Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by Stewie


Except there are a lot of people who understand and decry the distorting effect of the MSM and the way governments and capitalist power structures present a certain view of the world, and who also think that "Truthers" - especially those who hold certain views about 9/11 - are fools who are just making real discoveries (the difficult, boring ones) harder.

reply to post by airspoon

Although I was replying to your comment, it was aimed to certain others here. It was not my intention to school you, as I have too much respect for you to do that.
I believe there have been multiple calls for a new investigation by various "truther" groups, to no avail. I don't expect we will ever get one. The mob doesn't investigate itself.
I have put the pieces together long ago, as I suspect you have, and to get justice we would have to do what the commoners in France did in 1789. Storm the Bastille!

reply to post by -PLB-

Thanks for your reply _PLB_.

Originally posted by _PLB_
Then you say we should not examine if this is a valid scenario? Why not? I assume you are saying we should accept it by default?

No, what I am "saying" is that we can "examine" (or speculate in this case) all we want yet this does not lead to any real conclusion. I know Thermite cuts through steel very well and it is used in cutting and welding of steel during construction and demolition of steel framed projects.

Was Thermite used to help cause the collapse of the three WTC towers? I don't know. The only way we can answer this question is to look for any such evidence (physical evidence btw). Speculating at this point does nothing for us as is evident in debates like these here.

But if it turns out that no type of material that can be used for controlled demolition can produce pools of molten steel, then we can remove it from the list of possible causes for the molten steel.

I don't know if this is true or not but the problem here is that nobody has a good explanation for this molten material, CD or not. We can not even agree on what type of material this was. This is because we do not have enough information.
Remember that this was the biggest crime committed in America on a civilian population! There should have been a complete investigation! We went to war over this issue yet we don't have enough evidence to charge anybody with? This here is my problem and it is a Big One.

We are left with a couple of people that claim an unknown material with mysterious properties that is not know to the public to exist must have been used. And that is circular reasoning.

I totally agree with you yet both sides of the CD argument are guilty of participating in circular reasoning which was my original point, I'm glad you picked up on that. It takes two to argue circular or otherwise.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Devino
Either way there remain questions as to what this molten material was and what caused it to become so hot. How does the NIST report address these questions?

Here is the NIST response to question 7a which is sort of the topic of this thread:
wtc.nist.gov...

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

Yes, this is my point exactly. NIST does not address the observation and claims of molten material before and after collapse. Thank you for the link.

They don't address the fact that people are seeing molten lead or aluminum and claiming it's molten steel,

This is far from fact! The fact is that molten material was seen yet it remains to be proven what this material was. We can speculate that this was lead, iron or aluminum but this is not a fact.

1. It's not molten steel, it's not the right color for that.

I want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing here because I see molten material falling out of the south tower that is the same color as molten steel.
Here is my comparison back from page 16.

Molten steel.

Molten material from south tower.

The colors of the molten material in those videos look the same to me. Perhaps one could argue that the material from the south tower does look more yellow then the molten iron in the first video. It does, however, have the same color as molten iron in a Thermite reaction.

Google Video Link

Since office fires can get to 1800 degrees F, the color of lead at that temperature could be exactly what we see pouring out of the building. While I can't be sure it's lead, I can be pretty sure it's not steel, see the temperature chart in the prior post. Steel isn't molten at those colors or temperatures.

I think you're missing my point, when any of these three metals melt they become liquid which will flow like liquid and the color of each I showed comparisons of. I don't see any reason why this liquid material would remain inside of the fires after they have melted. When iron melts it is the same color as what we see in the south tower. No need to hang around and get hotter, it can naturally flow like liquid towards the lowest point. Apparently iron becomes red, orange and yellow hot then melts. What we see is yellow hot molten material which has the same characteristics as molten iron. Even more interesting is that it looks very much like a Thermite reaction.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by slugger9787

 

Hot, but not hot enough to be called molten, which is the claim of this thread, right?

There shouldn't be any debate about fires getting hot enough to make steel hot.

The claim was that steel was molten which requires a higher temperature than just getting the steel "hot".

The one image you linked could be argued to not be molten steal, I agree with that. But what about the testimonies from the eyewitnesses? This picture may or may not show evidence of molten steel but the firemen and iron workers claim to have seen molten material in the debris pile. These claims need to be addressed and were ignored!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Reviewing this thread and others like it, I can find little evidence that conclusively points to molten steel. Some people who were there say they saw molten steel, but it's not at all clear that they have the expertise to differentiate it from some other type of liquified metal.

Is there anything besides hearsay that suggests that there was indeed molten steel at ground zero?

I would like to say that there is evidence proving either way on this issue. What we are left with are nothing but questions and this is not good enough given the circumstances. The NIST report fails on this level big time!

reply to post by airspoon

I think that the larger picture of the movement, is simply Americans and citizens of the planet who want a real and independent investigation into what had happened and what is happening.

Exactly.
This is not a problem for New York to deal with alone nor is it simply an American problem or issue. This is an attack against the freedom and justice of the entire planet, we are all apart of this issue as it will effect everyone. I believe that we all were attacked on 9/11 and the US government owes it to the world to find the truth as to what happened and who is to blame. If they will not investigate this properly then someone else needs to.

