Molten and Glowing Metal

Jazzy

Closed Account
The photographic record of the brightly glowing stream shows it to be white.
White hot, or reflecting white? Aluminum is a reflective material. Steel isn't very reflective, and when white hot it throws showers of sparks. These weren't observed.

Thermite iron is both too dense, and too hot, to have been able to fall outside the building. It is formed at a temperature a thousand degrees Kelvin hotter than the melting point of steel.

Sometimes we just have to let the other party do the talking for us.
At ALL times we should read the thread before entering it. We might just find the talking has been done already. And we haven't been listening.

So some aspect of "molten/glowing" not already addressed would be welcome.
 
Last edited:

Hetware

Member
The material was in the shadow of the building. I should add that around the edges, the material exhibited a lemon yellow hue.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The material was in the shadow of the building. I should add that around the edges, the material exhibited a lemon yellow hue.
Being on the same side of the building that was in shadow is not the same as itself being in shadow.
 

Hetware

Member
It's been a few years, and my work is on an old harddrive so I don't have ready access, but this is a different video of the same phenomenon. You tell me if reflected light can explain the apparent glow of the subject material. I contend that the image speaks for itself, and there is no need to examine the details of building orientation and relative solar position in order to conclude that the material was not exposed to sunlight. Will you concede the point, or do you care to prove your objection?

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's been a few years, and my work is on an old harddrive so I don't have ready access, but this is a different video of the same phenomenon. You tell me if reflected light can explain the apparent glow of the subject material. I contend that the image speaks for itself, and there is no need to examine the details of building orientation and relative solar position in order to conclude that the material was not exposed to sunlight. Will you concede the point, or do you care to prove your objection?

That's clearly orange, and not white. Most likely burning debris, possibly entrained in molten aluminum, but also possible just a pile of glowing embers.
 

Hetware

Member
Please describe the mechanism that would result in the expulsion of such "glowing embers". Embers of what? Please provide a report of any experiment reproducing such phenomena involving burning debris entrained in molten aluminum. Also be so kind as to provide a description of the mechanism by which such a massive amount of aluminum could be sequestered and heated to, and beyond, its melting point.

Your standard of proof requires that the only variables introduced into the WTC were aboard the commercial jet that impacted the building. I, on the other hand, have the leeway of speculating that some clandestine human faction did introduce, in significant quantity, such a materials as thermite into the WTC prior to the aircraft impact.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please describe the mechanism that would result in the expulsion of such "glowing embers". Embers of what? Please provide a report of any experiment reproducing such phenomena involving burning debris entrained in molten aluminum. Also be so kind as to provide a description of the mechanism by which such a massive amount of aluminum could be sequestered and heated to, and beyond, its melting point.
Floor collapse, embers of burning stuff. smaller scale example

Large scale example:

Example pics of embers:


Perspective on size of fires:


You might also want to review this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-molten-steel-was-there-any-why-what-about-the-hot-spots.1059/
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Please describe the mechanism that would result in the expulsion of such "glowing embers". Embers of what? Please provide a report of any experiment reproducing such phenomena involving burning debris entrained in molten aluminum. Also be so kind as to provide a description of the mechanism by which such a massive amount of aluminum could be sequestered and heated to, and beyond, its melting point.
"Most likely burning debris, possibly entrained in molten aluminum" - Mick - above.
Burning office and plane fragments.
911.
An 80-ton aircraft (twelve tons of which was fuel and fifty tons of which was aluminum), impacting six acres of office at five hundred mph.

Your standard of proof requires that the only variables introduced into the WTC were aboard the commercial jet that impacted the building. I, on the other hand, have the leeway of speculating that some clandestine human faction did introduce, in significant quantity, such a materials as thermite into the WTC prior to the aircraft impact.
Speculate then. Try remembering that thermite-produced iron is too hot and heavy to be able to fall outside any vertical building through a window space. This iron is three times denser than aluminum, and a thousand degrees Kelvin hotter than steel's melt temperature. This is repeated from earlier in the thread.

So now your speculation must begin with no visuals of thermite. So do you have bills of lading, or security reports of installation, or video footage of people doing the installation, or a "whistleblower"? What have you?
 
