Molten and Glowing Metal

Boston

Active Member
We were discussing your claim:


And I was making the point that if air could get that hot (as it does in in a fire), then steam, which is simply mixed with the air, can also get that hot.

So now you want to argue water vapor VS steam ? The example Jazzy gave involved steam used to produce hydrogen. If you have a working model of air ( nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon and carbon dioxide ) being used to produce a similar reaction Jazzy claimed feel free to bring it on :rolleyes: but until then I'm going to be discussing the steam Jazzy claimed responsible for the damaged steel shown. water vapor is typically in the 1`3% range of total atmospheric gasses. Steam is at or nearly at 100% H2O.

Your comparing apples to oranges again.
 

Boston

Active Member
It also clearly states:
So why don't you believe what is written on one caption, but you do with another? How is helpful to post an image if you are just going to cherry pick? Maybe you should black out the areas you disagree with? Or selectively crop?

Your making assumptions again.

I believe there was likelihood jet fuel in the basements, I believe there is melted concrete and glowing hot metal in physical and photographic evidence. I also believe that there is a huge disparity between the max temp of jet fuel burning in an oxygen starved environment and the melting temps of concrete.

Kinda a real poser now isn't it :eek:

considering that max temp in perfect conditions jet fuel burns at 825°C and concrete melts at, how many thousands of degrees ?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So now you want to argue water vapor VS steam ? The example Jazzy gave involved steam used to produce hydrogen. If you have a working model of air ( nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon and carbon dioxide ) being used to produce a similar reaction Jazzy claimed feel free to bring it on :rolleyes: but until then I'm going to be discussing the steam Jazzy claimed responsible for the damaged steel shown. water vapor is typically in the 1`3% range of total atmospheric gasses. Steam is at or nearly at 100% H2O.

Your comparing apples to oranges again.

Steam is water vapor. It's the same thing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your making assumptions again.

I believe there was likelihood jet fuel in the basements, I believe there is melted concrete and glowing hot metal in physical and photographic evidence. I also believe that there is a huge disparity between the max temp of jet fuel burning in an oxygen starved environment and the melting temps of concrete.

Kinda a real poser now isn't it :eek:

considering that max temp in perfect conditions jet fuel burns at 825°C and concrete melts at, how many thousands of degrees ?

Perhaps your beliefs are wrong?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You don't have a containment device to pressurize the steam so it holds anything even remotely like the temps required. Steam expands, check Charles law, or maybe its in Boyles law. But its pretty darn well established your not going to get steam up to 400°C or whatever that was, outside of a pressure vessel :rolleyes:

by whom is it so established? Your previous attempt to state this quoted steam tables (with which I am familiar having actually studied using them) and you completely misunderstood what you were looking at.

there is no reason a pressure vessel is required - if you heat water up enough then you get steam at an appropriate temperature - that is basic physics.

Perhaps you would like to explain how that does not work, or perhaps WHY you think a pressure vessel is required?? Yes steam expands - but that doesn't stop it getting hot - in fact it expands BECAUSE it is hot - the expansion doesn't stop it being hot!!
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Concrete cannot melt. It contains water of crystallization which explodes away as steam at around 800 deg C, leaving calcium/aluminum/iron silicate, a refractory material, perfectly reusable, if you grind it to a powder, as cement.

Steam corrodes iron at any temperature, but more quickly the hotter the two are, liberating heat in a process understood since the very first steam engine was constructed..

Jet fuel in a jet engine causes flame temperatures of 2,500 deg C. Depending on the pressure and air supply it can burn at temperatures down to 800 deg C. Deep in the wreckage there was no air supply.

Steel can transfer its kinetic energy to stationary steel it meets due to its elasticity. A Newton's Cradle perfectly demonstrates this.

This discussion isn't going to go anywhere - quite obviously.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Mick
Trying to confuse steam with the water vapor content of atmosphere isn't comparing apples to apples, by that logic you've already got steam at ambient temperature, yet try and find a scientist who's going to refer to water vapor at ambient air temp and pressure as steam. Not likely. :cool:

Mike
"If you heat water up enough", like 100°C at 1 atmosphere ? :eek: Please, spare me the lecture.

So Jazzy, now are you suggesting we have the same conditions as in a jet engine under the random jumble of debris o_O ? Sorry but by all accounts the vast majority of Jet fuel burned off within the first few minutes, but even if not, the stuff burns no hotter than 825°C in open atmosphere and substantially less under less than ideal conditions.

Yikes, talk about getting grasping at straws.

love ;)
B

Oh and repeating a flawed hypothesis just doesn't cut it. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge the hundreds of tons of energy absorbing materials, ( remember that sponge example :D ) that fell along with the steel ? Hundreds of tons of pulverized concrete is a lot like sand, is sand actually, or at least has a whopping huge aggregate component, which is basically large sand, often called gravel :rolleyes:. Works the same o_O. Deal is you had steel flying in every direction imaginable during that collapse. No way you had more than a small percentage at best of the perfect alignments required by your pet hypothesis to actually transfer any appreciable amount of energy. But keep clinging, it is entertaining if nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Boston said:
Your making assumptions again.

I believe there was likelihood jet fuel in the basements, I believe there is melted concrete and glowing hot metal in physical and photographic evidence. I also believe that there is a huge disparity between the max temp of jet fuel burning in an oxygen starved environment and the melting temps of concrete.

Kinda a real poser now isn't it :eek:

considering that max temp in perfect conditions jet fuel burns at 825°C and concrete melts at, how many thousands of degrees ?
Click to expand..
.
Perhaps your beliefs are wrong?

There is always the possibility, but then again that's a two edged sword. Lets review, or at least just this last.

Is there a likelihood of jet fuel burning in the basements, I'd think the possibility exists but baring any direct evidence we can't actually say either way.
Is there a likelihood of melted concrete that flowed like lava, ( in which case there is a number of different kinds of lava some entirely molten and some not ) I'd think so given we are presented with multiple physical examples at the 9/11 museum.
Is there a likelihood of molten steel or at least glowing hot steel, again there are multiple physical examples on exhibit at the 9/11 museum.
And jet fuel burns in open air at about 2~300°C, check out the what the guys who sell the stuff have to say about its specifications .http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm . A typical hydrocarbon fire doesn't burn any hotter than 825°C and that only in ideal conditions http://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html and the basic office fire burns at
The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment depends on several factors including the amount and configuration of available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.
I might also add that jet fuel boils at about 160°C in which case it goes up pretty darn fast http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-points-fluids-gases-d_155.html
so expecting a pool of jet fuel to survive for weeks at temps of over its boiling point seems a little out of touch. More likely the fuel burned off quite fast, which can be seen in the fire balls observed on impact. So again we are down to the most likely scenario, office debris fueled persistent fires vs the least likely scenario, jet fuel fed persistent fires
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
you'd mentioned jet fuel burning in the basements also having been mentioned on the placards in the 9/11 museum, and in your previous you'd questioned my beliefs concerning what temps jet fuel burns at. So I thought I'd include a few links addressing the issue.

Stuff burns way below the temps required to melt steel, and significantly below the temps needed to weaken steel appreciably in the conditions present. Also there is a thermal image of one of the towers 20 minutes after its being struck that show temps barely over 100°C. Which again would seem to indicate that any remaining jet fuel from the initial fire ball was burned off previous to that time.

the jet fuel did it explanation is entirely inadequate, so I understand if its an argument you'd prefer to abandon. The steam did it argument is another that simply doesn't cut it, I can appreciate that your not arguing that one either. Where's the steam source prior to collapse ? or is the argument based solely on the idea that the excessive heat damage was caused after the collapse, in which case your back to square one trying to explain how the steel prior to collapse could have gotten so uniformly hot it experienced global symmetrical failure, in all three buildings.

The Newtons swing argument is so ludicrously flawed its really not even worth discussing it any further

So we are left right back where we started, how did office fires ( turbulent diffused flame type, the lowest temp type flame ) end up releasing so much heat it weakened steel to a degree a high rise, better yet, three, collapsed, when no high rise had ever before experienced global symmetrical failure due to fire, either before or since for that matter specifically because the fire codes within these commercial structures are designed to reduce combustibles and keep fire temps below any conceivable danger point.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It said "fuel", which is just any stuff that burns, like wood and office contents. Nobody is suggesting jet fuel would melt steel.
 

Boston

Active Member
Caused by thousands of gallons of fuel buried beneath the rubble

Gallons would imply a liquid fuel, and you'd asked why I believed there quote about concrete heated to a lava like consistency compared to there statement about "thousands of gallons of fuel"

Actually much of this particular bend is in response to a previous and wildly inaccurate accusation

So why don't you believe what is written on one caption, but you do with another? How is helpful to post an image if you are just going to cherry pick?

We have physical evidence of both super heated steel and concrete, but no physical evidence of thousands of gallons of burning fuel beneath the rubble piles. Claims are one thing, photographic and physical evidence is another. I'll go with the physical and photographic evidence. For instance, is there a sample of this liquid fuel ( just like there is a sample of the molten concrete ) they claim existed by the thousands of gallons and if not jet fuel, then what liquid fuel are they referring to. Just because they mime the party line, doesn't mean they are presenting any physical evidence of it. Yes we have material samples obviously subjected to high heat, what we don't have is an adequate answer to the source of that high heat. You did just admit that no one is suggesting jet fuel can melt steel. Are you suggesting typical office furnishings can somehow, in an oxygen starved environment, in a flame condition known as turbulent diffusion, the lowest temp flame type, burn hot enough to make concrete flow like lava ?

