To the OCT'ers:

[FourScore]

Please explain the underground, molten pools of steel and excessive heat which burned the soles right off the shoes of rescue workers even several weeks after the attack...

The only theory I have found plausible thusfar for such intense, undying heat has been through the use of thermite.

I am open to exploring other possibilities, I just haven't had anyone suggest anything else that sounds viable to me yet...

Any VIABLE suggestions or explanations other than thermite???

[spooked911]

1. I'm not a OCT'er but

show me a bona fide picture of molten steel at Ground Zero.

Just one.

[FourScore]

3. Oookay...

These were taken during the recovery and clean-up:

[SidDithers]

47. That's hot metal, maybe steel...

but there's nothing molten about it.

This is molten steel. (note, pic from a steel mill, not the WTC site)



Sid

[FourScore]

49. Are people here really questioning

the presence of the molten metal that was onsite? I can't believe this discussion is being reduced to that. There are documented witnesses from both sides of this debate who KNOW that there was molten metal in the rubble. These hotspots were even documented with satelite imaging. If I must, then I will find sources and post them for you. But, is that really necessary? I think those who still question the presence of molten metal really hurt their own credibility in this debate.

Google it. You'll find it for yourself.

[William Seger]

51. My question is: What are you getting at?

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there was "molten metal" of some type there. What are you inferring from that?

[FourScore]

55. I'm asking what caused it.

This is a BIG DEAL. It is not easy to produce molten steel.

In a phone interview, demolition expert Brent Blanchard told Dr. Jones that "he had never witnessed molten metal at the site of any building that had been brought down by demolition without thermite, and he had seen hundreds of these." (Quoted from "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out")

Granted, the official story does not include demolitions in the building. Nonetheless, how could it have happened? What caused the molten metal/molten steel? And on such a large scale in all three buildings without the use of thermite? When else have collapsed buildings produced molten metal?

I really mean it when I say that I am truly interested in viable explanations for this phenomenon. So far, thermite has been the only arguable explanation. If not thermite, then what?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Does Blanchard think thermite was used at the WTC towers? n/t

[FourScore]

58. I wondered that myself. The article doesn't say. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

60. I'm sorry. I thought you'd been reading the threads in this forum.

The answer is No.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

That's a PDF, by the way.

[FourScore]

64. I have been absent.

On top of that, my adobe acrobat is all out of whack. I've been unable to read PDF files for months. Bummer. Can you fill me in on the pertinent parts?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Adobe Acrobat is a free download.

It's hard to summarize, but basically everything about CD you've heard from people like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones? It's junk.

You should get your Acrobat reinstalled. It's that worth it.

[FourScore]

72. I've reinstalled it many times.

It crashes over and over. It's pretty wierd. Even after a virus caused me to reinstall my entire hard drive. Go figure. Sometimes I can still read PDF's as HTML's. Anyway, this computer is a jallopy. It's been through alot.(I pet the top of the monitor gently.)

I'll do a search on the guy. I already found some material and understand now why you are surprised I didn't know the answer to your question. Like I said, been busy.

There's no doubt that you dislike Dr. Jone's theory. That much I have figured out. And that's okay. However, no one has yet answered my question in the beginning of this thread...

Who can provide me with an alternative, scientific explanation for the molten metal? Combustibles in the basement doesn't do it for me. What combustibles? What cars? There was nothing left at ground zero. Even in the basement floors.

I find it odd that none of the agencies or "experts" who support the official theory want to address the molten steel question. It is the crux of Dr. Jone's theories, so I would like to hear the other side. So far, I haven't found anything scientific to explain how the molten metal got there and stayed there for so long. Dr. Jones seems to be the only one to have thoroughly investigated this phenomenon. Even if you don't agree with him, it is true that an explanation should be provided.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Even ground to dust, combustibles remain combustible.

How did Iron Age blacksmiths smelt iron ore? They built charcoal fires, made them burn as hot as possible, and captured the heat in an oven.

It's the same principle employed by someone who decides to start saving money and paying down bills. They get a second job (increase income) and cut down on non-essentials (decrease outgo).

The Pile provided more than enough underground fires with more than enough fuel to melt all kinds of metals. In the lower parts of the building, there were certainly more than enough places for heat to accumulate to metal-melting temperatures.

Thermite does NOT account for the longevity of this heat. The faster something burns out, the faster the heat disappates. To maintain these kind of temperatures for that length of time, you have to have a constant fire burning. Even with thermite as an element in your hypothesis, you have to have the office combustibles from the towers to explain the heat. And the office combustibles don't need thermite to explain the heat output.

Thermite is an unnecessary element of this hypothesis. The molten/near-molten metals in the Pile are not evidence of thermite.

[AZCat]

84. More so, actually.

The finer the dust, the greater the surface area between fuel and oxidizer. I have posted downstream about grain elevator explosions, IMO an excellent example of the explosive power available from dust.

[FourScore]

85. Please, forget the thermite theory.

It is not necessary to refute that in order to present an explanation for the molten metal.

Let me say this again, I am looking for an explanation for the molten steel. Something besides thermite. I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove thermite. I am merely saying that thusfar, thermite has been the only scientific theory offered -- whether you believe or not. Having said that, give me some other scientific theories.

Why hasn't a paper been drawn up to explain how molten metal is produced in a pile of rubble? Since the OCT'ers all agree that the fires within the building did not melt the steel, then how did molten steel appear so widespread in the ash? This is an important question.