Last edited:

vooke

Active Member
I miss Boston. All I have seen is every effort to deny the obvious and he kept tearing the rebuttals to molten mtal apart.
QUestion is, if it wasn't for Truthers insisting on molten metal as evidence of accelerants, how many would honestly say that was no molten metal?
Another question I haven't seen entertained is what if indeed it was molten metal and probably steel?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Perhaps you can summarise those posts that best represent the evidence for molten steel in your opinion?
I think it's thought that at least glowing steel is a possibility from the heat in the wreckage pile, but unlikely at any point prior to that, and actual liquid steel is unproven and highly speculative.
 

vooke

Active Member
I would have to repeat every post and video he posted. Pointless
Would it make any difference if there was molten steel? That appears to be the biggest fear here, that it was really hot in there
Perhaps you can summarise those posts that best represent the evidence for molten steel in your opinion?
I think it's thought that at least glowing steel is a possibility from the heat in the wreckage pile, but unlikely at any point prior to that, and actual liquid steel is unproven and highly speculative.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I fail to see how it was proven that molten steel existed, so if you can pinpoint where it was it would be helpful.
Also where anyone has demonstrated 'fear' of the possibility.
The argument for molten steel is to imply that the collapse was induced by thermite cutting. The logistics of that are overly complex and do not fit the observations.
The molten material that seems to pour from the building can easily be explained as aluminium from the aircraft.
The glowing debris in the pile has not been proven to be steel, it is just unidentified red-hot materials, and the heat that caused that does not require any mysterious heat source other than what was understood to be present.
 

Ron J

Active Member
That's clearly orange, and not white. Most likely burning debris, possibly entrained in molten aluminum, but also possible just a pile of glowing embers.

To me it looks like burning embers, dropping in bursts. Interesting that as the collapse began, there was a jet of brownish smoke out the east corner window on the same floor as the embers were dropping from on the north side.. Also interesting to see the east bowed in columns clearly collapse into the building.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
I haven't seen entertained is what if indeed it was molten metal and probably steel?
IIRC, on the JREF forums, a very similar question was posed. That thread stated in it OP that if we accept, as a given, that molten steel existed in the rubble ( include the one location of falling hot substance from WTC2 if you wish), then describe how this fits into a scenario of demolition that would explain the collapses as observed.

I can search for that thread and provide a link if you wish.

ETA: I took the liberty of doing the search.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219791

Feel free to join and revive the thread. There were 91 pages and no one answered the OP. In fact many truther responses were simply arguments for the existence of molten steel despite the fact that the OP stated that the thread would assume its existence. Its like they could not take yes for an answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Efftup

Senior Member
That's exactly what I was thinking reading through this thread.
to summarize this thread as I see it so far:
Various eyewitnesses talk of molten metal, sometimes weeks after the collapse. MOST of these appear to be talking about glowing red hot metal as if it;s molten (something CT'ers want to jump on as a smoking gun of proof of something)but it appears not all of them.
So it seems apparent that some mechanism kept heat in the pile after the collapse. insulation of surrounding material keeping heat from escaping and something continuing to burn/react creating more heat seems to be the prevailing idea.

Molten metal appeared to fall from the building at about the height of where the plane hit and people are arguing about what that would be.

How much of this is relevant to ANYTHING?
The basic CT argument usually seems to be simply to try and prove NIST wrong which then apparently proves whatever assertions they want to make. which does not really follow.
As far as I can see, thee are 3 main hypotheses put forward as alternatives to the "official" story. 1) Controlled demolition using either explosives or thermate/thermite/nano thermite (delete as applicable depending on what is debunked this particular moment) 2)Nuclear bomb in the basement. 3) space based projected energy weapon .

As far as I can see, NONE of these suggestions involves a mechanism which would continue to heat the pile after the collapse so proving molten metal after the collapse is pretty irrelevant.

this rather harrowing link shows that the Hiroshima bomb created 4000C surface temperatures http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html and yet there is no mention of this temperature causing fires to burn unchecked for weeks afterwards.

the space beam seems to rely on projected (made up) technology that even Dr Judy woods can't be bothered to think about or even calculate the energy required to "dustify" the buildings so it's hard to guess what temperatures are supposedly reached at the time.

The thermite/thermate etc, apart from having been debunked for various reasons many times might explain high enough temperatures to create molten steel flowing from the building but would burn out quickly and not create an extra mechanism for any later molten /red hot material.

So later photos showing hot material seem to prove nothing. Perhaps it's even a material heated up by the use of a thermal lance as we don;t know where the material being picked up by the backhoe came from.

For the material flowing from the building, if this IS a thermitic reaction, when the building collapses, how come we don't see more evidence of this from all the "squibs" as the collapse happens? not only that, but where did they store all the thermite?
As this article shows: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm that if that was aluminium flowing from the building and was 10 tons, if it was instead Iron from thermite reactions, that would require 60 tons of thermitic material on that floor.

