Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

Originally posted by HowardRoark

This picture doesn't tell us anything, apart from the fact that the fire in that precise area was weak at best, and that the steel around the molten cascade was quite dark and therefore quite cool, somehow at least 900ºC cooler than the lemon-colored metal which is alleged to have been superheated by the fire in the very same place.

No, it only has to be slightly hotter than it's melting point. That's about 700 C.

To glow that color? No. At 700C, slightly hotter than its melting point, it will be cherry red as clearly shown in your picture, and even then only under low indoor lighting conditions:





The molten cascade was lemon to light yellow, which places it at 1000 - 1100ºC. Factoring in emissivity and the broad daylight conditions, it was likely much hotter.

It might also be useful to understand under what controlled conditions the aluminium in your picture was brought to that 700C temperature.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

The molten cascade was lemon to light yellow, which places it at 1000 - 1100ºC. Factoring in emissivity and the broad daylight conditions, it was likely much hotter.

It might also be useful to understand under what controlled conditions the aluminium in your picture was brought to that 700C temperature.

Also notice inside the crucible. The aluminum is turning back to it's silver color very quickly (as seen inside the crucible). Wouldn't the aluminum start to turn it's silvery color when exposed to the much cooler air temperature?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is pretty much pointless to try state that the fire temps could not have reached that high. They could have quite easlily.

Atmospheric temperatures and material temperatures are not the same. You know this.

There is no documentation in the NIST fire test results detailing observed molten aluminium at 1100ºC, for reasons that are plainly obvious.

While I don't agree with everything on this site, He does have some interesting photos that seem to show the molten material turning silver as it falls.

One photo of a what looks like chunks of the outer coverings. Why doesn't he post the video?

If that material did turn silver (it's too blurry to tell) then I'd say aluminum. Funny how you say that cropped pictures and blurry pictures are bad when it's on the CT side of things but use that site to "prove" your point? With cropped and blurry pictures.

Anyway, that still doesn't explain the original picture posted by bsbray11. That certainly is not silver colored metal. I believe it is metal by what bsbray showed as the angled corner of it.

The molten cascade was lemon to light yellow, which places it at 1000 - 1100ºC. Factoring in emissivity and the broad daylight conditions, it was likely much hotter.

It would seem reasonable to point out that if the color being judged by a photograph is to be taken as anywhere near accurate, it would be very important to know if the photographer was shooting with a 'clean lens'--one without any type of correction or enhancement filter. It would seem possible that given the conditions of drifting smoke..shooting against the skyline or needing to define detail because of shooting large chunks of a couple of colors, that filters may have been used.
Just a thought.

Vushta. That's why I think trying to judge what substance this was is kinda moot. If NIST had done a metalurgy test, then we wouldn't be argueing over what metal it was. We'd be argueing over something else I'm sure

Anyway, a metalurgy test would have told them the type of metal, the temp it had gotten to, etc. This could have helped them in offering their fire weekened the structure theory. They could have said "look, the aluminum/steel reached such and such a temperature so therefore the steel lost it's integrity". But, they didn't do the tests and they didn't say that. Why?

How would they have gotten a sample of this material?

It was buried under piles of very hot debris for weeks and months

How did they get any sample? It doesn't look like the metal in the first picture was buried under anything to me. What's wrong with letting it cool? Unless you're still trying to say that there were underground fire pits feeding the temperature of these samples. I thought we debunked the underground coal fire theory awhile ago?

That's why I think trying to judge what substance this was is kinda moot. If NIST had done a metalurgy test, then we wouldn't be argueing over what metal it was. We'd be argueing over something else I'm sure

Yup. I agree.

Anyway, a metalurgy test would have told them the type of metal, the temp it had gotten to, etc. This could have helped them in offering their fire weekened the structure theory. They could have said "look, the aluminum/steel reached such and such a temperature so therefore the steel lost it's integrity". But, they didn't do the tests and they didn't say that. Why?

What metal are you refering to?
If its the material thats falling from the building before collapse, how would they have gotten samples of it AFTER collapse?

