Molten and Glowing Metal

Boston

Active Member
well Pete that would be the information I asked you to provide in support of your claim. Pretty sure its up to you to provide supporting data for your own ideas isn't it :rolleyes:
 

Boston

Active Member
Since we're about to engage in an interesting debate over the effects of heat straightening on the strength of steel I just thought I'd provide some background info


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm


Heat straightening is a repair procedure in which controlled heat is applied in specific patterns to the plastically deformed regions of damaged steel in repetitive heating and cooling cycles to gradually straighten the material. The process relies on internal and external restraints that produce thickening (or upsetting) during the heating phase and in–plane contraction during the cooling phase. Heat straightening is distinguished from other methods in that force is not used as the primary instrument of straightening. Rather, the thermal expansion/contraction is an unsymmetrical process in which each cycle leads to a gradual straightening trend. The process is characterized by the following conditions which must be maintained:

  1. The temperature of the steel does not exceed either (a) the lower critical temperature (the lowest temperature at which molecular changes occur), or (b) the temper limit for quenched and tempered steels.
  2. The stresses produced by applied external forces do not exceed the yield stress of the steel in its heated condition.
  3. Only the regions in the vicinity of the plastically deformed zones are heated.
When these conditions are met, the material properties undergo relatively small changes and the performance of the steel remains essentially unchanged after heat straightening. Properly conducted, heat straightening is a safe and economical procedure for repairing damaged steel.

ergo steel is not necessarily weakened by heat deformation
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Since we're about to engage in an interesting debate over the effects of heat straightening <snip> ergo steel is not necessarily weakened by heat deformation
Irrelevant. Indeed - off topic. Create a thread for it and I will discuss this idea.

Boston on page 1 said:
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.




This is one of these cases where we are in perfect agreement. Don't let me hold you back...
It must be you holding yourself back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

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

Sorry, it was just two click up from the post you were replying to, so I thought it was obvious. If you click on the arrow next to ".... Said", it takes you to the quoted post
upload_2013-9-8_5-13-28.png

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:
 

Boston

Active Member
prefect, thanks, there's been a lot of water under the bridge even in just a few days and I couldn't remember where that post was from.

So the next question is, how much strength does steel loose when subjected to heat deformation. Like what we see in that burning pool of fuel experiment. What do the tests on that piece of steel show ? I'm going to suggest that the steel in your example was not subjected to the fire long enough to heat the steel to a degree where its significantly weakened. It was however obviously subjected to enough heat to induce heat deformation. One side being heated and the other not will produce warping, but is a warped piece of steel weaker than one that is straight and has the tensile strength been significantly effected in the process of heat deformation.

Also I think a pool of jet fuel is not a laser flat floor ( OK the introduced laser leveling some time after these buildings were constructed but never the less ) which will shed a fluid over a much larger area and in a much thinner layer. So again I don't think this test lies within the context of the situation we are discussing.

Oh and just a tid bit, the arch is one of the strongest structural shapes known.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
prefect, thanks, there's been a lot of water under the bridge even in just a few days and I couldn't remember where that post was from.

So the next question is, how much strength does steel loose when subjected to heat deformation. Like what we see in that burning pool of fuel experiment. What do the tests on that piece of steel show ? I'm going to suggest that the steel in your example was not subjected to the fire long enough to heat the steel to a degree where its significantly weakened. It was however obviously subjected to enough heat to induce heat deformation. One side being heated and the other not will produce warping, but is a warped piece of steel weaker than one that is straight and has the tensile strength been significantly effected in the process of heat deformation.

Also I think a pool of jet fuel is not a laser flat floor ( OK the introduced laser leveling some time after these buildings were constructed but never the less ) which will shed a fluid over a much larger area and in a much thinner layer. So again I don't think this test lies within the context of the situation we are discussing.

Oh and just a tid bit, the arch is one of the strongest structural shapes known.

Nope, those are questions for another thread or threads. This one is about reports and evidence of molten metal.
 

Boston

Active Member
because as long as the ends are secured an upside down arch is quite strong structurally, check the steel cables on the GG bridge.

I'll move some of the previous to another thread specifically dealing with the test your presenting, and keep this one on track about molten and glowing metal.

Cheers
B
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
because as long as the ends are secured an upside down arch is quite strong structurally, check the steel cables on the GG bridge.