So what is red hot/molten material actually supposed to prove exactly?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
CT's (in pretty much all cases not just 9/11) are usually desperate to get anything right - and then, as you observed, they claim that a single correct point on their part proves all their other claims correct.
 

vooke

Active Member
What if for real it was molten steel? Where would the heat have come from? Those are more relevant questions than vehemently denying molten steel. But since most of the molten steel believers subscribe to controlled demolition hypothesis, rejecting this hypothesis for whatever reason automatically turns its opponents into fierce skeptics of molten metal almost to the point of irrationality.

Boston produced image of glowing debris, bent steel,molten concrete. I never saw any refutation, just demand for more and more evidence, more than he has so that he can be accused of making empty claims. That's a smart way of 'winning' an argument; demand the impossible
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What if for real it was molten steel? Where would the heat have come from? Those are more relevant questions than vehemently denying molten steel. But since most of the molten steel believers subscribe to controlled demolition hypothesis, rejecting this hypothesis for whatever reason automatically turns its opponents into fierce skeptics of molten metal almost to the point of irrationality.

Boston produced image of glowing debris, bent steel,molten concrete. I never saw any refutation, just demand for more and more evidence, more than he has so that he can be accused of making empty claims. That's a smart way of 'winning' an argument; demand the impossible
How about a blob of solidified steel? If there was molten steel, there would have been pools of it. So there would have been solid pools found. Not a single piece of once-liquid steel was found. Why is this an impossible demand?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
What if for real it was molten steel?
No evidence points to this at all. Steel which is orange is SOLID. Molten steel is WHITE.

Where would the heat have come from?
You mean the TEMPERATURE. A thermite process heats the iron it melts to a temperature of 2,500 deg C, which is a 1000 deg C hotter than molten steel, and couldn't be contained by anything found within the tower. Which means that it could never be seen pouring out of it [...]

Those are more relevant questions than vehemently denying molten steel. But since most of the molten steel believers subscribe to controlled demolition hypothesis, rejecting this hypothesis for whatever reason automatically turns its opponents into fierce skeptics of molten metal almost to the point of irrationality.
[...] you should be vehemently denying impossible events to exist.

Molten metal? No-one's denying that. A one-hour fire (a furnace, really) around fifty tons of shredded aluminum should have produced a ton or two of liquid aluminum, which it did.

Boston produced image of glowing debris, bent steel,molten concrete. I never saw any refutation, just demand for more and more evidence, more than he has so that he can be accused of making empty claims. That's a smart way of 'winning' an argument; demand the impossible
The refutation is written above. Nothing impossible is demanded of you. [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaydeehess

Senior Member
What if for real it was molten steel? Where would the heat have come from? Those are more relevant questions than vehemently denying molten steel. But since most of the molten steel believers subscribe to controlled demolition hypothesis, rejecting this hypothesis for whatever reason automatically turns its opponents into fierce skeptics of molten metal almost to the point of irrationality.

Boston produced image of glowing debris, bent steel,molten concrete. I never saw any refutation, just demand for more and more evidence, more than he has so that he can be accused of making empty claims. That's a smart way of 'winning' an argument; demand the impossible
See my post, #455, above.

OK assume there are as molten, liquid state, steel, in the rubble pile.
So what? I mean that literally not flippantly. What possible, more than hand waving, think-about-it, demolition scenario arises from this?

As for what was shown, none of that illustrates that thise components were ever in the liquid state and therefore never at melting point temp.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Just watched "Mayday" about the discount airline DC-9 that buried itself in the Florida Everglades. I had forgotten that the intense onboard fire was due in large part to the illegally shipped boxes of aircraft oxygen generators. The NTSB test had a freight compartment reach 3000 degrees F in a few minutes.
Obviously there were oxygen generators on the Boeing's that hit the towers and the south tower's aircraft debris would have scattered less than in the north tower due to where it hit. I think it's entirely possible that the corner of the south tower experienced an extremely hot, oxygen infused, fire due to a concentration of aircraft debris there.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I think it's entirely possible that the corner of the south tower experienced an extremely hot, oxygen infused, fire due to a concentration of aircraft debris there.
Mick's sped-up film shows fires breaking out immediately beneath the collapse floor where the plane wreckage was melting within its surrounding fire. This then immediately followed by collapse.
Oxygen generators would probably have been forced into action well before the collapse. The floor beneath the collapse floor contained a battery room, I believe, which may well have had an energetic contribution to make.

It is strange how new perceptions may be made to emerge by altering the projection speed, isn't it? Works every time...
 
Last edited:

trevor

Active Member
White hot, or reflecting white? Aluminum is a reflective material. Steel isn't very reflective, and when white hot it throws showers of sparks. These weren't observed.

Thermite iron is both too dense, and too hot, to have been able to fall outside the building. It is formed at a temperature a thousand degrees Kelvin hotter than the melting point of steel.


