glowing flow, also have luminescence properties different from pure Al.

What we see requires a good amount of material to have been melted and produced - steel is the most likely candidate as it's in abundance.
As Truthers never tire to point out, steel is actually a highly UNlikely candidate despite its abundance, because of its high melting point. Al (alloys), lead and copper probably were also relatively abundant in the buildings, at least locally.

I can find another video of molten steel with a better colour if you like
...
This seems to be the more red-orange tone we see.
...
Surely all that 'white metal' can't be creating radiating orange light?
Yes, sure, you can find lots of things on YouTube. Which is why I wrote:
I'm ruling out what it isn't - which it isn't aluminium clearly. I showed steel since it is the only other mentioned option, and provided a link to that, I did nothing more than that. I agree I don't know what it is.
You wish you could rule out aluminium, but you can't, for you did not consider
  • alloys
  • molten Al catching fire
  • impurities and debris mixed into an Al flow
  • anything else we fail to consider here
The short then is: We don't know, and probably can't know, what this flow is made of - and neither do you.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I believe there were massive back up batteries in the NE corner on the floor where the material streams from the tower. Wiring for the battery banks likely included a lot of copper, plates switches, transformers w/ copper windings, acid, etc. Not unreasonable for thus material to have melted in the fires.
 

JohnP

New Member
What thermite? Thermite is a fantasy.
Feed 'thermite' into Wikipedia. I can probably find videos of the thermite reaction being demonstrated [meaning I have seen videos and could probably find them again].

The bit of digging I did suggested that metallic aluminium [yes, molten; edit: I shouldn't have said "solid"] would catch fire somewhere between 1000°C and 2000°C. The former figure, quoted in #488, was what I was originally referring to:

What does it look like when heated to, say, 1000 °C?
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Feed 'thermite' into Wikipedia. I can probably find videos of the thermite reaction being demonstrated [meaning I have seen videos and could probably find them again].
I thought it was obvious that I meant "Thermite as part of the means to demolishing the WTC towers is a fantasy".

The bit of digging I did suggested that metallic aluminium [yes, molten; edit: I shouldn't have said "solid"] would catch fire somewhere between 1000°C and 2000°C. The former figure, quoted in #488, was what I was originally referring to:
Doesn't make sense in context, where you also wrote: "I would expect it to be red hot, however." - things >1000 °C are not red hot, they are yellow-orange to white hot.
But yeah, there's a possibility, I think, which hasn't been refuted yet AFAIK, that the glowing flow is (in part) molten Al that catches fire as it falls. (I would actually expect THAT to emit white or even blueish light - metal fires often are that way)
 

RenToo

New Member
Aluminum is very very hard to make burn, and it's my opinion that most people who think they've done it, haven't really, but have merely oxidized it at a faster than usual rate. (Of course that raises the question of how fast does an oxidation have to be to count as burning ...)

Regardless, the main question here seems to be: if you get shreds and scraps and shards of aluminum (or majority aluminum alloy) into a flame, can you produce a red/orange color. That answer would seem to be yes. See about 2:40 in this video for instance.


Very red/orange, both the sparks and the flame itself. I kinda suspect it's not actually burning the aluminum though. See below on the temperature and color of burning aluminum in air, with the caveat that this is an oxygen enriched flame, the purity of the aluminum is unknown, and whatnot.

There are two issues. First, aluminum's thermodynamic properties are such that if those thermodynamic properties are allowed to predominate (favored by bulk metal and slow or low heating in regular air), you are going to get a low temperature melt every time. (Low as in less than 700 C.) Additionally, aluminum reflects heat so well that it's hard for me at least to imagine any circumstances in a WTC-style fire where melted aluminum could have gotten much hotter. But that last part is just speculation.

As for burning, you have to subvert thermodynamic control in almost every way to get aluminum to burn. High surface area. High temperature. (Over 1800 C for regular air, so for instance it can be burned when mixed with a bit of very hot-burning magnesium.) High oxygen content. You probably can't dawdle about heating it either.

Source: https://imgur.com/kf5wg5y


Source: https://imgur.com/PntYikt


https://melscience.com/US-en/articles/characteristics-aluminum-and-combustion-reaction-m/

What was sitting around at the impact sites in the towers that day? Lots of aluminum, certainly. High surface area, certainly, probably at least some of it in any size range you could want. Rapid heating? Maybe. Not hard to imagine a chunk of burning whatever collapsing into a pile of pulverized metal. High oxygen content? Unlikely. High temperature? Hard to be certain what could have happened locally, but if aluminum did burn in such a fashion, it wouldn't have been burning red/orange, correct?