Except it's no longer supporting anything, and has vastly reduced resistance to longitudinal compression or tensioning (i.e. it can't hold up the floor, and it can't stop the columns buckling). So no, suspension bridges are not really relevant here.
 

Boston

Active Member
I think thats where your confusing the test model, which does nothing to simulate actual events and actual events.

The beam you show as bending did undergo heat deformation, but, did it loose strength ? How was its tensile strength effected and had it been secured at multiple points to a surrounding structure, what would its reaction have been ? Remember this test off an actual structure


from
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDwQrQMwCDg8



Test 6: The office demonstration test fire at Cardington:

A compartment 18m wide and up to 10m deep with a floor area of 135m2, was constructed on the second floor, using concrete blockwork. The compartment represented an open plan office and contained a series of work-stations consisting of modern day furnishings, computers and filing systems. The test conditions were set to create a very severe fire by incorporating additional wood/plastic cribs to create a total fire load of 9.4 pounds per square foot (46kg per square meter). Less than 5% of offices would exceed this level (mainly office libraries). The fire load was made up of 69% wood, 20% plastic and 11% paper.

The steel columns were fire protected but the primary and secondary beams (and their connections) were not. The maximum atmosphere temperature was 2215°F (1213°C) and the maximum average temperature was approximately 1650°F (900°C). The maximum temperature of the unprotected steel was 2100°F (1150°C) with a maximum average temperature of about 1750°F (950°C). The steel beams would have only have had 3% of their strength at 2000°F (1100°C), with such little remaining strength left in the steel, the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members. It is also clear that the concrete floors were supplying strength to the structural system by membrane action


Do you know what a catenary tension member is defined as ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Getting back on topic a bit I presented this link earlier which contains a whole lot of information on molten materials found in concentrations much much higher than what would be normally expected in an office buildings 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...2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDwQrQMwCDgU

And this link which shows laboratory analysis of a variety of molten fragments within the rubble

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...2b1PtA&usg=AFQjCNFoC4vzLNgBgujQGx2Q3fUkNJVIgw
 

Boston

Active Member
again

Can you define what is a caternary tension member ?

I'd also be curious as to how you'd think that loss of lateral resistance would effect its ability to push ? something like, oh say, a girder ?

I'd also recommend this link which outlines the peer review process DR Jones when through to get his paper published concerning the molten fragments founds in the WTC rubble

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
again

Can you define what is a caternary tension member ?
Why don't you just tell me what you mean. Speak plainly please.

I'd also be curious as to how you'd think that loss of lateral resistance would affect its ability to push ? something like, oh say, a girder ?
Seem rather irrelevant, because if it sags then it's gone past the expansion phase.



Until something starts to bend, then they will offer the same resistance, the point is that the bent one will fail first. So it's less able to do things like stop a column from buckling.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
well firstly you've got the beam turned sideways, its not designed to work in that orientation. It wouldn't have nearly the strength of a properly oriented I beam and it wouldn't react to heat by sagging in the web but on the flanges, or at least not at first. Your diagram is frighteningly off. If you were trying to show something suspended between two columns then what you've shown is exactly the opposite of what NIST is claiming happened and the sag in the beam between columns would have pulled slightly on the columns, rather than pushed

There's is a multitude of errors in the model shown, ( the video is what I'm now referring to ) oh and if you look at the model you presented in video form, they did orientate the beam correctly. First error is that they used a pool of fuel that could heat up and boil off at a very high rate, thus increasing the normal temperature of the turbulent diffused flame. Since there was no jet fuel in building 7, there is no opportunity for this type of fire to exist, and since there was no place for a liquid fuel to pool on the flat floors of WTC 1&2 there is also no opportunity for this type of fire to exist. Second error is that they do not have multiple members tied together in a monolithic system like what we had in all three buildings, ( I'm proposing that similar floor structures with steel pans, sheer studs and internal mesh and or rebar was likely also present in the WTC 1&2 buildings, but I suppose thats open to speculation since we don't have blue prints available to us ) Third error is that they do not represent the uneven heating of the floor system. Test fires would have to move naturally as they burn out there fuel sources just like any other normal office fire ( speaking of building 7 again ) A time frame typically defined as about 15 minutes. This movement of fire means that some areas of the monolithic structure are being subjected to heating while others are not. This condition is glaringly missing from such a simplified test. Fourth error is that by conducting this test in open air they allow the maximum possible amount of oxygen to the fire, again giving it the opportunity to burn much hotter than would normally be seen in a typical office fire where air is restricted by the buildings walls and fire partitions. Fifth major error is that the ends of the beam are left unsupported by other members of the monolithic floor system we know existed at least in WTC 7. Without this support the beam cannot go into caternary suspension and deflects, away from the load, most assuredly not something that happens in the monolithic design.

