Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by pteridine

in a real scientific journal, the reviewers are anonymous.

The reviewers on Jones' paper were anonymous, what's your point?

As far as your questions about Jone's science, you would have to direct me to any inconsistencies you think there are in the paper (i.e. page, paragraph) before I can review them. I do know however that Jones rleased a 2nd paper on issues that weren't so clear in the first.

In order for these mistakes that you claim to have happened, it would mean that both Jones and the scientific journal were faulty in their science. Jones, has always been a very well respected physicist and that journal has too, other than smear attempts after it published Jones' paper. It should also be noted that any smear attempts have not been proeven or any evidence forthwith.

--airspoon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Ciphor
Can everyone please stop debating my obvious sarcastic remark? Has this thread really turned into a debate about the legitimacy of eyewitness testimonies?

I haven't seen any photos or credible evidence of molten steel so the eyewitness testimonies are being cited as something that's supposed to be credible, and it's not enough. Molten metal, yes, molten steel, I am unconvinced by witness testimony.

FEMA documented the presence and samples of molten Iron with a high sulfur content.

I don't buy any images off the web as creditable, I don't know why anyone would honestly. But experts submiting lab results for the government? yaaa, that's a little more believable. Now you compound that with the eyewitness testimonies? Bingo. In court, this would earn a conviction. Exactly why we want a new investigation? The witnesses that saw molten metal saw it for weeks while digging up survivors, many rescue workers stated it was a major hazard. No other element could have been sustained like this. Iron is the only suspect for the witness testimonies.

You argue just to argue. You don't provide anything to counter the claims with evidence, you just say how you don't "think" it is. *shrug* debating with you is fruitless.

reply to post by Ciphor


" The web is a mess and using random information off it is irritating to a logic rational person such as myself. "


That right there's funny , coming from someone who has posted 22 threads , all of which is random information that was acquired from the web . And , judging from some of those threads , I'm not sure you could convince me of you being a "logic (sic) rational person".

But , I'm not here to evaluate your ability to form coherent thought patterns , so I will leave it at that .

Back on topic , you are showing signs of double-speak in this thread .



Eyewitness testimony is not 100% reliable , I don't care what you say to the contrary . Just because a cop or firefighter says he saw molten steel does not mean that he saw molten steel .

The "molten" could have been a number of different materials . Just because it was molten does not mean it was steel .

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor

 

" The web is a mess and using random information off it is irritating to a logic rational person such as myself. "

That right there's funny , coming from someone who has posted 22 threads , all of which is random information that was acquired from the web . And , judging from some of those threads , I'm not sure you could convince me of you being a "logic (sic) rational person".

But , I'm not here to evaluate your ability to form coherent thought patterns , so I will leave it at that .

Back on topic , you are showing signs of double-speak in this thread .



Eyewitness testimony is not 100% reliable , I don't care what you say to the contrary . Just because a cop or firefighter says he saw molten steel does not mean that he saw molten steel .

The "molten" could have been a number of different materials . Just because it was molten does not mean it was steel .

edit on 18-9-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)

Well that fresh start lasted 1 post. Let me clarify my posting history. I love occult conspiracies. 100% of my threads are from the internet? I upload my own pictures. Those threads are purely speculation and fun.

With a high enough IQ a person can discern the difference between fun and fact. Just because I write fun threads, doesn't mean I don't reply on factual threads.

It's ok. It's probably complicated. You focus on one thing, all your energy ok?

and "Eyewitness testimony is not 100% reliable"

Can you show me where I ever said 100%? Those are your words not mine. I wont say anything to the contrary. I agree. But the more witnesses you have the higher the chances are it is legitimate. Risk of false testimony with 1 witness, decent risk. Risk of false testimony with hundreds of witnesses? Very unlikely as this would have to be a conspiracy. The rescue workers and first responders conspired these false statements? Because that is essentially what you are implying with your content. Ya.. That is possible I guess.

I'd ask you to try and support your claims, but I'd have a better chance getting a Muslim to come with me to Koran burning day to roast marshmallows

And out of my 22 threads, the majority are political. I don't even get what this was a stab at really.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pteridine

 

in a real scientific journal, the reviewers are anonymous.

The reviewers on Jones' paper were anonymous, what's your point?

As far as your questions about Jone's science, you would have to direct me to any inconsistencies you think there are in the paper (i.e. page, paragraph) before I can review them. I do know however that Jones rleased a 2nd paper on issues that weren't so clear in the first.

