Here's my theory of how the molten steel retained it's heat...

[wildbilln864]

for weeks after the collapse. It's simple really. What ever the heat source was that melted the steel, aluminum and any other metals before, or during the collapses, theis molten metal was burried under thousands of tons of debris which insulated the hot metals and restricted their thermal dissipation. A perfect insulator would trap the heat indefinitely. I also doubt that there were many airways to feed a fire beneath the piles and this would also allow the heat to escape and the metal to cool. And I haven't heard of any fires being uncovered during the cleanup, only molten metals.
Look here for a website listing the thermal conductivity of various metals and other substances. The higher the thermal conductivity the faster it will dissipate heat. Notice aluminum is four times that of steel!
:patriot:
And incidentally, if it was thermit. Thermit contains iron oxide which furnishes the oxygen required for the thermite reaction! Hmmm! :think:

And No! No! No! Steel is not combustible! :eyes:

[greyl]

1. What, you passed up the oppurtunity to bump the thread

in which this was already being discussed?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. It's too close to the top. n/t

[JackRiddler]

3. You are mistaken...

There was a fire in the pile. It went on for six weeks. It produced never-ending smoke during that time. If you don't remember it, I'm sorry. Millions of people who paid attention to the reports, and millions of New Yorkers who saw and smelled the smoke from the fire certainly do remember. This fire was underground, under pressure, and presumably fed by subway and other tunnels. It taints any discussion of "molten metal" or "hot spots" found after 9/11 - the fires applied long enough could have produced both by the weekend after 9/11 (when the "hot spots" were measured). Thus, only reports of molten metal seen immediately after the collapse are potentially relevant as evidence for the thermite hypothesis.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Yes, my thoughts also. n/t

[FourScore]

6. Good point. n/t

[angry_chuck]

22. thermite?

I want to know what caused the dripping goo. It looks like molten steel but how, if not thermite? fire could not do that in such a short span. Am I mistaken?

[FourScore]

27. Certainly not with a diffuse flame. n/t

[angry_chuck]

31. video of goo dripping

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11

"while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Please don't post here from prisonplanet.

It's not an acceptable source of information by DU rules.

The "dripping goo" is most likely molten aluminum alloy from United 175, mixed with other flammable materials. It falls out orange-red, but very quickly becomes the silvery color we associate with aluminum.

It is not thermite.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

40. BTW, rense is just as bad as pp..nt

Sid

[angry_chuck]

42. do you have any links

please share. I just want to learn

[SidDithers]

44. Well, many here don't like it...

but us skeptics think that http://www.911myths.com/ is good.

Sid

[angry_chuck]

48. thanks

I must admit I saw Alex Jones in 1999 when I lived in Austin, TX and he was saying the same stuff then. It seemed over the top and in the same vein as that ludicrous LaRouche packet that guy gave me when I was going to the bus sometime in november 2000 before the election. I thought both guys were crazy. I only watched Alex Jones because I had basic cable (10 channels for $10) and that (the public access channel) was the best choice most of the time. He just talks so much and he uses his good facts in wild, speculative arguments that detract from the good info.

It has been 8 years since I first saw Alex Jones and now I think he is pretty on target. LaRouche is a crazy deustchbag still, and will always be. But AJ, maybe he is on to something. It is just nice to see someone yelling this crap through a loudspeaker at legislators (here and in UK!). Over the top, yes; Refreshing, definitely!

Thanks for the link! I appreciate it.

[SidDithers]

49. You're welcome :)

It's a bit rough and tumble in here alot of the time, and sometimes downright nasty. Just don't take anything that anyone posts personally and have fun with the debate.

:toast:

Sid

Oh yeah, Alex Jones is a kook :evilgrin:

[angry_chuck]

51. he does go on and on

I wonder how he produces saliva while never shutting up?

I did see him talk to some fundies in the heart of Texas (north of 54% kerry travis county) and tell them the gov was behind 9.11

That was great, kook or not.

PS- how do you make the toast emoticon?

[SidDithers]

55. Smilies look up table...

link is just above the Subject box at the top of a new post.

It's colon toast colon

Sid

[angry_chuck]

58. thanks

:yourock:

that 9.11 site is great. thanks

[angry_chuck]

39. it's a reply anyway

not an entire thread

[FourScore]

4. I agree with everything you have said!

The metallurgic analyses that have been done also support this theory.