I could go on but maybe your getting the picture, that test is a joke. Its like testing one 2x4 in a stick frame house by turning it sideways and checking its static bending, pretty much what those guys did in your video example, and suggesting its reflective of the entire structures strength. Its not, what it is is a very poor way to judge durability under stress. These guys built the most advantageous fire condition they possibly could, and tested the least advantageous structural condition possible, that of an unconstrained single beam under constant load. In a fire the load reduces fuel is consumed and as smoke and ash are carried away, and it reduces considerably

Yup showed that a jet fuel fire was capable of producing heat deformation in steel. But certainly didn't measure any significant loss in strength, didn't measure the temp of the beam even and didn't mimic the fires in WTC 7 in any way whatsoever, Nor IMHO did it mimic the fires in WTC 1&2. Actually I didn't see any tests where run on that beam at all, post deformation. Or did I miss something ?

Oh and caternary suspension is the natural curve formed by any cable or cable like object or system when suspended from its ends. In your single beam test there were no considerations made for the ends, so they just folded upwards with the heat deformation, deflected and the whole thing fell into the fire. Hardly a realistic test of any condition that I can see as having existed at the WTC site.

Cheers
B
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The diagram is of a beam between two columns. Not of a beam. It's oriented correctly (in the black line).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I think the girder test was more a demonstration of Gage's lack of sense than anything.
 

Boston

Active Member
meh, I could, its not really a theory, well I guess it is, cause its a tried and true method of using a tension member. There are tons of examples of heat warped steel pieces in burned up multi story buildings, that still held up there floors. Its not like its really in question.

If your interested in discussing it, by all means, but all it really is, is the sag developed by heat stressing steel in the direction of the fire. Or at least in this case. There's a good example of it in that example article I posted earlier. Post # 332

Cheers
B
 

Bmead

Member
That is like showing a image of a bowl of water and saying "is it a sea"?
You reference glowing camp fires no smoke, that is totally misinformation. What one would be better to do is show a fire started in daylight or a real housefire.
The smoke of a campfire will not be noticed once it has started and is burning dry fuels and is well established.
The show of anything that is not molten iron and molten aluminium is misleading.

The simple facts are when aluminium is molten it is silver-It requires to be heated hotter to become orange.
So assume it IS Aluminium-it flows straight from the window (again assuming it is EXACTLY next to the window) It then drops over visibly 3 floors still glowing (that is 36 feet) then the glow disappears. So, it could be that it takes a drop of 36 feet to cool molten Aluminium to silver and thus invisibility to the eye at that distance.

Test and prove that.

I have seen numerous examples of aluminium heated to red or orange state, poured into a cast INCHES away, it cools rapidly to silver appearance.

Objects caught in and burning? that implies that the debris is the bulk of the falling items and entirely within the aluminium not floating ON and creating flames.
But all of these items, extinguish themselves around the same time, since it is observable that falling paper is on fire even as they drop to the ground, and since one can take woods, plastics and other items and drop them and they extinguish at different levels indeed, it is highly unlikely that all the objects would "go out" at the same time. So the truth is this is not debris colouring this metal. It is therefore a simple argument of aluminium or another metal.

So the answer Test it.
You are so very fond of demanding proof and debunking anything not sensible, yet provide campfires and coal fires (things that never glow silver, only orange/yellow)
That is specifically choosing the evidence to fit the result not fitting the result to the evidence.

Since even NIST concluded temperatures of the fires scarcely reached temperatures of a degree to even melt aluminium, we should now turn round and say oh yes they did.

Well they can't deny their own theories just to make their own theories work, then decide that both theories are still correct.

Since the logic says molten iron, the onus is on the other side to prove otherwise.
So, go get a few soda cans, get some coals set it 12 feet off the ground, melt the aluminium to orange heat (recording the temp), and then tip it into a mold. If at 12 feet we see no glow. Then it must have been some other metal. If we do see glowing raise it to 24 feet, repeat. And if by 36 feet the height of 3 floors as we see in the videos. Then it IS aluminium case proved.
Simple science. No need for showing people wood fires to prove metal types. That would be like me showing wine to prove what liquid a frozen cube is.