I hate to have to say this again, but it seems obvious that the material coming from the towers is molten aluminum. Watch these videos:

This one proves that aluminum can become that color:


This one shows a somewhat stabilized view of the molten material coming from the towers. Pay attention to what happens to the globules as they fall. Do you notice that they become silvery in appearance? Does this happen with molten iron/steel? Aluminum cools rapidly, and would explain the shift from red to silver so quickly:


Also, thermite reactions are very noisy and produce a lot of smoke and sparks quickly as they burn out. I have yet to see a slow-burning thermite reaction that takes place over an hour after initial onset of burning.

reply to post by Varemia

I hate to have to say this again, but it seems obvious that the material coming from the towers is molten aluminum.

Could be, but that doesn't explain the alleged pools of molten metal. So, even if that was aluminum pooring out in the video, that certainly doesn't debunk the claim that there was molten metal in the pile.

Also, thermite reactions are very noisy and produce a lot of smoke and sparks quickly as they burn out.

That's not entirely true. For Thermate and other conventional thermitic materials, yes there is a lot of smoke and some noise, though not nearly enough noise to where people on the ground would say, "hey, something isn't right". It just sounds like a water hose or a loud static TV. The smoke also may not have garnered much attention, since the building itself was heavily smoking.

However, what many people believe, including myself, is that conventional thermitic materials, such as Thermate, were not used. I believe that if thermitic materials were used, it was of the advanced engineered type and maybe as a whole other application. This could make the symptoms of the thermitic reaction appear different to what they would be with the more conventional Thermate.

For instance, the thermitic materials could have been engineered into and/or with explosives, in which case the noise signature and possibly even the smoke signature would greatly differ from Thermate, as would the reaction itself. We do know that several research labs, through DARPA funding, have been engineering thermitic materials for a whole host applications and they can get the materials to behave in a whole host of different ways for various applications, most of which (if not all) are weaponized applications.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Yes, my post wasn't made to debunk the molten material in the debris after the fact. I was just trying to refute the argument about molten iron leaking from the towers. I see it used a lot in conjunction with explaining the material in the debris.

As others have posted, underground fires can be very intense, and the steel is meant to hold its (relative) solidity for about 6 hours under extreme temperatures. Since the molten material wasn't reported until weeks after the collapse, it is reasonable to guess that underground fires contributed, since no controlled substance I know of burns that long.

As for speculating about unknown demolition thermite, that just isn't going to get anyone anywhere, as if you can't pinpoint a type of material, what use is there in even speculating about it? It's better to consider simpler, more logical answers before resorting to engineered explosives that act nothing like explosives anyone knows.

reply to post by Varemia

As for speculating about unknown demolition thermite, that just isn't going to get anyone anywhere, as if you can't pinpoint a type of material, what use is there in even speculating about it?

It isn't unknown demolition thermite, rather it is unconventional thermite and we know that it exists. We know that nano-aluminum or nano-thermitic material is engineered for all sorts of applications, though it is relatively new and probably costly so it isn't as widely used as Thermate or industrial thermite.

Furthermore, the material can be pinpointed, as it is nano-aliminum material.

Moving along, the point is that you can't rule out thermitic material, simply because it doesn't have the signature of Thermate. All too often people claim that thermite couldn't have been used, then cite Thermate and the properties of Thermate as to their reasoning. Thermate is not the only thermitic material in existence. Just because you aren't familiar with the newer advanced engineered thermitic applications, doesn't mean that it is either unknown or couldn't have been used. Sadly, when people hear "thermite", they automatically think "Thermate" and that is just wrong.



--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Well, if it can't be identified conventionally, then how can anyone identify it as being used? The way you're talking, the argument is that "if you can't see it, then it's there in a form that you've never seen before."

I'm not discounting the idea, but I can't see the reasoning behind supporting the conclusion that it is a likely possibility when there are many other highly likely sources of what happened. For example, the planes hitting the towers. That's a very observable event. We can determine with fair certainty that the planes entered the building, exploded, and caused many fires on many floors. We cannot determine the use of explosives or experimental thermite without speculating severely.

Originally posted by Varemia
We cannot determine the use of explosives or experimental thermite without speculating severely.

Except that we all witnessed the twin towers being blown to dust...by what is another question. And what exactly is the difference between 'speculating' and 'speculating severely'?

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by Varemia
We cannot determine the use of explosives or experimental thermite without speculating severely.

Except that we all witnessed the twin towers being blown to dust...by what is another question. And what exactly is the difference between 'speculating' and 'speculating severely'?

Well, the assumption that they were blown to dust is simply a fallacy. Anyone with access to Google can find extensive pictures of a ton of rubble from the towers, and videos of construction workers working hard to rescue people trapped in the debris as well as just cleaning up the area. The claim that they turned to dust is ridiculous.

The difference between speculation and severe speculation is the fact that in normal speculation, a person uses their observations to come to a conclusion. In severe speculation, a person uses lack of observation to come to conclusions that have no apparent basis.

reply to post by Varemia

Your presenting of opinions as facts is tiresome. Though amusing.

reply to post by Varemia

Yes, aluminum can get hot enough to become yellow hot. This is not in question.

