"Molten Metal" at Ground Zero

Alareth

Philosopher
Alareth
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,682
Location
Jacksonville, FL
Ok, one of the things CT enthusiasts seem to go on and on about is molten metal found under the debris weeks after the collapse. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

If we were to go along with the controlled demolition theory, how would molten metal support this conclusion?
 
Alareth said:
Ok, one of the things CT enthusiasts seem to go on and on about is molten metal found under the debris weeks after the collapse. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

If we were to go along with the controlled demolition theory, how would molten metal support this conclusion?
Click to expand...
[tinfoilhat=on]
Thermite was used to cut the steel, it melted the steel causing it to drip down and settle under the debris. It was so farking hot, it remained "melted" for months because it was insolated by the debris
[/tinfoilhat]

I can see why CT's are so popular, 1, it's really easy, and fun, to make stuff up and 2, you need not work under the burden of adhering to logic, reason or (shudder) actual facts. I scare myself sometimes seeing how easy it comes.
 
DavidJames said:
[tinfoilhat=on]
Thermite was used to cut the steel, it melted the steel causing it to drip down and settle under the debris. It was so farking hot, it remained "melted" for months because it was insolated by the debris
[/tinfoilhat]

I can see why CT's are so popular, 1, it's really easy, and fun, to make stuff up and 2, you need not work under the burden of adhering to logic, reason or (shudder) actual facts. I scare myself sometimes seeing how easy it comes.
Click to expand...

I never thought much about the molten steel. Where did it come from? (Just to answer that question to all readers)
 
I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.
 
einsteen said:
I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that according to a third party, Lorieux stated molten metal was evidence for thermite?
 
einsteen said:
I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.
Click to expand...

Wich story? Are these Nasa-thermografic pictures - the Ct´ists praise so high - fake?
 
Oliver said:
I never thought much about the molten steel. Where did it come from? (Just to answer that question to all readers)
Click to expand...
There were fires raging underground beneath the WTC for several weeks due to debris that was still burning out of control. Everytime they pulled out a section of debris, it would flare up again. The metal was stuck in this fire which reached extreme temperatures. The extreme temperatures were verified by satellite imagery.

Many CTers believe the metal was steel. However, it appears more likely that it was just additional debris from the WTC, chair legs, xerox machines, staplers, door jams, window sills, those little metal strips in the celing that hold the celing tiles, etc...
 
Oliver said:
Wich story? Are these Nasa-thermografic pictures - the Ct´ists praise so high - fake?
Click to expand...
No. However they don't show temperatures high enough to melt steel (and actually they don't temperatures beyond those of a normal fire).
 
MikeW said:
No. However they don't show temperatures high enough to melt steel (and actually they don't temperatures beyond those of a normal fire).
Click to expand...

"Normal" does not apply to the destruction and immolation of two of the largest buildings ever made by the impact of two jet airliners, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
 
I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
"Normal" does not apply to the destruction and immolation of two of the largest buildings ever made by the impact of two jet airliners, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Click to expand...
I know. I wasn't making a CT-type "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"-like statement, I was referring to the temperatures NASA reported from the debris pile later.
 
Josh Redstone said:
I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
Click to expand...
I'll give ten to one that you're banned from there before being supplied with an answer.
 
I apologize for maybe making a statement that is probably already been worked to death, but
isn't Thermite Al + FeO2?

Since, Steel beams in buildings are rusted = Fe02
and Plane = Al

You would expect bizzarre high heats for a while.

Doesn't require any additional CT to explain anything.

again, this has probably already been mentioned and I apologize for the repeating it.
 
MikeW said:
I know. I wasn't making a CT-type "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"-like statement, I was referring to the temperatures NASA reported from the debris pile later.
Click to expand...

Oh good. You scared the daylights out of me for a second there. I know there's a word for satire which is indistinguishable from reality, but I can't remember it now.