The pools of molten aluminum on the top of the pile and molten steel below were present immediately after the collapse and were photographed with satelite imaging technologies. It would take an exceptional fire source to cause such wide-spread molten metal. You say that burning debris under the pile created widespread molten metal, okay...prove it. Give me some science with that. Give me photographic evidence. Where are these widespread fires? What sort of combustibles have turned to dust yet still burn? Give me evidence that I can go with...

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Okay.

Satellite imaging technologies didn't photograph molten metals anywhere, as far as I know. I have seen satellite imagery depicting the massive amount of heat coming off of the Pile, but that's not "photographs of molten metals" anywhere in the Pile. I need to see this pictures so I know what you're talking about.

[FourScore]

95. well said, boloboffin. I am getting tired and sloppy.

Time for bed.

Still open to other scientific theories.

[AZCat]

91. I still don't agree with your point about molten steel.

As I understand it, your argument is based on the apparent color of the material. While molten aluminum certainly can have a silvery color, get it hot enough and it will emit quite a different one because of the difference in black body radiation.

[FourScore]

96. again, here are a list of eye-witness accounts:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Apparently, melted aluminum was also in the pile. One does not exclude the other.

[AZCat]

98. Unless you got a sample of the material...

there is no basis for your claim of steel over aluminum.


I have not, at any point, expressed the opinion that more than one metal cannot be present within the debris, in any phase.

[William Seger]

65. Eh?

> In a phone interview, demolition expert Brent Blanchard told Dr. Jones that "he had never witnessed molten metal at the site of any building that had been brought down by demolition without thermite, and he had seen hundreds of these."

I do believe Jones must have inserted that "without thermite" qualifier on his own volition. Was Jones implying that Blanchard has seen "hundreds or these" demolitions that did use thermite, and there was molten metal weeks later? Or did Blanchard say that he's seen "hundreds of these" CDs that used conventional explosives, and there was no molten metal? Slight difference, dontcha think, considering that thermite has never been used for a controlled demolition?

And anyway, got an explanation yet for why the "steel" was still molten weeks after the "thermite demolition?" If there was molten steel (rather than aluminum) under the debris then yes, I think that understanding why would be an interesting bit of science. But I don't see thermite as being any kind of explanation for why it was still molten weeks later. In the videos I've seen of thermite melting steel, the steel stopped glowing -- much less being molten -- rather quickly. Somehow, I don't think it's scientific curiosity that's motivating your question.

[FourScore]

70. William, I am not trying to convince you of the use of thermite

or the presence of molten steel vs. aluminum. I have no interest in doing that.

Personally, I find Dr. Jones to have laid out a very strong case. I am trying to find alternative explanations that are equally or even more logical. If you find his work to be illogical or unscientific...okay.

I am not trying to support the thermite argument. I don't really want to go there. I am looking for equally viable, strong explanations for the molten steel/metal found in the rubble.

If you need sources regarding the fact that molten steel was onsite, please refer to the following link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

[SidDithers]

67. Maybe, but the pics you posted are not molten anything...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

62. So, me and the kids are roasting marshmallows...

at the cottage this summer. We're using coat hangers as our roasting sticks.

My son leaves the end of his coat hanger in the embers of the fire, and after a minute or two, then end is glowing red.

Was it a thermite campfire?

Sid

[FourScore]

111. In this thread

I have been trying to ascertain what the OCT'ers believe caused the molten metal. Since this is at the crux of the thermite theory, I find it important to understand other theories of how the molten steel occured. Unfortunately, the debate continues to swirl around such nonsense as whether or not molten metal/steel was even present. I feel like I am debating with fundamentalist Christians about whether or not dinosaurs existed millions of years ago or not. If they don't want to acknowledge the proof then there is nothing you can do about it.

I will say that there is a compelling argument for the combustible materials in the pile theory (especially in lieu of heat vs temp). However, the tone in this debate has been so caustic by many that the power of this argument seems to go quite past them. In any case, it has been left to supposition instead of actual proof. I could do it for you. I could try to find the "proof" to support this argument, but I don't want to go through that because I do not believe it will hold up.

There have been metalurgic analyses done done by FEMA. The results actually support extreme rapid melting that FEMA even admits they cannot explain. So how did the molten metal occur? More analysis of these metals are certainly necessary. It seems as though Dr. Jones is the only one pursuing that analysis because he is confident the results will prove his theory. If the thermite naysayers have their own analysis of metals that show combustibles played a role in the melting of these metals then they need to provide that. Anybody can make a statement; can they prove it?

I am really interested in what others have to say. I am not interested in getting into a debate on thermite. Someone can start their own thread about that if they choose.

[William Seger]

2. Okay, start with this:

I take these as known facts:

1) There were about 9 million pounds of aluminum just in the exterior cladding of each tower.

2) Depending on the particular alloy, aluminum melts at about 650^oC.

3) There were many "hot spots" in the debris where fires were burning which exceeded 650^oC.

So, first, (assuming you agree with those facts) would you or would you not expect to find molten aluminum in the debris?

Second, how would you go about distinguishing molten aluminum from molten steel?

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. You would think

that whoever was collecting evidence would have taken a sample to analyis?

[nebula]

7. Molten aluminum is silver, not the bright orange-red color

seen in the photos.

[William Seger]

9. Which photos?

And, is molten aluminum is always silver?

[FourScore]

19. The color of the burning metal

can reveal the temperature and clues to the composition of the metal.

See http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm

Aluminum reaches a melting point at 650 degress Celcius (as you had stated above). The yellow color tells us the temp reached closer to 1000 degrees Celcius. It quite evident (and not really in dispute amongst scientists) that the metal in question is not aluminum, but either steel or iron.

For a photo, see post #3 in this thread.

