Molten and Glowing Metal

Boston

Active Member
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.

science looks for data, maybe develops a hypothesis if there is enough of it, and then tests that hypothesis, sometimes we end up with a working theory and sometimes not. But the search for that data is not the basis for the hypothesis, its the exploration phase of the scientific method. How are we supposed to learn anything unless we collect some data in the first place.

Suggesting the science was biased in the case of 9/11 is a highly polished two edged sword

Numerous people studied samples from WTC and numerous people found sphericals, as well as other molten fragments. And not in just a few samples either, pretty much every sample showed evidence of molten materials.

This link is a gold mine containing hundreds if not thousands of references in support of molten or near molten steel found at WTC
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/FEMA_appx-C_p1_WTC7-steel-corrosion.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/tag/wtc7/&usg=__pJacizmficM7h5gSywu1sMGCZ7o=&h=586&w=752&sz=124&hl=en&start=29&sig2=UbIahZXbvVKABdBwPzFfqA&zoom=1&tbnid=G56mj6JvwFDeLM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=141&ei=kPMlUpPLApHUyQGJ6YGADg&prev=/search?q=molten+steel+9/11+museum&start=20&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&gbv=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDwQrQMwCDgU

While I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if there were only one bit of data showing evidence of high temperatures, but when there's hundreds if not thousands of data points, the conclusion becomes more and more obvious. Clearly there were very high temps at WTC and clearly this data was ignored by multiple gubment investigations. Question becomes why. What are they trying to hide ?

[Off topic discussion removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
While I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if there were only one bit of data showing evidence of high temperatures, but when there's hundreds if not thousands of data points, the conclusion becomes more and more obvious. Clearly there were very high temps at WTC and clearly this data was ignored by multiple gubment investigations. Question becomes why. What are they trying to hide ?

Except it it's not clearly the case. There were fires and a collapse, then more fires in the rubble pile. That's about all we really can say for sure. Then there are various claims that the temperature was "too high".
 

bosma2002

Member
see im sorry that's just more dodgeball, not all of this is going to be clear mathematical or scientific evidence, i gotta say im starting to see why people are so skeptical man
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
see im sorry that's just more dodgeball, not all of this is going to be clear mathematical or scientific evidence, i gotta say im starting to see why people are so skeptical man

Did you read the last eight pages. Plenty was addressed in great depth.
 

Boston

Active Member
Bosma
We kinda ruled out anything that can't be confirmed by actual physical or photographic evidence. The problem is that eye witness accounts tend to be very unreliable, and politicians lie through there teeth. What I've tried to do is systematically go through the photographic evidence and point out the flaws in the party line. For instance, the single column failure hypothesis, it cannot account for the near instantaneous failure of every single exterior column ( we don't know what happened to the interior columns although we can be certain they failed at some point ) in the perfect symmetry required to bring WTC 7 straight down in a manor exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition. It does not model the buildings collapse even remotely and the hypothesis does not account for the complete lack of any progressive failure of any visible portion of the structure. The pent house collapsed behind the parapet wall, then the entire structure gave way at once. Even the kink is beautifully symmetrical, oh and my personal fave, the building fell at free fall for the first maybe 100' or so. In the progressive collapse hypothesis time is needed for the failures to "progress" yet no time is available when all four corners let go all at the same time, regardless of there distance from the presumed point of initial collapse.

Now we're on to what kinda heat was evident in the rubble. A particularly difficult subject due to the complete lack of any proper investigation. Although no criminal negligence charges where ever brought :rolleyes:
 

Boston

Active Member
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.


Oh give it up, please. :mad:

This theory has more holes in it than a good Swiss cheese. :D

Bosma
what Jazzy is trying to convince you off is that through some magic all the flying debris suddenly lined up just perfectly to pummel that lowest bit in the pile into melted/glowing steel. Look up Newtons swing and check out how perfectly its all got to be aligned. He's forgetting numerous basic elements of physics in the process. One might be that the the 200,000 tons of structural steel per tower was separated by about 300,000 tons of pulverized concrete. :oops: So take his Newtons swing, multiply the weight of the balls by 1.5 and add that much sand divided between all the balls, see how well it works o_O Next trick is to misaligned all the balls, try it again :eek: Then consider that there were no balls of structural steel, :confused: they were sticks about 60' max long and without to many nice clean ends on them, no center of mass to center of mass contact, which would have led to deflection, thus again directing the energies in every direction, including down, out, up, bending, bounce, lots of directions for that energy to go, very unlike some model made in a factory that seems still hold some level of fascination for our buddy in the fedora :rolleyes:. So now replace the balls with some nails, add the sand in between them, don't forget to misaligned them, and stand back, cause according to Jazzy that last nail in the swing might just burst into flames :eek:

its a ludicrous idea, don't let him suck you in with psychobabble, just try it for yourself. Use a bucket of sand and a few ball bearings, even if you line them up one atop another and put 1.5 times the weight of each ball in sand between them, then drop that top one onto the model, your not going to move that lowest one at all, the sand will direct the forces out and away, through the path of least resistance.

Anyway best of luck, stick to what you can prove and don't get discouraged. Its not we who are grasping at fairytales, instead it is we who are asking for a believable explanation.

Which brings us to another important point, do not jump to conclusions, and do not offer any explanations as to how the towers fell. Its not our job. Its our job to ask questions of those who think they know how the towers fell and study the probability of each element of that explanation.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And instead we have dozens of workers, placing thousands of pounds of explosives or thermite, around columns that were not in the open and available. Then the explosives or thermite is protected by some substance from the fires and the planes and they have some sort of detonators that will work in the environment of 9/11. No evidence of any that. Or we can look at the evidence and the physics and see that the planes and the damage they did caused the collapses.

I prefer to believe something that is possible, that doesn't need 'magical detonators or fireproofing'.
 

Boston

Active Member
Except it it's not clearly the case. There were fires and a collapse, then more fires in the rubble pile. That's about all we really can say for sure. Then there are various claims that the temperature was "too high".


That I can totally agree with, my take is it doesn't really matter where the high temps occurred, in the pile or in the air. The source for these temps remains unknown. As does IMHO the reason the buildings came down at all. Heat overall didn't do it. The fires while the buildings were standing simply couldn't have generated enough heat. Which brings us to what could have both caused huge quantities of residual heat and could have been a byproduct of the initiation and control of the collapse.
 

Boston

Active Member
And instead we have dozens of workers, placing thousands of pounds of explosives or thermite, around columns that were not in the open and available. Then the explosives or thermite is protected by some substance from the fires and the planes and they have some sort of detonators that will work in the environment of 9/11. No evidence of any that. Or we can look at the evidence and the physics and see that the planes and the damage they did caused the collapses.

I prefer to believe something that is possible, that doesn't need 'magical detonators or fireproofing'.

The least likely scenario is for the building to have symmetrically collapsed because of asymmetrical damage.

And actually there is plenty of evidence of some kinda accelerant, there is also the sticky little issue of NIST not looking for it because they assumed none was present, although the investigation guidelines clearly state to look for it, which leaves the rest of us to do the research for them. Multiple analysis have discovered "unusual" characteristics within the samples analyzed.

I believe the most reasonable response to these anomalies is to conduct a new investigation using what little physical, photographic and observational evidence is available, which includes both civilian and gubment investigators working in tandem to verify each others findings. I also believe criminal indictments should also be handed to those who so completely screwed up the initial investigations so that any wrongdoing or intentional manipulation of the data can be exposed for what it is.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There was jet fuel there, that was an accelerant, are you trying to say that there was evidence of explosives? Or are you trying to make a case for thermite?
 

Boston

Active Member
you might want to read the thread before commenting, we just went over how jet fuel does not burn hot enough as a turbulent diffused flame to melt or even significantly weaken steel. Outside of a controlled burn, like in a jet engine where the elements of fuel are joined in the optimum stoichiometric proportions and under pressure. Multiple links have been provided from both industry and distributors concerning the characteristics of jet fuel. Not only did the jet fuel burn off almost immediately, but the remaining fuel boils at fairly low temps, so it really doesn't have an opportunity to remain as a liquid for any length of time in an extremely hot environment.

Or show us a sample of this fuel taken from the base of the towers :eek:
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I got a really good laugh reading through this thread to see there are people here still denying there was molten metal present. Not even steel, but metal in general. Threads and threads and threads on this stuff later.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Steel does not need to be heated to melting in order to lose a significant amount of it's strength.