I look forward to your tests
 
I provided film evidence of molten steel but just for fun, I'll provide some more.




I wanted to know what in this picture says that glowing metal is steel? What I see is possibly a refer FAU unit or a electrical control box. the dangling strands of copper wire or pipe and possibly melted brass or alloy dripping if it is dripping. just a thought. it would explain the lack of heat transfer.
 

Bmead

Member

I have watched numerous examples, in foundries and any red/orange appearance and the aluminium is not molten yet,when it is molten with a colouring, it is a reflection of the item it is contained in, usually an alloy that can take these temperatures and is glowing red.orange hot.

And every single case i have seen, it takes inches to appear silver, further validating the appearance of red etc is just reflection.

And if it was particles mixed in, they would float and demonstrate flame, not just extinguish after 36 feet or so. Wood, and paper were observed in flames and plastic dont run in streams in flames.


The uniformity of the flow, and because it is not interrupted, means it IS a metal, and not thick with debris
This time the available evidence says NOT aluminium, but definitely molten metal

A true debunker in pursuit of truth must admit this or squirm to make lies out of science.
 

Mark Barrington

Active Member
It looks to me like in the less than a second that it takes for the Aluminum to pour the first few inches, it's glowing red. Of course, a few hundred grams of aluminum aren't going to retain heat long enough to remain hot enough to glow red long. A basic rule of scale is that surface area goes up as the square of the size and volume varies by the cube. If you had 8 times as much aluminum, it would have 4 times the area and take twice as long to cool. So maybe 2 seconds to stop glowing red. How about 5,000 times as much? Maybe 17 times as long. Plenty of time to glow red all the way to the ground in free fall from 80 stories up.
 

Mark Barrington

Active Member
There is a lovely paper by J.B.S. Haldane written in 1928 about how the mathematics of scale work, and it's recommended reading for anyone interested in science and mathematics: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html


Hmm, I had forgotten about the political addendum at the end of the paper, which kind of tarnishes it in my view. but it is an artifact of its time.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account


I wanted to know what in this picture says that glowing metal is steel? What I see is possibly a refer FAU unit or a electrical control box. the dangling strands of copper wire or pipe and possibly melted brass or alloy dripping if it is dripping. just a thought. it would explain the lack of heat transfer.
If it were metal it would have to be steel as copper, brass, and alloys melt before they are hot enough to show an orange/yellow color.

It isn't necessarily metal. It could be a piece of glass-fiber or asbestos lagging. It would look just the same. It would also explain the lack of heat transfer.

It isn't molten, of course.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
I have watched numerous examples, in foundries and any red/orange appearance and the aluminium is not molten yet, when it is molten with a colouring, it is a reflection of the item it is contained in, usually an alloy that can take these temperatures and is glowing red-orange hot.
It isn't a reflection of anything.

Hot materials give off colors according to their temperature. Even at room temperature every material radiates in the infra-red. As the temperature rises, so does the frequency of the emitted radiation.

And if it was particles mixed in, they would float and demonstrate flame
Not if they were already ash, and burnt already. They would still glow though..

This time the available evidence says NOT aluminum, but definitely molten metal
The evidence shows it is definitely neither steel nor thermitic iron. It could be either aluminum, lead, or zinc. There were large amounts of all three in that locality.

A true debunker in pursuit of truth must admit this or squirm to make lies out of science.
A true debunker? What would you know of that? LOL.

.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Since even NIST concluded temperatures of the fires scarcely reached temperatures of a degree to even melt aluminium, we should now turn round and say oh yes they did.

What?


 

Bmead

Member
We can all pluck figures off NIST but Pete i suggest you refer to the actually measured temperatures they stated.
Now Jazzy. You disagree on reflection. I suggest you look harder, i was not talking of the tower, i was talking in multiple foundry videos, and others where aluminium is melted. I have yet to see aluminium pour red or orange anywhere. Show me an example. And talk of small pools? Well i have seen large amounts poured, and since the larger pool the larger area the faster it will cool the idea it is orange or red because it is a large pool is not solid.