[William Seger]

28. Can't tell what's happening in those photos

The top photo might be fire burning under a pile of debris. The second photo certainly can't be "molten" steel, of you couldn't pick it up like that. And 1000^oC was within the range of the fires burning under the debris (although I'm not so sure your estimate isn't a little high for that color, anyway) .

But anyway, are you agreeing that molten aluminum isn't necessarily silver, as nebula claimed? If so, then if witnesses saw "molten metal" in the debris (and it was actually molten, not just glowing like your photo), and we should expect to see molten aluminum at those temperatures, on what basis would you say the metal was steel?

[William Seger]

66. BTW, you ducked my first question

Given the facts I stated, would you or would you not expect to find molten aluminum in the debris pile?

[FourScore]

75. What does that have to do with molten steel?

Okay. Maybe there was molten aluminum as well. What does that prove? It still doesn't answer my question.

[William Seger]

82. It might mean that there's no mystery to be solved

Things that didn't happen don't need to be explained.

[FourScore]

86. You don't think the molten steel deserves an explation? n/t

[William Seger]

93. ARRGH!

No offense, but you are completely hopeless.

First, you have been given several scientific explanations for how there could be molten steel under the debris, and it's also been pointed out to you that thermite is not a scientific explanation because the steel wouldn't stay molten that long without an additional source of heat. No matter; you just keep insisting that you're looking for a scientific explanation and thermite is the only one you can find, and nobody is going to tell you anything different.

But what I'm getting at is that if there wasn't any molten steel, then there's no mystery to be solved. You yourself have posted pictures of steel that's simply glowing and called it "molten steel." Perhaps some of those reports were from people using the term just as imprecisely as you did! You admit that you would expect to find molten aluminum in the debris, and that you wouldn't be able to tell by sight that it was aluminum, so perhaps some of those reports were from people who did see molten aluminum but simply assumed it was molten steel.

In other words, it certainly seems that the one and only thing you're fishing for is for everyone to say, "Gee, you're right; they must have used thermite to bring down the buildings." Apparently, you consider that to be the only possible explanation for something that might or might not have even been there in the first place, and that's that.

Completely hopeless.

[FourScore]

97. Guess I missed those "scientific explanations"

The only thing that I have been told thusfar that could possibly help explain the molten steel, is the argument that other combustibles may have been involved. But that is not a scientific explanation. It is a supposition. It is weak on it's face. Where's the proof?

I want proof of studies. I want numbers. I want to know how the steel melted. What do metallurgic analyses tell us? What kind of science has been done on this???

You say I "have been given several scientific explanations for how there could be molten steel under the debris". Okay. Guess I missed it somewhere, so enlightem me...

List them. List those "several scientific explations".

Forget the thermite.

[William Seger]

104. "Proof of studies"?

> I want proof of studies. I want numbers.

Yeah, well, some people would to see "proof of studies" that thermite could keep the steel molten that long, too. Got any?

Anyway, as has been mentioned, people have been melting steel with charcoal for a long time before thermite was invented. Since they had steel, isn't that a kind of a "proof of studies?"

[FourScore]

110. You are evading my question.

You're having a one-man debate about thermite. I'm not going to go there.

Please list the "numerous scientific explanations" that have been offered to me in this thread.

[William Seger]

113. Sure thing

1) Ain't no "molten steel" at all; people reported red-hot steel as "molten" (exactly as you did), or they reported molten aluminum, which would be expected, as being molten steel. Or,

2) Since "temperature" and "heat" aren't quite the same thing, it's possible that heat from the fires (which we definitely know were there), fed by air from the subway tunnels, could have been trapped in a blast-furnace-like effect and built up enough heat to melt steel, similar to the way people perhaps 2000 years ago made steel using nothing but charcoal for fuel.

I'd say those are the two leading contenders as reasonable explanations. But you are the one evading a question (since your question here is asking me to simply compile what's already been posted): You claim that thermite would be a "scientific" theory, but a scientific theory needs to explain all the observations. In this case, you not only have to explain how thermite could melt steel (a known fact), but also why the steel would remain molten for weeks.

[FourScore]

114. Okay.

Two claims by a few people on a message board (one which is completely unsubstantiated and defies witness testimony) are neither "numerous" nor "scientific" explanations for the molten metal.

Let me say AGAIN, I am not interested in repeating Dr. Jones' work on thermite. You either read it and agree or you don't. I don't really care.

No matter what a person believes caused the molten metal, I think we all agree that it was the insulation within the pile that kept it hot/molten.

If there is nothing new that anyone has to offer, then I think I am done here.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. There are other hypotheses besides thermite.

Directed energy beams are one,

A fusion device is another.

Of course, there is also the possiblity of high explosives creating high heat.

Something caused the surplus heat, certainly, and it wasn't personal computers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. There were plenty of sources

to fuel a fire once the towers collapsed.

There were underground parking garages and if cars were spontaneously exploding outside the buildings, they were probably exploding underground too.

The big question is what created the shock wave that caused the buildings and other objects to explode? Everything you needed to do this was already on site. Remember the reports about natural gas that FDNY was investigating before the first plane hit? I bet I could make a pretty big shock wave with enough of that stuff. You could probably even drop a couple of buildings if you directed it to just the right places.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. The report of natural gas was blocks away, as I recall. Also I don't recall any

eyewitness reports of the smell tracer of natural gas in the towers or in #7.

Also, the persistence of the heat is puzzling. Weeks later after constant water jets spraying from numerous locations, there was more heat than can be accounted for.

Is gasoline shock wave ignitable?

