Molten and Glowing Metal

Josh Heuer

Active Member
If you're an engineer as you claim, then you would realize the gross inconsistencies in the NIST report. But I guess those can be overlooked when they reach the conclusion that supports your theory of a fire based collapse of WTC7
@Jazzy

Ps - Mick - are you implying the fires at wtc7 can be likened to campfires?
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
Look at photos of similar sized campfires on the internet. about 95% of them have no smoke.
https://www.google.com/search?q=campfires&tbm=isch

And when a fire is in the end stages, it does not necessarily have much in the way of flames. Is this person walking on molten metal?
upload_2013-8-23_11-24-57.png
this is off topic. The molten qualities of the above pictures is what was being questioned, and it has been established that it is indeed molten metal. I suggest the topic only be discussed and not internet campfires
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
this is off topic. The molten qualities of the above pictures is what was being questioned, and it has been established that it is indeed molten metal. I suggest the topic only be discussed and not internet campfires

It's a comparison of one photo to another to show they might be from similar phenomena (a fire, not molten metal).

You can't simply assert "it has been established that it is indeed molten metal", unless you prepend it with "In my mind", or "for some people", or a similar qualifier. Accuracy please.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you're an engineer as you claim, then you would realize the gross inconsistencies in the NIST report. But I guess those can be overlooked when they reach the conclusion that supports your theory of a fire based collapse of WTC7
@Jazzy

Ps - Mick - are you implying the fires at wtc7 can be likened to campfires?

No.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member

If you're an engineer as you claim, then you would realize the gross inconsistencies in the NIST report. But I guess those can be overlooked when they reach the conclusion that supports your theory of a fire based collapse of WTC7
@Jazzy

Ps - Mick - are you implying the fires at wtc7 can be likened to campfires?
He is. And it is definitely a distraction from the topic, which has been verified to be molten metal by expert opinion and photographic evidence.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Alrighty.

So the picture evidence is iffy.
But I still can't ignore the numerous testimonials about pools of molten steel (or METAL more specifically) at the site of WTC7.
Why does the NIST report gloss over this? They don't even so much as mention molten metals at all, and their FAQ attempts to discredit molten STEEL specifically, (notice they don't say metals; they avoid mentioning molten metal in their report but obviously feel the need to disprove molten steel being there pre-collapse) by saying it would have been a product of combustion after the collapse.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
..
Also it looks like you fell into the other trap being set here....

Why the (..) are you setting traps? That's pretty dishonest behaviour for a debate.

If you actually have been following along, you'd quickly realize I'm not detailing molten metal, I'm detailing excessive heat beyond that which could be reasonably expected within the combustibles known present at the sight. Glowing "material" obviously matalic in nature has been noted multiple times.

Bullshit. You referenced glowing/molten steel beams and your incredulity that the conditions could produce these if not for some unaccounted factor.
You have been asked so many times - where are the glowing/molten steel beams? Or is that just speculation? Why can't you just admit it if it is?

So all this hogwash about no references or people insisting on being led by the thumbs through the work is obviously specious at best and entirely unfounded in reality. All facts have been presented which support the hypothesis that excessive heat is present at WTC site and it is not required to know how that heat was generated to be able to review the evidence and show it in fact was present. It remains an unanswered question, although there are some fairly obvious likely sources.

Love :rolleyes:
B

So now you've changed it to simply excessive heat with no evidence of glowing steel beams, just hot metal detritus. Sneaky.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just another take on this image:



I was curious about the odd yellow color the entire image had, so tried adjusting the color it to match a similar image with correct color balance. The result:


Which looks more and more like just a some fires in the rubble.

[Edit: turned out redder that it looked in Photoshop, stupid color space calibration!]
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Surface fires like that would be out in a few hours.

I do not believe they can be compared with the deeply-buried hot (and very well-insulated) pieces of steel rammed into ground zero.

If firemen's hose water seeped down to such levels it would indeed surround the steel with steam, dissolved water, and on occasion turn into the oxidizing leach required to produce eutectic iron sulfides and rapid corrosion.
 