[LARED]

7. If I understand your position

all the molten metal was formed before or during the collapse, and for six weeks or so the molten material was insulated sufficiently to prevent solidification?

Is there any scientific basis for this astounding belief?

[John Q. Citizen]

8. The scientific basis is called insulation. If heat is trapped and not lost

through convection, radiation, or conduction then no heat is lost. Can you understand that science?

I think what you meant to ask, though, was; "Is there any evidence to support perfect or near perfect insulation of the heat in the rubble?

I would say, no, there isn't, to that question. In fact I think there is pretty good evidence available that there was little insulation provided in the rubble piles. The smoke and the heat lost with the smoke, the fact that multiple eyewitnesses saw what they described as molten metal, suggests little insulating properties in the rubble pile.

It just proves that most of the OCT'ers aren't very analytical in either their questions or their answers.

Or there hypothesis. I recall it was boloboffin on another thread who was attempting to make a case for a reasonably high degree of insulating properties in the rubble piles. I noticed you didn't weigh in on that hypothesis though. Yet here is the same hypothesis as regards insulation in the rubble pile and here you do weigh in.

I'm obviously no where near as analytical as you view yourself to be, yet my analysis shows you to be critical of statements/hypothesis made by people you perceive to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, yet not critical of those same hypothesis when made by people you believe to reject an inside job hypothesis.

Is that a reasonable analysis on my part? Or is your lack of critical analysis as applied to those you view as anti-inside job due to another cause?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. You know all of those thermal maps of the Pile?

Those are pictures of heat ESCAPING.

Something has to be responsible for a continuous source of heat escaping the Pile at those rates.

And it ain't thermite.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. FDNY continually hosed down the site

1. to reduce the fires and the heat they emitted.

2. to keep down the dust.

What is odd is how long the fires persisted despite the daily hosing.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Go Google "Centralia" and "Burning Mountain"

All will be explained.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Except those sites

are not self contained in a 2 acre bathtub. They have a seemingly endless source of fuel, ie a coal vein. And they are not hosed down 24/7 with water to try to put them out.

[wildbilln864]

15. Those are very criticle points....

you're making DYEW!

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Fuel for the WTC fires: two office buildings worth of combustible material

Ground to dust and compacted by the collapse of the towers.

Now go Google "grain elevator explosions" and find out about the combustibility of small particles.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FourScore]

23. ROFLMAO!!!!

:rofl:
Thank You, John Q!!! :toast:

[angry_chuck]

24. that sounds like a big pile of fuel to me

Who here hasn't crushed something and then burned it? It works well that way...

Humm, sort of like 9.11 worked well for Exxon and Halliburton (and all of bushco)?

coincidence? hardly.

[jberryhill]

65. And you know better

In another thread, you even mentioned landfill fires, which burn for weeks on end.

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire/
no one realized the landfill was on fire until flames broke through the surface on Monday, Nov. 8 around midnight, when the landfill owner placed a 911 emergency call. The Delta Fire Department responded with several pumper trucks that brought the surface fire under control during the next 24 hours. Managers thought the problem had been solved.

However, on Wednesday, Nov. 11, when a 50-yard by 100-yard sinkhole fell approximately 10 feet on the crest of the horseshoe and flames erupted on the steep face, the Delta Fire Chief realized that the fire was much more complicated than he first believed.

Concerned that the fire would spread, Delta Shake and Shingle operators began excavating 20-foot deep trenches around the burning areas, which they completed on Sunday, Nov. 14. But it quickly became apparent that these trenches would not be effective in stopping the fire because they penetrated less than one half of the fill thickness.

Seeing it was time to bring in a landfill fire specialist, the owners hired North Vancouver-based Sperling Hansen Associates (SHA) on Nov. 12. SHA's plan involved establishing perimeter fire guards down to solid soil around the horseshoe, excavating and extinguishing all burning material from the horseshoe, and conducting thorough geotechnical monitoring to ensure that surrounding utilities would not be damaged by the firefighters' efforts. A previous slope failure at the landfill had displaced the gas pipeline by more than 10 feet and had resulted in several million dollars in damages.

