Melting steel?

I saw this video that day and thought I'd share in the hopes that maybe it will dissuade the silly notion that the steel in the World Trade buildings melted from jet fuel.

The steel did not melt..and this video shows this.

My one complaint, and no doubt one for many here will be him not actually showing the temperature of the piece of steel he pulls out of the forge.

No doubt, this little detail will be enough for most of you to dismiss this, fortunately though, or unfortunately if you do dismiss this, you can gauge the temperature of steel by its colour when heated.

Here's a chart for reference:
holocausthistorychannel.files.wordpress.com...

1800 degrees Fahrenheit is what we're looking at here, as that is what he says in the video. Speaking of which, the video!

m.youtube.com...

I'm linking it so you can go watch it in HD.

Flame away!

a reply to: Chadwickus

WTC 7

a reply to: Chadwickus

You ever used an oxy cutter on thin 8mm steel? I have. That's how I know those columns in the WTC didn't melt.

The thing is... the steel beams don't need to melt in order to lose a lot of their strength.

If you look at a stress vs strain chart for carbon steel at elevated temperatures you will see that the tensile strength and ultimate strength plummets over 1500F.

Since part of the building may have been damaged due to the collision with the plane, some of the beams will be put under elevated stress. Then take into account the increase in temp and bad things can happen.



But when it comes to WTC 7... it's anyones guess

a reply to: charolais

All steel behaves differently depending on silicon, boron, vanadium and niobium properties. Especially when under high temp situations.

However...

Back when the WTC was built I'm not sure what steel quality was like.

To add - you can buy the 'same grade' steel from Turkey, China and UK - all will have different properties.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Chadwickus

You ever used an oxy cutter on thin 8mm steel? I have. That's how I know those columns in the WTC didn't melt.

Well, it could be possible that there was some sort of rapid oxidation, like a Oxy fuel torch works. I mean the fires were hot enough, and up there the wind must have been pretty rapid, causing the initial heat source to heat up even more.

a reply to: and14263

CGI planes

originally posted by: charolais
The thing is... the steel beams don't need to melt in order to lose a lot of their strength.

If you look at a stress vs strain chart for carbon steel at elevated temperatures you will see that the tensile strength and ultimate strength plummets over 1500F.

Since part of the building may have been damaged due to the collision with the plane, some of the beams will be put under elevated stress. Then take into account the increase in temp and bad things can happen.

Don't bother. It's a foregone conclusion to everyone that wants it to be, that it was anything but what people saw. People are willing to hear trucks driving past and claim it's explosions, or that parts of the plane mysteriously vanished...

Might as well prove the sun is hot. We all know it's the sky, and at night it turns to ice.

a reply to: strongfp

Fair point indeed. Although I would argue that compressed oxy is more effective to the burn than normal windy air.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: strongfp

Fair point indeed. Although I would argue that compressed oxy is more effective to the burn than normal windy air.

Yes. That is why a oxy fuel torch is designed, it's designed to cut.
But look at how a coke oven works, it's large amounts of air being thrown into a blast furnace, going in one end coming out the other pushing impurities out. The result over time is molten pig iron flowing out the bottom and black smoke billowing out the top. Which ever way the wind was blowing that day, I bet there was a black layer on a lot of peoples windows or houses in the suburbs the days following.
I can also bet if you can find some of the steel that was badly misshapen it would have the same metal structure as that of pig iron.

I thought here is going to be a proper experiment proving the argument wrong but what we clearly have here is a ranting guy who doesnt have an objective view on the specific argument and has no clue how to conduct an experiment properly. If you do such an experiment at least try your best not to fail:

1. His fire is hotter than jet fuel can burn. And if he can tell us how hot it is, why not show it? Maybe it was even hotter.
2. The steel didnt melt.
3. He doesnt say and you dont know how long that beam has been in that fire.
4. The beam in no way represents a beam from the towers.

The argument is: Jet fuel cant melt steel. This experiment shows a furnace fire that is likely a lot hotter than burning jet fuel that weakens an inch-thick beam. A bit disapointing and a missed opportunity. And noone doubts steel beams weakened, how else did it come down? They had to be weakened one way or another... really fast or relatively slow.