In order for these mistakes that you claim to have happened, it would mean that both Jones and the scientific journal were faulty in their science. Jones, has always been a very well respected physicist and that journal has too, other than smear attempts after it published Jones' paper. It should also be noted that any smear attempts have not been proeven or any evidence forthwith.

--airspoon

As to the reviewer question, you suggested "Maybe you should bring your complaints to the experts who reviewed the paper, however your claim doesn't hold water so they probably wouldn't even respond."

Here is your first and most obvious inconsistency. Look at figure 20 page 20. These are the red chips after being heated in air in the DSC. Jones claimed that the spherules were iron [they weren't] and that this was evidence of a highly engineered nano-thermite. Note that after the supposed reaction, there are still pieces of red chips attached to the spheres. If the chips were all that deadly, as Jones claimed, why would they go out after starting to react?
To even show the possibility of thermite from a DSC, Jones has to run the experiment under nitrogen or argon. This will eliminate the obvious combustion, as seen in the energy balances. If you get through the inconsistency, above, I will explain the energy balance problem and why Jones cannot discriminate between a possible thermite reaction and simple burning.
I have not seen Jones' second paper so I cannot comment on it. If you have a reference, I will review it for content.

reply to post by bsbray11


Because there is not much to say. You people are creating fairy tales.

reply to post by Ciphor


I cant believe I am even dignifying you with a response......Why do you say it is impossible for the iron to melt? How can you know that temperatures only reached 1400 degs? Has somebody done an experiment that I dont know about where they crashed a plane in to a large building and had the bulidng wired with thermocouples and proved without a doubt that the iron wont melt? Are you trying to tell me that it is more likely that somebody snuck in to a building and put explosives in it?

I think it is far more reasonable to assume that a plane crashing into a building would be enough to cause a builidng to collapse. As the building is collapsing it is going to create a tremendous amount of force, and that force is going to generate friction, pressure, which could very easily melt iron. I agree a fire alone would not melt the iron, but a builiding collapsing on itself is more than enough force to melt a lot of things.

The building was designed to withstand the impact of a smaller airline plane. It is a testament to the engineering that the building stood as long as it did.

reply to post by rand27


Rand, a simple falling building will not generate enough heat to melt steel.
otherwise they would have to put warning labels on
kitchen knives not pick it up after you drop it on the kitchen floor until it has cooled.

rand do some research into 4th generation thermonuclear devices,
now that will sublimate steel, dustify concrete and vaporize anything with mass to particulate geometry.

reply to post by rand27

.....dignifying with a response?

who the....? are you?

Where are you coming from?

Where is the cred? Jesus, it is getting TOO easy to come here and pretend you have respect.

Good job! You exposed that NIST guy as a total fraud! He is a LIAR. Everybody that has studied this knows that they were pulling molten steel out of the pile even 6 weeks after collapse if not longer! This man knows that also. He is a paid government stooge. What a JOKE! The molten metal ALONE destroys the official fairy tale completely by itself! 911 was an inside job and NIST was used to create the whitewash.

reply to post by Ciphor


" The rescue workers and first responders conspired these false statements? "

No , that is not what I am saying at all . What I am saying is this : If those rescue workers had said they saw a molten 'material' , I would have absolutely no problem with that .

For any of them to say that they saw molten ' iron ' or 'steel ' , well I have a big problem with that .

My entire point is this , how does a fireman , policeman , EMT , or anyone else , for that matter , know what a molten material consists of simply by looking at it ? How would any of them be able to say it was molten steel simply by seeing it in its molten state ?

What I'm getting at , is that this entire line of reasoning needs to be removed from these 9/11 debates about this molten material .

Not one of those witnesses knew for a fact what the molten material was that he/she was looking at .

Just because they saw a molten material does not validate they saw molten steel .

To retain these eyewitness accounts as credible evidence is a fallacy .

reply to post by okbmd


they saw something molten right.
plastic, silicon, ??

no it has to be metal of some type.

hese firefighters and rescue workers had experience at observing molten metal.

orange or yellow molten metal is most of the time steel.
especially when there were tons of steel lying around as evidence.

reply to post by slugger9787


There was also tons of aluminum and glass in the towers .

How many policemen are trained at the academy to identify molten material simply by looking at it ?

How many of those firemen had ever encountered molten 'steel' in the numerous fires they had fought ? How did they know it was 'steel' in those fires , if they did ?

And , if they saw molten 'steel' in those other fires , and it was proven to be molten 'steel' in those other fires , then was therm*te also used in those other fires ?

Originally posted by slugger9787
orange or yellow molten metal is most of the time steel.
especially when there were tons of steel lying around as evidence.

Thanks for making the point that the firefighters and policemen could be just as confused as you about what those colors mean. Orange-yellow is NOT the color of molten steel, see the picture of the molten steel I posted earlier in this thread, the color is closer to white. If the color is orange and it's molten it's probably NOT steel. See the proof I posted on page 1 of this thread.

See how easy it is to get confused? That's why eyewitnesses have such low credibility about saying they saw molten steel.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


thre is a range of colors that steel progresses through, as it is heated up:

Tool Steel Color vs Temperature
2000°F Bright yellow 1093°C
1900°F Dark yellow 1038°C
1800°F Orange yellow 982°C
1700°F Orange 927°C
1600°F Orange red 871°C
1500°F Bright red 816°C
1400°F Red 760°C
1300°F Medium red 704°C
1200°F Dull red 649°C
1100°F Slight red 593°C
1000°F Very slight red, mostly grey 538°C
0800°F Dark grey 427°C
0575°F Blue 302°C
0540°F Dark Purple 282°C
0520°F Purple 271°C
0500°F Brown/Purple 260°C
0480°F Brown 249°C
0465°F Dark Straw 241°C
0445°F Light Straw 229°C
0390°F Faint Straw 199°C

reply to post by airspoon


Here's a dutch article about Bentham click the link then click Translate


videnskab.dk...

My favorite part:

"I can not accept that the item is put in my journal . The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics , and I could well believe that there is a policy perspective behind its publication. If someone had asked me I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal . Full stop , " notes the former editor in chief .

For the record I'm reposting some of the verbal testimony I compiled in a previous thread.

The steel/not steel debate is a bit of a distraction. More crucial is what caused such extraordinary and prolonged temperatures.

I found it hard to believe that it actually bent because of the size of it and how there's no cracks in the iron. It bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this... Typically, you'd have buckling and tearing of the tension side - but there's no buckling at all.

Note: These men, familiar with the properties of steel, having examined the deformed steel beams, conclude they had to be heated to "thousands of degrees".

You cannot bend steel like this without cracking it, without warming it up, so what this piece tells me is that this piece was very hot when the floor collapsed

Engineer Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Oct 2001

Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Mark Loizeaux, President, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (contracted to destroy evidence at WTC and Oklahoma City bombing)

In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.

Professor Alison Geyh, 2002

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens.

Ron Burger, public health advisor, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th

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.

GCN.com, Aug 11, 2002

They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event...

Dr. Keith Eaton, The Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002

There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.

Greg Gittrich, New York Daily News, Nov 1, 2001

But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...

Kathy Dawkins, NY Department of Sanitation

One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.

Guy Lounsbury, National Guard Magazine

He remembers a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, September 11, 2002

There were fires of 2000°F below the ground

Rudy Giuliani, NY Mayor (unreliable, but why would he lie about this?)

in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.

Lee Turner, Paramedic, US News & World Report, September 12, 2002

...in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.

William Langewiesche, only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during cleanup

Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.

Ken Holden, Department of Design and Construction, overseeing the Ground Zero cleanup operation quoted in 9/11 Commission Report

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat... It was just demolishing heat.

audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe

literally molten steel.

Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction

Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.

Employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC

When John Gross, the leader of NIST's structural collapse analysis dismisses this abundant testimony to molten steel with: "I know of absolutely nobody, there's no eyewitness who says so, nobody who's produced it", he disqualifies himself and the legitimacy of his team's work.

Why does he dismiss it? As he says: "Steel melted around 2600°F. Um.. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get those kind of er.. temperatures in a um.. er.. in a fire"

Hard for you to understand that red hot under 1 million tons of collapse does not equal molten Steel isn't it?

I know, you saw it on Youtube and have no college degree in metallurgy, right?

reply to post by Illustronic


what ever machine/weapon that produced the massive amount of energy used to dustify the tons of concrete, and super heat the steel in buildings 1+2 and perhaps seven, will be difficult to comprehend. I sill favor 4th generation nukes or DEW.

That would be gravity, and what would create such heat is 1 million tons of debris, falling down all at the same time.

Rub your finger fast on a smooth wooden board, (I wouldn't want you to get a splinter) Or a bicycle tire, it gets warm doesn't it?

Multiply that by at least on billion.

You see the pedestrian folks watching Youtube don't have any conception about what they are seeing, which leads to their ignorance to fill in the blanks.

It's rather funny to read the barrage of 9/11 conspiracies here all of the sudden. Don't you know the anniversary was over a week ago?

Prove your case without Youtube and show us your math or tell us where NIST was wrong. Short of that you get a C in third grade stand and talk. Truly laughable.