IMO anyone who wants to demonstrate the potential for aluminum to produce the glowing debris fall should perform one of the sorts of tests that does show melted aluminum glowing red/orange, and then contrive to measure the temperature of that part of the melt. If it's within the range of the likely fire temperatures, then you have a very plausible explanation, because god knows there was enough aluminum around. Aircraft alloys preferable, similar lighting conditions preferable (black body radiation in the visible range begins below Al's melting point, it's just hard to see in daylight), visible-only camera sensor required. (Lots of videos out there showing aluminum glowing in the infrared via cell phone camera, which doesn't help.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, then by your logic, we can't rule out that it isn't steel either. So this isn't 'debunking' molten steel then is it?
If the claim is that there's evidence of molten steel, and it turns out there isn't, then that claim of evidence has been debunked.

We can't rule out a nest of dragons under the pile either, but without evidence then why would you believe it?
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
Can you explain how you "see" the temperature?

Bare assertion.
Of course it cools in a medium (air) cooler than itself, but how fast would depend on a number of factors, wouldn't it?


As Truthers never tire to point out, steel is actually a highly UNlikely candidate despite its abundance, because of its high melting point. Al (alloys), lead and copper probably were also relatively abundant in the buildings, at least locally.

You wish you could rule out aluminium, but you can't, for you did not consider
  • alloys
  • molten Al catching fire
  • impurities and debris mixed into an Al flow
  • anything else we fail to consider here
The short then is: We don't know, and probably can't know, what this flow is made of - and neither do you.
I said 'red hot' you can see red can't you? I never stated a temperature, I stated a visual indiciator.
How fast it would it would lose its luminescence would depend on factors, particularly inside the building. But in the case of the molten 'metal' (undecided) leaking out the side of the building, it's basically in touch with mostly fresh air, no more additional heat than if you pour it out of a melting pot so it's likely negligible. You nitpick pretty weak points.
I don't wish I could rule anything out, you can actually rule things out using logic and science, which is what this site is supposed to be for isn't it? You seem to be using diversion tactics as used by Public Relations in their various deceptions like the Tobacco Industry. "we can't know for certain what it is and isn't" I was ruling out what you had listed, I was not out to rule out what hadn't been suggested. Maybe if you would suggest these, instead of making non-arguments and deflecting, then we could see the possibilty.
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
If the claim is that there's evidence of molten steel, and it turns out there isn't, then that claim of evidence has been debunked.

We can't rule out a nest of dragons under the pile either, but without evidence then why would you believe it?
It isnt clear that this for sure isn't molten steel anymore than it for sure isn't molten aluminium because of reasons Oystein has stated - it's difficult to ascertain from a video. All this post has done is make arguments for why it couldn't be molten steel. It hasn't really proved or debunked anything. The arguments are not convincing.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Ok, then by your logic, we can't rule out that it isn't steel either. So this isn't 'debunking' molten steel then is it?
No, that does not follow by my logic.
Not being able to identify a material is not equal to not being able to rule out some candidates.
By way of analogy, we may not be able to ever know the identity of Jack the Ripper, but we can damned sure rule out that YOU were Jack the Ripper, on account of not having been alive then.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Can you explain how you "see" the temperature?
I said 'red hot' you can see red can't you? I never stated a temperature, I stated a visual indiciator.
Actually, if you look at the context, you implicitly did state a temperature - 1000 °C:
The molten scrap steel is white-hot, not red-hot.
The poured Al seems to be just barely above Al's melting point (which is 660 °C for pure Al, lower for impure or alloyed) - it seems to cool to solid very quickly. What does it look like when heated to, say, 1000 °C?
you can clearly see the 'red hot' molten aluminum heated to the temperatures you requested.
How fast it would it would lose its luminescence would depend on factors, particularly inside the building.
Huh? No. Since we are talking about the observation of a material outside the building, conditions inside no longer play a role.
But in the case of the molten 'metal' (undecided) leaking out the side of the building,
Why do you conjecture "metal"?

it's basically in touch with mostly fresh air, no more additional heat than if you pour it out of a melting pot so it's likely negligible. You nitpick pretty weak points.
Well, I do not know the behavior of every metal or alloy or whatever at every temperature. Do you?

I don't wish I could rule anything out, you can actually rule things out using logic and science, which is what this site is supposed to be for isn't it? You seem to be using diversion tactics as used by Public Relations in their various deceptions like the Tobacco Industry. "we can't know for certain what it is and isn't" I was ruling out what you had listed, I was not out to rule out what hadn't been suggested. Maybe if you would suggest these, instead of making non-arguments and deflecting, then we could see the possibilty.
I am all for ruling out stuff. But I am realistic about the prospects of positive identification. Ain't gonna happen.
Plus, the possibilities are manier than you seem to grasp. E.g., I have for a long time held it to be plausible that the flow isn't liquid at all.
 
Top