And no matter how much the 'truther's' insist on some type of a controlled demo, they have never answered the simple question of HOW it explosives could have been placed, WHO placed them and WHY no one noticed this. (and why a large group of folks never revealed it).

Y'all also ignore that they did not fall like a controlled demo. Y'all nit pick the experts and ignore the elephants and the T Rex in your 'story'.
 

Boston

Active Member
I got a really good laugh reading through this thread to see there are people here still denying there was molten metal present. Not even steel, but metal in general. Threads and threads and threads on this stuff later.

Grieves, its important to try and remain as neutral as possible. Let the other team be the ones to show the inadequacies of there position by descending into irrelevancies and ad hominem whatever. While I to find some of the wilder suggestions a bit humorous and I to have sometimes gotten out of hand a bit in noting the improbability of certain if the wilder notions, its important to try and remain as scientific about our discussion as possible. My two cents.

Cheers
B
 

Boston

Active Member
Steel does not need to be heated to melting in order to lose a significant amount of it's strength.

and who's arguing that ?

Classic straw man


And no matter how much the 'truther's' insist on some type of a controlled demo, they ( getting a bit general here aren't "we" ? ) have never answered the simple question of HOW it explosives could have been placed, WHO placed them and WHY no one noticed this. (and why a large group of folks never revealed it). as if its somehow a whole new subject and we are not discussing the improbability of the gubment and its adherents story ?

Y'all also ignore that they did not fall like a controlled demo. Y'all nit pick the experts and ignore the elephants and the T Rex in your 'story'.

We uns aren't buying it, the towers didn't fall in a natural pattern, they fell in such a manor as to indicate an outside influence. WTC 7 fell exactly as it would have in a controlled demolition. Denial isn't a quality of scientific investigation.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The towers fell in totally natural pattern. Buildings don't fall over.
They fell exactly like they should have with the damage and with the connections failing. Denail of the FACTS is a major issue for the 9/11 truthers. Y'all deny all the facts and glop onto nonsense scenarios that wouldn't be allowed in a movie, because they are too complex and fantastical.
 

Boston

Active Member
The towers fell in totally natural pattern. Buildings don't fall over.
They fell exactly like they should have with the damage and with the connections failing. Denail of the FACTS is a major issue for the 9/11 truthers. Y'all deny all the facts and glop onto nonsense scenarios that wouldn't be allowed in a movie, because they are too complex and fantastical.

Uh yah, we went over this and countless videos of buildings falling over were presented. Your dead wrong on this one. Denial of this simple fact is not possible.


Soooooooooooo

what was this you were saying about buildings not falling over ?

this video also shows why the towers should not have collapsed at all.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Really use trot out a picture of a grain elevator? Try again with something that resembles an office tower. Have fun trying. Maybe someone else will argue with you. Real life calls and no computer for days.
 

Boston

Active Member
Debunked

No problem


are you going to continue to deny that buildings fall over ? cause you were very specific in your statement

Buildings don't fall over.

But now you seem to be adding qualifications, rather than admit that buildings do in fact fall over all the time, incidentally, previous to 9/11 and outside of controlled demolitions, no building had ever naturally collapsed into itself as far as I'm aware.

Maybe you can show us some natural collapses that resulted in implosions similar to what we see at the WTC

????????????

Your turn to prove your claim, since I just proved that buildings in fact do fall over. o_O
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Yes it does and you can stop the snark. You claimed that that there was molten steel in photos and you failed to prove that.

That apartment building has been discussed elsewhere. Rarely do buildings fall over, they collapse a lot more often.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
But now you seem to be adding qualifications, rather than admit that buildings do in fact fall over all the time, incidentally, previous to 9/11 and outside of controlled demolitions, no building had ever naturally collapsed into itself as far as I'm aware.

....

okay, how about this - buildings over half a kilometre tall don't fall over, they fall into themselves.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
you might want to read the thread before commenting, we just went over how jet fuel does not burn hot enough as a turbulent diffused flame to melt or even significantly weaken steel. Outside of a controlled burn, like in a jet engine where the elements of fuel are joined in the optimum stoichiometric proportions and under pressure. Multiple links have been provided from both industry and distributors concerning the characteristics of jet fuel. Not only did the jet fuel burn off almost immediately, but the remaining fuel boils at fairly low temps, so it really doesn't have an opportunity to remain as a liquid for any length of time in an extremely hot environment.