Boston

Active Member
Look at photos of similar sized campfires on the internet. about 95% of them have no smoke.
https://www.google.com/search?q=campfires&tbm=isch

And when a fire is in the end stages, it does not necessarily have much in the way of flames. Is this person walking on molten metal?
upload_2013-8-23_11-24-57.png

Oh I don't know, I see a lot of flames in those photos, There is also obvious ash as well, but you were right about the smoke part, although there's plenty of smoke visible in most of those fires. of course a fire thats just fell a thousand feet or to, or in the case of WTC 7 5~600' or so, is likely to be highly disrupted and therefor might display characteristics inconsistent with a typical fire. .
 

Boston

Active Member


So ten days later we have a distinctly geometric shape remaining of a burning what ? Its pretty obvious that this is a piece of metal, certainly looks like an I beam, and that its still radiating within a spectrum indicating temps well over 1000°C, well over a week after the collapse.

Sorry but it just looks beyond obvious to any reasonable look at the evidence.

There are ample examples of geometric forms within the photographic evidence. Logs, chairs, office furniture, did not survive the collapse, by all accounts, or can anyone show us a picture of a burning desk, right after the collapse ? Or for any matter, any time after the collapse and within the rubble pile ?

Its pretty obvious that this stuff in picture after picture is radiating metal.

Its also pretty obvious that the entrained metal and concrete in this next photo is the result of far more than plastic deformation, there are virtually no air gaps within the mass and there is ample evidence of liquid infiltration of the now rusty areas which most likely represent steel that has re-solidified from a molten condition



here's the bottom half of that piece


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Those are compacted floors. Pressed together and water-soaked. Free ends of the truss material entangled like velcro. No particularly high temperatures would be required to produce this result.

If there were high temperatures anywhere, they would be at the base of the wreckage. At what height above ground zero was this bunch of compacted floors found?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Continually asserting something does not make it so.

we've got a few blurry low resolution photos of what looks like something that's glowing orange. There's two main hypotheses here:

A) It's yellow hot steel.
B) It's burning debris

Take this image, a bunch of red glowing things, in what seems to be a reasonably well lit scene. One piece has some angles to it, and could conceivably be an I-beam, or a piece or wood or folded wall-board, or a bunch of things overlapping. Very hard to tell from the super low resolution image. There's also no real indication of size, or exactly where this is, or which building the debris came from.

The original source of this is the LiRo newsletter, which reporduced it in more accurate colors.


Now the sensible thing here to determine which hypothesis fits best would be to compare it to existing photos here's a burning trash dump:


Which looks very similar, so would fit B very well.

Or an underground coal fire, which fits the general hypothesis that there were fires burning underground for weeks after the collapses.


What can we compare for hypothesis A? Very little really. You don't see many red-hot girders in the wild. This was the best I could do:


Perhaps you should take a step back and see how the "molten metal" fits into the broader hypothesis. Where did it come from? And if it was the result of a thermite demolition, then how much of it should there be?
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Continually asserting something does not make it so.

we've got a few blurry low resolution photos of what looks like something that's glowing orange. There's two main hypotheses here:

A) It's yellow hot steel.
B) It's burning debris

I see white/yellow hot geometrically shaped objects being extracted from the rubble pile weeks after the initial collapse. From a rubble pile I might add where no office furniture remained in any way intact. Once again it boils down to "what are the odds" ? In the first picture below there is a very distinct shape of a C channel beam glowing in bright yellow to orange. By all accounts there was no identifiable office furniture within the rubble. It had all been completely pulverized by the force of collapse. This leaves us with one of two conclusions ( in that we agree ) Either this photo does in fact represent a C channel which has been superheated beyond anything expected in a simple hydrocarbon fire. Or by some miracle an office desk or other such geometrically shaped object survived the collapse, survived ten days, on fire, or at least at the flash point, after several significant rain events, and millions of gallons of water applied by the fire dep, to emerge at least intact enough to display geometric form, and before bursting into flame, managed to get its picture taken. I think the odds are against that later circumstance. While the mechanism for extremely high temp might not be identified, the evidence for its existence is substantial.

