No molten steel among rubble of WTC afterall?

Molten steel

As a sceptic in the 9.11 insider theory, I had to deal with people who wanted me to explain how steel (melts at 1450 degree Celsius) could melt in a jetfuel fire (+ 700 degree Celsius). I have pointed out that under the right conditions a fire can get A LOT hotter than people think.

I still stand by those arguments, but in looking up additional information I encountered something I hadn't expected. It was never proven there was any molten steel to begin with. 911myths.com...

1)some people who claimed to have seen molten metal got malquoted. Journalists simply presumed it was molten steel.

2)all people who claimed to have seen molten steel do not refer to any scientific analysis. Basically it was looked at and concluded to be molten steel, but never proven to be steel.

In fact, there aren't any pictures I could find of liquid metal at all, only some red hot metal. And even then there was no mentioning of any chemical analysis performed.

So all this trouble for molten steel, even though the molten patches could have been another metal all together? What other metals where there?


Aluminum melts at 475-645 degree Celsius, depending on the alloy. www.alu-info.dk...

It was present in the buildings in the form of window frames, outer column platings, spants, facades, and other items. Not to forget: the planes contained at least 50 tons of aluminum.

Building 7 would ofcourse not been hit directly by a full plane but could still have been hit by flying pieces of it, and remember that molten metal got reported as being rare and sporadic.

Interestingly, one witness (Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition) reports that the molten metal was found at the "bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels". This is relevant as elevators often contain aluminum to keep the weight down.

If any of you have a link to an actual chemical analysis of the molten metal found which shows it to be steel I will ofcourse totally admit I'm wrong, but in the mean time I think there is one mystery less.





[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody]

all i would say is like i always say, 911 stuff has been created by the government so that the general public will believe there government is no good. they want the people to believe all this stuff.

you can bet your life people in the government are playing one of there famous psyops operations with regard to this 911 stuff, bush and his people must love how the people just eat it up.

go and listen to william cooper and he will tell you how the government want the public to believe the your government is rubbish so in years to come you will accept the north american state and than the one world government easier.

with regard to 911, just believe what came out first and what you seen with your eyes. do not go near the pentagon stuff, and remember flight 93 was shot down.

Apparently I am neither first or alone in believing it was aluminum.

"Just prior to the collapse, a stream of molten material--possibly aluminum from the airliner--was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner at approximately this level. This is of particular interest because, although the building collapse appears to have initiated at this floor level, the initiation seems to have occurred at the southeast rather than the northeast corner."
911research.wtc7.net...



[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by reallynobody


~~> Molten steel !


Building 7 would ofcourse not been hit directly by a full plane but could still have been hit by flying pieces of it, and remember that molten metal got reported as being rare and sporadic.

wouldn't it be possible that the covert demo team which made quick work
of WTC #7....just went ahead and tossed a couple or few of those
phosphorus grenades into the rubble piles of WTC 1&2,,,
after all, there was a lot of confusion during that first 24 hours...

that would fit quite well with the 'rumored' evidence of rare and sporatic
pools of molten metal being found...
the purpose being to confuse and distract the future investigations and flimsy
forensic evidence that was never obtained (by intended design)

to the author:

thats not the point. The point is the color in which the molten metal was. It was a lemon color, indicating a temperature hotter then what the jet fuel fire can reach. It is true that its not confirmed to be aluminum or steel, but what difference does it make right now? The color determines what area of heat it is at. The color of pictures like This One show the color is created by temperatures of 1000 degrees celsuis.

now check this out:

www.house.gov...

Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One
sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
8.2.8.1 Observations and Findings
a. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation
and sulfidation.
b. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the
formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

well not only does this government page say it was steel but that its lies and says 1000°C was enough to melt the steel.
a lie? well according to this government page, yea.

www.eh.doe.gov...

Ordinary structural steel has a melting point of 1,430 degrees C (2,606 degrees F).

Interesting. One government page says the WTC structural steel liquifies (melts) at 1800 degrees, yet this government page says it melts at 2,600 degrees. something sounds off doesn't it?

(NOTE: To make sure you know that the gov was talking about structural steel when they said 1800 degrees melted the steel,

www.nist.gov...

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Project #3: Analysis of Structural Steel

you know what though its funny, because the government cant even make up its mind. One government page they say its liquefied, the next one it says it didn't. Interesting right?)

[edit on 3-7-2006 by grimreaper797]

To the author--So's I don't have to quote.

The accuracy of matching color to tempurature can not be done via a photograph.

In the first pic you posted everything has an unnatural color cast. If you were actually there at the time I doubt that things would have looked like the pic posted. This may be for several reasons. The most appearent one is that photographers methods of documenting things in pictures use whatever is necessary to best capture the image in detail or to lend a creative feel to the image. This is done by a number of methods. Various lens filters are often used to produce either a desired effect or to enhance detail by limiting certain wavelenghts or accentuating others. This always results in a slight shift of color balance.
To my eyes it looks like there is a slight green cast to the image.

I think I'm accurate in assuming that matching color to temperature can not be done via a picture.


I think that the comments you pointed out about the temperature of melting steel being different are misunderstood.


eu·tec·tic Pronunciation (y-tktk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or formed at the lowest possible temperature of solidification for any mixture of specified constituents. Used especially of an alloy whose melting point is lower than that of any other alloy composed of the same constituents in different proportions.


[edit on 3-7-2006 by Vushta]

Interestingly, one witness (Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition) reports that the molten metal was found at the "bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels". This is relevant as elevators often contain aluminum to keep the weight down.

In a follow up interview Loieaux states that he was just repeating what was told to him and that HE never actuall saw any molten steel.

Ok vushta then how the hell do we do it if not by camera? The people that did see it retracted their statements when it was already over. If not by picture then what evidence is reliable?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Ok vushta then how the hell do we do it if not by camera? CIf not by picture then what evidence is reliable?

I didn't say it can't be done by ANY camera--just not any old camera.

I'm guessing that it can be done with specialized cameras formatted for the purpose and the results interpreted by people with the expertise to do so.

The people? didn't retract anything. They simply clarified their statements. What makes you say "retracted"? Mark L.-- DIDN'T see it in the first place.




[edit on 3-7-2006 by Vushta]

they retracted it because they said one thing, then later after everything was over they "clarrified it" even though they were now acting out of memory rather then reporting right from the site, or right after the sight.

Instead of recalling it earlier that day of week, they were recalling it from 2 or 3 months ago when they "clarrified it". They made a statement then retracted it after the fact of when they saw it. People tend to fabricate more and more as time goes on to fit the story they like best. No body wants to believe it wasn't the official story, hell even I don't want to believe the government was at all involved in 9/11. Now if I tried to recall exactly what I saw, especially if it was a detail I didn't think was that big a deal, the more time between the event and when I am reporting it will become increasingly fuzzy and change.

We rarely remember things for how they actually happened, especially the more time that is distanced between the event. I believe that memory was a factor that is playing against the facts, not for them. Really, I doubt that while walking around a sight two months later you would remember if it was red or orange or yellow, just that it was hot. Yet the importance of this fact NOW is high, while then it wasn't.

On that day it wasn't a question of who did it, nor were people taking down notes of what color the melted material was.


I think it is safe to say memory is alot LESS reliable then any photograph whether it be from an old camera or new. What difference does it make anyway? The fact the air quality was poor would only dim the lighting making it look LESS hot then it actually is. THAT means that it would be more then 1000 degrees celsius if the picture quality is being effected. The air quality is darkening the picture, so the color would be darkened as well, making it look less hot then it is, not more.

But you're just making that up.

as could the "clarification" could be made up. memory is known to be twisted. Its a matter of psychology. Peoples brains actually fill in the blanks when they don't remember all the information. Sometime they will remember things that weren't true because they didn't remember it all and the left half of the brain filled in the blanks.

The imagination isn't just something you control. Your brain tends to fill in the blanks. So if a guy over time tries to recall something, the less he remembers the less accurate it will be. Also reinforcement can change a persons memory over time. If over the course of say a year everyday I told you that the fireworks from the last fourth of july were mostly red you may disagree especially if you were there and saw mostly all were green. A year later if a group of people kept telling you they were red, you would most likely believe them.

Now a picture doesn't change over time. A picture is always the same (so long as nobody physically messes with it or modifies the picture via PC. That picture isn't going to change on its own. Memory simply isnt as reliable as a picture. Maybe you can use the BS arguement that some guy "clarified" himself some time later and remembered something different then what he said, but I will stick to pictures and videos.

Now maybe I don't trust memories on 9/11 people because of the fact if you interviews the people at the pentagon you would get about just as many people saying it was an airliner as people said it was a missle. They simply can't remember. Does that mean there was a missle and an airplane both hitting the pentagon? No it just means peoples memories are rarely a sign of proof.

couple of points - Alumininium is a poor emitter, even when molten it emits only enough light to be barely glowing in the DARK

Ive watched the video and the stuff dripping out of the tower is emitting to much light to be aluminium - it could be steal (if the plane were loaded with thermaite/thermate incendiary

But then again it might be JET FUEL

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The point is the color in which the molten metal was. It was a lemon color, indicating a temperature hotter then what the jet fuel fire can reach.

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
couple of points - Alumininium is a poor emitter, even when molten it emits only enough light to be barely glowing in the DARK

Yep. And to the posting of the definition of eutectic, that has absolutely nothing to do with the glowing. Melting and glowing are two different things, and don't necessarily correlate. Glowing occurs when a material begins emitting its own photons because of extreme heating. You can melt aluminum at 660 C and this won't occur; the aluminum will stay silvery.

Also, there is video of molten metal pouring out of the corner of WTC2 before it collapsed. This is in broad daylight, and guess what color it still was?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
to the author:

thats not the point. The point is the color in which the molten metal was. It was a lemon color, indicating a temperature hotter then what the jet fuel fire can reach.

Isn't it the metal that determines the temperature required for melting? Wouldn't metal with a lower meltingpoint glow quicker than metal with a higher meltingpoint?

It is true that its not confirmed to be aluminum or steel, but what difference does it make right now? The color determines what area of heat it is at. The color of pictures like This One show the color is created by temperatures of 1000 degrees celsuis.

Each metal melts, vaporizes or starts to glow at a specific temperature. Some metals glow at 1000 degree Celsius and others do not. A paperclip starts to glow when you hold it above a candleflame, but Platinum wouldn't glow even at 1000 degrees Celsius.

now check this out:

www.house.gov...

Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One
sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
8.2.8.1 Observations and Findings
a. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation
and sulfidation.
b. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the
formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

I didn't knew about that. I will read it further.

www.eh.doe.gov...

Ordinary structural steel has a melting point of 1,430 degrees C (2,606 degrees F).

Interesting. One government page says the WTC structural steel liquifies (melts) at 1800 degrees, yet this government page says it melts at 2,600 degrees. something sounds off doesn't it?

I would think they say that under highly corrosive conditions 1800 is sufficient to melt steel. Else 2600 is sufficient.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yep. And to the posting of the definition of eutectic, that has absolutely nothing to do with the glowing. Melting and glowing are two different things, and don't necessarily correlate. Glowing occurs when a material begins emitting its own photons because of extreme heating. You can melt aluminum at 660 C and this won't occur; the aluminum will stay silvery.

Also, there is video of molten metal pouring out of the corner of WTC2 before it collapsed. This is in broad daylight, and guess what color it still was?

So even if it was aluminum the temperature would have had to reach higher than 660 C otherwize it wouldnt glow; ok. I already believed the temperature would be able to reach far higher temperatures than 700 C without any ´help´.

An article in the Journal of Metallurgy discussed microstructural changes that resulted in the erosion of a piece of a steel beam collected from 7 WTC:
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a 'blacksmith's weld' in a hand forge.

en.wikipedia.org...


But molten steel would turn almost black when it solidifies again after cooling, yet I don't see that happening in the pictures. Do you? Haven't even heard anyone mentioning it.

And at a temperature where even steel would begin to melt, wouldn't you expect a whole lot more molten metal instead of sporadic molten spots?

[edit on 4-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
to the author:

thats not the point. The point is the color in which the molten metal was. It was a lemon color, indicating a temperature hotter then what the jet fuel fire can reach. It is true that its not confirmed to be aluminum or steel, but what difference does it make right now?

Aluminum glows yellow greenish and steel glows red-yellow at different temperatures. Also this website makes a good point: www.geocities.com...

It states that there wasn't just pure steel or aluminum. There where many other metals and chemicals which could change the color with which a metal glows. Fireworks basically depends on color specific oxidation, a puddle of molten aluminum could have gotten other substances mixed in and glow with a different color.




[edit on 4-7-2006 by reallynobody]