Or show us a sample of this fuel taken from the base of the towers :eek:


At around 5:15 they light the jet fuel which is in a basin. At around a minute later the temp peaks at 2000 degrees F. The metal beam bends at 3:50 after the fire is lit. No jet engines. No pressure. Just a pit of jet fuel.
 

Boston

Active Member
Yes it does and you can stop the snark. You claimed that that there was molten steel in photos and you failed to prove that.

That apartment building has been discussed elsewhere. Rarely do buildings fall over, they collapse a lot more often.


I think its important that we are able to admit our errors, you very emphatically stated that buildings do not fall over, to which I naturally responded by presenting the group with numerous video evidences of buildings falling over.

Can we at least admit that thsi claim that buildings do not fall over has been debunked ?

As far as molten steel, I have also presented multiple evidences of this being found as well. I'd recommend reading back through so you can see for yourself that thsi evidence has in fact been presented.

So again, can you show any video evidence of buildings globally collapsing into themselves ? partial collapses, sure but instantaneous global failure. Not so much

I believe its important to note, its not I who is presenting a scenario of how WTC 7 came down. It is NIST and its supporters who are presenting a wildly implausible hypothesis and are unable to prove it. The burden of that proof remains squarely at their feet.

So I'd have to ask again if you have any evidence of any other global instantaneous collapse involving a single column failure which occurred due to fire of a high rise building ?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I think its important that we are able to admit our errors
?

I'd have to ask again if you have any evidence of any other global instantaneous collapse involving a single column failure which occurred due to fire of a high rise building?
There aren't any "other". Including at the WTC.

Engineering isn't a game played with semantics.
 

Boston

Active Member
interesting

so your suggesting that there was no near instantaneous collapse, three times in a row, three buildings in one day, when there had previously been no incidence

ever

of any global, instantaneous symmetrical collapse perfectly synonymous with a controlled demolition

ever

in the history of building failures

that so perfectly mimic controlled demolition

due to

well

any reason

ever

of any steel framed building

????????????????????????????
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
'So perfectly mimic controlled demolition'? Any demolition professional would have lost their job if their result was anything like any of the WTC buildings' collapses.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
.....
As far as molten steel, I have also presented multiple evidences of this being found as well. I'd recommend reading back through so you can see for yourself that thsi evidence has in fact been presented.
...
*ahem* I believe you have presented pictures that may be heated material of unknown identity.
That they are steel is disputable as they are inconclusive.
You have shown absolutely no molted anything.
The picture that showed a structured shape - if that is steel then there are steel beams of different sizes yes? Because it does not look the size of the big bendy one.
 

Boston

Active Member
actually I also presented data from microscopic examination of the rubble as well.

I'd also invite you to compare controlled demolitions ( in which no one lost there job ;-) to the WTC 7 collapse :eek:

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I watched 9/11 The Lost Hero a little while ago about the Marine Jason Thomas, who rushed to ground zero and hunted for survivors for many hours and stayed there until he rescued two people 30' deep in the rubble. He then disappeared without trace until Oliver Stone made a film about what he did.

I couldn't help noticing that he said there was a glowing red hot steel girder dripping molten metal from itself very close to where he found the two survivors. I can't find it on YT and there is very little ref to Jason Thomas on the net and nothing about the molten girder but I just thought I would mention it.
 

Boston

Active Member
Unfortunately many eye witness accounts must be discounted due to a lack of physical evidence. Personally I try and stick to just what data can be corroborated with physical evidence. That and agnotism suggests that intentionally conflicting accounts can be offered, without corroborating evidence specifically to confuse the issue. However there is evidence of molten material at ground zero, its just not in the form of a beam saved for the investigatory systems showing a melted end, that were, or more accurately were not employed to determine the exact cause of collapse.

Long story short, eye witness accounts are often not very accurate.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account


I'd estimate that metal to be somewhere in the 900+ degree C range or roughly 1700 degrees F
So you confirm it is not molten steel. Thanks.

Steel melts at a temperature a further four hundred degrees Celsius greater than that.