I think it far more reasonable to admit we simply don't know what heat source was used or existed in order to create the thermal damage seen at the WTC site. But it does seem reasonable to admit there is no naturally occurring heat source and thus, an introduced heat source "may" be responsible.

This coupled with the unusual manor of collapse seen in all three structures makes for a rather compelling argument that some unknown influences existed.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
No, Mick. It loses its water of crystallization and turns to a refractory dust (cement!) first. You would have to raise the temperature of the dust to above 2500 deg C to liquefy it.

If tons of this material had been found at 911 (none was found at all) then there would have had to have been many tons of thermite to provide the heat to melt it. This would have left copious quantities of ALUMINA (none of which was found either). Any steel would have melted away, and it would not be found mixed with it. If you see steel poking out of it, then it cannot be fused cement.

All the pictures I have seen have been water-hardened agglomerates.
 

Boston

Active Member
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
Oh lordy are we going to have to go through that argument again.



Highly unlikely that gypsum, is going to hold together as its sawn in half, particularly when you consider all the metal that had to be cut as well and the amount of vibration from the type of saw used to do this kind of cut.

Try slurrying a piece of sheet rock, throw in a few rocks, let it dry out for a while and then try cutting it in half on a diamond tile saw. Hell, your welcome to even heat it till your blue in the face. Its never going to hold together long enough to make it through the saw.

Simply soaking dust and letting it dry isn't going to produce the density or cohesion required. Nor is the pressure available, as a fluid ( according to your theory ) it would have flowed into open pockets which were not subjected to any excess pressures.

And another one bites the dust. Not that I'd be surprised if there was some hydrodynamic deposition of finer debris particles, but to form a solid mass capable of surviving being dug up with a 40 ton backhoe, dropped onto a truck, carted off and cut with a saw thats got to go threw all kinds of different density material, vibrating the living daylights out of everything on the way. is highly unlikely. Heat must have played a significant role, with the amount of heat required to reform these components into a cohesive solid mass being, pretty extreme.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
It said "fuel", which is just any stuff that burns, like wood and office contents. Nobody is suggesting jet fuel would melt steel.
If you cause the air-cooling passages to be blocked in a modern jet engine, then jet fuel does indeed melt steel*. Your statement "Nobody is suggesting jet fuel would melt steel" isn't correct in such an instant, and shouldn't ever be made. It's wrong.

* It's why planes are required not to fly through volcanic ash clouds, and one of the reasons why you mustn't ever put metals into jet fuel.
 

Boston

Active Member
And your suggesting again that we had a pressurized fuel source and a compressed source of oxygen available at ground zero ?

Should we not rather be discussing a turbulent diffused flame type of the kind found in uncontrolled fires ? or are you suggesting there was some measure of "control" involved in the demolition process seen on 9/11 ?

pardon me if I stick to the subject rather than fly off into ambiguities which only serve to distract from our topic of conversation. I'm sure there are all kinds of engines which can produce heat from a wide variety of reactants that will melt steel, but, just like the jet engine scenario, have absolutely no relevance to our discussion.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member


See
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDwQrQMwCDgU

Please scan through the published work of Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction.” In addition to elemental composition analysis using a scanning electron microscope, you will find this micrograph, or optical microscope image of WTC dust plainly showing dried molten material

Oh and if you actually read the information provided you'll discover one of the photo's we've been using is reported to have been faked/photo-shopped, which is really a shame as it does nothing but detract from the quality of our discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Look like a beam that has been ripped apart, then blackened by soot from fire. Not one that has melted.

And if you need a microscope to find molten material, that hardly means there's it was on a large scale. Welding residue would like account for that.
 