At ALL times we should read the thread before entering it. We might just find the talking has been done already. And we haven't been listening.

So some aspect of "molten/glowing" not already addressed would be welcome.
sorry for bringing up an old thread, but there is a really EASY way to determine if there was any molten "steel" (i'd like to mention that truthers often confuse "steel" with "metal", as some metals melt at about 1,000 degrees cooler then steel.

alright now, first off, i'd like to mention the fact that there were NO explosions recorded. h2O (water) CANNOT coexist with molten steel. if the two were to ever meet, this is what would happen.


and this


and this too.


and this


Now then...how many gallons of water was sprayed on ground zero for those few weeks? i want to say close to a million (not to mention it rained a few times as well).

For none of these explosions to have occurred, thats pretty much confirming that there was no molten STEEL. theres no way water could not have reached it.

also, the hydrolics on the clean up trucks would have failed do to high temperatures...

and finally, i have seen how steven E. jones makes his work. the guy makes a living off of telling lies, and i have seen multiple pieces of his work that are FABRICATED...dishonest.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Well rubble pile fires can protect lower volumes from water applied to the surface. However molten steel/metal of course, will flow to the lowest pockets exactly in the same fashion that the water will. Where as you point out the resultant steam explosion would be difficult to miss.
 

trevor

Active Member
Well rubble pile fires can protect lower volumes from water applied to the surface. However molten steel/metal of course, will flow to the lowest pockets exactly in the same fashion that the water will. Where as you point out the resultant steam explosion would be difficult to miss.
i wanted to say more about professor Steven E. Jones because he is the man who started the molten steel conspiracy and has been fighting for it ever since, so now i am going to.

OK, so after jones called NISTS lead investigator a liar for saying "there was no molten steel" (ironically, there is no evidence that goes against this other then some firefighters who aren't qualified to identify molten material) Anyways, jones goes out of his way to try to convince the truth movement that molten steel actually existed...check this out.



now here is the real picture.



jones actually claimed that these firemen were staring down into a pool of molten steel.....it turns out, those were flashlights..He actually had to fabricate pictures to get people to believe him.

It gets even better.

jones also claims that this concrete was "molded together by temperatures greater the 2,000 F."



Funny, because i can still see paper in there with legible words. If you can read the paper, then this wasn't created by heat process, and he should know that.

Now then, the fact that this man has to be dishonest about his information, does that mean that MAYBE, NISTS lead investigator was telling the truth when he said "no molten steel?"
 
Last edited:

Chew

Senior Member
The firefighters huddled around a pool of molten metal myth is always amusing. Were they expecting to find a survivor in a pool of molten metal?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Much of the buildings' kinetic energies remained as the wreckage hit the deck. Much of that was transferred by direct metal-to-metal contact (a la Newton's Cradle) to Gzero itself, where probably a hundred to a thousand tons of steel (a small proportion of the building masses) was the beneficiary - and reached high temperatures.

The world's original method of manufacturing HYDROGEN GAS was by passing steam through heated iron pipes.
This is HISTORY. It amazes me that our society never learns its history.

Nobody
should have been surprised when the wreckage burst into flames after being dowsed with water. Especially not the firemen, and you (out there) should have known it too.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Much of the buildings' kinetic energies remained as the wreckage hit the deck. Much of that was transferred by direct metal-to-metal contact (a la Newton's Cradle) to Gzero itself, where probably a hundred to a thousand tons of steel (a small proportion of the building masses) was the beneficiary - and reached high temperatures.

The world's original method of manufacturing HYDROGEN GAS was by passing steam through heated iron pipes.
This is HISTORY. It amazes me that our society never learns its history.

Nobody
should have been surprised when the wreckage burst into flames after being dowsed with water. Especially not the firemen, and you (out there) should have known it too.

[...]
Perhaps you should start a new thread "What effect did the kinetic energy of the collapse of WTC1 have on the temperature of the rubble pile" to allow a more focussed critique of your theory. As you know, I don't think the kinetic energy was a significant contribution.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Off topic posts in this thread have been removed, and off-topic segments of some posts have been excised.
 

Oystein

Senior Member

Jazzy

Closed Account
I find I have to repeat myself here.

A densely-compressed pile of iron wreckage WILL NOT SUPPORT combustion in air. Even when dry, the exposed metal surfaces will oxidize, and while doing so, ABSORB OXYGEN.

When doused with water from above, the exposed iron surfaces will ABSORB OXYGEN.

If raised to high temperatures at its base by kinetic energy transfer (which it was), exposed iron surfaces will ABSORB OXYGEN.

