It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Giving this one more go.... molten metal

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
No temperatures sufficient to melt steel existed in the "pile". Temperatures exceeded that necessary to melt aluminum all over the pile.

No positive evidence of molten steel has ever been presented.

Contaminated molten aluminum does not appear "silvery".

No re-solidified "pools of molten steel" have ever been reported or photographed.

The subject was settled years ago: no molten steel.




[edit on 4-5-2010 by jthomas]




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh I am so sorry, I mistyped and put a C instead of an F for the temperatures of the steel. Thank you for correcting me.

But you know, reading the final report of the NIST and in their very fire simulations, the steel reached these temps: 500F-600C (932F-1112F) in about 30 minutes. Some areas of the steel trusses reached temps of 675C (1247F) throughout the simulation. It's not possible that these temps remained until the collapse and burial of the steel trusses or columns? Not possible at all?

And once again you ignore the fact that when steel rusts, it creates heat. Also high temps also helps increase the rate of rusting. So it creates a sort of feedback loop. A large pile of steel or iron rusting can reach temps of 1800F. yes thats right, up to 1800 degree Fahrenheit. It has happened on board iron ore carrying ships. Did you know that? had you ever bothered to read and understand the times I posted you would, or should. But my guess is you didnt and therefore dont know, and dont care. No surprise. In fact, one whole year ago I posted this whole thing for you. And yet you ignored it all with your personal incredulity and/or lack of understanding or knowledge on these issues:
Here it is again, and this time, please try to intelligently discuss why this is not so and how it couldnt have happened at all, instead of your magic handwave away and "show me proof or evidence of this, or else it did not happen" bullcrap that you are specializing in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So here you go once again, and read through them thorougly and try to make an intelligent arguement about how none of this is or was possible in the pile, and be sure to use some facts or figures, or something intelligent. I warn you, your personal incredulity has no right to be here disputing facts. Check it at the door and act like a mature adult. Once again, none of your "Show me evidence or proof of this happening or else it is not possible and therefore did not happen," bullcrap. I know you are better than that bsbray. Explain why its not possible, not because you say so because, you say so.

[edit on 5/4/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
"When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001."

"Trade Center Debris Pile Was a Chemical Factory", Says New Study
September 10, 2003

delta.ucdavis.edu...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No temperatures sufficient to melt steel existed in the "pile". Temperatures exceeded that necessary to melt aluminum all over the pile.


But there is no evidence for a fire could that produce the extreme temperatures necessary for making molten aluminum appear like molten steel. It's very possible there was also molten aluminum there simply since all this heat is definitely proven to have been there one way or another. But it would appear silvery.


Aluminum heated to its melting point and beyond:






Compare to this from WTC2:






Again, you have people posting here that work with metal on a daily basis, that are telling you the same thing.




Contaminated molten aluminum does not appear "silvery".


Contaminated molten aluminum doesn't glow any more brightly than regular molten aluminum. If "organic matter" is mixed like NIST asserted unscientifically and with no references or other explanation whatsoever, then it just looks like something is burning on top of molten aluminum. The whole line of reasoning you are beginning to suggest is out the window. So I'll let you know that up front, before you spew it, because I've heard it many times before.



The subject was settled years ago: no molten steel.




"molten steel running down the channel rails"

"like you're in a foundry"

"like lava"


As I showed above, your excuse that it was all molten aluminum, doesn't work. There is no visual match at all.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Hey I like that link you posted.

I especially like this part here:

In the trade-center air samples, Cahill identified four classes of particles that have been named by the EPA as likely to harm human health:

Fine and very fine transition metals, which interfere with lung chemistry.
Acids, in this case sulfuric acid, which attack cilia and lung cells directly.
Very fine, un-dissolvable (insoluble) particles, in this case glass, which travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart.
High-temperature organic matter, many components of which are known to be carcinogens.


Sulfuric acid? Now wait, where exactly did I see this before? Oh yeah! that time when I posting about how when gypsum breaks down in heat and moisture, it releases Sulfur Dioxide. When sulfur dioxide reacts with water it creates sulfuric acid. Well looky here! Another piece of the puzzle fits right where I thought it would. Large amounts of sulfuric acid was being released from the debris pile. How can that be?
Was there a tank of sulfuric acid secretly buried in the debris to kill the workers? Or was it somehow added into the magic thermite mix?
Or did it form in the method I was talking about before? Hmmmm what do you think jthomas?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh I am so sorry, I mistyped and put a C instead of an F for the temperatures of the steel. Thank you for correcting me.