Take this image, a bunch of red glowing things, in what seems to be a reasonably well lit scene. One piece has some angles to it, and could conceivably be an I-beam, Looks like a C channel to me or a piece or wood or folded wall-board, The only thing that burns on sheetrock is the paper and that basically simply chars to ash or a bunch of things overlapping, Bunch of things overlapping don't end up in a nice neet geometric shape most closely resembling a C channel. Very hard to tell from the super low resolution image. There's also no real indication of size, actually there is a back hoe behind the scene for reference, I'd estimate this piece of C channel to be something like 16 heavy C, a common size for a high rise or exactly where this is, or which building the debris came from Good point, why wasn't this site mapped, why is it we don't know the fall pattern of the steel, the guys removing the pile had plenty of time to record the build marks present on each and every piece of steel. Yet this simple inexpensive investigative tool was most obviously not used..

The original source of this is the LiRo newsletter, which reporduced it in more accurate colors.
Now the sensible thing here to determine which hypothesis fits best would be to compare it to existing photos here's a burning trash dump:


Which looks very similar, so would fit B very well.

I wouldn't be able to agree, I see no geometric shapes within that fire, I also see obvious hydrocarbon combustibles, open to atmospheric oxygen. The two photos are simply not comparing apples to apples


Underground coal fires do not burn hotter than about 500°C, and we have laboratory verifiable evidence of reaction temps that at a minimum were in the 950°C range. Roughly twice that. So again the facts do not match the examples given to refute them.

Perhaps you should take a step back and see how the "molten metal" fits into the broader hypothesis. Ah but i"m not the one keeps mentioning molten metal :rolleyes: That would be you guys. I'm the one suggesting that we can see geometric shaped most closely resembling steel which is glowing hot, still being pulled from the rubble pile weeks and months after the original collapse. Where did it come from? An excellent question And if it was the result of a thermite demolition, then how much of it should there be?

Thermite is an interesting suggestion. One thing thats of note about the thermite did it hypothesis is that thermite residues might naturally occur within the materials used in the structure, however several claims have been made about the % of volume being about 150 times what would be expected, of those residues. It might be interesting to investigate those claims, since we're obviously not going to agree that a glowing hot, geometrically shaped, most closely IMHO resembles a piece of still yellow hot C channel, matching eye witness reports of glowing steel, which is a shape entirely likely to survive the collapse in recognizable form. Does in fact represent evidence of extremely high temps at the ground zero site.

Our option is as you pointed out, that some bit of combustible, survived beyond all odds in a recognizable geometric shape, defying all reports to the contrary, at flash point temps, resisting all efforts to extinguish it, for ten days, throughout multiple rain events, millions of gallons of water and still remain alight. IMHO an incredibly low probability.

PS
My parts and your parts kinda got blurred Mick, I tried the quotes thing but it just didn't work to well, probably my old computer again, things ancient, ten year old MAC. Anyway feel free to play with it if you like.

Cheers
B
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Those are compacted floors. Pressed together and water-soaked. Free ends of the truss material entangled like velcro. No particularly high temperatures would be required to produce this result.

If there were high temperatures anywhere, they would be at the base of the wreckage. At what height above ground zero was this bunch of compacted floors found?

well there is definitely compaction, but the perfection of the xenolith like inclusions being so perfectly encased most closely resembles a common result of tectonic action rather than simple water saturation. It'd be interesting to see if a product resembling this example caused by water saturation and the average pressure available at the WTC site would be able to hold together sufficiently to be sawn so perfectly, through all the varying density materials, and survive the process.

Lets look at that again



and compare it to this, which is created in a molten state.



There's just not a lot of missing the similarities there.

And again we have the question of where in the rubble pile this rare piece of evidence was extracted from. The answer as we all know, is, "don't know" the complete lack of on site investigation unlike anything every seen before in an aircraft disaster is absolutely unconscionable. How it is that anyone can accept the amazingly obvious effort to not investigate this is one of the biggest mysteries. Another is why no criminal indictments were handed down to the people involved in the prevention of an investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
well there is definitely compaction, but the perfection of the xenolith like inclusions being so perfectly encased most closely resembles a common result of tectonic action rather than simple water saturation. It'd be interesting to see if a product resembling this example caused by water saturation and the average pressure available at the WTC site would be able to hold together sufficiently to be sawn so perfectly, through all the varying density materials, and survive the process.

Lets look at that again



and compare it to this, which is created in a molten state.



There's just not a lot of missing the similarities there.

