Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

Exactly wecomeinpeace. This threads argument has gone a bit quiet now after that (final?) nail in the coffin. How could so much heat be prevalent in those aireal (sp?) thermal photos from fires caused by gasoline which would have been extinguished anyway after the collapse? On top of that how the heck was molten steel present? Things do not add up. "Weakened" - okay? Molten - just F off.

Niice WCIP.

So now we've established the pic's credibility by the building behind it (90 West Building, identified by windows), the firetruck (from Engine 212 near Manhattan), and from the satellite imagery of heat spots. That's relatively conclusive, isn't it? At least that this is a real pic, from Manhattan after 9/11, and depicting a region that has now been shown to have had hot spots after 9/11.

Good work Wecomeinpeace, I appreciate what you do for this forum.

Thanks WCIP but i'm surprised at the brown nosing considering that I (thought the points that I showed) helped push the argument this way too? Maybe I'm on 'ignore'

I might be jealous...................., but at least I'm self righteous

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Xeros]

The pic you posted is pretty damning for anyone for whom logic is a priority, but in the past, the denialist argument raised was that a natural furnace somehow formed at Ground Zero and pretty much started melting steel.

That, and a theory of natural-occuring thermite (put forth by a Mr. Greening), which is pretty well abandoned now that Steven Jones conducted scientific tests on the hypothesis and determined it couldn't happen as suggested.

No one else left to argue irrelevant facts?

Come on baby, bring on the butter.

So what is the Molten Material....?

Survey says:

Steel.

Again if you can provide anything else as to what it can be, in such volumous amounts, lets see it.

Well that is a good question about the molten material.

Thanks to WCIP posting the nasa maps, because now we know that it wasn't steel.

1300 degrees is enough to melt aluminum but not steel.

Does anyone have a rational explanation for how they set charges on every floor and also set thermite in the crash area to initiate collapse after they made the plane hit the exact spot where they placed the thermite?


How exactly does this molten material point to explosives again?

I don't see the connection.

So let's see, why is it suspicious that a 110 storey building hit by a plane sends out some sort of molten material?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Before the trivial is posted (source):

mol·ten
[...]
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).

Aluminum doesn't glow bright orange-yellow merely at its melting point anyway, genius. This is the only other metal in the buildings, and though its melting temperature is much lower, it only appears silvery around this temperature, and won't glow so brightly in broad daylight until much higher temperatures are reached.

Steel is still the only thing we could be looking at:



Note the rigid shape, while still glowing in such a way as to indicate extremely high temperatures. And remember that the NASA imagery came a while later. In this image, a firetruck from Engine 212 is still in the background with its headlights still on.

Deny ignorance.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by bsbray11]

The furnance arguement can no longer work here. Its well away from the area. It, unlike the other hot spots, is no wheres close to the area. This hot spot is individual. It wasn't caused by some illusioned furnace created in the minds of never never land.

This is an individual hot spot, away from the others. Its basically screaming at you that nothing else created it.

Exactly Grim, exactly..

So what's the molten material still? Any reasoning left?

The road of nonsense is cutting short!

Something is making alot of heat......molten material seen before and after the collapse....

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

www.gcn.com...

bloody wierd......6 months? could the force of the towers collapsing cause this naturally ?

Why is steel the only thing we could be looking at if you claim that all metal requires a certain temperature to glow in said colors.

Are you trying to convince us that aluminum never can be molten and red?

If so you are wrong.



Look at that, aluminum glowing red.

Not sure why you think that the glowing metal is steel. The NASA temp maps clearly show that no molten steel existed when they took the pics.

How does molten steel prove that countless people planted explosives on every floor in both towers?

Negative evidence does not automatically prove your theory.

Correlation is not causation, son.

Couple things, that doesn't look like what we observed Left Behind so you can throw that back in your toy box.

Provide something other unique for what the molten material could be.

A mass of paper clips? Someone's last chicken wing?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I don't see the connection.