Now this is a proper experiment on 911 and use of thermite:



Too bad people immediately conclude this also must have been the way to destroy those towers. It only shows its possible and if anyone tries to tell you differently, theyre flat out lying. Thats what this experiment does show. But stick to physics: a tower cant fall in on itself like that without help. It is for investigators still to find out what did cause it. Truthers shouldnt even be mentioning thermite.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: charolais

All steel behaves differently depending on silicon, boron, vanadium and niobium properties. Especially when under high temp situations.

However...

Back when the WTC was built I'm not sure what steel quality was like.

To add - you can buy the 'same grade' steel from Turkey, China and UK - all will have different properties.

Not really, the elements typically found in 'most' stainless and low alloy steels (such as the ones found in the WTC) are carbon, moly, iron, chromium and nickel. But I guess you're right in stating the composition will affect how the material behaves under pressure (or heat).

The fact is the material does not need to melt for a building to collapse, it just needs to be under enough influence from external forces such as heat for it to behave differently. Essentially the grade of steel affected by said fire is no longer that grade of steel when heated to a certain extent as the composition and microstructure of the steel completely changes. The grade would then be irrelevant. You would be looking at double the heat output of the WTC fires to cause steel to 'melt' however the temperatures found during the fire would be enough exposure to cause the base material to change.

I genuinely don't think even that would cause the buildings to collapse, I'm just voicing my opinion on fire damage and materials.

a reply to: strongfp

I know what you're saying but I don't know if the top of the WTC could match the 1600c operating temp of a Bessemer Converter.

I can accept fires getting hot. But for the steel to reach the same temperature as its flame infested environment there is a massive heat sink the size of the building that must be overcome first before any significant degradation of the steel can take place.

The architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have provided the most reasonable argument for the towers destruction as far as my brain can handle.

Has there ever been any analysis or investigation examining the microstructure of the steel from the beams? That will help show what happened to it (mechanically) during the collision/collapse.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: charolais


I genuinely don't think even that would cause the buildings to collapse, I'm just voicing my opinion on fire damage and materials.

I agree Just explaining what I know from an engineering background.

a reply to: charolais

Good idea. As you probably know already - a steel is much stronger stressed against the grain than with the grain.

That is how 'spurious' metals pass charpy tests. The tester can examin the structure and look for stronger points.

originally posted by: charolais
Has there ever been any analysis or investigation examining the microstructure of the steel from the beams? That will help show what happened to it (mechanically) during the collision/collapse.

I guess the only thing would be to pull the original material certificates (3.1's and subsequent test reports) to validate the steels original properties and perform tests against similar materials to cross reference against the event. I assume the original material certificates would be pulled and analyzed already. No idea where you could find them.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
I saw this video that day and thought I'd share in the hopes that maybe it will dissuade the silly notion that the steel in the World Trade buildings melted from jet fuel.

The steel did not melt..and this video shows this.

My one complaint, and no doubt one for many here will be him not actually showing the temperature of the piece of steel he pulls out of the forge.

No doubt, this little detail will be enough for most of you to dismiss this, fortunately though, or unfortunately if you do dismiss this, you can gauge the temperature of steel by its colour when heated.

Here's a chart for reference:
holocausthistorychannel.files.wordpress.com...

1800 degrees Fahrenheit is what we're looking at here, as that is what he says in the video. Speaking of which, the video!

m.youtube.com...

I'm linking it so you can go watch it in HD.

Flame away!

I'm not seeing the point, who is saying that jet fuel melted the steel?
That there was rivers of molten metal observed at ground Zero however, and for long after, is pretty much confirmed, even though NIST tried to push the notion that there wasn't.

James Perloff has a new post up titled "TRUTH MOVEMENT LOLS: A COLLECTION OF HUMOROUS TRUTHER MEMES & SHORT VIDEOS " jamesperloff.com...

Its a funny collection that we are familiar with but there are a few new ones I had not seen ... This vid is funny