Let's look at this:

and compare it to this, which is created in a sedimentary state:
or
There's just not a lot of missing the similarities there.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
quite true but then again, sedimentary rock takes millions of years to form o_O we've got something that formed within just a few short months at the most. Zenolithic structures form within the time frame available, sedimentary structures do not. I believe the real tell tail is that the sample could be cut without its disintegration. Even with 500,000 tons of building crashing down over the area available the PSI even at the dead bottom of the pile was unlikely sufficient to cause this level of simple compaction

Although I'm going to go crunch some numbers and see what the actual value is and then compare it to figures concerning sedimentary rock formation. Kinda curious as to what that might actually be.

interesting
I get 157 lbs per sq in on the dead bottom of the pile. Hmmmmm wonder what the average kinetic energy of that 157 lbs is

I get 111,328 J or about 58°C

Seems virtually impossible for compaction to the tune of that little energy would cause such a perfectly included solid sample.

Oh and I calculated that kinetic energy using free fall speed, you guys are insisting that it was only 0.7 of free fall speed. so using your argument we can reduce the available energy by 0.3 of free fall and we end up with it being even less likely that the level of compaction is possible. :eek:

:eek:
not looking to good for the compaction hypothesis, although if you could show some examples of pancaked buildings sectional cut aways like the example we are considering that would be most helpful

but continuing the comparison with sedimentary rock, if I recall there is a direct comparison between the amount of time it takes for sediment to form rock and the amount of pressure being applied to it by the overlying strata. In our situation we've got all of about a month or two. Seems logical to conclude it would take an extreme amount of pressure, or the exactly right mixture of cementing materials in an appropriate formulation, not to help you guys out to much but gypsum is a pretty effective cementing agent in the formation process of sandstone, however it takes about a decade of compaction before you get something solid enough to consider even close to rock. However Gypsum would have been available within the WTC rubble.

Problem is you don't have a decade
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Our option is as you pointed out, that some bit of combustible, survived beyond all odds in a recognizable geometric shape, defying all reports to the contrary, at flash point temps, resisting all efforts to extinguish it, for ten days, throughout multiple rain events, millions of gallons of water and still remain alight. IMHO an incredibly low probability.

Well, no, it would have just caught fire shortly before you saw it. There's were fires in the rubble that lasted for days - but that does not mean every little bit of combustible was the burning at the same time. It was was big pile.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
quite true but then again, sedimentary rock takes millions of years to form o_O we've got something that formed within just a few short months at the most. Zenolithic structures form within the time frame available, sedimentary structures do not. I believe the real tell tail is that the sample could be cut without its disintegration. Even with 500,000 tons of building crashing down over the area available the PSI even at the dead bottom of the pile was unlikely sufficient to cause this level of simple compaction

Although I'm going to go crunch some numbers and see what the actual value is and then compare it to figures concerning sedimentary rock formation. Kinda curious as to what that might actually be.

Also check how long it takes for a few hundred pounds of wet concrete dust to dry out and turn back into a solid mass, under similar pressures. Something like:

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But Mick, that pic is of an artisan made high end product.
http://visionsbelowcc.com/
What made you think it was made of compacted concrete dust?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But Mick, that pic is of an artisan made high end product.
http://visionsbelowcc.com/
What made you think it was made of compacted concrete dust?

I don't. I gave it as an example of what compacted concrete dust etc might look like. The point was more to demonstrate that it does not take millions of years to create something that looks like sedimentary rock if you have the right mix of ingredients.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I don't. I gave it as an example of what compacted concrete dust etc might look like. The point was more to demonstrate that it does not take millions of years to create something that looks like sedimentary rock if you have the right mix of ingredients.
Could you find a better example... i.e. one that is not manufactured?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
quite true but then again, sedimentary rock takes millions of years to form
And plaster takes minutes. Gyproc is made of plaster, will have its water of crystallization driven off by heat, and returned to it with the help of firemen's water.

Zenolithic structures form within the time frame available, sedimentary structures do not.
Oops.

I believe the real tell tail is that the sample could be cut without its disintegration.
I'm quite sure all they had to do was snip the steel.

Even with 500,000 tons of building crashing down over the area available the PSI even at the dead bottom of the pile was unlikely sufficient to cause this level of simple compaction
Not too difficult to calculate that. In theory at least, it will be the height (50') times the average density (300 lb/ft^3) divided by 144, or 105 p.s.i. That's treating the wreckage as a liquid.