There seems to be a basic problem here.
Debunker mindset. Not Sceptic or real debunking.
Logically the liquid is not any wood or paper or plastic, ( i know you want to say plastic but the viscosity of it in a melted state will not allow streams of it. If you challenge that prove it. I have seen plenty plastic burn in large quantities and small, it emits black smoke, and drops away from the main body if held over something so it will be subject to gravity, it then falls in flaming globs.
Glass-No, it takes temperatures in excess of 1200 degrees for that.
Now you want to suggest copper or other alloys show me where that was and how
Since copper molten is actually a far brighter colour than the observed.

All any of you need to do is go to a foundry and ask them. please pour out Aluminium/Copper/zinc/tin etc at this height, and show it (the height) and the colour it runs.

You won't because you are NOT interested in truth at all.

Jazzy you can disagree with me any which way you like but lets be clear, wood paper and plastics do not fall at the same rate, or burn at the same rate, or burn the same colours. So there is no debris in this.
It IS a metal.
How to identify it? Cooling rates over height, colour. That is about all we have to go on. Well based on what i have seen so far, colour matches with molten iron well and even better with steel. The fall rates i have not been able to find a good enough example from a pour from a reasonable height, but i have seen the sparks or tiny drops i should say, come off of steel and iron, as opposed to other metals they have not.
Additionally, You guys are meant to be OVB's so if you say NOT aluminium, then you call NIST liars and Mistaken, which is fine by me, because you have called the official version a lie on other aspects before, so long as that enables the official version to be true still. Which is a bit of con if you ask me but the more you say Nist are wrong or the FBI are wrong, i am happy to see that on record.
But if you do-You must prove what it IS
If you do not, then it is quite easy to see it is NOT Aluminium at all, so you are just wrong.

Anyway i have no more to say on the subject until i see your tests of Aluminium, after all i show one thing and the al. Is too small, i would show another it would be too big, another and not heated as much as you want. So you do the tests and prove your wild aluminium that glows red/orange when aluminium doesnt do that. Idea

Or, tell me what else it is.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
We can all pluck figures off NIST but Pete i suggest you refer to the actually measured temperatures they stated.

How will that change that you saying NIST concluded temperatures were not high enough to melt aluminium is a falsehood?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
We can all pluck figures off NIST but Pete i suggest you refer to the actually measured temperatures they stated.
J think we can refer to our sense of vision. It's possible to look through the tower window spaces at THE COLOR of the interior. It is ORANGE wherever you look. That is the color equivalent of 1100 deg C. So the temperature of all interior surfaces within the tower fires that one can see is 1100 deg C.

Now Jazzy. You disagree on reflection. I suggest you look harder, i was not talking of the tower, i was talking in multiple foundry videos, and others where aluminium is melted. I have yet to see aluminium pour red or orange anywhere. Show me an example. And talk of small pools? Well i have seen large amounts poured, and since the larger pool the larger area the faster it will cool the idea it is orange or red because it is a large pool is not solid.
I suggest you go back to school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

There seems to be a basic problem here. Debunker mindset. Not Sceptic or real debunking.
Beauty lies in the mind of the beholder. So does ugliness.

Logically the liquid is not any wood or paper or plastic, ( i know you want to say plastic but the viscosity of it in a melted state will not allow streams of it. If you challenge that prove it. I have seen plenty plastic burn in large quantities and small, it emits black smoke, and drops away from the main body if held over something so it will be subject to gravity, it then falls in flaming globs.
Plastic at the temperature within the building would already have boiled off and burnt.

Glass-No, it takes temperatures in excess of 1200 degrees for that.
It has the same specific gravity as the metal that surrounded it (aluminum). It is arguable that in places it would have melted and mixed with the liquid surrounding it.

Now you want to suggest copper or other alloys show me where that was and how. Since copper molten is actually a far brighter colour than the observed.
There wasn't enough copper present to account for the observed falling metal.

All any of you need to do is go to a foundry and ask them. please pour out Aluminium/Copper/zinc/tin etc at this height, and show it (the height) and the colour it runs.
I didn't need to ask them because I have been a foundry worker, and have poured and cast all the materials we are talking about.

You won't because you are NOT interested in truth at all.
Well, you haven't my experience and don't know me, but your statement seems self-applicable to me.

Jazzy you can disagree with me any which way you like but lets be clear, wood paper and plastics do not fall at the same rate, or burn at the same rate, or burn the same colours. So there is no debris in this.
Such materials would already have burnt. The fire was an hour old.