Sound the Alarm Over the next few days, the fire gained intensity. Fearing a serious environmental emergency, the British Columbia Fire Commissioner on Nov. 25, ordered the landfill to extinguish its fire following SHA's plan. However, because of the large anticipated cost of extinguishing the fire, the company ignored the order and eventually went into receivership.

By this time, smoke from the plume was starting to pose a health hazard to adjacent businesses.

[wildbilln864]

11. excellent analysis, John Q....

I think you're spot on with your analysis! :hi: Sure is alot of team work going on with defending the GCT! That word "official"just doesn't seem appropriate. I'd rather refer to it as the Government's Conspiracy Theory or maybe it should be called the PNACCT? :shrug:
Yes my intention was just to get other's views. Was thinking about other causes for the molten pools. I guess my theory wasn't very likely. But thanks to those who offered real answers!

[John Q. Citizen]

19. You are welcome. There is a supplus of heat, that's apparent. What caused it

is still a mystery to me.

[LARED]

20. Pardon me, but how is it apparent there is a surplus of heat? (n/t)

[LARED]

18. How about this theory?

In the enormous debris pile made of possibly thousands of different materials that used to be called the WTC, there were a few areas that had just the right amount of combustible material, air supply, insulating factors, and metal to melt, to create temperature hot enough to form molten pools of metal.

What do you think of this theory?

[John Q. Citizen]

21. What happened to the gypsum board and the vermiculite? There was more

of that than probably anything else in terms of volume (not counting metal)

And what happened to the carpet? How does that disappear? Sure some could have been in the pit, but there were already eight floors with no carpet in the pit, and then about 80 other floors out of the fire zone that should have had around an acre of carpet per floor. How does carpet just evaporate?

But back to your theory. There was an awful lot of intense hot spots soon after the 3 collapses. Could the heat have gotten that intense that fast and stayed so intense for so long?

And your "just the right amount" theory for all three structures reminds me of a fairy tale. The pit wasn't to hot, it wasn't too cold, it was just right. So it burned it all up?

I don't know. It's remotely possible, but none too probable.

So what happened to the carpet that wasn't in the pits or the fires?

[FourScore]

25. Wow! John! You're smokin' tonight!!!

These are some GREAT points you're making. I'm just going to have to bookmark this thread!

The carpet!! Of course! Why didn't someone think of that sooner? Carpet doesn't evaporate in a building collapse. There must of been miles of that stuff! So what happened to it?

Keep up the good work! And thank you so much for your insight!

[AZCat]

26. Square miles? No, not really.

But thanks for trying.

[FourScore]

29. Not all in one peice my dear...but thanks also for trying...n/t

[AZCat]

30. Perhaps you should do a little math...

before making such a ridiculous statement.

Oh well, there's always next time.

[FourScore]

33. Wow! 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile!!!

I stand corrected...

Well then, miles of the stuff!!

[AZCat]

36. That isn't much better.

Your original units were correct - why did you switch? You were just off on the quantity.

[FourScore]

63. Not quite sure what you mean by that.

[angry_chuck]

35. Don't be so mean math whiz!

The Center contained approximately 12 million square feet of office space, including the two million square feet of office space in Seven World Trade Center. In the two tower buildings, each floor was approximately one acre in size, and each tower contained 4.8 million gross square feet of floor area.

Each tower had 3.8 million square feet (350,000 m²) of office space

so with the low number -

2 x 3,8000,000 = 7600000

1 square mile = 27,878,400 square feet

7600000 / 27878400 = 0.27261

There was 27% of a square mile of carpet! Where did it all go!?!

just kidding about being mean btw! but seriously, * is responsible for 9.11, he at least colluded in some way.

[SidDithers]

38. And I bet some of that floor space was marble flooring...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[AZCat]

41. Much better!

Although I admit my calculation was much more crude:

110 floors * 2 towers * 1 acre per floor = 220 acres. With 640 acres/square mile, this comes out to about 0.34 square miles - a little higher than yours.


The idiot prince is responsible for a lot of things (including ignoring the 8/6/01 PDB) but I have not yet seen evidence to convince me he is responsible for 9/11.

[angry_chuck]

45. I think that responsibility must be

taken in context. maybe not directly but through some loose association that he may just believe he is a part of. You know, maybe he did his part. Who knows what that could be? You or I can only guess. I just think it is too weird to have the CFR propose a plan like the North American Union and Bush to slurp it up. The CFR is an NWO front organization that really hates America. Why does anybody listen to them (or Heritage Foundation or PNAC)? Money talks and poor people have to shut up and get in line.

[AZCat]

47. I think people listen to groups such as those...

because they reinforce whatever misguided beliefs they might already have, and conveniently blame everything on "others" (you're familiar with the list, I'm sure). It's not easy to question things that, for some people, have been told to them throughout their lives.

[angry_chuck]

50. the point you make is very good

I am amazed that even when some people are able to 'get' it they still reinforce those malign things they now profess to know to be true.

I think the cave allegory is appropriate...

Virtuous people are rare. Few people want to be led out of the cave, or are capable of the difficult ascent.

Every attempt we make at regaining authority over our actions is met with an even greater effort to usurp it.

In an informed and free society the best ideas and most important issues will come to the forefront as a process of the free market of ideas.

It is through the subversion and corruption of this process that the MSM and their corporate paymasters render meaningful discourse mute.

"We respond automatically, unconsciously, and often toward our own further disempowerment. The less we are satisfied by our decisions, the more easily manipulated we become." - Rushkoff

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."- Thomas Jefferson

I agree with what you have said wholeheartedly. I sincerely wish that somehow these things will change. I think we need to be the change we want to see.

Thank you!

[AZCat]

53. Thanks to you, actually.

It's by engaging in discussion about these sorts of things (both here and in our non-digital lives) that people like you lift a society out of darkness. We may not all agree about the issues (even those near and dear to the democratic agenda) but questioning the actions of those in power is a necessary function of a citizenry, which cannot occur without "an informed and free society".

:hi:

[angry_chuck]

54. Agreed!

The unexamined life is not worth living!

To me the shadows are the frightening part. The light is beautiful...

[FourScore]

64. How quickly one forgets building 7.

I did it like this:

Tower 1 - 4,761,416 square feet

Tower 2 - 4,761,416 square feet

Building 7 - 2,000,000 square feet

9,522,832 total square feet

27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

So the total collapsed WTC square footage was less than a square mile.

Still, there must have been MILES of carpet in those buildings nonetheless. (5280 feet in a mile)

[FourScore]

43. Yeah...what (s)he said...or, um, wrote...typed...whatever...

Nice equation! Thanks angry_chuck!

[SidDithers]

34. !

Sid

[LARED]

59. Carpet?

What make you think all the carpet disappeared?

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. Try to find a piece of carpet

in any of the pictures from ground zero?

I think I might have seen a piece that looks like carpet once.

[LARED]

61. Based on that logic

there are many building components that supposedly did not exist.

I do not see evidence of dozens of typical building materials. Does that mean none existed, or is a better explanation something like - between the debris, destruction, and inability to get a first hand look at the site, it is not possible to see that level of detail.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Check out Joel Meyerowitz's new book 'Aftermath'

Over 300 pages of large format, high res images from Ground Zero. Then tell me how many pieces of carpet you can find.

(Some of his work is available on line)

[jberryhill]

66. Construction Debris and Underground Fires

Can burn for weeks:
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire

There's quite a literature on landfill fires.

The problem with the "just the right amount" criticism is that the entire discussion of "molten metal pools" is premised on eyewitness accounts of seeing something molten, and figuring it was metal. These accounts do not describe the extent, size, location, etc. of these "molten metal pools" nor are there any pictures of them (yes, there are pictures of "hot stuff"). So the problem is that you seem to want a precise analysis of a claimed phenomena that is not precisely described or documented in the first place. What you are getting are plausibility hypotheses that suggest that metals can, and do, melt in various types of fires. Then there is the background noise from those who do not understand that people have been melting metal with charcoal fires for millenia and/or who do not understand the basic concepts of heat and temperature.

But if you want to obtain a precise discussion of anything, then your starting point has to be some degree of precision in what it is you want to discuss.

Arguments that amount to "I don't believe an underground debris fire can burn hot or last for weeks" don't amount to much. The link above describes a construction debris landfill fire that burned for weeks. So if the question is "can such a fire burn for weeks" then the answer is yes. If the question is "can a hydrocarbon-based fire melt metal" the answer is also yes. What, exactly, in those two answers makes it "impossible" for there to have been molten metal in the wtc debris pile without resorting to explanations that arise primarily from "the only thing that someone told me could do this".