I get 157 lbs per sq in on the dead bottom of the pile. Hmmmmm wonder what the average kinetic energy of that 157 lbs is - I get 111,328 J or about 58°C
You are now a physics wonder. No-one else I know can get a temperature out of a pressure - unless they are treating with a gas. (Joules? - kinetic energy? What?)

gypsum takes about a decade of compaction before you get something solid enough to consider even close to rock
You've obviously never heard of the plaster-casters.

http://www.cynthiapcaster.org/casts/_dicks/casts_hendrix_page/hendrix_page.htm

I'll get my hat...

"Could you find a better example... i.e. one that is not manufactured?" - funnier still. You'd better PM me for that. :)
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Could you find a better example... i.e. one that is not manufactured?

In geology conglomerates or "matrix supported" rock formations can be created from a single flood or landslide events
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/cp_megalandslides/tapeats_creek.htm

 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
My apartment block stands on rain-hardened pyroclastic flow. It's recent, having happened only about four million years ago. The flow, not the apartment. It's a soft porous tufa, with fist-sized pieces of lava, sometimes pumice, embedded in it like a plum pudding.


That bump on the right is a pile of ejecta (piquon) which until recently was being dug away for building materials. There's no limestone or coal here...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member

exposed aggregate is a very controlled technique where a wash is applied at a very specific time to concrete impregnated with decorative aggregate. Its not an example of sedimentary layering in a naturally occurring rock o_O Nor does it depict sedimentary compaction or heat related xinolith formation

My point is that the material shown in my previous is sufficiently solidified to be able to be sawn right through the varying density inclusions without falling apart. Which means there is a substantial amount of cohesion present. I'm suggesting that 157 PSI is insufficient to generate that kind of cohesion. I'd also suggest that gypsum, pulverized, soaked and compressed to 157 psi is insufficient to hold the varying pieces of steel at all those varying angles while they are cut by what must have been a water cooled diamond saw. The gypsum would have disintegrated and been washed away in the process.

IE thats a pretty solid mass. I wonder if anyone actually measured its average density, or better yet, took a number of readings from a number of different areas, since there is obviously a number of different materials present
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Uh huh, there 's about 2000 J per 1°C :cool:

Are you seriously going to argue this simple conversion doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Conversion formula

The formula for converting a specific value from joules to Celsius heat units (IT) is:

X joules * cf = Y Celsius heat units (IT)

where

X = the specific value to be converted (in joules)

cf = the conversion factor from joules to Celsius heat units (IT)

Y = the result (in Celsius heat units (IT))

Sample calculation: let's suppose that you have a value of energy of 459 joules and want to express it in Celsius heat units (IT).

459 J = (459 x 5.265650668407317E-4) CHU

459 J = 0.24169336567989588 CHU

Soooo Jazzy, how about if you take the ole Newtons swing and offset the balls, a bit, cause its obvious that the steel came apart from the top down, the steel wasn't all just perfectly lined up. Now bend some of them into odd ball shapes, just like the steel was bent and twisted by whatever forces there may have been. Now separate them by a few hundred tons of other debris. Oh and make some of those balls out of partially compacted whatever instead of steel, oh and remember, no compaction greater than about 157 PSI. Now try it and see just how much force transfers to that last ball :eek:

Oops almost forgot, your going to need, hmmmmm how many sticks of steel tall were the towers anyway ? 1300' / 60' max standard length of steel = 22 balls in your swing o_O

IE build a real model of what we see and you'll quickly discover that pet theory going the way of the Dodo
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Well, days later and still nothing that looks like a glowing red hot beam to me
[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
the material shown in my previous is sufficiently solidified to be able to be sawn right through the varying density inclusions without falling apart.
You actually cannot know that from the picture you see.

Which means there is a substantial amount of cohesion present.
Even that is debatable. You are looking at rust, and unless it's perfectly dry, it is going to expand further. It is going to lose cohesion. The atmosphere it is in guarantees this.

I'm suggesting that 157 PSI is insufficient to generate that kind of cohesion. I'd also suggest that gypsum, pulverized, soaked and compressed to 157 psi is insufficient to hold the varying pieces of steel at all those varying angles while they are cut by what must have been a water cooled diamond saw. The gypsum would have disintegrated and been washed away in the process.
You cannot accurately make such claims. Plaster isn't soluble in water, which is why it works. It also works fine at atmospheric pressure. If you actually read my posts you would have been able to infer this.

IE thats a <snip> Dodo
Indeed it is. I haven't laughed so much since Spike Milligan died.

Here's a tip: no more than three significant figures are required when you calculate, generally. That's all proper scientists would use, unless they are aiming to define a physical constant, or limit the weight of an aircraft or rocket.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Uh huh, there 's about 2000 J per 1°C :cool:

Celsius and Celsius Heat Units (Chu) are very different things. You can't convert from Joules to Celsius, because Joules measures heat energy, and Celsius measures temperature (average energy). You can convert from Joules to Chu as they are both units of heat. 1 Chu = 1899.1 Joules
 

Boston

Active Member
Ugh semantics again.


Celsius
see degree Celsius. The word "degree" is often omitted in informal statements of temperature, as in "we expect a high of about 23 Celsius today."

Celsius heat unit (Chu)
a unit of heat energy equal to the energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1°C at standard atmospheric pressure. 1 Chu is equal to exactly 1.8 Btu, approximately 453.59 IT calories (see above), or 1.8991 kilojoules. The unit is also called the centigrade heat unit.

and if you really want to confuse the issue.

Celsius and centigrade are two names for essentially the same temperature scale (with slight differences). The centigrade scale is divided into degrees based on dividing the temperature between which water freezes and boils into 100 equal gradients or degrees. The word centigrade comes from "centi-" for 100 and "grade" for gradients. The centigrade scale was introduced in 1744 and remained the primary scale of temperature until 1948. In 1948 the CGPM (Conference General des Poids et Measures) decided to standardize several units of measurement, including the temperature scale. Since the "grade" was in use as a unit (including the "centigrade"), a new name was chosen for the temperature scale: Celsius.

The Celsius scale remains a centigrade scale in which there are 100 degrees from the freezing point (0°C) and boiling point (100°C) of water, though the size of the degree has been more precisely defined. A degree Celsius (or a Kelvin) is what you get when divide the thermodynamic range between absolute zero and the triple point of a specific type of water into 273.16 equal parts. There is a 0.01°C difference between the triple point of water and the freezing point of water at standard pressure.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed, the distinction is not semantics. It's the difference between temperature and heat. You can't convert a heat value (energy) into a temperature value (average energy density) without also knowing the mass and the specific heat capacity.

Energy = mass * specific heat capacity * temperature. (in Joules and Kelvin)

This might be confusing, but illustrates one of the problems with debunking. Very often people run up against the limits of their knowledge, and then instead of extending their knowledge (which is very hard), they fall back either on common sense, or upon a rather simplified and distorted science. (Nothing personal Boston, just a general observation).
 
Last edited:

Ron J

Active Member
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.


Flames poured out windows from floor to ceiling. The Towers were on fire when they fell. The office fires were the primary source of the heat generated within the Towers. The apparent glowing hot metal in the photo above was not due to thermite. I have seen a test that was done for a TV program, in which they built a cup around a steel column to hold thermite. The column wasn't glowing when the thermite reaction finished it's rapid chemical process.

"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"

I'd note that thermite burns out very quickly, regardless whatever temperature it reaches.

What would the temperature of one burning match be? What would the temperature of 10,000 burning matches be?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
What would the temperature of one burning match be? What would the temperature of 10,000 burning matches be?
Just the same, is the answer.

The very point of my argument is that in several places in the wreckage of 811 there would exist pieces of steel which have been made to hammer ground zero multiple times, on each occasion of which the temperature would have been made to increase. It is indeed the only mechanism by which the temperatures down there could have been increased.

This, as I have interminably stated previously, is by the process of elastic kinetic energy transfer.


Flames poured out windows from floor to ceiling. The Towers were on fire when they fell. The office fires were the primary source of the heat generated within the Towers. The apparent glowing hot metal in the photo above was not due to thermite. I have seen a test that was done for a TV program, in which they built a cup around a steel column to hold thermite. The column wasn't glowing when the thermite reaction finished it's a rapid chemical process. "The conclusion is inescapable. Temps of 2000F existed within the rubble 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". I'd note that thermite burns out very quickly, regardless whatever temperature it reaches. What would the temperature of one burning match be? What would the temperature of 10,000 burning matches be?
Just the same, is the answer.
 

Related Articles

Top