But you know, reading the final report of the NIST and in their very fire simulations, the steel reached these temps: 500F-600C (932F-1112F) in about 30 minutes. Some areas of the steel trusses reached temps of 675C (1247F) throughout the simulation. It's not possible that these temps remained until the collapse and burial of the steel trusses or columns? Not possible at all?


Let me remind you that thermal imagery show hot spots on the surface of the debris pile (which the part constantly exposed to cool air above) was hotter than those temperatures, 5 days later. There were spots above 700 C, on the surface of the pile, 5 days after 9/11. The firefighters, clean-up workers, and others said the molten steel was running below the surface within the pile.

What's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Gen?


And once again you ignore the fact that when steel rusts, it creates heat.


Creates enough heat to generate 700 C hot spots on the surface of the debris pile? About +100C of difference, all from rusting?

Your body cells emit photons of light, too, but is it significant? No. Neither is the amount of heat produced by rusting.


Also high temps also helps increase the rate of rusting. So it creates a sort of feedback loop.


My major is electronics engineering, I know all about feedback loops. You're not taking into account the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 5 days later, exposed to cool air the whole time, thousands of gallons of cold water being dumped. And you're saying instead of cooling off like you'd expect, the pile has remained the same temperature because rusting is turning the pile into a powerhouse of heat energy production. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.


A large pile of steel or iron rusting can reach temps of 1800F. yes thats right, up to 1800 degree Fahrenheit. It has happened on board iron ore carrying ships. Did you know that?


I read it before. Temperature and heat are two different things, and you have nothing at all to support your speculation the debris piles were in any special position to be either blast-furnaces or have immensely accelerated rusting on an unprecedentedly massive scale. We were just talking about reduced oxygen conditions, and there being no fires until the hot steel was exposed to oxygen from above. Rusting is caused by oxidation.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Once again, you are just looking and taking apart each part of the puzzle without considering that its all together ad working together.

You forget that there were numerous, numerous reactions inside the pile, all combining together, or reacting off each other, etc. Instead of just focusing on just one, take it all as a whole system that was working together to create the "blast furnace" enviornment you say is not possible when each reaction is taken by itself. No one reaction can be responsible for it all, and I keep trying to explain it to you that there were many working together, and yes even some that create heat. A simple one is combining a strong acid with a strong base. What happens? It creates heat. But that is just an example.

The oxidation was not just working alone. The steel beams were heated initially by the fires of the WTC. Now you should know that heat accelerates oxidation of steel. Also, oxidation of a large amount of steel will create heat as well. And yes, as I have posted about the iron ore ship fire hazard, the temperature can rise to very high temps. Also pouring water onto hot steel also splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen is flammable, and oxygen is ready for use. Also this was not "exposed" to the cold air for five days, this is all BURIED deep in the pile, cooking and baking. Oxygen can also come from the sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide. Doh! Sulfur dioxide is a reducing AND AN OXIDIZING agent! And you know what an oxidizing agent is right?:
www.bookrags.com...

Sulfur dioxide (SUL-fur dye-OK-side) is a colorless gas with a sharp, harsh odor similar to that of a burning match. It can act as both an oxidizing agent and a reducing agent. An oxidizing agent is a substance that provides oxygen to other substances or provides electrons to them. A reducing agent removes oxygen from other substances or removes electrons from them. Sulfur dioxide dissolves readily in water, forming sulfurous acid (H2SO3), which is readily converted to sulfuric acid (H2SO4).


Woops! And there was plenty of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid at the WTC pile. Hmm now that is a probable source of oxygen that would be most reactive to the rusting steel, wouldnt you say? Also sulfuric acid reactions with iron creates hydrogen. There are so many reactions that are happening together in there, they can all inter-feed each other.

And here you are talking down to me, thinking that your major in electronics engineering makes you better at understanding the second law of thermodynamics. But bsbray, if that is what you say, then how will thermite in the pile fit? After all, once the thermite reaction is complete, the resulting molten steel cools and solidifies. Refresh my memory, at what temperature does steel melt? (not including sulfidation here). Now, arent you suppose to keep that temperature (>2500F) to keep the molten pool molten? So explain, since you didnt before, how can steel remain molten (be it from the thermite reaction or melted at time of the thermite cut) in a pool, at a temperature that is well below the melting point of steel, without any steady input of heat to keep it molten? And you say I dont know what I am talking about?


And over here is a great source of info about the probably chemical reactions that were occuring in the pile:Iron Burns!



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If thermite had done it, why didn't the hot spots remain where they were and slowly cool. Were the Retilians moving the hot steel underground and warming it up?
No wonder you are afraid to propose testable theories. You don't understand the technical side of things despite your claims.

Look at the data and try again.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Pteridine, can you please check to see if anything of what I have posted earlier makes sense, or is plausible? Or if anything is not possible, it would be most helpful!



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by jthomas
 


Hey I like that link you posted.

I especially like this part here:

In the trade-center air samples, Cahill identified four classes of particles that have been named by the EPA as likely to harm human health:

Fine and very fine transition metals, which interfere with lung chemistry.
Acids, in this case sulfuric acid, which attack cilia and lung cells directly.
Very fine, un-dissolvable (insoluble) particles, in this case glass, which travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart.
High-temperature organic matter, many components of which are known to be carcinogens.


Sulfuric acid? Now wait, where exactly did I see this before? Oh yeah! that time when I posting about how when gypsum breaks down in heat and moisture, it releases Sulfur Dioxide. When sulfur dioxide reacts with water it creates sulfuric acid. Well looky here! Another piece of the puzzle fits right where I thought it would. Large amounts of sulfuric acid was being released from the debris pile. How can that be?
Was there a tank of sulfuric acid secretly buried in the debris to kill the workers? Or was it somehow added into the magic thermite mix?
Or did it form in the method I was talking about before? Hmmmm what do you think jthomas?


Well..... you know.... the EPA wouldn't identify sulfuric acid as harmful, would they? You know.... like the EPA was.... you know... capable of.... like... you know .... doing anything under our... you know... noses.... yeah.... that's it... they coulda done... like, you know... it.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Apparently, I have to post this all over again:

From: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In reply to _BoneZ_:


Originally posted by jthomas
Part 2 of 2:


Now, you say there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum. Let's take a look at what molten aluminum looks like:





Notice that time, after time, after time again, aluminum is silver when it is melted. Not a single, solitary image shows silvery liquid and not a single, solitary person says that they saw silvery liquid flowing anywhere. Every single witness said red, orange, yellow hot steel flowing like lava. Lava is not silver. Are we clear now that there is zero proof of molten aluminum and all proof of molten steel?


No, it is precisely the opposite and here's why.

Pure aluminum at its melting point of 1,221 degrees Fahrenheit is indeed silvery as you show above. As temperatures go up, molten aluminum will start glowing and look like molten steel and other molten metals. The same is true when molten aluminum is contaminated with impurities. Here are photos that demonstrate it:


www.basicaluminum.com...




Recycling aluminum. A worker stirs a natural gas-powered furnace of molten aluminum at Crestwood Metal in Holbrook, N.Y. Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006. The company recycles 35 million pounds of aluminum yearly and sells it to car manufacturers and aluminum companies. Photo credit: Ed Betz, AP
www.talkingproud.us...





Molten aluminum is poured into a cast at United Company Rusal's Krasnoyarsk aluminum smelter in Russia.
online.wsj.com...



Construction steel's melting point is 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, almost 1,400 degrees higher than that of aluminum. Steel goes through the same progression of colors as it approaches its melting point.

NO temperatures were reported as high as 2,600 degrees. Temperatures ranging from 1,200 degrees to 2,000 degrees were reported, above the melting point of aluminum. There were around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2 in the burning pile at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum.

- Should streams of molten aluminum NOT be present?

- How would witnesses know the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel if both look the same when molten aluminum is running through debris and picking up impurities and/or are at the much higher temperatures than it's melting point when it looks silvery?

- Is it not reasonable for people to think it's steel not knowing or having any reason to think that the cladding was made of aluminum?


Originally posted by jthomas
3. Mark Loizeaux: "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."

