Molten and Glowing Metal

Pete Tar

Senior Member
... managed to result in steel beams glowing at colors in the range of 1100°C ...
Is there actually any proof of this in the first place? Not just glowing *metal*, but glowing *steel beams* at that temperature?

Could a thermite explosive produce this result anyway? Would the energy just reflect off a steel beam, not convert itself into heat energy that the steel beam absorbed?
 

Boston

Active Member
Plenty of photographic evidence exists, and its scattered throughout the thread, if your really interested. What caused it is unknown, but placed in conjunction with the symmetrical collapse at free fall speeds of WTC 7 it makes for some very very intriguing discussion.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
But it didn't fall at 'free fall speed'. Why don't you point out the post #s with 'glowing steel beams'. I looked and I guess my ADD kept me from seeing them.
 

Boston

Active Member
Sorry Jazzy but if your going to quote wiki in response to what you call "kitchen physics" then I can't imagine any response being worthy of my time. If your really going to argue that the potential energy of the structure/s which going with your own numbers represents about 1.2°C per ton, is somehow responsible for glowing hot steel rubble months after the collapse, then I'm just not going to be able to take you seriously. [...] Its just crazy anyone would argue that potential energy would concentrate into just a few pieces of rubble in the form of heat energy.

[...]

Keep trying though, maybe eventually you'll come to understand that its not an argument, its a discussion. Me, I'd like to know just what happened that day, but lacking any real investigation worthy of scientific scrutiny, I guess we'll all just have to go with the obvious.

Asymmetrical damage does not give symmetrical results and fires burning at no more than 825°C do not produce temps, regardless of how much time has elapsed of anything greater than 825°C, period. You can struggle to concoct whatever story you want, but thems the cold hard facts.

Love
B

[Admin: Politeness edits]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Its just crazy anyone would argue that potential energy would concentrate into just a few pieces of rubble in the form of heat energy.
I tend to agree. Jazzy has attempted to convince me of this, yet I remain unconvinced. Perhaps though this novel theory should have a definitive thread, instead of cropping up again and again in other threads.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It makes more sense than thermite does.

I still want to be guided to pictures of glowing 'red hot' beams.
 

Boston

Active Member
It really doesn't work Mick, Potential energy isn't some imaginary single force that can concentrate itself on any given spot in a building it chooses. Its unique to each individual piece of a structure based on its position in the building. As each piece becomes detached through whatever mechanism that piece still has its potential energy, as it descends other parameters come into play and kinetic energy comes into play, it will shed that through a number of different means, some energy might go into bending that piece, which will also release a bit of heat as well. Example would be swaging a pipe, the pipe ends up a little hotter due to the internal friction of the bending process. The heat is proportional to the energy used to bend the pipe. In the case of a falling object the energy is no greater that the potential energy of that individual piece.

I think Jazzy is confused as to the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. The building would not have collapsed due to potential energy, the structure was build to resist its own collapse by a factor of many times, but once started in motion its kinetic energy may have, and most assuredly did have some factor in the manor of that collapse. Universally any individual piece or group of pieces will follow the path of least resistance towards equilibrium. I question if that is what we saw in the collapse of both the towers or WTC 7

Jazzy said that there was enough potential energy in the towers to bring 840 tons of steel to about 1500°C, which I'll take on face value. But his concept that all that energy could end up in some few single pieces is wildly flawed. It would have been fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire rubble pile as more and more pieces came to a crashing halt, bending, rubbing against one another, compressing the pile are all forms of energy dispersal that would have distributed the available heat energy of any single piece involved in deformation of whatever type during the fall, relatively evenly throughout the rubble.

But in the end the total heat energy available would under no circumstances concentrate itself on one small group of individual pieces at some specific location within the rubble pile.

There was excessive heat evident in the photographic evidence, but we don't know where it came from yet. Another problem is that steel conducts heat, so whatever energy is responsible for the excessive heat seen in some portions of some pieces must be a localized form of energy and fairly radical one at that. Simple fire is going to have a very very hard time not heating the entire beam, its just not going to heat it fast enough, as well as that beam will be shedding its heat into the surrounding beams. Speaking of which there is a case for the surrounding connections suffering from heat deformation, however I seriously question that deformation occurring simultaneously throughout the whole structure, if for no other reason than that the building was heated in a asymmetrical manor, thus the heat deformation on any individual connection would be unique to its proximity to fire, and as we can all see, most of the fires in WTC 7 had moved around over the course of the day, confined to only a few floors or areas and many had burned themselves out completely.

can you get a piece of steel red hot on just one end, sure you can, but it takes more than just a simple office fire to do it. I've got all kinds of forge equipment at the shop, and I've worked my share of metal. It takes a lot to get steel glowing in the colors we see in some of those pictures.