However, there was molten metal found at the site, and the fire did reach temperatures sufficent to melt it.
 
Josh Redstone said:
I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
Click to expand...

Point out also that glass glows orange and becomes malleable at much lower temps than steel, and also the NIST report suggests the "pouring glowing" metal is melted aluminum with debris in it that is either burning, or glowing; so it is not the aluminum itself that would be glowing orange.
 
Josh Redstone said:
I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
Click to expand...

Pure aluminum doesn't glow very strongly in sunlight, but in darker areas and mixed with other materical it does.

Jones rebuttle to that claim was to mix an unknown amount of wood chips and plastic shavings at an unknown temp.
However what he should of done was put in a large amount materical that was in the towers such as, glass, wood, hamburger meat (gross yes!), water, copper etc....and heated this up to around 1000C
You can ask various meal experts to conferm.
One example is Stephen Chastain.
http://stephenchastain.com/ You can read his answer in the talk section.

Here's a short summary:
The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Pure aluminum doesn't glow very strongly in sunlight, but in darker areas and mixed with other materical it does.

Jones rebuttle to that claim was to mix an unknown amount of wood chips and plastic shavings at an unknown temp.
However what he should of done was put in a large amount materical that was in the towers such as, glass, wood, hamburger meat (gross yes!), water, copper etc....and heated this up to around 1000C
You can ask various meal experts to conferm.
One example is Stephen Chastain.
http://stephenchastain.com/ You can read his answer in the talk section.

Here's a short summary:
The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Click to expand...

The ultimate temp depends not on the temp of the fire but how good the insulation is.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Point out also that glass glows orange and becomes malleable at much lower temps than steel
Click to expand...
It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.
Click to expand...

That's what I get for trying to pull things from memory.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
Click to expand...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
 
CurtC said:
It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.
Click to expand...

then how do they make multi-colored fireworks?
 
Last edited:
Josh Redstone said:
I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
Click to expand...

It was comments in that thread that caused me to ask the question.
 
CurtC said:
It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.
Click to expand...

I think it's very important to point out, that's not really true.

For example aluminum has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.
 
What metal was used for the outside (for lack of a better word) of the WTC? The shiny metal, so to speak.
 
Bell said:
What metal was used for the outside (for lack of a better word) of the WTC? The shiny metal, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Aluminum, however the materical pouring out of the building (CT'ers so often like to show) was aluminum debris from the airplane and other stuff mixed with it.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Aluminum, however the materical pouring out of the building (CT'ers so often like to show) was aluminum debris from the airplane.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.
 
Bell said:
Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I would also suggest checking out pictures and video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

A bigger problem for CT'ers is, if this is supposed to be iron/steel, how did it all get there?
There's quite a bit. Far more than one would expect from cutting steel beams. Also if its an exterior beam, why can't we see the cut.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of the outer facade would have been punched inside the floors, but there was much aluminum inside on every floor. Suspended ceilings, air ducts, various cable ducts, etc...

I think Greening went through a lot of trouble to establish also that Thermite could've been produced from molten aluminum reacting with other materials, particularly concrete (also on every floor).

The important thing for CTers is not that anyone ever analyzed the chemical compounds or metals from these "pools", but their standard argument (which we're happily here addressing for the seven thousandth time),.... "but look at it man.... does that look like molten aluminum... no way... that's steel"
Which of course the poster knows from his years of experience at the Hullets plant in Pietermaritzburg? No. He knows from his twelve minutes of watching Youtube and listening to the voice over say, "that's not aluminum"!
 
i've seen 2 claims to molten metals. The first is while the buildings are still standing. there is video evidence of this, this is the aluminum from the planes (although there are other sources of aluminum in buildings, fluorescent light troffers fore example are frequently thin sheets of aluminum).

The other claim is molten metal (still hot?) weeks after the collapse. I've not seen video or photos supporting this. If true this could very well be the aluminum from the exterior of the buildings as there was a lot of it.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't know how much of the outer facade would have been punched inside the floors, but there was much aluminum inside on every floor. Suspended ceilings, air ducts, various cable ducts, etc...
Click to expand...