One of the interesting features of the spontaneous igniting cars outside the WTC is how they seemed to be burned on the top half but not the bottom half of the cars. If gasoline was the source of initial fuel, why wouldn't the bottom and lower sides also be burned, since gas tanks are usually beneath the chassis and if ignited, heat would flow around and up the sides.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. There was one just under the buildings

That's how one of the Naudets Brothers happened to be in just the right spot to get this image of the fireman responding to the gas leak call.



The other brother was a few blocks north with the fireman checking out the gas leak, when the first plane hit.



In regards to WTC7, the building was evacuated by 9:30 AM. There would have been no one around to report a smell even if there was one.
Plus the smells from the collapses and fires were so overwhelming, that the smell of natural gas was probably just part of the mix. WTC7 had a natural gas line that ran to the top of the building for a kitchen near the Penthouse.


Is gasoline shock wave ignitable?

I don't know but there were cars and vehicles that blew up all over the place that morning.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. The Gamma press photo is the first plane, but they are blocks away from the WTC.

The top photo isn't the respones to the gas leak, that's the second plane in the photo.

Rodriguez or one of the people he was with, or the fire/police/rescue personel evacuating the WTC didn't report any smell.

And a gas line to supply a kitchen might have been severed when a plane hit, but the fire ball would have ignighted it immediatly and not caused an explosion just a flame. In order to cause an explosion, there would need to be a buildup and then an ignition source.

And then what would cause the persistent heat?

[DoYouEverWonder]

80. Gas leaks were reported at at least two different locations before the attack.

One was at Church Street and another at Lispenard Street.

Yes, the picture of the guy under the tower is after WTC1 has been hit. But from what I remember, the 'official' story was that the fireman was investigating a possible natural gas leak, when the guy filming happened to be in just the right spot to get good video of the plane going in.

In order to cause an explosion, there would need to be a buildup and then an ignition source.

Yes, that's exactly what I think they did. I think whoever brought the buildings down used the systems and fuels already on site to bring the buildings down. I think that the mechanical floors in all three buildings (these floors were windowless) were filled with gas and ignited and the result was similar to the way thermobaric weapons work. In WTC7, the 5th floor was a mechanical floor, which was also where the trusses rested that held the rest of the building up. WTC 7 was built over an existing building, hence the need for the unusual construction. Pressurized fuel lines ran from east to west across the entire floor and then branched off to feed day tanks for the generators for Rudy's OEM Bunker.

In regards to the persistent heat. The Pit had a lot of similarities to a land fill dump. Once one of these dumps start burning underground, it's almost impossible to put them out. I mentioned the cars that blew up and might have been a fuel source, at least to get things started. The other source would have been anything that had reached a high temperature in the original fires, reigniting whatever combustibles landed on it in the collapse. Thermite is still a possibility too. But if thermite was used, it was only on a few key columns and corners of the building in order to facilitate the collapse, but was probably not the cause of the collapse.

[John Q. Citizen]

109. That's an interesting theory. I wonder about modifications to produce the top down

sequential collapse of the twin towers and the classic planned demolition (bottom gone top into bottom) collapse of #7.

I also haven't figured out how that would ignite cars outside the building.

[DoYouEverWonder]

105. Just found some more info about gas leaks at the WTC

http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/12/eee-in-lower-manhattan

Some of these leaks may have been a result of lines getting cut when the first tower came down. I wonder how long it took ConEd to turn off the main gas lines going to the WTC that morning? You would hope someone had enough sense to start turning that sort of stuff off as soon as the first plane hit? Turning off power and gas is supposed to be an almost automatic response in this type of emergency situation.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Please explain how thermite could plausibly account for this.

Remember we're talking about weeks of this kind of stuff.

For my money, I find that underground fires fueled by the combustible materials of two massive office building insulated by the building materials of said office buildings more than explains those pictures and witness accounts.

[nebula]

11. You don't think half a million tons of steel

would not be enough to fuel molten fires that lasts for weeks?

[Kingshakabobo]

12. Are you saying the steel was the FUEL? nt

[nebula]

13. Obviously,

the fuel of (any) molten steel is steel.

And if thermite was used, then that make two sources of fuel--thermite and steel.

Once you have molten steel, thermite is no longer needed. You can keep using steel beams to fuel the fire.

Just as you light a wood fire with a match and lighter fluid, you no longer need the fluid/matches once the fire is going. Just keep tossing in logs of wood to keep the fire going.

[Kingshakabobo]

15. You should sell your idea to steel mills.

They waste WAY too much money on fuels to run their furnaces. Why didn't they think to just keep adding "steel logs" on the fire?

[nebula]

18. Dumb idea

in the case of steel mills, you can't use steel to fuel a fire when steel is your END PRODUCT.

You would have nothing to sell if you did that. DUH.

[Kingshakabobo]

22. LOL. You really believe steel is a combustible material, don't you?

(the type of steel used in the WTC)

[nebula]

25. Do you understand the definition of the word?

Combustible: a substance that can be burned to provide heat or power.

Steel can be a very combustible material, provided a sufficent heat source (ie: an active furnace, or thermite). It would then become quite combustible.

In steel mills, iron and steel is being burned all the time, which is the definition of combustibility.

[LARED]

31. I guess you're in agreement water is combustible

Because based on how you interpret the definition water is combustible.

[piobair]

32. No its not

It is the fuel such as natural gas or coal that is combusting. The steel is just absorbing. Once the heat source is removed the steel begins to cool. Where did you ever get the idea that steel is combustible? I fear for our education system if this was actually taught to you.

[LARED]

26. Very scary (n/t)

[William Seger]

16. Steel doesn't glow because it's burning

It glows because some or the radiant energy (electromagnetic radiation) is the wavelength of visible light. With no source of heat to keep it at that glowing temperature, it will cool off and stop glowing.