Originally posted by Vushta

What metal are you refering to?
If its the material thats falling from the building before collapse, how would they have gotten samples of it AFTER collapse?

I'm talking about any molten material or ones that were red hot. If there was molten material laying around, then they could have tested the slag after it cooled to see what type of material it consisted of. As far as I know, they tested no slag. There were plenty of people at the scene who were quoted as saying molten metal. Unless we can't take their eyewitness accounts, which would be a hypocritical thing to do since we take the eyewitness accounts of a plane flying into the pentagon. Basically, they ignored it.

Originally posted by Griff


I'm talking about any molten material or ones that were red hot. If there was molten material laying around, then they could have tested the slag after it cooled to see what type of material it consisted of. As far as I know, they tested no slag. There were plenty of people at the scene who were quoted as saying molten metal. Unless we can't take their eyewitness accounts, which would be a hypocritical thing to do since we take the eyewitness accounts of a plane flying into the pentagon. Basically, they ignored it.

IF there was molten metal 'laying around'.

I think there may not be as many eyewitness accounts of molten metal as people are lead to believe and no accounts by people who could identify molten metal from 'glowy stuff'

Originally posted by Vushta
I think there may not be as many eyewitness accounts of molten metal as people are lead to believe and no accounts by people who could identify molten metal from 'glowy stuff'

Huh? I hope people are intelligent enough to be able to differentiate between "glowy stuff" and poles of molten material. Hmm....one is just glowing and the other looks like liquid....seems pretty hard to me. Especially engineers on-site.

Can you point to any eyewitness engineers that reported molten metal?

There was molten metal present, seen being taken from the debris, coming out of the building and in some cases, as we've seen, on the streets. It had a very luminous yellow color, and was indeed very hot. Nothing has been sourced as to explain away what could of caused the molten metal that was present to reach such high temperatures, as the fires were apparently barely enough to take down the building, not anything overly expressed on anything to cause it to glow so bright.




I suppose this is mindlessness as well? Unsupported evidence?



Interesting, no?



Furthermore...

Do I dare say more? Was the Molten Metal just made up? Or was it aluminum, because by all means it can not be due to the conditions, since it indeed isn't that bright in daylight conditions, oh no.

Clumps of Asbestos flowing out?

Molten Steel/Iron?

Oh and what caused the fires to get so hot, where's your source for such a high temperature? The temperatures of the fires barely got 600 degrees Celsius, claimed by the NIST, which is just enough to weaken the steel.

Interesting that debunkers want to argue that squibs were a result of air being squeezed out of the building as it collapsed upon itself but how do they account for the gas supply needed to fuel such high temperature fires? You can't have it both ways here... squibs and high temp molten metal in the rubble.. which is it? I go with the molten metal since there is actually EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Interesting that debunkers want to argue that squibs were a result of air being squeezed out of the building as it collapsed upon itself but how do they account for the gas supply needed to fuel such high temperature fires?

Temperatures have nothing to do with how much fuel there was. Hydrocarbons just don't get that hot, period.

You can't have it both ways here... squibs and high temp molten metal in the rubble..

Really? Use of more than one type of device impossible? Thermite for a smooth initiation (ie WTC2's tilt), HE's for the near free-fall roar afterwards? Hell, maybe even a third, upwards-blasting device planted in each basement to ensure total core collapse. What exactly would prohibit this?

"There was molten metal present, seen being taken from the debris, coming out of the building and in some cases, as we've seen, on the streets. It had a very luminous yellow color, and was indeed very hot. Nothing has been sourced as to explain away what could of caused the molten metal that was present to reach such high temperatures, as the fires were apparently barely enough to take down the building, not anything overly expressed on anything to cause it to glow so bright."

Molten metal,give the man a prize,it's called( insert drum roll....here )Awwwooomennum[/b

If you would like some good research sshhekk It Out!

www.geocities.com...
above covers the thermite concept.

This one is for the molten stuff!
www.geocities.com...

Damn Did it again this is for the molten stuff SORRY!!!
www.geocities.com...