This is the only point of this discussion that you've actually been correct on. Yes, even though Mark said that he personally did not see the molten steel himself, in an email reply from Mark to "honway" dated 12/13/2003,...


Actually, it was an e-mail to Garry Bryan on 26 Sep. 2002.

You forgot the first two sentences:

"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was
reported to me by contractors we had been working with."




Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators. I’m not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-667-XXXX
www.controlled-demolition.com


Here's one of the very images that Mark says exists of molten steel in the bucket of an excavation machine:






"Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement."

www.serendipity.li...



I think you're about ready to concede and admit there was molten steel like the images show and numerous dozens of professionals saw with their own eyes. And as such, NIST is either blatantly lying or grossly incompetent.


Quite the opposite. I believe you are now ready to admit I have no reason to believe there was molten steel.I think you would now understand why there is no evidence of molten steel/ and why there is no reason to accept any claim there was. Let's review:

- A college student ("Jon") made a video of John Gross and claimed Gross "lied". The video shows quite clearly that John Gross of NIST addressed a specific claim that eyewitnesses saw "huge pools of molten steel under the towers." The college student then switches to various claims none of which show anyone or any video showing "pools of molten steel" and misrepresents the specific claim Gross was addressing. John Gross is vindicated in that NO evidence, NO testimony, NO video, and NO temperatures sufficient to melt steel were demonstrated in that deceptive video nor have ever been demonstrated since.

- No temperatures reaching the required 2,600 degree F. to melt steel have been reported or demonstrated.

- Temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum existed in the pile for a long time.

- There was around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2. It would be expected that there would be molten aluminum but not molten steel at the reported temperatures in the pile.

- Molten aluminum at high temperatures and/or contaminated with impurities, as would be expected running through the debris in the pile, glows and looks like any other molten metal. It would not be readily apparent that it was molten aluminum and not molten steel. (This is also true about the metal dripping from WTC 2 before it collapsed. See:
www.debunking911.com...)

- It would not be unexpected for people to assume it was molten steel since aluminum is not associated with building construction and people would not have any reason to assume the cladding was aluminum. Many just said they saw molten metal.

This all points to the continuing reluctance of 9/11 Truthers to actually think critically about what they accept automatically as true. You don't bother to research it. Confirmation bias rules the day and you can be taken advantage of by those who you think are telling you the truth. We skeptics wonder when you claim "you are just asking questions" when you don't bother to ask any questions about the claims you believe.

If you cannot convince we skeptical laymen, how do you possibly think you will actually convince anyone competent in the relevant fields of the need for a new investigation?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Remember you are the one ignoring clean-up workers and scientists who documented that the fires did not start until the already-hot steel was exposed to air.

There was no oxygen flow through that pile. This is what even they are telling you.





Well gee, they seem to think that there's underground fires.

Also note in the third quote down, that there was talk of injecting nitrogen underground to put out the fires, but was rejected cuz the piles were too porous. Sounds like they believe there was air getting into the piles......



Battalion Chief Brian Dixon confirmed later Wednesday that the main bodies of fire have been extinguished, although he said small pockets or "hot spots" are still being discovered."The FDNY has made great progress in putting out the fires at the World Trade Center," Dixon said.

For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."

The use of FEF foam began on 28 September, with thousands of gallons being pumped into the rubble. One target was the large Freon tanks that had served the WTC air-conditioning system and might have exploded.Blaich told New Scientist: "The foam also extinguished the fires in World Trade Center No 7, the wreckage of a 40-story office tower."Another strategy that can be used to put out difficult fires is pumping an enclosed area full of the inert gas nitrogen, starving the fire of oxygen. But Ground Zero is thought to be too large and porous for this to be effective.

Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history.Deputy Chief Charles Blaich of the New York City Fire Department would not predict when the last fire might be extinguished.


In his reporting for "American Ground," Langewiesche explored the shifting debris with construction workers and engineers, documenting the crises and questions as they arose. He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD.

"When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire," said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. "Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris."

"It is tedious work, hour after hour operating a line," said Tom Ferreri, 32, a fireighter from Brooklyn who has worn his respirator so much that a scar has formed at the top of his nose. "It is not like any other fire I have ever faced."

"You keep hitting it again and again with water," Mr. Maldonado said, his respirator momentarily pulled from his face, as he stood in the scorched landscape that once was the World Trade Center plaza. "But the fire won't give up. It is just a constant fight."