It IS a metal.
A sole point of agreement.

How to identify it? Cooling rates over height, colour. That is about all we have to go on. Well based on what i have seen so far, colour matches with molten iron well and even better with steel. The fall rates i have not been able to find a good enough example from a pour from a reasonable height, but i have seen the sparks or tiny drops i should say, come off of steel and iron, as opposed to other metals they have not.
Steel at the observed color is SOLID, so the liquid stream is not iron or steel. Also dirty liquid iron would spit and explode sparks which would themselves spit and explode.

Thermitic iron would be a blue-white color surrounded with dense white clouds of alumina. It could not fall outside the building, because it would melt a path vertically down. "Vertical" means "inside".

Additionally, You guys are meant to be OVB's so if you say NOT aluminium, then you call NIST liars and Mistaken, which is fine by me, because you have called the official version a lie on other aspects before, so long as that enables the official version to be true still. Which is a bit of con if you ask me but the more you say Nist are wrong or the FBI are wrong, i am happy to see that on record.
I don't call NIST wrong. That's your business.

But if you do-You must prove what it IS. If you do not, then it is quite easy to see it is NOT Aluminium at all, so you are just wrong.
There were around sixty tons of mostly sheet aluminum alloy broken up in a room which was at 1100 deg C for an hour. There's nothing to prove.

Anyway i have no more to say on the subject until i see your tests of Aluminium, after all i show one thing and the al. Is too small, i would show another it would be too big, another and not heated as much as you want. So you do the tests and prove your wild aluminium that glows red/orange when aluminium doesnt do that. Idea
But it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

Or, tell me what else it is.
It's your mind playing tricks with you. Tame it.

.
 
Last edited:

Bmead

Member
How will that change that you saying NIST concluded temperatures were not high enough to melt aluminium is a falsehood?

Well first of all let us bear in mind that what they say is not necessarily what it IS. Remember this is the organisation that said they found no evidence of missiles or explosives. A statement that implies they looked. Now before choking out the well worn "there was non, no need to look" hokum, the point is 1. They did need to look based on many points but 2. They implied they did look. So what they say must be double checked. Remember they also said 12th floor east side of wtc 7 was on fire at a time that their own images said it was not. So we need to doubt them

So i base what i said off of what NIST said about the actual beams they tested


upload_2014-2-16_15-44-25.png

This is available at http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

I am aware they said

"the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns"

AND

"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees"

So we can delve through all NIST contents, oh and do check out underwriter labs work too which does not even support NIST but essentially you can also base the temperatures achievable by what Jet fuel in OPEN AIR can achieve which is not 1000 degrees at all. We all know this it is the reason that combustion engines have oxygen fuel mixed together and under a pressurised system

And normal office fires also do not reach these temperatures.

If you read through NIST work (i do wonder if you have) you won't remember all of it, but the one thing that becomes clear is they load the tests, ie, they set the temperatures around 1000 degrees to find the times it took to achieve creep.
Which of course proves what happens at that temperature and how fast. What it does not do is prove the temperature.

The ONLY thing that did is the actual tests on the steel.
The actual temperatures acheivable by the jet fuel in open air + How long it was before it was consumed ( remember that part because since you lot have it that there were pools of jet fuel in the lobby AND outside the towers( As you all swore blind in the Suqami thread), burnt up in the fireball and caused the blow out and bomb like damage in the lobby. This then means 10,000 gallons spread over the entire cubic area of the towers and NONE burnt outside in the fireballs, is going to be spread very very thinly and burnt up fast (Nist and Fema confirm that it was burnt up fast)

And normal office fires temperatures
Those confirm that the temperatures were NOT anywhere near 1000 degrees.
Argue it if you like, you are arguing NIST and FEMA not me. You are arguing real science not me.
 

Bmead

Member
JAZZY
J think we can refer to our sense of vision. It's possible to look through the tower window spaces at THE COLOR of the interior. It is ORANGE wherever you look. That is the color equivalent of 1100 deg C. So the temperature of all interior surfaces within the tower fires that one can see is 1100 deg C.


BARRY

Orange is the colour equivalent in metals but the flames are not the metal colours and what we have to recall is a few points 1. The temperatures were not 1100 degrees, even as the ludicrous claim Pete made it extends to 1000 degrees- So again, you want to exceed the official version or call it into question, in order to make it work.