The problem has to do with the temperature that it takes to get aluminum this color. This happens between 1000° and 1100° C which is well over the burning temperature of office fires. Notice the digital readout on the electric furnace from your video. It appears to be set at 1300. I would assume that this means 1300° C (2374° F) and not 1300° F which would be 705° C. At 705° C aluminum is not the color yellow according to the color chart you linked.

I have yet to see a slow-burning thermite reaction that takes place over an hour after initial onset of burning.

Define what the initial onset of burning is. If you are assuming that this is at the time of airplane impact then you're jumping to conclusions again. We can not assume that a Thermite reaction was triggered upon impact any more then we can assume that this was indeed a Thermite reaction. Something is happening here and pretending that this can not be molten iron does not make it so, we need physical evidence. You may be correct that this is aluminum but I have yet to see evidence either way.

reply to post by Varemia

Well, if it can't be identified conventionally, then how can anyone identify it as being used?

What do you mean by "identified conventionally"? It can be identified after the fact by the traces it leaves behind.

The way you're talking, the argument is that "if you can't see it, then it's there in a form that you've never seen before."

No, you have it backwards. Just because it isn't anything that you personally haven't seen before, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. By saying that thermite was used, you aren't necessarily saying that Thermate was used. While Thermate is thermite, thermite isn't necessarily Thermate. There are other thermitic applications, mostly newer and all military.

Different applications of thermite, particularly the advanced engineered types, have all different reactive properties, though they all contain a metal powder and metal oxide, so identifying thermite after the fact should all be the same, though observations of the reactions wouldn't.

It's like water. You can steam vegitables or boil vegitables, which both cook the food differently, though it is still water cooking the food and scientific analysis would show that water is what cooked the vegitables. However, to an observer who may not be familiar with steam, it wouldn't appear that the water is cooking the food because the only way s/he knows about cooking food with water, is by boiling. If there was a question about how the food was cooked, this observer would refute that water was used, simply because he watched it happen and none of the traditional signs of boiling water were present in the pan.

Multiply that on a much larger scale and you have the same people doing that with this incident. Now, irrespective of whether thermite was used, it is rediculous to argue that it wasn't based on the reactive behaviors or traditional applications of Thermate.

That's a very observable event. We can determine with fair certainty that the planes entered the building, exploded, and caused many fires on many floors. We cannot determine the use of explosives or experimental thermite without speculating severely.

Well, there is a problem with your premise, seeing that not all of the sky scrapers that fell, were hit by airplanes. So yes, airplanes hit two towers but is that reason why they fell and more importantly, is that the reason why they fell in the manner in which they did? Do the two aircraft explain the wealth of evidence, whether it be eye-witness or the collapse sequence of the buildings (all three)? Can an airplane even knock a building down just by flying into it? I don't know and you don't know, but I think it is relatively safe to suggest that an airplane can't knock down a building if it doesn't fly into it, and certainly not into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed. Could an airplane fly into the upper floors of a skyscraper and cause explosions in the basement? These kinds of questions can go on and on, though that is neither here nor there.

In fact, if there really was a conspiracy within elements of our government to bring those buildings down, they would need a cover like airplanes hitting them or something to that effect. That way, people would say, "well didn't you see the airplanes hit the buildings?" However, if your intent was to bring those buildings down, then you surely wouldn't trust that the planes would do the job, especially seeing how they were built to withstand an aircraft collision. Just to be safe and ensure that they come down, it may be wise to rig explosives in the buildings

Just as I have noted in one of my other threads based on 9/11, "The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't, most everything that we know about 9/11 is speculation. One of the chief arguments and goals of the truth movement, is that we should have an investigation.. A real investigation, not some staged show-trial that ducks all of the important questions and ignores anything that doesn't conform to a pre-concieved outcome. Just the fact that the majority of what we know about 9/11 is speculation, is reason enough for a new investigation.


--airspoon

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
Except that we all witnessed the twin towers being blown to dust...

Well, the assumption that they were blown to dust is simply a fallacy.

Nearly all of the concrete from towers 1&2 was pulverized to dust, this can be seen in many of the Google videos. The steel wasn't pulverized as you point out but the perception of some that these towers were "pulverized to dust" is far from a fallacy.

reply to post by Devino


You can't make such quantitative assessment from a video. Maybe an expert could make an estimation, but I would not put that much weight on that either.

reply to post by -PLB-

I doubt you'd put much weight on any analysis conflicting with your viewpoint.

The "collapses" of the twin towers left surprisingly little rubble, given the enormity of the buildings. Some very large percentage of the non-metallic content evidently was converted into a fine, dense powder and ejected far and wide.

Even WTC7, which "collapsed" on 9/11 also, left a much taller pile, despite being less than half the height initially.

In addition to all the walls, furniture, computers, heavy machinery, carpet, wiring, plumbing, and human beings, each tower had 110 steel-reinforced concrete floors in steel pans supported by steel trusses. Where did these go?

www.acebaker.com...