"There's a lot of fire very, very deep," Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen said. "But we know we will not be able to put that fire out until we remove the debris."



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, you are just looking and taking apart each part of the puzzle without considering that its all together ad working together.


In other words I shouldn't analyze the details of your fairy tail, because not analyzing the details, your fairy tale makes sense to you.

So sorry for drawing attention to facts that aren't convenient for you.


So is all the unexplained heat from a chemical soup, steel rusting at an insane rate and amount to keep the debris pile at 700C for 5 days straight even with water being poured continuously, or a blast-furnace being created despite there being no oxygen flow?

Or you can just admit there are unanswered questions about the molten steel and yes, there is evidence of molten steel. Photographs and videos (evidence of it existing before the collapses), and scores of testimonies to its existence immediately afterward (not developing over weeks) in the rubble pile.

Make up your mind on one bad excuse or another. Flopping around back and forth between them, you might as well admit what I already know, that you have no idea and you're just making up nonsense without any realistic conception of what the data shows.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If thermite had done it, why didn't the hot spots remain where they were and slowly cool.


I never said thermite did it, and I don't believe it did. I said your excuses are just guesses at best and you don't know what caused it, either. So you should try again, this time without putting words in my mouth.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I already explained, and people who work with these metals on a daily basis have already explained to you, that the temperatures and other conditions required for molten aluminum to appear like molten steel would not have been present (a) from hydrocarbon fires, (b) in daylight lighting conditions, and (c) exposed to cool atmospheric air.

The pictures you show are all in foundries where the temperatures are very high (the aluminum itself being much hotter than what office fires could offer) and the lighting conditions are dim. The lighting is important because the metal is glowing because it's giving off its own photons. In daylight conditions it has to compete with photons from the sun and doesn't appear as bright by contrast, unless it's not molten aluminum but molten steel, which gives off more light as can be seen in these images:






Notice these are in daylight condition, appear very bright yellow/orange, even as they fall through the open air.

Here is molten aluminum being poured through the air:




And again, if you want it to be at a temperature where it will glow like molten steel, you are going to need on the order of the same temperatures and heat as molten steel itself, not just 700C or right at the melting point of aluminum. Or it will look just as you see above: silvery.

It is completely beyond argument that the material in the photographs of WTC2 looks more like molten iron or steel than it does aluminum. The best argument you can possibly make is that it is either one or the other, and for the reasons I explained above, either metal with the appearance shown is just as incriminating because either one requires heat above and beyond office fires.

You have nothing to debunk the fact that the molten material coming out of WTC2 before it even collapsed appears exactly like molten steel.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You also said "Even though I just provided two separate and direct pieces of evidence that prove the "underground fire" theory wrong, two pieces of evidence that there was no oxygen to supply fire heating this steel, you ignore that because you say there is no better theory."
Joey Canoli just showed you that, once again, you are wrong. Underground fires were the source of heat at the WTC. When exposed to air, smoldering rubble burst into flame.
There is no better theory and no way to deny underground fires.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The fact that molten aluminum can look like molten steel is, after all, the point.



Caption of the full photo: "The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum."


Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

www.debunking911.com...


Molten steel is dismissed. It can never be used as evidence for any purpose, particularly in any purported attempt to get a new investigation.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Joey Canoli just showed you that, once again, you are wrong. Underground fires were the source of heat at the WTC. When exposed to air, smoldering rubble burst into flame.
There is no better theory and no way to deny underground fires.


What is an "underground fire" without flame? Sounds like some part of the reaction is missing, huh? Like the oxygen, and the whole oxidation thing. In other words no fire.

There is no way to deny the underground fires? What do you think I'm doing right now? You have yet to debunk the firefighters, clean-up workers and geologists who said there was molten steel running at Ground Zero and that fire did not exist until the already-heated material was exposed to air. All you are doing is telling me I'm wrong over and over without touching the reasons YOU are wrong that I am giving you. An elementary schooler could do as much.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Molten aluminum can't look like molten steel at all in the circumstances you are trying to suggest.

No, that is not molten aluminum running from the side of WTC2.

If it was, it would have to be the same temperature as molten steel, and that is the whole problem: fire alone cannot heat metals to those temperatures in the open atmosphere.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."




top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join