To clarify AGAIN what i said. Aluminium seen in foundries and fire pits, had the appearance of orange/yellow or red, because of the fires or containers, once poured, the liquid appeared silvery. Now if you disagree that the red/orange appearance is the aluminium not the coals/fire or container glowing red/orange. Show me an example of aluminium POURING red/orange


JAZZY

Beauty lies in the mind of the beholder. So does ugliness.

BARRY

And?

JAZZY

Plastic at the temperature within the building would already have boiled off and burnt.
It has the same specific gravity as the metal that surrounded it (aluminum). It is arguable that in places it would have melted and mixed with the liquid surrounding it.
BARRY

Perhaps, i did not say it WAS plastic i said, the liquid CAN'T be plastic because it would not run in streams and would not glow yellow/orange, it would, if it moved at all, fall in flaming globs. So don't try to debunk something i didn't say.
As for aluminium around it? It won't "mix" i suggest it is YOU that needs schooling because liquid aluminium and other materials don't mix at all.

JAZZY

There wasn't enough copper present to account for the observed falling metal.

BARRY

Then we just concurred it is not-again i did not say it was yet you try to make it sound as though i did

JAZZY

I didn't need to ask them because I have been a foundry worker, and have poured and cast all the materials we are talking about.

BARRY

Well then you know 100% that aluminium doesn't pour red/orange or yellow. However, in that capacity it should be easy to source a video that can show clear aluminium, and it melts, shows the temperature it is at yellow stage etc, then pour it. If it comes out yellow or orange and falls for what is apprx 36 feet and then fades. You have proven your aluminium case

JAZZY
Well, you haven't my experience and don't know me, but your statement seems self-applicable to me.


Such materials would already have burnt. The fire was an hour old.
There were around sixty tons of mostly sheet aluminum alloy broken up in a room which was at 1100 deg C for an hour. There's nothing to prove.

BARRY

Wrong ! The molten metal we see in images pours from the South tower. A tower that was destroyed in 56 minutes. So the plane crashes and the fuel spreads and the fire grows, this takes more than an instant, it would take some time for the air temperature to reach 11000 degrees (which even NIST do not cite that high) But lets say it takes a 5 minutes to spread and take hold and really get roaring. Then that is not an hour at such temperatures at all. Also it demands that the plane which was aluminium is all in the flames and 1100 degree temperature, and all this other aluminium be pooling in one place and pour from the two sources we see in the public domain. Rather than pouring from multiple places as one may expect, whereas a thermitic reaction that caused molten metal, would have a higher chance of being in isolated locations


JAZZY


Steel at the observed color is SOLID, so the liquid stream is not iron or steel. Also dirty liquid iron would spit and explode sparks which would themselves spit and explode.

BARRY


I disagree, and again, wherever something did melt, it has to run a course to get out the tower, so it is already cooling.

JAZZY

Thermitic iron would be a blue-white color surrounded with dense white clouds of alumina. It could not fall outside the building, because it would melt a path vertically down. "Vertical" means "inside".

BARRY


I am not seeing blue here? and in daylight the smoke visible off such a stream would not be easy to see especially at the distance seen from.

JAZZY

I don't call NIST wrong. That's your business.

BARRY

But debunkers are doing this. NIST itself as well as other agencies are calling the official version into question just to prove it, i am therefore of the opinion that 1. There cannot be any contradictions permissible in a report that has such magnitude whether NIST/FBI OR ANY.
2. If you're going to lump all conspiracy theorists as nutters based on some very wild theories (Which does happen)
 

Ron J

Active Member
That is like showing a image of a bowl of water and saying "is it a sea"?
You reference glowing camp fires no smoke, that is totally misinformation. What one would be better to do is show a fire started in daylight or a real housefire.
The smoke of a campfire will not be noticed once it has started and is burning dry fuels and is well established.
The show of anything that is not molten iron and molten aluminium is misleading.

The simple facts are when aluminium is molten it is silver-It requires to be heated hotter to become orange.
So assume it IS Aluminium-it flows straight from the window (again assuming it is EXACTLY next to the window) It then drops over visibly 3 floors still glowing (that is 36 feet) then the glow disappears. So, it could be that it takes a drop of 36 feet to cool molten Aluminium to silver and thus invisibility to the eye at that distance.