Boston said:
I think its important that we are able to admit our errors
This is one of these cases where we are in perfect agreement. Don't let me hold you back...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
okay, how about this - buildings over half a kilometre tall don't fall over, they fall into themselves.

Oh, do you have any examples other than 9/11, cause if I remember no other high rise had ever collapsed into itself, ever. And its highly arguable just how much help the buildings in the wtc had
 

Boston

Active Member

At around 5:15 they light the jet fuel which is in a basin. At around a minute later the temp peaks at 2000 degrees F. The metal beam bends at 3:50 after the fire is lit. No jet engines. No pressure. Just a pit of jet fuel.

interesting, where there any loose beams in the wtc center ? were there any areas where jet fuel could pool ? In that short a time does jet fuel have a chance to reach its boiling point ? If there where floors below and they also contained these mythical pools, would they not accelerate the rate of the pool above reaching its boiling point ? How does the lack of heat transfer from one beam to another effect this test ? And what do studies that involve complex systems of columns and beams teach us about fire dynamics within a high rise steel framed structure ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
interesting, where there any loose beams in the wtc center ? were there any areas where jet fuel could pool ? In that short a time does jet fuel have a chance to reach its boiling point ? If there where floors below and they also contained these mythical pools, would they not accelerate the rate of the pool above reaching its boiling point ? How does the lack of heat transfer from one beam to another effect this test ? And what do studies that involve complex systems of columns and beams teach us about fire dynamics within a high rise steel framed structure ?

Boston. You made a very specific claim:
we just went over how jet fuel does not burn hot enough as a turbulent diffused flame to melt or even significantly weaken steel.
You were then shown an example of this actually happening. So you were wrong. Please don't just respond with a flurry of rhetorical questions.
 

Boston

Active Member
I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. Never claimed infallibility but the questions were not rhetorical.

Take that same beam and employ it in a system like what we have in a high rise steel framed structure and you get an entirely different result

see
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/911research.wtc7.net_mirrors_guardian2_fire_lamont4_8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm&usg=__V3eroLD6MNz4hkc91lo8FTzs1bs=&h=384&w=550&sz=38&hl=en&start=43&sig2=fHqE8yrH75OH31U2fxgPJw&zoom=1&tbnid=DtIqXl_IEXxrOM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=133&ei=ZPMrUvOxM-ioyAHisYHICg&prev=/search?q=fire+test+on+steel+framing&start=40&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&gbv=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDAQrQMwAjgo



My point was that the model is not mimicking real life events. Although you had a perfectly valid point as well. Quote me exactly what I said that you feel is wrong and I'll concede the point, if I was mistaken ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Then I was wrong.

Or where you thinking I wouldn't be able to admit that. ;-) does kinda throw a wrench into peoples thinking when someone is comfortable admitting if they were wrong or not

on the other hand I think your confusing heat deformation with weakening, in which case we're back to square one. The experiment shows the effects of heat deformation rather than weakening of a heated steel member.

I do think a little context would be nice and the recognition that the single piece model fails to mimic what we see in actual steel framed construction. As well as that there was no opportunity for jet fuel in building 7. I'd also point out that I did say significantly. We all know steel bends in even a typical house fire. The ends are not constrained. But how much of its tensile strength is really lost :D Do you have an analysis of that beams tensile strength as it heats to the temp measured, since that's the critical element of significant strength.

While we're on a role I wonder how you feel about being wrong about the "beam walked off its seat" theory now that we can all see in the blue prints the seat was larger than NIST claimed and even considering their corrections we still have the problems of other structural members being in the way of that motion and of the new required temps being said by NIST to cause weakening rather than push ?

I was still wrong tho, if you take that exact statement and apply it to that exact test, and ignore all other factors but static bending of an unconstrained single member. Which I don't think mimics real life events concerning WTC 7 in any way at all nor am I convinced represents a significant loss of strength.

Got a link to that statement by the way. I don't really feel like searching all night for it :cool:
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
"On a role". Chuckle.

Oh, do you have any examples other than 9/11, cause if I remember no other high rise had ever collapsed into itself, ever. And its highly arguable just how much help the buildings in the wtc had

How many high rises were over 400 metres? How many collapsed?
 

Related Articles

Top