There would also be a lot of cast iron (which melts at a lower temperature than regular iron) and copper which are both near or below the estimated temperatures of the building, the main two metals used in plumbing.
 
Kent1 said:
I would also suggest checking out pictures and video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

A bigger problem for CT'ers is, if this is supposed to be iron/steel, how did it all get there?
There's quite a bit. Far more than one would expect from cutting steel beams. Also if its an exterior beam, why can't we see the cut.
Click to expand...

The important question would be, IMHO, if this is proof of thermite cutting the exterior beams, then why is the stream originating from inbetween the exterior beams? Deniers have no graps of any form of reality, have they?
 
Funny I never thought of the plumbing until now. We have any data on what the WTCs plumbing was made from??

TAM
 
From what I've read, building built before 1974 use cast iron pipes. This was later replaced with copper because it (cast iron) rusts, but cast iron is still available because it's cheaper. Cast iron is still used in joints/fixtures when necessary. However, nearly every single porcaline(sp?) toilet, urinal, and sink in the world is made out of cast iron and then coated with it. I'd bet that the WTC was mostly cast iron and copper.

ETA: Let me correct myself: toilets are solid porcaline. I called my step-dad who works in Kohler Co., he set me straight on that. And, I meant brass instead of copper. Ugh, mistakes galore.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
I apologize for maybe making a statement that is probably already been worked to death, but
isn't Thermite Al + FeO2?

Since, Steel beams in buildings are rusted = Fe02
and Plane = Al

You would expect bizzarre high heats for a while.

Doesn't require any additional CT to explain anything.

again, this has probably already been mentioned and I apologize for the repeating it.
Click to expand...

Thermite can be that, but it typically is Al + Fe2O3...the Iron 3 provides a more vigorous reaction.

Even then, without addatives the reaction is highly localized with little flame. Military thermite adds Barium Nitrate to increse the flame and the "spread" of the reaction.

Additionally, the Aluminum needs to be ground down or otherwise reduced, as well as the iron oxide, so as to reduce the surface area to volume ratio and sustain a reaction.

kevin said:
then how do they make multi-colored fireworks?
Click to expand...

Flame temperature is different from glow temperature.

THe temperature of a flame has other factors, and most of the colors are determined by the specific matrials involved. Many of the "sparking" fireworks, however, actually have materials in them that burn at high enough temps (the sparks are usually tiny fragments of burning metal...think iron filings in a candle flame). Other elements change the colors as well...sulpher thends to add a greeenish hue, for example. Howeve, I believe the various colors of a flmae are dependent on the temperature of the flame at that point...I'm sure others can clarify this.

The glow from hot metal (or hot anything else) is blackbody radiation, and has nothing to do with a flame temperature. It's the temperature of the actual object, rather than any flame being produced.

I hope that's clear, and I didn't just confuse :) If nothing else, there's a few terms that might yeild good results in Google ("flame temperature" and "blackbody radiation").
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
"blackbody radiation"? See, mini-husha-nukes wer uzd!
Click to expand...

Dude.

I've tried to explain this over and over.

It was "stealth" nukes--no flash, no boom, no heat, no radiation...in fact, there's no concievable way to tell they ever exploded at all!

And they fit in a briefcase. And they're re-useable. And invisible. And they only cost four bucks to make...
 
Huntsman said:
Howeve, I believe the various colors of a flmae are dependent on the temperature of the flame at that point...I'm sure others can clarify this.
Click to expand...

An oxyacetyline torch depends on the amount of oxygen added to the acetyline. At low levels of oxygen the acetyline looks like an ordinary flame, but as you increase the oxygen the temperature increases and the flame turns more blue/white. You've probably seen that before.

So I'm pretty sure the color of a flame changes as the temperature does based off of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom