a quick poll--need some input
- Thread starter pt1gard
- Start date
Now maybe it?s just us, but we have some problems with that.
First, there?s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.
Second, whatever?s glowing red here clearly isn?t isn?t ?molten? in the sense of ?melted?.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don?t know what that is.
Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it?s completely black. There?s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it?s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn?t a good conductor of heat, it?s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?
And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700?C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm
Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we?d expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845?C to 1,040?C to explain our glowing steel. Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level?
There?s a clue in the results of this fire test intended to simulate conditions in a timber frame building:
Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000?C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes...
Despite average atmosphere temperatures in excess of 900?C for 30 minutes...
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm
The Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester tells us that adding plastics to the mix can make things hotter still:
The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...rmance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm
Office fires can be severe, then. What temperatures are achievable? The same page details four different fire types, and shows their temperature range over time.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680?C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100?C and 1120?C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...rmance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm
Note that the hydrocarbon fire passed 1000 degrees Centrigrade (1832?F) very quickly, and even the smouldering fire reached this point over time.
An article by two Arup Fire engineers tells a similar story, pointing out that under some conditions fires can reach much higher temperatures than indicated by the standard curve. Here?s the chart they use:
Source
This shows that temperature increases with fire load (that is, more fuel). And they point out that reduced ventilation doesn?t necessarily have the result you?d expect:
The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration.
Less ventilation means more severe fires? This obviously only works up to a point -- reduce the oxygen supply too much and the fire will die down -- but it does illustrate that the relationship between ventilation and temperature isn?t a simple one.
Another study offers more confirmation of the temperatures that can be reached in fires, and their effect on steel. BRE (Building Research Establishment) carried out a project based around "the development and validation of a CFD-based engineering methodology for evaluating thermal action on steel and composite structures" a few years ago. They build a fire compartment, used various loads (either wood, or wood with plastic) and reported peak temperatures:
As can be seen in the above table, peak measured temperatures exceeded 1300?C in five tests, this measurement being supported by the observation of total heat fluxes of up to 350 kW/m2 and velocities of over 15m/s.
These values are somewhat higher than those observed in typical full-scale compartment fire tests and can be attributed in part to the highly insulating walls, the inclusion of plastic in the fuel and the short residence times (due to high flow rates).
http://projects.bre.co.uk/FRSdiv/ecsc/
Again, ordinary fuels with a little plastic, and the right conditions, yielded high temperatures. And this applied even to the steel itself, where the maximum temperature record in four tests proved to be 1220, 1301, 1245 and 1196 ?C (that?s a peak of 2372 ?F).
Do these temperatures exist in special conditions only? No. A National Fire and Arson Report article from 1992 details the tests done on four steel mattress springs from a normal fire, which appeared to be partly melted:
The apparently melted ends of each of the four springs were cut off and mounted in a metallurgical mounting medium, polished, etched, and examined at up to 500x. Three of the four springs exhibited a decarburized ferrite microstructure, with oxidation on the top surface. Such a microstructure is typical of steel exposed to temperatures in the range of 1800?F [982 ?C].
One of the wire ends exhibited a ferrite microstructure with oxidation on the top surface and incipient melting at the grain boundaries. This particular wire end had attained temperatures of between 2100?F [1148 ?C] and 2200?F [1204 ?C]. This wire end had, in fact, just begun to melt, which is what we would expect if there was melting further down the wire.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
It doesn?t require special materials for a fire to approach 1000?C, then. And in this final case, one steel spring sample could have attained temperatures as high as 1204 ?C. Whether the conditions in the debris pile would allow it is another matter, but beware people who dismiss this out of hand: no-one knows for sure.
None of this proves anything, of course, but it is interesting. Especially because, if this is an accurate photo of what someone was describing as ?molten steel? then it?s clearly different from the entirely ?liquid steel? that some people imagine.
There?s some support for this use of ?molten? elsewhere.
NYDS played a major role in debris removal ? everything from molten steel beams to human remains ? running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
A ?molten? steel beam? If it?s a steel beam, then it?s not ?molten? in the sense of being liquid metal. Does he just mean steel that appeared deformed, or was glowing when first removed from the debris pile?
And consider this report:
Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948
?Molten steel? in February, perhaps 5 months after the attacks? If it?s proposed that something like thermite/ thermate was responsible, then we can?t help wonder how much would be required to maintain high temperatures for so long. The advocates of controlled demolition don?t appear to have made any calculations in this area. And it?s not difficult to imagine why.
Of course they could simply say that this particular report was mistaken, and the beam was ?dripping? from something else. But on what basis do we dismiss this report and accept the others?
Back to the Allison Geyh story, there's no explanation of how a public health investigator is going to identify molten steel. Is she just reporting second-hand accounts that we?ve discovered already, perhaps from Peter Tully? We emailed to ask, and it turns out that Geyh saw no molten steel herself, and is only repeating what she heard from someone else:
I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel.
From here
Of course you could argue that there are too many stories to be ?explained away?, that there?s no way fire alone could account for all these reports. But if so, what about these?
Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm
RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
Only ?molten metal? and debris, but if that phrase is good enough in Keith Eaton?s testimony, why not here? Does this show that thermite was planted in Building 6, too? Or could it be that the fire was enough, after all?
To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.
First, there?s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.
Second, whatever?s glowing red here clearly isn?t isn?t ?molten? in the sense of ?melted?.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don?t know what that is.
Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it?s completely black. There?s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it?s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn?t a good conductor of heat, it?s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?
And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700?C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm
Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we?d expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845?C to 1,040?C to explain our glowing steel. Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level?
There?s a clue in the results of this fire test intended to simulate conditions in a timber frame building:
Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000?C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes...
Despite average atmosphere temperatures in excess of 900?C for 30 minutes...
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm
The Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester tells us that adding plastics to the mix can make things hotter still:
The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...rmance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm
Office fires can be severe, then. What temperatures are achievable? The same page details four different fire types, and shows their temperature range over time.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680?C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100?C and 1120?C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...rmance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm
Note that the hydrocarbon fire passed 1000 degrees Centrigrade (1832?F) very quickly, and even the smouldering fire reached this point over time.
An article by two Arup Fire engineers tells a similar story, pointing out that under some conditions fires can reach much higher temperatures than indicated by the standard curve. Here?s the chart they use:
Source
This shows that temperature increases with fire load (that is, more fuel). And they point out that reduced ventilation doesn?t necessarily have the result you?d expect:
The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration.
Less ventilation means more severe fires? This obviously only works up to a point -- reduce the oxygen supply too much and the fire will die down -- but it does illustrate that the relationship between ventilation and temperature isn?t a simple one.
Another study offers more confirmation of the temperatures that can be reached in fires, and their effect on steel. BRE (Building Research Establishment) carried out a project based around "the development and validation of a CFD-based engineering methodology for evaluating thermal action on steel and composite structures" a few years ago. They build a fire compartment, used various loads (either wood, or wood with plastic) and reported peak temperatures:
As can be seen in the above table, peak measured temperatures exceeded 1300?C in five tests, this measurement being supported by the observation of total heat fluxes of up to 350 kW/m2 and velocities of over 15m/s.
These values are somewhat higher than those observed in typical full-scale compartment fire tests and can be attributed in part to the highly insulating walls, the inclusion of plastic in the fuel and the short residence times (due to high flow rates).
http://projects.bre.co.uk/FRSdiv/ecsc/
Again, ordinary fuels with a little plastic, and the right conditions, yielded high temperatures. And this applied even to the steel itself, where the maximum temperature record in four tests proved to be 1220, 1301, 1245 and 1196 ?C (that?s a peak of 2372 ?F).
Do these temperatures exist in special conditions only? No. A National Fire and Arson Report article from 1992 details the tests done on four steel mattress springs from a normal fire, which appeared to be partly melted:
The apparently melted ends of each of the four springs were cut off and mounted in a metallurgical mounting medium, polished, etched, and examined at up to 500x. Three of the four springs exhibited a decarburized ferrite microstructure, with oxidation on the top surface. Such a microstructure is typical of steel exposed to temperatures in the range of 1800?F [982 ?C].
One of the wire ends exhibited a ferrite microstructure with oxidation on the top surface and incipient melting at the grain boundaries. This particular wire end had attained temperatures of between 2100?F [1148 ?C] and 2200?F [1204 ?C]. This wire end had, in fact, just begun to melt, which is what we would expect if there was melting further down the wire.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
It doesn?t require special materials for a fire to approach 1000?C, then. And in this final case, one steel spring sample could have attained temperatures as high as 1204 ?C. Whether the conditions in the debris pile would allow it is another matter, but beware people who dismiss this out of hand: no-one knows for sure.
None of this proves anything, of course, but it is interesting. Especially because, if this is an accurate photo of what someone was describing as ?molten steel? then it?s clearly different from the entirely ?liquid steel? that some people imagine.
There?s some support for this use of ?molten? elsewhere.
NYDS played a major role in debris removal ? everything from molten steel beams to human remains ? running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
A ?molten? steel beam? If it?s a steel beam, then it?s not ?molten? in the sense of being liquid metal. Does he just mean steel that appeared deformed, or was glowing when first removed from the debris pile?
And consider this report:
Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948
?Molten steel? in February, perhaps 5 months after the attacks? If it?s proposed that something like thermite/ thermate was responsible, then we can?t help wonder how much would be required to maintain high temperatures for so long. The advocates of controlled demolition don?t appear to have made any calculations in this area. And it?s not difficult to imagine why.
Of course they could simply say that this particular report was mistaken, and the beam was ?dripping? from something else. But on what basis do we dismiss this report and accept the others?
Back to the Allison Geyh story, there's no explanation of how a public health investigator is going to identify molten steel. Is she just reporting second-hand accounts that we?ve discovered already, perhaps from Peter Tully? We emailed to ask, and it turns out that Geyh saw no molten steel herself, and is only repeating what she heard from someone else:
I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel.
From here
Of course you could argue that there are too many stories to be ?explained away?, that there?s no way fire alone could account for all these reports. But if so, what about these?
Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm
RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
Only ?molten metal? and debris, but if that phrase is good enough in Keith Eaton?s testimony, why not here? Does this show that thermite was planted in Building 6, too? Or could it be that the fire was enough, after all?
To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.
Many people claim there was molten metal at Ground Zero, based on quotes like this one (see the link for more):
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
?As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Although this is generally attributed to Leslie Robertson, it?s not at all clear that he ever said these words. The quote actually comes from an article by James M Williams, recounting a keynote address that was delivered by Robertson, so it?s at best a second-hand interpretation of what he said.
What is the truth, then? We sent an email to LERA, Robertson's engineering firm, in an effort to find out:
I have a question regarding some claims in the October SEAU Newsletter (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)
In this article it is stated that
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
This statement has been attributed to Leslie Robertson and used to support some of the more unusual claims regarding the 9/11 attacks. I was wondering, is this statement correct, or could you clarify it at all?
And a short time later, an email arrived from Leslie E Robertson himself:
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Brief, but direct: he doesn?t recall making the statement, and wouldn?t have known if it was true anyway.
Previously we concluded that the phrase was Williams alone, but it seems that?s not entirely true. James Williams sent us his notes from the Robertson address, and it does make reference to molten metal. Only that?s it: he wrote ?molten metal - still running?, not ?molten steel?. (We?ve made the notes available here, with permission).
Robertson says he didn?t use the ?molten steel? quote, then, and Williams notes don?t disprove this. The key is to find out where the ?molten metal? line came from. Was it something Robertson said, and has since forgotten? Or a note in response to a photo? We?re trying to obtain the original Powerpoint slides of the address, which should offer a clue, but in the meantime this story should be regarded with caution: it?s clearly far from definitive evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero.
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
?As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Although this is generally attributed to Leslie Robertson, it?s not at all clear that he ever said these words. The quote actually comes from an article by James M Williams, recounting a keynote address that was delivered by Robertson, so it?s at best a second-hand interpretation of what he said.
What is the truth, then? We sent an email to LERA, Robertson's engineering firm, in an effort to find out:
I have a question regarding some claims in the October SEAU Newsletter (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)
In this article it is stated that
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
This statement has been attributed to Leslie Robertson and used to support some of the more unusual claims regarding the 9/11 attacks. I was wondering, is this statement correct, or could you clarify it at all?
And a short time later, an email arrived from Leslie E Robertson himself:
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Brief, but direct: he doesn?t recall making the statement, and wouldn?t have known if it was true anyway.
Previously we concluded that the phrase was Williams alone, but it seems that?s not entirely true. James Williams sent us his notes from the Robertson address, and it does make reference to molten metal. Only that?s it: he wrote ?molten metal - still running?, not ?molten steel?. (We?ve made the notes available here, with permission).
Robertson says he didn?t use the ?molten steel? quote, then, and Williams notes don?t disprove this. The key is to find out where the ?molten metal? line came from. Was it something Robertson said, and has since forgotten? Or a note in response to a photo? We?re trying to obtain the original Powerpoint slides of the address, which should offer a clue, but in the meantime this story should be regarded with caution: it?s clearly far from definitive evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero.
Even other "truthers" think Jones is a dumbass.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones
not everyone in the 'truth' movement agrees on every issue any more then every handicapper picks the same horse, plus pleez read up on 'cointelpro'... but to say there was no molten metal is ludicrous ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
Last edited:
thanx mr sammo
thanx mr sammo
my pal, vinnie, emailed me this ... incredible new info on the 9/11 psychopathic hoax
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_bill_dou_080110_what_do_a_renowned_9.htm
thanx mr sammo
my pal, vinnie, emailed me this ... incredible new info on the 9/11 psychopathic hoax
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_bill_dou_080110_what_do_a_renowned_9.htm
Last edited:
So you are saying there are multiple versions of the "truth" out there amongst them.
Golly, how do I filter out which truth is the real truth?
How is it possible that there is more than one "truth"?
marine,
lets hear your version of what happened on 9/11, or are there multiple versions of the official story :shrug: ... youve ducked it every single time ...
molten steel is that better now :00hour ....
lets hear your version of what happened on 9/11, or are there multiple versions of the official story :shrug: ... youve ducked it every single time ...
molten steel is that better now :00hour ....
awesome short cartoon vid
awesome short cartoon vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdYZCcATg3Q&eurl=http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/
awesome short cartoon vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdYZCcATg3Q&eurl=http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/
you retard... its NOT molten steel. it's molten METAL... just like all the little chowderheads and saying in their youtube claim to fame.
And I really don't think its fair for you to ask me what my version is.... you're asking me to write out one specific theory. If you were to do that, I might reciprocate.. but since you've put up about 45 different scenarios.... i dunno.
Here's my theory.
Aliens zapped it with a high energy photon beam from outer space. You can clearly see the shadows on the surrounding buildings as it whacks the towers.
i thought so, marine, you rail that the truthers have diff versions, well you dont even have one hehe ... i know the neocons planned it and there were no 19 box cutters on the planes ... least share if you think atta et all boarded and flew those planes into their targets .... dont duck that easy one ... i have put my beliefs up in my own words many times ... you never have
molten whatver, it was burning 3k degrees 99 days later, what the heck is that:00hour
molten whatver, it was burning 3k degrees 99 days later, what the heck is that:00hour
Last edited:
