Melting steel?

That was molten aluminium, not molten steel. That particular location of WTC 2 is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

If only he could prove that.....

a reply to: chr0naut

The entire site was cleared of all debris by May 29, 2002 - eight months after. During that time, very few were allowed access to the site (including FEMA investigators who, in their report of May 1, 2002, say that their report is based upon "photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts"). The NIST laboratories only tested 0.25% to 0.5% of the WTC steel.

There is no reason to examine every piece of WTC steel, because you only concentrate at the points of interest. Since it was known that the collapse of the WTC Towers began at the aircraft impacts, why waste time examining steel that made up the base of those buildings? For an example, an airplane nose wheel fails on landing, so why examine the tail structure of that aircraft when the problem was with the nose wheel in the first place?

I might add that some of the WTC steel was used in the construction of the USS New York, and I have even posed with a steel beam taken from the WTC rubble.

a reply to: wildb

If only he could prove that.....

Very easy to prove considering the silvery color of the cooled droplets from the same location where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, which is what experts and investigators have concluded as well.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: chr0naut

The entire site was cleared of all debris by May 29, 2002 - eight months after. During that time, very few were allowed access to the site (including FEMA investigators who, in their report of May 1, 2002, say that their report is based upon "photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts"). The NIST laboratories only tested 0.25% to 0.5% of the WTC steel.

There is no reason to examine every piece of WTC steel, because you only concentrate at the points of interest. Since it was known that the collapse of the WTC Towers began at the aircraft impacts, why waste time examining steel that made up the base of those buildings? For an example, an airplane nose wheel fails on landing, so why examine the tail structure of that aircraft when the problem was with the nose wheel in the first place?

I might add that some of the WTC steel was used in the construction of the USS New York, and I have even posed with a steel beam taken from the WTC rubble.

That is true, but NIST commented on the scarcity of samples and it would be easy to ensure they only received 'acceptable' pieces to test, if they are not allowed access to the site. I believe that all their test pieces were retrieved from the scrap yard/s.

a reply to: kwakakev

The architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have provided the most reasonable argument for the towers destruction as far as my brain can handle.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been discredited after its deception campaign was revealed, a campaign that has been successful duping many 9/11 conspiracy theorist, especially after Richard Gage, its leader, was caught lying on many occasions. In fact, there have been 9/11 conspiracy theorist who have challenged Richard Gage after they caught him lying and I have even posted a video of one such encounter.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: smurfy

bet you know very well that what China and India received in January

That I did not know.
But if you want to sample WTC steel there is a one ton section less than 2 miles from my house.
There are sections all over the US used in memorials.

The conspiracy suggests that no steel was inspected.
But there are plenty of photos showing inspectors examining WTC steel.

Sam, it was a crime scene, and there appears to be no directive to allow anyone to move anything from a crime scene, never mind that this was a collapsed building to boot, and you have to agree that the steel was starting to be moved far too soon after. Besides that, there were many objections about the metal being removed from the site from all sorts of experts in the field of forensics, architecture, even hazardous materials experts where it seems, contaminated steel is a big concern in the recycling industry, as well as families of victims, who also had to push for an inquiry such as the 9/11 Commission, of who's members, once the Commission was set up, openly admitted that the government didn't want such an inquiry.

Most of the jet fuel went up in a huge fireball, the rest of it was in wide open area. The last time i checked wide open flames with limited fuel supply have a hard time hitting 1500º or higher.

originally posted by: Echo007
Most of the jet fuel went up in a huge fireball, the rest of it was in wide open area. The last time i checked wide open flames with limited fuel supply have a hard time hitting 1500º or higher.

Right so what caused temps of 3180* F ??

a reply to: angryhulk

Yes indeed that should be the case. I have witnessed a test centre doing three tests at zero all on the same grain direction in order to force a pass, at the request of the client who had structures already installed. A fail would have been bad. In fact a number of results certs were issued under the instruction of 'use the one which helps most'.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: charolais

All steel behaves differently depending on silicon, boron, vanadium and niobium properties. Especially when under high temp situations.

However...

Back when the WTC was built I'm not sure what steel quality was like.

To add - you can buy the 'same grade' steel from Turkey, China and UK - all will have different properties.

Not really, the elements typically found in 'most' stainless and low alloy steels (such as the ones found in the WTC) are carbon, moly, iron, chromium and nickel. But I guess you're right in stating the composition will affect how the material behaves under pressure (or heat).

The fact is the material does not need to melt for a building to collapse, it just needs to be under enough influence from external forces such as heat for it to behave differently. Essentially the grade of steel affected by said fire is no longer that grade of steel when heated to a certain extent as the composition and microstructure of the steel completely changes. The grade would then be irrelevant. You would be looking at double the heat output of the WTC fires to cause steel to 'melt' however the temperatures found during the fire would be enough exposure to cause the base material to change.

I genuinely don't think even that would cause the buildings to collapse, I'm just voicing my opinion on fire damage and materials.

Very valid point, we focus on an all out melt but weakening occurs earlier as you say.

a reply to: Echo007

The last time i checked wide open flames with limited fuel supply have a hard time hitting 1500º or higher.

Define limited.
There was office furnishings, paper, plastic, flammable liquids.
Then there was everything in the plane.

Ask yourself why firefighters will not enter a burning structure with steel roof trusses.
Better yet drop by your local fire house and ask them.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Echo007

Ask yourself why firefighters will not enter a burning structure with steel roof trusses.
Better yet drop by your local fire house and ask them.

Is this true? Wouldn't it be illegal to make a building that firefighters cannot enter? Do you have a source for this claim?

I also believe AE911Truth has pretty much proven the use of some kind of thermite/thermate/nanothermite device. Besides the obvious squibs, in my opinion this has always been a smoking gun for explosives.


I can't believe people don't except there there was molten steel at ground zero. It was in the mainstream news. This thing burned for weeks. They showed piles being picking up of red hot steel days/weeks after the planes hit.

originally posted by: charolais
The thing is... the steel beams don't need to melt in order to lose a lot of their strength.

If you look at a stress vs strain chart for carbon steel at elevated temperatures you will see that the tensile strength and ultimate strength plummets over 1500F.

Since part of the building may have been damaged due to the collision with the plane, some of the beams will be put under elevated stress. Then take into account the increase in temp and bad things can happen.



But when it comes to WTC 7... it's anyones guess

You correctly point out that steel weakens before it melts. I-beams can fail when they lose rigidity. I-beams twist when they fail. Imagine a bunch of twisted I-beams. Then watch the collapse of WT1 and WT2. See the problem?

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus
I also believe AE911Truth has pretty much proven the use of some kind of thermite/thermate/nanothermite device. Besides the obvious squibs, in my opinion this has always been a smoking gun for explosives.

I can't believe people don't except there there was molten steel at ground zero. It was in the mainstream news. This thing burned for weeks. They showed piles being picking up of red hot steel days/weeks after the planes hit.

Just want to add this building was over 600 feet away, gravity did not hurl that 12 ton beam into that building.

a reply to: DeceptioVisus

I can't believe people don't except there there was molten steel at ground zero.

The reason why many people don't accept molten steel at ground zero is because that story was fabricated.

It was in the mainstream news. This thing burned for weeks.

That is because fires have a tendency to smolder for days, weeks, and even months.

They showed piles being picking up of red hot steel days/weeks after the planes hit.

This will help explain why.

Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: wildb

Just want to add this building was over 600 feet away, gravity did not hurl that 12 ton beam into that building.

Neither did explosives as shown in this photo where steel columns of WTC 1 remained standing within a huge bomb crater.

WTC 1 Steel Columns Standing Within Huge Bomb Crater

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

If only he could prove that.....

Very easy to prove considering the silvery color of the cooled droplets from the same location where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, which is what experts and investigators have concluded as well.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't molten steel as well though does it?



files.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'buckyball' above is a specimen from ground zero, and God knows what other molten stuff...metal is in there.
And, as a side issue, even more reason for the WTC steel not to be moved, if anything it should have been impounded...but it wasn't. And no, I don't want to hear yet another 9/11 Simple Simon story about things that,"coulda' been done better"

The reason why many people don't accept molten steel at ground zero is because that story was fabricated.

False, he is lying.

Neither did explosives as shown in this photo where steel columns of WTC 1 remained standing within a huge bomb crater.

Irrelevant... stop misleading people..