The thermal images were taken a day later or so, that's all. (read: it had time to cool, especially on the surface)

I didn't say aluminum didn't glow other colors. I said it doesn't do so merely at its melting point. You'd have to heat it extremely to get the same kind of glowing in broad daylight.

Learnnn to readdddd.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Couple things, that doesn't look like what we observed Left Behind so you can throw that back in your toy box.

I never said it looked exactly like what was observed. Some people seem to think that molten aluminum has to be silver. That pic merely demonstrates that molten aluminum can be red.

This is similar to arguing about the color of smoke.

We cannot determine what that material is just by looking at it. It could be steel, it could be plastic, it could be aluminum. Maybe it is a bunch of chicken bones masi.

Without actually testing those things to see what they are, we just don't know what kind of molten material it is.

Picking molten steel just because it fits your ideas is disingenous.

BTW, does anyone have an answer for why molten steel proves that countless people were involved in planting explosives on every single floor and then putting thermite in the core?


Edit: Bsbray, that makes no sense. According to you all metals glow at certain colors according to temperature. If steel could get that hot and glow, then certainly aluminum could get that hot and glow.

Why would you need to heat the aluminum "extremely" but not the steel.

Learn to make an argument that makes sense, pal, and I'll learn how to read it.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

If you heat metal in a pot, the only way out is through boiling, if you're doing the same under uncontrolled circumstances, the aluminium will flow before it glows, thereby evading further heating long before it glows.

Either way, this is a total distraction because iron/steel or not, it was actually super hot, impressive for a 1+ hour fire in a building.

Q: has anyone ever observed red-white hot metal after a building fire? on the street a block away?

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Long Lance]

Question.

Has anyone ever seen a 100+ storey building get hit with a plane and then collapse before?

How does the molten metal prove that the buildings had preplanted explosives on every floor and thermite to cut the core with no one noticing?

LeftBehind is correct in that we can't know for sure what that material is. However if it is indeed metal, then from the colour we can gauge the temperature.



Since the material is lemon to light yellow, that puts it in the region of 1000-1100ºC.

No office fire is going to melt steel, nor bring aluminium to 1000+ºC. The worst office fires ever recorded have reached such temperatures at their peaks, hours and hours after they have begun and engulfed the entire structure. However, this does not mean that the metals exposed to those fires reach these temperatures due to something called thermal inertia. And no matter how you argue the severity of the WTC fires, they were simply not in this category anyway.

So, the question needs to be asked, where did that material come from, and how did it get to 1000+ºC? An office fire could not produce it, so other options must be considered. Thermite is one of those possibilities, although of course far from proven.







[edit on 2006-7-2 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Edit: Bsbray, that makes no sense. According to you all metals glow at certain colors according to temperature. If steel could get that hot and glow, then certainly aluminum could get that hot and glow.

Why would you need to heat the aluminum "extremely" but not the steel.

Oh, ok. You don't have a reading problem. You just don't understand the argument at all, and yet you try to debunk it anyway.

The problem is the amount of heat present, not the material. The fact that the steel/aluminum/whatever is molten and glowing such a bright color is indicative of heating beyond what a hydrocarbon fire could possibly do. I refer you to WCIP's chart.

And before temperature charts are posted, four things:

1) Open atmosphere fires burn at a max of around 825 C. The more ventilation, the more heat escapes. Hydrocarbon fires only go beyond this temperature when they're closed-in and there is nowhere for the hot air to go.

2) There have been non-government tests that cast doubt upon the fires getting even that hot (which shouldn't be surprising, considering the 825 C figure is for a perfect fuel to air ratio, whereas sooty smoke directly contradicts this being the case).

3) The temperature of a flame is NOT the same as how hot it can heat any object. It is a LAW of thermodynamics that energy is ALWAYS lost in transfer. Lost to the cool air, lost in smoke, lost to the concrete, lost in the metals themselves as the heat is wicked away.

4) We saw no columns glowing pre-collapse, even though steel will begin glowing in broad daylight just over 400 C. So if something heated these chunks of metal to 1000 C, I would really have to wonder where this heat came from, based on the previous sentence alone.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by bsbray11]