Boston

Active Member
There's another piece directly under that large one sticking up from the pile that looks like it fell off the first one. shows very clear heat discoloration, folding, and deformation from excessive heat. Temp to produce that type of reaction in steel is in the 1400°C range.

also microscopic molten material was found in virtually all of the WTC dust samples, and in quantities that far exceed what would be expected, that information was offered earlier
 

bosma2002

Member
Guys this argument is ridiculous, picking out details and dissecting them just doesn't mean shit, just watch the first 2 mins of this video, someone dispute what this guy is saying. a coverup happened, but exactly what? This being said by someone who worked for the government and many many more that of course were made out to be fraudulent which IF it is true they would of course not just let these people look legitimate...they would keep covering and covering like they are doing that's the most important point, they would have legitimate information in the case of the events being disputed to try to prove what happened was legit. feeding through the bullshit is key.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course it matters. It's an entirely different kettle of fish. Murdering 3,000 people is vastly different from simply taking advantage of someone else murdering 3,000 people.
 

bosma2002

Member
well here is the problem, if they knew about it where can you possibly draw the line then, you can pick about the buildings being able to fall or the pentagon and flight 93 leaving no wreckage or thermite or w/e you wanna pick apart, but if everything points to the fact that they knew....well shit

I mean how many people like mike ruppert, bill cooper, aaron russo, that cspan guy I just posted how many people have to point it out, and how about project for new American century new pearl harbor quote, I mean how much of this stuff does there have to be?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bosma2002

Member
as far as the firefighters though that video of them talking about the molten metal has that been debunked or what's the deal with that because that seems to me to be pretty legit? was there anything posted debunking that I didn't see anything in the history
 

Boston

Active Member
as it turns out Bosma its really not that hard to show more than ample evidence to convince any reasonable person there were much higher temps evident at WTC than can be accounted for in any of the official explanations.

And if you need a microscope to find molten material, that hardly means there's it was on a large scale. Welding residue would like account for that.

For instance, pretty sure Mick, you just admitted there was molten material and now your questioning how much as well as suggesting its caused by the clean up efforts. Yet molten sphericals are found in dust samples taken in some cases miles from ground zero where no cutting torches would have influenced the make up of the dust.

Again if you look at that beam and then directly below it you can see a corresponding piece with exactly the same damage pattern on it. Color, deformation, tearing, all identical. There's a strong change those two pieces where once all part of the same beam. IMHO the most likely scenerio to explain these two pieces is that a single piece was heated to such a degree, before the collapse, that during the collapse a second beam hit this one and broke this heat weakened piece in two, or three, its hard to tell. But there is obvious signs of heat damage requiring very very high temps.
 

bosma2002

Member
no i agree this is one of the areas with a lot of iffy information that's hard to really prove or disprove, i don't think the photo's really do it justice but man that video with the firefighters just gets me
 

bosma2002

Member
i think one of the real questions about the molten metal is in these conditions is it possible any steel could have even gotten close to that temperature during what happened, because the pictures of red hot steel that's totally different then molten liquid steel correct?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For instance, pretty sure Mick, you just admitted there was molten material and now your questioning how much as well as suggesting its caused by the clean up efforts. Yet molten sphericals are found in dust samples taken in some cases miles from ground zero where no cutting torches would have influenced the make up of the dust.

There were many sources. They were found because they were looking for them, as they expected to find them. This has been covered numerous times.
 

bosma2002

Member
again the problem comes into play when reports of molten metal were seen by people before the collapse, i keep going back to this i know but IF its true then could that have happened that quickly without the addition of anything?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
again the problem comes into play when reports of molten metal were seen by people before the collapse, i keep going back to this i know but IF its true then could that have happened that quickly without the addition of anything?
Yes. Read this thread.
 

bosma2002

Member
AFTER it had enough time i might be able to buy that in certain spots the conditions were so right that the temperatures maybe got hot enough im not ruling it out, but not before, if that day when the video of those firefighters was taken is legit and they saw molten steel running in the way they describe it, since the air being cut off is essential to your argument of the temps getting hot enough that would have required time after the collapse.
 

bosma2002

Member
and again your stating that it can get hot enough, the studies i have seen show that in controlled conditions WITH continuous fuel source of jet fuel the conditions can get hot enough.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
AFTER it had enough time i might be able to buy that in certain spots the conditions were so right that the temperatures maybe got hot enough im not ruling it out, but not before, if that day when the video of those firefighters was taken is legit and they saw molten steel running in the way they describe it, since the air being cut off is essential to your argument of the temps getting hot enough that would have required time after the collapse.
and again your stating that it can get hot enough, the studies i have seen show that in controlled conditions WITH continuous fuel source of jet fuel the conditions can get hot enough.
You don't understand what I said at all - yet.

My point is that the temperature of the steel would necessarily PEAK the very moment the final piece of steel had come to rest. The mechanism was by ELASTIC KINETIC ENERGY TRANSFER, the very same that is demonstrated by Newton's Cradle, or, for that matter, a game of pool.

From there on in, the heat was retained by the insulation of the wreckage - the top of it being pulverized lightweight insulation material.

Forget "fuel sources". There was no air available that deep down the pile.
 

bosma2002

Member
well if that's the case there must be a site i can reference that would show that molten metal temperatures can be created from this, i would love to look at it.
 

Related Articles

Top