The corrosive processes initiated when the firemen's water met the hot steel would ABSORB OXYGEN at the surface of the iron and on the water surfaces.

There would be absolutely NO POSSIBILITY of deep fires involving the combustion of hydrocarbons after a brief interval of time following the collapse, because there would be NO FREE OXYGEN AT ALL down there.

Thus there were NO "fires" at all. High-temperature corrosion in a reducing environment liberated hydrogen gas which rose to catch fire at the surface. If there had been any oxygen about, it would have never made it to the top. Move on.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Apparently it's 800 deg C for the industrial process, so probably slightly lower than that for when the reaction is possible. I had to look it up. There's probably a speed/temp graph in this somewhere. :)

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Bureau_of_Mines/ri/ri_5911/ri_5911_pgs_01_19.pdf
Hmm yes about what I would have thought.

Give me a ballpark figure: What percentage of the stell got this hot (say: >700 °C) - either before the collapse by the office fires, or during the collapse by Newton's Cradle action - and not through fires in the post-collapse debris?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Give me a ballpark figure'
And this is what these are.

What percentage of the steel got this hot (say: >700 °C) - either before the collapse by the office fires
<4%.
or during the collapse by Newton's Cradle action
<2%.
and not through fires in the post-collapse debris?
<0.1%. If at all.

Surface fires would have only been able to use the oxygen in the air after a day's watering of the wreckage. Rusting needs oxygen from somewhere. Everything was set up for rapid corrosion down below, in an extremely hot, oxygen-free, hydrogen-rich and reducing environment, with sulphate ions in the water. There just had to be pools down there.
 
Last edited:

mrfintoil

Active Member
Glowing hot steel beams are easily identified within the rubble and their color is a good representation of their temp.
This might be an old thread, and perhaps what I am about to mention has already been addressed, but looking at the colour of glowing substances through an image taken by a camera is not a good way to analyze temperature at all. I recently had this very discussion with someone, and I made an image to illustrate the problem.

Identifying temperatures by colour/intensity is something that you do with your eyes. This is because most eyes are the same. They have the same colour perception and dynamic light range, which is more than even current high end cameras.

Camera's limited dynamic range and white balance cause colour information to be distorted, especially in digital photography.

Here is a simulated scene of a perfect blackbody (meaning all the light comes from the object itself).
brightness_colour.PNG
Note that the hue of the glowing object on the left is red. But look what happens when we raise the exposure value, essentially making the image brighter. The glow turns from red to orange-yellow. Please remember that we did not change the intensity of the glowing object, just the exposure of the camera. Raising the intensity of the object while remaining on the same exposure value would yield the same effect, but in the real world it is usually the camera exposure that changes, not the intensity of the object.

So why does the colour change from red to orange-yellow from a mere exposure change despite that they underlying hue of the glow remains unchanged? Here is when the limited dynamic range of most cameras play tricks on us.

Watch the RGB values at the top right. All of them samples a 5-by-5 pixel area.

Sample #1 got an RGB value of [255, 89, 63].
For 8bit images (most consumer cameras today still shoot in this resolution) 255 is the maximum value for each channel. So an RGB value of [255, 0, 0] will yield a pure (absolute) red colour.

Making an absolute colour brighter is impossible with 8bit colour data (which is based on integer values), because there is no green or blue hues in there to be raised and move the luminance closer to white. One need to add to both the green and blue channel to move the luminance close to white, since pure white is [255, 255, 255].

In the real world there are no absolute colours like this, at least not in our everyday situations. Most conventional light sources (including glowing metals) will always contain traces of green and blue when captured on cameras with limited dynamic range.

So in my example, the only possible, and at the same time logical thing that happens when we change the exposure is to introduce more green and blue. The exposure (sometimes also called gain) will multiply the existing values.

So sample slot #2 shows that the only way to make the red glow brighter is to raise the values of the other channels, mostly green in this case. This leaves us with a orange-yellow hue instead of the original red.

My example is created using a virtual camera simulating optic phenomena, but you get the same effect when photographing glowing things with a real camera and store the image in a limited dynamic range format.

On top of that you have the camera's white balance, which can severely distort hues of light.

So the thing about identifying temperature by colour and intensity becomes meaningless when just looking at a JPG-image you downloaded from the internet.
 
Last edited:

Freak

Active Member
To add to mrtinfoil's excellent post, the color and brightness can be easily changed in a photo editing program as well.

I've changed the color of cars in Photoshop. It's pretty easy.

And this doesn't even take into account that the rest of the image can change your perception of an object's color. Remember the infamous dress pic? The brain is really good at color correcting in the real world, but pretty bad when it comes to a picture.
 
Top