[SidDithers]

41. Best. Post. Ever.

Bookmarked for posterity.

Sid

[jberryhill]

74. I'll try to sort this one out...

Given your other comments, by "fire" I will assume you mean "pool of molten steel".

Now, let's say I have 100 Kg of molten steel at a temperature somewhat above the melting point of steel.

What, in your mind, happens if I then drop 100 Kg of steel at a temperature significantly below its melting point, into that 100 Kg of molten steel?

If your answer is "It melts, too", then I think we have found the source of some of your conceptual difficulties.

[FourScore]

24. There are firemen

quoted as saying that there wasn't any office materials remaining. It had all been reduced to dust. So where does all this combustible material suddenly come from? And if it is insulated, then how does it burn without oxygen to fuel it? And if there is an oxygen source, then it would become diffuse rather rapidly.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Yes, it seems the OCTer's would magically transport all combustibules to

where there are hotspots so that it can burn and be part of the heat energy.


They also claim that fresh air can get in but heat can't escape. That doesn't make any sense. Haven't any OCTers ever owned a wood stove?

These are the people who believe in magic and who don't even understand basic Boy Scout fire building 101

[piobair]

42. Do you support Nebulas idea

that steel burns? I think that it is you that do not understand the basics of heat and temperature.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. Do you support boloboffins idea that all combustibles in the buildings were

available as fuel in the underground level fires? That they magically all ended up there? Thus supplying nearly limitless energy in magically coincidentally perfect conditions to account for the extraordinarily high and persistent temperatures, the molten metal, and to account for the need to pour water into the underground levels for three weeks 24/7 to extinguish the fires and cool the area enough to proceed?

I think it is you who believe you understand the basics of magic. Magical you.

Do you also support the theories of Gilderoy Lockhart?


Steel can be a solid a liquid or a gas, but to the best of my knowledge it can't burn in a combustion sense.

Iron (the main component of steel) can undergo nuclear fusion in a supernova and become heavier elements. But my understanding is it isn't combustible in the same sense that say hydrocarbons or carbon based materials are.

It's one of the many reasons that steel makes for an excellent building material for high raise buildings. It presumably shouldn't fail if a fire breaks out.

Iron oxide, when powered and mixed with powdered aluminum can create an exothermic reaction that produces substantial thermal energy release. Even more thermal enery is released if powdered sulfur is added in the optimum amount.

[William Seger]

103. I support boloboffin's idea

Your "magical" distortions and exaggerations of them? Nah.

> that all combustibles in the buildings were available as fuel in the underground level fires?

"All?" Where did you see that? Seems to me he just said that combustible materials that were crushed would still be combustible. Sounds reasonable to me. Do you support some magical transformation into materials that aren't combustible?

> That they magically all ended up there?

Well, I've always considered gravity to be kinda magical :eyes: but where did another "all" come from?

> Thus supplying nearly limitless energy in magically coincidentally perfect conditions to account for the extraordinarily high and persistent temperatures, the molten metal, and to account for the need to pour water into the underground levels for three weeks 24/7 to extinguish the fires and cool the area enough to proceed?

"Nearly limitless?" Wow, missed that one too. I wouldn't expect it to be "nearly limitless" nor do I see any reason why it would need to be.

> I think it is you who believe you understand the basics of magic.

I dunno, you seem to attribute some magical powers to your straw men. Looks to me like they were kinda just sitting there, not doing anything, and you walked up and assaulted them anyway.

> It's one of the many reasons that steel makes for an excellent building material for high raise buildings. It presumably shouldn't fail if a fire breaks out.

Right. You have to wonder why they bother putting fireproofing on steel, since it's incombustible. Or why, even with fireproofing, steel structures typically only have fire ratings of 2 to 4 hours since steel is incombustible, and magically "shouldn't fail if a fire breaks out."

[jberryhill]

106. So, let's get this straight....

It requires "magic" for there to have been combustible material in the debris pile in such a manner as to support combustion or retain heat in various hot spots.

It does not require a similar "magic" for thermite to end up in the debris pile etc. and so forth.

This is because, in your mind, "thermite" is not a "combustible", or it has some property that causes it alone to behave magically?

At least you grasp that steel doesn't burn. Does it "fail" when exposed to fire. Yup.

[AZCat]

44. Dust makes a nice fuel, you know.

Perhaps you've read of grain elevator explosions? They can be pretty nasty, like this one.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. are you suggesting that all the combustibles from each tower ended up in the

basement sections? That would then sound as if the building contents fell into the footprint of the building but that the steel and aluminum didn't?

How do the combustibles all get to where the hot spots are? Or were there also lots of combustibles that landed where there were no hot spots and thus didn't combust? So where is that stuff?

[William Seger]

54. What was parked in the basement?

[FourScore]

57. There was nothing left down there.

I have not seen car remains in any of the video, photographic or televised documentation. According to all sources, everything was obliterated. There was ash and twisted metal and more ash and dust and twisted metal. The subway and the stores down there were all eerily intact. The firefighters describe how wierd that was, that EVERYTHING in and under the building was gone, but the subways underneath looked barely harmed. They searched that area for possible survivors as well, but to no avail. If there were combustibles under that building, what were they and how did they cause such a large expanse of molten metal and heat, and for such a long period of time? Thusfar, only thermite provides an answer to all these questions. Please, please, please...how do you explain this. "Combustibles" is not an answer. It's a brush off.

[William Seger]

68. "Thusfar..."

> Thusfar, only thermite provides an answer to all these questions.

Thusfar, you have completely failed to explain how thermite answers "all these questions" either. WAS it steel, and WHY would the "steel" remain molten for weeks just because it was melted by thermite?

On edit: It's easy to see why everything down there was crushed beyond recognition, but I'm curious about why you think gasoline would be "obliterated".

[SidDithers]

116. "I have not seen car remains"...

from a tour of WTC shown here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/

I wish you would quit using absolutes like "according to all sources", 'cause you're just plain wrong. If there's one thing that you should learn about 9/11 discussions, it's that there is NOTHING that "all sources" agree upon.

Sid

[FourScore]

117. Wow. A garage car. And guess what?

It's not in the slightest way burnt!!! What happened to all the combustible stuff burning below the pile, which melted the steel, which was insulated by debris?

[SidDithers]

118. But "according to all sources, everything was obliterated"...

obviously, that's not the case.

Sid

[FourScore]

119. At least I can admit it when I am wrong. n/t

[SidDithers]

120. Sorry, I must have missed where you admitted you were wrong...

Sid

[John Q. Citizen]

101. Presumably metal frames, if one believe the OCT that the fireball from the

plane hitting the upper floor traveled down the elevator shaft to the bottom levels and instanly destroyed everthing.

I wonder how the firemen were able to enter the towers to help evacuate people with all the smoke rising out of the basement onto the ground level floors and on up. Eye witnesses spoke about elevator doors being blown out.

In 45 minutes all the gasoline should have been consumed and anyone on any upper floors should have required breathing apparatus (oxygen tanks) to be able to enter the building. All those burning tires should have made life impossible without special equipment.

I wonder why that wasn't the case?

[William Seger]

102. Really?

> Presumably metal frames, if one believe the OCT that the fireball from the plane hitting the upper floor traveled down the elevator shaft to the bottom levels and instanly destroyed everthing.

Please point me to this "OCT" claim.

[piobair]

10. I've never been able

to understand why you think that only something that burns at say 2500 degrees can produce temperatures of 2500 degrees. The NFPA{National Fire Protection Act} has distributed several videos over the last 15 years recording time and temperature in a room and contents fire. The videos all show that with a common couch and a set of drapes that ignite from a waste basket fire, the temp. in the room reaches flashover{the point at which all combustibles in the room spontaneousley ignite, around 1500F} in about 13 minutes. Now the couch and the drapes do not burn anywhere near 1500 degrees but the heat they put off accumulates in the closed room and raises the temp to 1500 and beyond. This isn't theory, it is proven and observable. I don't find it at all strange that combustibles, insulated by the pile, put out enough heat to account for what you see in the pictures. Add fresh air infiltrating from subway tunnels and you have a pretty fair forge. My point is, it doesn't take material that burns at 2000 degrees to account for 2000 degree temps.

[FourScore]

14. A quote from Thomas Eager:

(an MIT materials engineer and supporter of the OCT)

"The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."

In any case, the NIST report, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission never even mention the molten metal beneath the pile of rubble. This should have been addressed.

I find it inconcievable that one would say that combusible materials beneath the pile melted the steel. You hypothesize that the molten metal was "insulated" enough to retain the heat for weeks and weeks. Simultaneous to said insulation, you imagine fresh air pouring into the combustible area, fueling the flame. Well, which is it? Fresh air from subways, or insulated so as to retain heat? It can't be both ways.

It is also a fact that steel must burn at an enormously high temp for a long period of time in a non-diffuse situation in order to melt. That is why no high rise has ever collapsed due to fires before 911, even though many office (and hotel) fires have occured with raging high temperatures.

[Kingshakabobo]

17. Two things........

Can you provide a link for that quote?

Are we talking about molten/melted steel or red-hot steel in the photo above?

[FourScore]

21. Source:

"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" written by TW Eager and C Musso in "Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society".

[Kingshakabobo]

29. You took that quote out of context.

He was addressing the fires prior to the collapse. Furthermore, he goes on to explain the difference between "temperature" versus "heat" ......which has been argued up and down these threads by, the so called, OCTers.....I wondered why you didn't provide a link even after I asked for it.

[FourScore]

40. Actually, their was no ulterier motive for not providing a link.

I was using a hard copy source. Not the internet. I do not posess the entire artlicle, so if I was quoting out of context, then that was certainly unintended. My goal here is not to get into a debate whereby each side (CT vs OCT) tries to outshout the other a la Fox News. I really hope for a civil discussion. Thus far, I have found no accredited, documented sources explaining the molten metal under the rubble. People keep throwing out suppositions, but no one seems to know for sure. The best theory I have heard, which he has supported with detailed facts, is that of Dr. Steven Jones. I am truly looking for something just as good if not better. Thusfar, no one has provided that for me.

I have not seen any debates on "temp" vs "heat", but I have been absent quite a bit recently from this message board. I would be interested in knowing more.

[jberryhill]

53. "temperature" vs "heat"

is not a subject of "debate". They are defined thermodynamic parameters.

[FourScore]

61. I was responding to this statement:

"Furthermore, he goes on to explain the difference between "temperature" versus "heat" ......which has been argued up and down these threads by, the so called, OCTers"

I'm just curious in what way it has been argued on this message board?

[FourScore]

23. Also, the photos clearly show molten metal , not just red-hot steel n/t

[SidDithers]

63. No, they clearly don't...nt

Sid

[FourScore]

76. ARe you STILL questioning the presence of molten metal???

Good Lord...

If photos don't do it for ya'...Then here are some testimonies of it...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

[SidDithers]

78. I posted a photo of molten metal...

you posted two pictures of heated metal. You do see the difference, and why it's important, don't you?