So, what you are hearing is, yes, it is not outside of the range of possibilities that there were molten metals of various kinds in the debris pile. In view of the fact that molten metal pools are not normally associated with controlled demolition, then why one should jump to "there were molten metal pools, therefore this was a controlled demolition" doesn't make sense. There was certainly a lot of combustion of combustible materials going on, but that's no great surprise.

On a minor note, there is a syntactical problem with interpreting the account of someone who saw "molten metal". I can look at liquid metal and say "that is molten metal" but I can also look at an amorphous lump of recooled, solid metal and say "that is molten metal".

[FourScore]

67. Finally an OCT'er builds a case

The landfill link is interesting. However, that landfill may have had other debris stacked in ways that was not similar to the dust pile seen at the WTC. We do not know the layout of that landfill. Also the landfill was comprised of all damaged debris in the area, and not just specifically the building remains.

Also, you say there were no photos of the molten metal; and you seem to discount the many very credible eyewitnesses who report having seen, not only molten "metal", but specifically molten "steel" (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html). Simultaneously, however, we are to take it at face value that fires consumed the pile underneath the rubble. This we are to accept even though there is also no photography of this event. Granted, there are also (I believe)eyewitness accounts of burning debris under the rubble. But if you refuse to accept the eyewitness testimony of those who saw molten steel, then you cannot accept the testimony of those who report pockets of fires either.

I think it is quite possible that pockets were burning. Such an underground fire can certainly smolder for a long time.

Still, steel is not as easy to melt as you claim. Certainly we can all agree that metals are not equal in their composition. The forging process of modern steel as we know it today was an important component of the industrial revolution. Some of you here speak of it as if modern day steel beams used for the construction of high rise buildings could have just been forged by a few hot charcoals in the middle ages. Even you can recognize the ridiculous nature of such claims.

It was not until the 19th century when a guy named Bessemer first forged modern day steel (actually due to an effort to stop iron cannons from exploding during firing.).

I am willing to believe that fires burned under the rubble in pocket areas. I am not willing however to discount the numerous eyewitness accounts of molten steel, some even as early as hours after the fall of the towers. Some of the earlier eyewitness accounts also do not allow enough time for smoldering fires to cause huge steel beams to melt.

I think most people here understand quite well the difference between heat and temperature with fires. I'm not real sure how throwing that information around ties into the molten steel in the pile. I think you are saying that the heat from the pile would suffice in melting huge steel beams in an insulated pile. If that's what you are saying, then how do you support that claim?

[jberryhill]

68. ZZzzzz....

"Also, you say there were no photos of the molten metal; and you seem to discount the many very credible eyewitnesses who report having seen<...>"

Yes, that's absolutely correct. In saying that I haven't seen a photo of molten metal pools, I'm clearly not talking about eyewitness statements. Good of you to notice that.

I am mystified by where I said that steel is "easy to melt", since I said no such thing. There are ancient steels that came from India and Damascus, and in which were indeed made with charcoal forges. There has been steel since at least as early as 300 BC. As an alternative to the physical processes used in modern steel forges, a variety of solid state materials were mixed as additives to molten iron to make steel. But that's really beside the point here other than, no, Bessemer did not invent steel - he came up with the modern industrial process of manufacturing it.

Please provide a link to "melting huge steel beams" in any of your eyewitness accounts.

Now, if I give you an eyewitness account of someone saying "I went to the Taco Bell and had a burrito and a Coke" what would you make of that?

They don't serve Coke at Taco Bell, they only serve Pepsi.

From this, you could conclude a number of things. You could assume that the speaker really didn't care what cola he had, and just said he had a "Coke" when, in fact, he actually had a "Pepsi". You could assume the speaker is lying to you. You could assume that he wandered into a carefully-constructed counterfeit Taco Bell, which really did serve Coke instead of Pepsi.

So now you assert it is impossible for steel to melt in the debris pile. Okay, that's fine if you want. What that suggests is that the "molten steel" was some other molten material, and it wasn't the intention of the speaker to really provide you with a complete chemical analysis of whatever molten stuff he saw. If you want to track these folks down and cross-examine them to clarify on what basis they concluded that it was from "melting huge steel beams", I'll take a trip to NY with you. Otherwise I'd just assume it was ordinary people commenting on things they saw, and who weren't keeping lab notebooks.

You can deem whatever you want to be "very credible". I don't find a quote like this to withstand scrutiny:

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"

And I don't find it to be credible for the same reason that you can't have Coke at a Taco Bell, despite the fact that, yes, someone might say that. The immediate question is "how do you keep a steel beam in a liquid phase at one end and a solid phase at the other?" Because if you melt one end of a steel beam, then you have limited choices as to how to proceed, because steel is a good thermal conductor. Either the rest of that beam is going to draw heat away from the molten end, resulting in re-cooled slag, or you are going to have to keep that beam at the melting point, but without adding any more heat to take you through the heat of fusion required to make the phase transition for the rest of the beam.

So, no, I can't buy that quote on its face as written. Did the guy see something? I don't doubt it. But I doubt he could have literally seen what is written in that quote. There are plenty of things I don't know from my own experience, but I did spend years playing around with equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions for making metal solutions.

[FourScore]

70. There is a huge difference between

a damascene sword and steel beams in modern buildings. The process of actually melting steel was not even acheived until the Renaissance:

"At some time in the middle ages or Renaissance, the melting temperature could be reached, but the mass production of good steel still had to wait for the 19th century. Before, only "thin" objects - the paradigmatic "sword" or scimitar, shamshir, tachi, tulwar, yatagan,.. - could be made by in-diffusion of carbon."

http://www.baronesteel.com/history.html

It's an interesting story, the history of steel, and one I recommend to anyone who seriously believes a comment like "people have been melting metal with charcoal fires for millenia" even belongs in this discussion. Certainly melting metals over charcoal fires is not synonomis with forging modern-day steel beams for high-rise buildings.

I never said Bessemer "invented steel" I said he was the first to "forge modern day steel". And that didn't occur until the 19th century.

"...The beginning of the industrial revolution was severely hampered by the lack of a large-scale process for the production of good steel...He (Bessemer) was then the first person (so it was believed for a while) who had the genius idea of making steel by getting carbon out of cheap, carbon rich cast iron, instead of using the cumbersome way of getting carbon into low-carbon wrought iron..."

I also never said "it is impossible for steel to melt in the debris pile". I said, "I think you are saying that the heat from the pile would suffice in melting huge steel beams in an insulated pile. If that's what you are saying, then how do you support that claim?" I am merely asking you to support your statement.

As for choosing to ignore witness testimony:
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who designed thw WTC, told reporters: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” There are many, many other excellent witnesses. How you can simply ignore credible witness testimony is baffling. (I don't think your Taco Bell/Coke argument is very strong here.) I do think it discredits the OCT'ers to cherry pick the evidence or witnesses that will bolster only their argument. Not all OCT'ers do this, but those who do, discredit themselves enormously.

It is interesting that you want me to provide detailed links to quotes used in my sources and photos of molten metal, but you need no photos or sources to bolster your own claims.

Also, I would like to request that you not rewrite my words incorrectly, but rather quote me in context and correctly. If your research into 911 is done in the same haphazard way in which you have misrepresented my statements, then I am left questioning your research capabilities.

[jberryhill]

72. Very good, let's take that quote...

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who designed thw WTC, told reporters: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

Now, do you think that Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer, would find it at all odd that "molten steel" was in the debris pile if it required some sort of exceptional mechanism?

Why would a structural engineer just matter-of-factly say a thing like that, if there was something unusual about that? What his "eyewitness statement" says to me is that a guy who knows a lot more about steel than I ever will didn't think there was anything worth writing home about.

Okay, I wasn't going to do this, but as I mentioned, I spent a lot of time melting metals and making liquid metal solutions.

As you probably know, solid things can be dissolved into liquid things. For example, the melting point of table salt is 800 deg C. That's really hot.

Now, what if I said that I can melt and re-crystallize that salt on my desk without ever going over 100 deg C. I guess you'd think that's really tough.

Hold that thought. The melting point of water is 0 deg C. That's pretty cool.

Now, here's the neat thing about mixing stuff together. Even though I'd need 800 deg C to melt salt, I can dissociate that salt at room temperature if I want to, and can in fact re-crystallize that salt by cooling down the solution and precipitating it out.