The kinetic energy must have partially gone into breaking almost all of the connections between beams, which represents the shedding of a lot of energy, and yes, that energy would partially be seen as heat in the fractured bits and pieces of metal. But again thats localized to the individual piece based on its original design strength. No opportunity exists for any excessive heat to build up due to a number of fractures because once fractured there is no mechanism to move that heat from one piece to another. Concrete in the pile will act as a thermal barrier to some degree, although concrete does have a k rating rather than an r rating. Long story short, there's no way either the kinetic energy or the potential energy could result in some few pieces exhibiting signs of excessive heating. There must be some other explanation.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member
Pictures or links? I notice an attack on Jazzy's theory and an absence of pictures of 'glowing red hot steel columns'.

Distraction?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Another possible contribution to heated steel would be where it was bent it would have heated up.
If you take a plastic pen and bend it (or any metal that is easily bent), the bend is hot. Not sure what this form of energy is called, I guess it's a form of friction energy.
But I don't know how much heat a bending steel beam would generate or if that would lead to it being glowing hot.

Still, it has been mentioned that steel beams were glowing hot. This needs to be confirmed, and that it was not just a miscellaneous mixture of debris.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
if your going to quote wiki
Your WIKI argument is despicable. What of the references there? Have you compared the references with WIKI's summary?

If your really going to argue that the potential energy is somehow responsible for glowing hot steel
I have argued it. You are not addressing my argument properly already.

months after the collapse
Must someone teach you about thermal insulation?

I'm just not going to be able to take you seriously
I had noticed that already. I'm still waiting for you to seriously address my thinking.

Its just crazy
That's not serious.

you'll come to understand that its not an argument, its a discussion.
Which I'm still awaiting the beginning of.

lacking any real investigation worthy of scientific scrutiny
A discussion which hasn't yet begun exhibits these properties.

I guess we'll all just have to go with the obvious.
That's not science, which is the study of the not obvious.

fires burning at no more than 825°C do not produce temps
Have you read my posts? Hasn't this been covered?

I remain unconvinced.
An education in software may be insufficient by itself for this task.

Perhaps though this novel theory should have a definitive thread, instead of cropping up again and again in other threads.
It crops up again and again because no-one accepts my explanation. That doesn't invalidate it. The truth continues in spite of all.

Potential energy isn't some imaginary single force that can concentrate itself on any given spot in a building it chooses. Its unique to each individual piece of a structure based on its position in the building. As each piece becomes detached through whatever mechanism that piece still has its potential energy
Momentarily. It then exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy through gravitational acceleration.

as it descends other parameters come into play and kinetic energy comes into play
Nope. The exchange begins with the loss of mechanical connection.

it will shed that through a number of different means, some energy might go into bending that piece, which will also release a bit of heat as well. Example would be swaging a pipe, the pipe ends up a little hotter due to the internal friction of the bending process. The heat is proportional to the energy used to bend the pipe. In the case of a falling object the energy is no greater that the potential energy of that individual piece.
Yep. All of that was bound to happen on the way down. But I can see you're missing my point entirely.

I think Jazzy is confused as to the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy.
No. You are. You have just demonstrated this.

The building would not have collapsed due to potential energy
The building was designed to resist its gravitational load, wind forces and possibly earthquake forces. It wasn't designed to resist energy.

the structure was build to resist its own collapse by a factor of many times
No. It was designed to resist its loads by a factor of ten.

once started in motion its kinetic energy may have, and most assuredly did have, some factor in the manor of that collapse.
You don't say?

Universally any individual piece or group of pieces will follow the path of least resistance towards equilibrium.
Which is? I'll tell you: a parabola comprised of its lateral velocity and its downward acceleration of G, superimposed on which might be a rotational component due to the manner of detachment. Once it is detached, of course.

I question if that is what we saw in the collapse of both the towers or WTC 7
Don't include me in your perception, please.

Jazzy said that there was enough potential energy in the towers to bring 840 tons of steel to about 1500°C, which I'll take on face value.
You shouldn't. You should calculate it, in order to be sure it is really there. Otherwise you continue to slip as you have done so far. Hilltops are reached by climbing, not falling.

But his concept that all that energy could end up in some few single pieces is wildly flawed.
That isn't my concept. Is this your straw man?

My concept is that some of the kinetic energy ended up right at the bottom of the wreckage. It is only required that some energy reaches there.

It would have been fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire rubble pile as more and more pieces came to a crashing halt, bending, rubbing against one another, compressing the pile are all forms of energy dispersal that would have distributed the available heat energy of any single piece involved in deformation of whatever type during the fall, relatively evenly throughout the rubble.
That doesn't take into account the fact that steel is three times denser than concrete and eight times denser than wallboard. Steel has ten times the strength of concrete and a hundred times that of wall boarding.

In what order would you expect to find steel, concrete and wall board in such a wreckage pit? If you don't say the lightest material at the surface, the denser material further down, and the densest material at the bottom, you must be kidding yourself.

If you drop steelwork into this rubble from an eighth of a mile up, it isn't going to linger at the surface unless it lands absolutely flat. Even so, if it lands flat, it will impart its momentum to the rubble. Otherwise it will penetrate the rubble, parting its contents, until it reaches ground zero, which will stop it.

Or it will hit steel, which brings it to an elastic stop. The piece struck by it hits ground zero for a second time, with the kinetic energy it has just received. And so on.

The whole point of this is that ground zero is being struck by the same material over and over again, as half a million tons of material arrive from above at around 120 mph, and steel collides with steel.


But in the end the total heat energy available would under no circumstances concentrate itself on one small group of individual pieces at some specific location within the rubble pile.
The total heat energy? Some specific location? LOL.

There was excessive heat evident in the photographic evidence, but we don't know where it came from yet.
LOL. That may well be because you find yourself unable to even mention Newton's Cradle, and its demonstration of kinetic energy transfer.

whatever energy is responsible must be a localized form of energy - its just not going to heat it fast enough
You are now arguing on my side for a moment. You didn't notice.

there is a case for the surrounding connections <snip> completely.
Completely off the point.

it takes more than just a simple office fire to do it
I entirely agree.

The kinetic energy must have partially gone into breaking almost all of the connections between beams
And the amount can be worked out by studying the actual downward acceleration and not insisting the building collapsed in free fall. I don't want you to force me to have to force-feed you with videos of free-falling pieces of tower falling past the more slowly falling tower. The towers fell at .7G and .64G respectively, and those figures reflect the proportions of the kinetic energy being converted to destructive energies.

No opportunity exists for any excessive heat to build up due to a number of fractures because once fractured there is no mechanism to move that heat from one piece to another.
Is a straw man.

There may NOT be a mechanism for heat transfer, but there IS a mechanism for kinetic energy transfer called impact or collision. This energy may both cause plastic deformation and generate heat, but the steel's elastic kinetic energy is always handed on.

Ground zero is where the buck stops. Elastic kinetic energy reaching there must reflect back, even allowing for Mick's seismic ground deflection. It cannot return to the surface by the route it took to reach Gzero, because the process is dynamic.

The point is that KE freely travels through the steel until it meets Gzero, and can less freely return.

That puts "inexplicable" energy in an "inexplicable" place, right? And it isn't a temperature-dependent process, it's a successive process, right? (Except for the upper limit, near melting, where the steel is losing its elasticity).

What happens to elastic KE when it reflects back? Well, effectively it is a sound wave (traveling at five miles per second) and what happens is that it whacks around the internal faces of the steel until it becomes random molecular vibration, or HEAT. Clang!

There must be some other explanation.
There is none that Occam would approve of.

This is "god of the gaps" argument. But there is no gap from where I'm standing...climb up a little further and you will see... :)
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Another possible contribution to heated steel would be where it was bent it would have heated up.
If you take a plastic pen and bend it (or any metal that is easily bent), the bend is hot. Not sure what this form of energy is called, I guess it's a form of friction energy.
But I don't know how much heat a bending steel beam would generate or if that would lead to it being glowing hot.

Still, it has been mentioned that steel beams were glowing hot. This needs to be confirmed, and that it was not just a miscellaneous mixture of debris.
exactly my point

Example would be swaging a pipe, the pipe ends up a little hotter due to the internal friction of the bending process. The heat is proportional to the energy used to bend the pipe. In the case of a falling object the energy is no greater that the potential energy of that individual piece.
Ample evidence has been provided concerning excessively heated steel within the rubble pile, Mick is concerned with redundancy and I think we should respect that concern. You guys are just going to have to do your own homework and look through the threads to find the photographic evidence you require. I posted numerous times the color charts used by foundries, farriers and smithies the world over. The only possible conclusion is that when a steel I beam is removed from the pile, and its glowing hot, we can use that color to estimate its temp.

FEMA did a very small sampling of the steel and found

see
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/ind...ature_Corrosion_Attack_Which_Melted_The_Steel

that a reaction ( eutectic ) temp of 940°C was evident. Which is roughly 100°C higher than what might reasonably be expected from an office fire. But it is aprox 1~200°C lower in temp than what photographic evidence suggests. NIST reports temps in the 1000°C range but only in association with jet fuel, which was of course not available for consideration at the WTC 7 site.

The Zeroth law of thermodynamics must be considered when realizing that months after the initial event, glowing hot steel was still being removed from the site. Therefor temps significantly higher than 940°C must have been evident in the initial event.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Yes despicable me

Newtons cradle requires the perfection of a designed system in order to transfer kinetic energy and maintain the conservation of momentum. Those conditions absolutely do not exist within a rubble pile containing a random mixture of dust, dirt, glass and twisted steel, The whole idea is simply ludicrous. Dirt, dust, concrete rubble, shattered furniture, broken glass and every other imaginable bit of office building was interspersed between the steel which would have absorbed the vast majority of the energies evident in your model through compression and deformation. There is zero similarity between Newtons cradle and the WTC 7 rubble pile.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
(Pete Tar) - "Another possible contribution to heated steel would be where it was bent it would have heated up. If you take a plastic pen and bend it (or any metal that is easily bent), the bend is hot. Not sure what this form of energy is called, I guess it's a form of friction energy. But I don't know how much heat a bending steel beam would generate or if that would lead to it being glowing hot. Still, it has been mentioned that steel beams were glowing hot. This needs to be confirmed, and that it was not just a miscellaneous mixture of debris" - exactly my point.
Exactly your point? I thought your point was that it was molten steel. A point made without any confirmatory evidence from you.

Ample evidence has been provided concerning excessively heated steel within the rubble pile, Mick is concerned with redundancy and I think we should respect that concern.
[...] < this is my comment.

You guys are just going to have to do your own homework and look through the threads to find the photographic evidence you require.
Because you aren't going to do so.

I posted numerous times the color charts used by foundries, farriers and smithies the world over.
And then proceeded to misuse them.

The only possible conclusion is that when a steel I beam is removed from the pile, and its glowing hot, we can use that color to estimate its temp.
The only possible conclusion, surely, is that it is not molten.

The exact temperature is difficult to get right from photos and charts because color values aren't standard across printer inks, camera CCDs, and video screen pixels.

That it may be hotter than the fires that caused the collapse is covered completely by my explanation.

Inaccurate. It melted the eutectic.

a reaction ( eutectic ) temp of 940°C was evident. Which is roughly 100°C higher than what might reasonably be expected from an office fire. But it is aprox 1~200°C lower in temp than what photographic evidence suggests. NIST reports temps in the 1000°C range but only in association with jet fuel, which was of course not available for consideration at the WTC 7 site.
This is all irrelevant. My explanation requires no fuel and applies to all three sites.

The Zeroth law of thermodynamics must be considered when realizing that months after the initial event, glowing hot steel was still being removed from the site. Therefor temps significantly higher than 940°C must have been evident in the initial event.
That is to misunderstand this law. In this case there is no equilibrium with the outside world.

The system is cooling. There are temperature gradients set by the resistance to heat flow of each of the three basic materials: steel, concrete, wallboard, in order of depth. There is no equilibrium.

[...] < this is Mick's politeness policy editing.

Newtons cradle requires the perfection of a designed system in order to
demonstrate elastic kinetic energy transfer. Thankyou.

Those conditions absolutely do not exist within a rubble pile containing a random mixture of dust, glass and twisted steel, The whole idea is simply ludicrous.
I'm seeing all those ball bearings, and threads. Not one in sight, I must confess. But wait a minute, what proportion of the building (and therefore the rubbish pile) was steel? Er, most of it.
Did it need the threads? Er, no.
Did it collide with itself? Er, yes.
In what direction was the collision? Er, mostly vertically downwards.
Were these collisions fast and energetic, and between steel and steel? Er, yes, I think so.

Dirt, dust, concrete rubble, broken glass and every other imaginable bit of office building was interspersed between the steel which would have absorbed the vast majority of the energies evident in your model through compression and deformation.
I'm not sure a carpet of glass would prevent seventy-ton sections of the external columns from penetrating edge-on when they are doing 120 mph. You might be.

There is zero similarity between Newtons cradle and the WTC 7 rubble pile.
[...]< this is Mick's politeness policy editing.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
So, getting back to evidence, are these witnesses who were AT THE SITE wrong about seeing molten steel? Did they dream it up? Was it all a fantasy?
 

Boston

Active Member
I'd have to agree Mick, which is why I go with photographic evidence.

Glowing hot steel beams are easily identified within the rubble and their color is a good representation of their temp. We clearly see temps of roughly 1100°C in some of those samples weeks after the initial collapse

Its been made clear, even using our detractors numbers, that only a few degrees of heat per ton were available due to potential energy, and that this heat would be spread out relatively uniformly throughout the rubble. Its also been pointed out that hydrocarbon fires even in ideal conditions, do not burn at temps above 825°C which leaves us with a discrepancy of roughly 300°C which is a lot of heat.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'd have to agree Mick, which is why I go with photographic evidence.

Glowing hot steel beams are easily identified within the rubble and their color is a good representation of their temp. We clearly see temps of roughly 1100°C in some of those samples weeks after the initial collapse
The color....based on a photo? Not reliable IMO.
 

Boston

Active Member
multiple photo's actually but yah its an educated guess based off a number of photographs as compared to standard color charts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


This one, for example. Besides the origin of the photo being rather dubious, what exactly says "molten steel" about this photo?
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
If your only goal is to disprove there was any molten metal at the site, there is video evidence of it coming from the south tower.

So is there molten metal or not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm simply questioning the evidence "molten steel". There was plenty of low-melting-point metal and flammable substances in the WTC.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Glowing hot steel beams are easily identified within the rubble and their color is a good representation of their temp. We clearly see temps of roughly 1100°C in some of those samples weeks after the initial collapse
So back it up. Show a "glowing hot steel beam".
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
If your only goal is to disprove there was any molten metal at the site, there is video evidence of it coming from the south tower.

So is there molten metal or not?
I just don't get it.

Why would you ask about molten metal when we're talking about molten steel?

Would the presence of molten duralumin or hiduminum or zinc or lead PROVE OR DISPROVE the existence of molten steel? What the hell is going on here? What's the connection?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I would describe all witnesses as unreliable.
I would describe moderators similarly, at the present moment. When will it be, do you suppose, that I might find myself arguing with a person who isn't behaving dishonestly? Sometime soon, I hope.

I'm simply questioning the evidence "molten steel". There was plenty of low-melting-point metal and flammable substances in the WTC.
[...] < this is my comment.

I'd have to agree Mick, which is why I go with photographic evidence. Glowing hot steel beams are easily identified within the rubble and their color is a good representation of their temp. We clearly see temps of roughly 1100°C in some of those samples weeks after the initial collapse.
An interesting statement made without even acknowledging mine, which in case you missed it, I shall repeat:

The exact temperature is difficult to get right from photos and charts because color values aren't standard across printer inks, camera CCDs, and video screen pixels.

So which is it? Do you agree with the above statement, but your superior skills make up the difference, or do you disagree that color values aren't standard across printer inks, camera CCDs, and video screen pixels? In either case I demand you explain yourself.

Its been made clear, even using our detractors
Politeness policy prevents me from detracting from you. It's the only thing that does.

numbers, that only a few degrees of heat per ton were available due to potential energy
That is an outright LIE. I went out of my way to explain exactly why thermal homogeneity could not occur in this situation; because elastic kinetic energy would be handed downward with every collision between steel and steel.

And the potential energy at ground zero was zero. So NO heat was available due to that "potential energy".

Its also been pointed out that hydrocarbon fires even in ideal conditions, do not burn at temps above 825°C which leaves us with a discrepancy of roughly 300°C which is a lot of heat.
Pointing out an irrelevance an interminable number of times doesn't suddenly make it relevant.

That's 911 "truth" all the way, of course. Why am I complaining? I read 1984 too...
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
At this point I'm tempted to accept the testimony of multiple corroborating eyewitnesses over some[one] on the Internet :p
Pardon this post, it offers no value to the conversation.
I just don't get it.

Why would you ask about molten metal when we're talking about molten steel?

Would the presence of molten duralumin or hiduminum or zinc or lead PROVE OR DISPROVE the existence of molten steel? What the hell is going on here? What's the connection?
Because we were discussing if there was molten metal (spoiler: title of thread) at the site. And there is. End of story.
Molten steel? I don't know. Someone knows for sure. Not me. Maybe the people who were there and saw firsthand.
Or maybe some guy with access to Wikipedia and the NIST report.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
From the OP:


I provided film evidence of molten steel but just for fun, I'll provide some more.
the title says "molten metal", but the post itself refers specifically to "evidence of molten steel"

and looking at the OP's posts s/he talks about the melting point of STEEL, and how temperature affects STEEL, etc.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
From the OP:



the title says "molten metal", but the post itself refers specifically to "evidence of molten steel"

and looking at the OP's posts s/he talks about the melting point of STEEL, and how temperature affects STEEL, etc.
Great, except my video response was to Mick, who mentioned molten metal.
Don't get me wrapped up in other people's posts please.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I am still waiting for the pictures of the 'glowing red hot beams'. Lots of attacks on folks and NO pictures.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Great, except my video response was to Mick, who mentioned molten metal.
Don't get me wrapped up in other people's posts please.
you are the one who quoted the title of the OP as the subject matter - I think perhaps if you do not want the OP to e quoted back at you then you should avoid it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. But even so, how would they know if it was steel?
None of them clearly show metal. They could just be something burning.
This one, for example. Besides the origin of the photo being rather dubious, what exactly says "molten steel" about this photo?
Steel 2, Metal 1.

Great, except my video response was to Mick, who mentioned molten metal.
Don't get me wrapped up in other people's posts please.
Anyway, quibbling. We know the issue here. Was there a suspiciously large amount of molten steel? The evidence does not see to indicate this with any certainty.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
how about a picture of one of the melted pieces of steal FEMA studied



This is one of the sample pieces that was found to be subjected to minimum temps of 940°C

Here's a thermal image of ground zero five days after the fall and if I recall after several days of heavy rain showing temps of about 760°C



This one didn't want to load but its a good example of extreme heat corrosion
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/images/WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg

I'd also suggest that some very high temps were needed to create the following bend

http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/horseshoe_steel.jpg

hmmm that one didn't want to load either ;-(

In this one don't see any combustibles at all, but I do see geometric shape in the glowing area, indicating that in fact it is part of the steel superstructure

another one doesn't want to load

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/911moltensteel222222_unsharp_mask.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Steel 2, Metal 1.



Anyway, quibbling. We know the issue here. Was there a suspiciously large amount of molten steel? The evidence does not see to indicate this with any certainty.
Yes, quibbling indeed. Or 'nitpicking' as I call it. The point is my mentions of molten steel and molten metal were contextual, pertaining to the discussion at those points. I slipped up at one point in a response to Jazzy and said the thread was about 'molten steel' when I meant to say 'molten metal', (and he was quick to point out my error) but again I mentioned that was error on my part.
 

Boston

Active Member
and with a color chart



The photo on the right clerly shows a glowing object with no apparent flames present that is dripping some substance from it. Based on the size of the claw being used to raise the mass of wreckage and the shape of that wreckage is comprised of rebar, likely pulverized compressed concrete and I can clearly see bent steel beams. The photo on the right shows some type of molten metal that is bright yellow in color when in a liquid or near liguid state, Led and aluminum don't do this. But it could be something else, so I'll give it a strong maybe. picture on the right is a very very strong maybe steel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
That's not melted. Different thing.

I'm not the one saying melted, that was Jazzy who foisted that off on a few of us as if I'm now going to fall into that pitfall. I'm discussing the temps we can determine from photographic evidence.

Other metals have been mentioned that may account for the glowing solid object that are being pulled out of the pile. I'm thinking copper pipe is to small, aluminum siding doesn't glow when heated, or at least not until long after its liquid, nor does led. Soooooooo what is it ?
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Top