Sid

[FourScore]

88. The photos I posted show hot metal DRIPPING with molten metal.

[jberryhill]

99. No.. the photos posted show a

piece of earth moving machinery picking up something glowing red/yellow, and there appear to be flecks of red/yellow stuff falling to the ground beneath it. Whether that stuff is liquid anything, red-hot flotsam, or broken bits of what-have-you, I, for one, can't tell.

If you pulled a steel bar out of the embers of a fire, you'd get a still picture of a red hot bar with red-hot embers falling off of it, because you've disturbed the embers.

But I'm trying to wrap my head around what you think you see there... that is a very precise "molten pool" they are pulling that steel out of. Because in order to have a two phase system, assuming it has been sitting around long enough to reach approximate equilibrium, then you have to be right bang-on at the melting point. For example, if you show me a glass of water with ice cubes in it, and you tell me that glass has been sitting around for a couple of hours, I will tell you with precision the temperature of that water. Initially, the water may have been warmer than 32F, and the ice might have been colder than 32F, but there is only one temperature at which water and ice peacefully co-exist.

I asked elsewhere in this thread for nebula to describe what happens when I drop 100 Kg of solid steel into 100 Kg of molten steel, and I don't know if he's still puzzling over that, but I think you might want to ponder the same thing relative to your picture of "hot metal dripping with molten metal" and presumably being retrieved from a pile in which this solid metal has been in contact with this molten metal for an appreciable length of time.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Also, Eager is talking about the fire in the towers, not under the Pile

Big difference.

[LARED]

27. Eager was not referring to underground fires

he was speaking to the fires in the towers. Two completely different animals.

Underground fires are distinctly different from 'open' fires. They tend toward stoichiometric conditions as they only find enough air to sustain combustion. The heat from combustion is very slow to dissipate because heat transfer in minimized, creating a very hot fire.

Air was not pumped into the underground fires but was rather pulled into the fire.

[piobair]

30. I never said

that what you are seeing is melted steel. Given the large quantities of Aluminum present I think that what you see flow is actually molten aluminum. It is not inconsistent to have air introduced from below while the insulation provided by the overburden keeps the heat in. While you are critiquing you might try to explain to Nebula that steel does not burn. It absorbs heat and then immediately begins to cool when the heat source is removed. Steel is not capable of supporting its own combustion.

[nebula]

34. Are you saying steel can never burn or melt?

heating steel with a an ordinary fire will not ignite it.

I may have used the term combustible loosely (the dictionary definition), since steel is not combustible in the sense of wood or paper . But it will react and it will WILL melt and burn given that the heat source is sufficient. (melting point of steel= 2500 degrees F).

[piobair]

35. But once you remove the heat source

the steel will immediately begin to cool. At no point will it ignite. It will of course melt if exposed to enough heat over a length of time. You didn't use the term combust loosely, you used it completely wrong. Steel will not burn. Another poster once corrected me by saying rust being an exothermic reaction is technically burning but it is not combustion. You could expose steel to the heat of a thousand suns and it will melt but once you remove the suns it will cool and become solid again.

[nebula]

37. Yes, of course

Steel will not burn itself up like paper or wood. It will be intact once it re-solidifies and cools. By OSHA's definition, steel is not combustible because it does not catch fire easily.

On another note, that would explain why much of the WTC steel could not be shipped off to China immediately. They had to to wait for temperatures at ground zero to cool, and wait for the molten pools to re-solidify back into a solid (metal, steel) before they could attempt to remove it.

[piobair]

38. Not combustible because it

won't catch fire at all! I don't know how much plainer to say it. You are wrong on this. Totally, utterly, unmitigatably{sp},undeniably,unqualifyingly wrong. You can't be more wrong. You are the King {or queen} of wrong. You are magnificent in your wrongness. If wrong were monkeys you'd be friggin King Kong.

[nebula]

43. You like to waste time splitting hairs, don't you?

Burn, melt whatever the hell you want to call it.

The point of the argument is to see whether steel could have been a source of the molten pools seen at ground zero.

And I think no can argue that in fact STEEL could be source of it, since STEEL does in fact MELT AND PRODUCE MOLTEN POOLS ONCE IT IS HEATED TO SUFFICIENT TEMPERATURES.

Within the enclosed, furnace-like environment of Ground Zero and the abundance of steel there, those molten pools have an environment to sustain themselves for possibly WEEKS on end.

[AZCat]

45. It's nice, for the purposes of discussion...

if we all speak the same language. What you call "splitting hairs" is to others a vast difference in meaning.

[piobair]

46. finally

we are in agreement although it is hardly splitting hairs to point out the difference between melting and burning. The op had to do with what could have caused enough heat to {possibly} melt steel. I was merely pointing out that you can achieve temperatures much higher than the temps at which common substances burn due to retained heat. You chimed in with the idea that the steel could be its own fuel and that is nonsense.

[nebula]

52. I agree to not use 'combustible' to describe steel

But let me address one of your points:

You said,

"But once you remove the heat source, the steel will immediately begin to cool."

That is true, no argument there.

But, take this scenario:

1) What if that heat source is hot enough to turn steel into a molten pool?

AND,

2) that this molten pool of steel is now floating around not out in the open, but in an enclosed, oven-like space?

My question is:

How long would it take for (mostly) enclosed, molten steel to cool AFTER the original heat source is removed? Keep in mind, the enclosed space is preventing all this intense 2500 degree heat from escaping. Could it then take take days, weeks, or months for molten steel to cool in such conditions?

Of course it could.

[jberryhill]

71. "2500 degree heat"

I'm going to throw in the towel, or indeed the oven mitt, on "2500 degree heat escaping".

Look, if you have a 100 degree C piece of steel, and you take away 500 Joules of heat, you get a 99 degree C piece of steel.