It may surprise you to learn that all sorts of liquids form solutions and dissolve things.

Let's first talk about what happens when molten aluminum comes into contact with steel:

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Research/ACRC/Research/13.html
Tool steels are generally heat treated by double tempering to a hardness of about Rc48-Rc50. In due course of the casting process, the aluminum melt attacks the softer regions of the die surface. The soft regions being the areas in-between the hard martensitic plates and the carbide particles; these are primarily the intergranular regions. When the aluminum erodes these soft areas of the die surface, it results in the formation of a primary solid solution of iron by aluminum dissolution.

I'm going to guess you didn't know that steel will dissolve in molten aluminum.

http://www.key-to-nonferrous.com/default.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&NM=55
Iron is the most common impurity found in aluminum. It has a high solubility in molten aluminum and is therefore easily dissolved at all molten stages of production. The solubility of iron in the solid state is very low (~0.04%) and therefore, most of the iron present in aluminum over this amount appears as an intermetallic second phase in combination with aluminum and often other elements.

Next, I'd like to introduce you to what is called a phase diagram.

A phase diagram tells you what will happen when you heat and cool various mixtures of things.

This is the phase diagram for Aluminum and Iron:



Now, what does that diagram suggest to you, if you wanted to liquefy some iron, but only had enough heat to melt aluminum. I'll give you a hint - the "L" in the region to the upper right means "liquid". What that says is that at the concentrations and temperatures corresponding to places in that region, then what you have is a liquid.

And this is what bothers me with blather along the lines of "it must be thermite!" The debris pile was a complex chaotic mess with a whole lot of chemical and physical processes going on inside it.

(and if you think about it long enough... if you have no problem with there having been molten aluminum inside the towers - from the sheating and the airplane body - before they collapsed, then you might be well on your way to an additional mechanism for attacking steel members. And if you think really, really, really hard about what thermite IS, then you'd really be on to something.)

[hack89]

71. The fundamental problem with the Thermite theory

is that no one can show a mechanism whereby thermite can create vast pools of molten steel. Is the molten steel a by product of the thermite reaction or is it structural steel that was actually melted?

[piobair]

10. I just posted this link on another

thread but it is just as relevant here. http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
You don't need exotic explanations for everyday occurences.

[angry_chuck]

28. 9.11, uh does this happen everyday?

Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. Physics professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, has conducted extensive research to prove that buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted metal that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.

It requires temperatures of at least 2800 degrees fahrenheit to melt steel. Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.

http://infowars.net/articles/november2006/171106molten.htm

[SidDithers]

46. Has Dr. Jones...

formerly of BYU, published his "extensive research" in any peer-reviewed science or engineering journals?

Of course, I know the answer. But do you?

Sid

[angry_chuck]

52. of course

too often we surrender our trust to those who are not deserving

Reed Elsevier owns us! and 25% of all science, math, law, and medical information produced by the professional community

http://www.reed-elsevier.com/

so BYU ok that's great. Please show me some more credible evidence, I am very open to new info.

[wildbilln864]

56. Welcome to the dungeon, chuck!

:hi:
I have yet to see any credible dispute of Dr. Jones. But you'll see many here try to discredit him!

[angry_chuck]

57. It just seems so...

possible. unlike the shit that b*sh spews, which is definitely not true. the thermite, might be!

[piobair]

69. of course not

9/11 does not happen every day but fires that create temperatures far in excess of the temps that the combustibles burn at happen thousands of times a day in fires all across the country. What I am trying {with evidently little success} to convey is that you do not need some exotic material such as thermite to create temperatures high enough to melt metal.

The only reason to continue to promote the thermite idea is that you need the heat generated from the thermite reaction to account for the high temps in the pile. It's just not so. There were millions of pounds of combustibles that fell with the towers and just because they are not recognizable as carpet, desks, paper,etc. doesn't mean they cease to exist.

You might notice that I have a low post count. I try to only comment on things that I have direct knowledge of and refrain from cheering from the sidelines. As a 15 year Firefighter with 7 years as an arson investigator I feel comfortable saying it is entirely possible and quite probable that the temps observed in the pile are due to retained heat from normally found combustibles.

[jberryhill]

73. Can you answer this?

I see you posted the melting point of steel.

What happens when molten aluminum (640 deg C) comes into contact with steel.

Do you know?