Test and prove that.

I have seen numerous examples of aluminium heated to red or orange state, poured into a cast INCHES away, it cools rapidly to silver appearance.

Objects caught in and burning? that implies that the debris is the bulk of the falling items and entirely within the aluminium not floating ON and creating flames.
But all of these items, extinguish themselves around the same time, since it is observable that falling paper is on fire even as they drop to the ground, and since one can take woods, plastics and other items and drop them and they extinguish at different levels indeed, it is highly unlikely that all the objects would "go out" at the same time. So the truth is this is not debris colouring this metal. It is therefore a simple argument of aluminium or another metal.

So the answer Test it.
You are so very fond of demanding proof and debunking anything not sensible, yet provide campfires and coal fires (things that never glow silver, only orange/yellow)
That is specifically choosing the evidence to fit the result not fitting the result to the evidence.

Since even NIST concluded temperatures of the fires scarcely reached temperatures of a degree to even melt aluminium, we should now turn round and say oh yes they did.

Well they can't deny their own theories just to make their own theories work, then decide that both theories are still correct.

Since the logic says molten iron, the onus is on the other side to prove otherwise.
So, go get a few soda cans, get some coals set it 12 feet off the ground, melt the aluminium to orange heat (recording the temp), and then tip it into a mold. If at 12 feet we see no glow. Then it must have been some other metal. If we do see glowing raise it to 24 feet, repeat. And if by 36 feet the height of 3 floors as we see in the videos. Then it IS aluminium case proved.
Simple science. No need for showing people wood fires to prove metal types. That would be like me showing wine to prove what liquid a frozen cube is.

I look forward to your tests


I have seen a few photos of the orange "sparks" falling out the window. Some quickly had apparently changed to a gray color. Another video, showed orange "sparks" cascading down past lower level floors. By the kitchen molten aluminum pour test, i can see that the aluminum poured out as a silvery color, but in the WTC2 it seemed that some of whatever was dropping out the window, stopped glowing rather quickly, while others apparently continued to glow for a much longer distance.

If it was molten steel, or iron, as you stated logic says, it goes to show that office fires can produce higher heat than the critics or NIST said was possible. The demolition theorists will say that it is proof of thermite, but i didn't see any thermite reaction occurring where those orange "sparks" were falling out the window.
 

Bmead

Member
All i can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU

It is a joy to behold this sort of answer. Thanks, it pleases me that you responded that way. And i hope the other debunkers agree. For the real sceptic but aware person, that answer is more than i could hope for
 

Bmead

Member
I am not so sure since there is clear degrees of separation between the parts there, whereas the towers had a clear stream THEN sparks/ separation
Also i note the blue white colour of flames-Does that not coincide with what Jazzy said, so this is a thermite induced fire?

What time did this tower collapse in ( i am assuming it didn't have a hat truss)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am not so sure since there is clear degrees of separation between the parts there, whereas the towers had a clear stream THEN sparks/ separation
Also i note the blue white colour of flames-Does that not coincide with what Jazzy said, so this is a thermite induced fire?

What time did this tower collapse in ( i am assuming it didn't have a hat truss)

I think the "clear stream" is just the embers being initially close together, and the camera being far away so it can't distinguish them. Consider the resolution of the video.

Less than 2 hours. The collapse was only partial, as only the purely steel framed parts collapsed. The concrete parts did not collapse.
 

Redwood

Active Member
The glowing falling mass is coming from the side opposite the airliner impact. It's reasonable that debris was piled up on that side of the building. It's also the location of a large bank of backup power devices used by Fuji Bank. Could it be from that? (See photo of a power line transformer fire) Actually, it could be almost anything.

Truthers who think it's thermite should expound on their theory. Was this from a thermite charge placed on a perimeter column? If so, why just this one charge in one small area of the building? If others were placed on perimeter columns, shouldn't we see evidence for this elsewhere, especially at the time of the actual collapse?

Or was a thermite charge knocked loose by the impact and somehow survive and ignite later? If thermite were placed on the core columns, how did this putative molten iron run all the way across the floor, through the pile of debris, and out the side of the building, rather than burn straight down through the center of the building? Inquiring minds want to know!
 

Attachments

  • Texas Power Line Fire.JPG
    Texas Power Line Fire.JPG
    219.1 KB · Views: 372

Related Articles

Top