If you have a 50 degree C piece of steel, and you take away 500 Joules of heat, you get a 49 degree C piece of steel.

The 500 Joules that you took away from the 100 degree piece of steel is not any "hotter" than the 500 Joules of heat you took away from the 50 degree C piece of steel.

But if you are going to measure "heat" in degrees, then we are going to have to simply agree that you use a set of physical concepts which are not defined according to the way those concepts are normally used.

[jberryhill]

50. ....provided...

...that the heat has somewhere to go. If I take your thousand-sun-exposed steel and wrap it in a perfect, reflective insulator, then it will never cool down again.

Your explanations, btw, are the most succinct and lucid thus far.

Something "hot" will cool provided that the heat has a way to radiate, conduct, or convect away from the "hot thing".

The specific heat of steel at ordinary temperatures is around 450-500 J/Kg/C.

What this means is that if you transfer 450-500 Joules of thermal energy into a 1 Kg piece of steel, then you will raise its temperature by 1 degree Celsius. It doesn't matter at what temperature you do that (it matters to the extent that the specific heat is not linear, but that's a distraction at the level of physical understanding we have in this forum).

Burning 1 gallon of gasoline will release 130 MJ of energy. That can melt a lot of steel, provided you have a somewhat efficient way to transfer the heat from the gasoline to the steel.

Nebula, I would like you to understand the difference between "temperature" and "heat content". Do this for me:

Experiment 1:

1. Heat your oven to 400 F.

2. Stick your hand into the oven.

Experiment 1 should teach you that, yes, you can stick your hand into an oven where the surrounding air is 400 F. Does this mean that you can stick your hand into anything that is 400 F?

Experiment 2:

1. Heat your oven to 400 F.

3. Reach into the oven and grab the metal rack.

Your results in Experiment 2 should differ considerably from your results in Experiment 1. While air at 400 F is every bit as "hot" as metal at 400 F, the air does not contain as much heat nor is it capable of conducting and transferring as much heat as the metal is.

[nebula]

59. You first...

grab the metal rack in a 400 degree oven and tell me what happens.

[MervinFerd]

77. "Thermite" is NOT an explanation for this.

Thermite burns rapidly and goes away.

It DOES NOT explain molten metal weeks after the collapse.


The 'viable' and probably true explanation is that flammable debris continued to burn. Pockets of debris were trapped and insulated and became very hot.

'Thermite', 'ThermAte' or Space Beam weapons are needed and aren't explanations.

[FourScore]

81. What debris?

All witnesses have said on the record that there was no debris. The molten metal is important because the fires at the time of the collapse were not hot enough to melt the steel. So if the fires did not melt it, what did? Obviously, the insulation of the rubble kept the steel hot. Okay, if burning debris under an insulated pile of ash is causing huge pockets of molten steel, then where is the evidence of that? Give me science that I can work with here...

Forget the thermite theory. If you don't believe it...fine...I don't care. Just what caused the molten metal???? No one can answer this question in a scientific manner.

I'm lookin' for a solid response here...

[SidDithers]

83. See bolo's post #79 for a solid response...

and you are getting scientific answers, you're just not asking scientific questions.

Sid

[piobair]

107. It doesn't matter

if the fires weren't hot enough at the time of the collapse to melt steel. What I've tried to convey simply, and with the help of Jerrybhill more scientifically, is that it is not the temperature of the fire that is important! It is the amount of heat energy that is released and how much is retained by the insulating properties of the pile. Paper burns at 451f. If you keep adding paper to the fire and not allowing the heat to escape in some fashion the temperatures observed will be much higher than 451 degrees. This is the answer to your original post.

[nebula]

92. "Thermite burns rapidly and goes away."

Only if the heat energy from the thermite is not trapped and has somewhere to escape.

[jberryhill]

87. What is "undying heat"

If heat doesn't have anywhere to go, it happily stays where it is.

How does a rapid-burning substance such as thermite explain "molten pools of steel and excessive heat" which stays around for weeks?

Pure magnesium burns hotter-n-the-hinges-of-Hell also. Why do you rule out magnesium?

Here, look it up yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
Magnesium is also flammable, burning at a temperature of approximately 2500 K (2200 °C, 4000 °F).

So, magnesium burns at 4000 °F, and you say the only thing that could cause these effects is thermite. On what ground do you rule out magnesium, hmm?

(aside from which, in a recent update, Jones has admitted that an unfortunate typo has caused the main point of his work to be tragically misunderstood. What he meant to say is that his analysis show the structure was attacked by a large TERMITE.)

[William Seger]

89. Damn spell-checkers

Those things have no common sense at all.

[jberryhill]

94. I dunno

But if you consider that there are insects which secrete formic acid, then it may not have been a termite per se, but a scaled-up bioengineered fire ant of some kind.

In fact, many of the wtc clean-up workers experienced intense skin and other irritation characteristic of that caused by formic acid.

While relatively unknown in the west, the giant acid-spewing termite was a common problem in the medieval Islamic world, and someone must have been able to revive or clone them from surviving genetic material.

There is no disputing the historical record on this point:



So - yes, Islamic terrorists are responsible, and yes, they apparently used a termite.

[Kingshakabobo]

112. This makes as much sense as some of the CT theories......

......no planes, directed beams etc.

Maybe it was termites WITH directed frickin laser beams!

[piobair]

108. you aint just a whoofin

about magnesium. I've been on probably 40 car fires over the years that involved engines with magnesium blocks or components. VW's are the worst. Nothing is more frustrating than pouring thousands of gallons of water on the damn thing and still have it burn. We now carry foam that does a much better job.

[piobair]

115. Good explanation

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html