Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
22 2015-03-28 by Greg_Roberts_0985
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, so why was there molten metal at the WTC collapse sites?
NIST claims that WTC 1&2 collapsed due to jet fueled fires (just normal offices fires for WTC7) which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron, but also claim that if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses. The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it.
Physical Evidence
- Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study
- Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:
Steel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.
In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF
Sources related to exceptionally high temperatures, and/or to persistent heat at Ground Zero
FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.
Testimonial Evidence
Testimony from Firefighters:
- New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.
- Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
- New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
Testimony from Other Professionals:
- Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
- Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”
- In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
- Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.”
- Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides . . . ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”
- Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.”
Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:
- Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
- Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
- Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains
The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact.
When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible
43 comments
6 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
WTC2 South Tower, Molten Metal pouring out the North-East Corner
3 [deleted] 2015-03-28
Jet fuel melts steel beams only when you get Cheney and Rumsfeld to play along.
2 I-be-pop-now 2015-03-28
Could the pressure increase from the collapse of the relatively air-tight building have caused enough heat to melt the steal? I remember a demonstration in physics class where the teacher punched down a plunger in a tube and the pressure made enough heat to burn an alcohol-soaked piece of cotton. WTC would be much bigger than the classroom tube. How hot could that get?
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
No, otherwise why didn't the lower steel melt when the building was standing, there is no evidence that the potential energy of the building could melt steel, the hypothesis is in fact ludicrous
2 redditeditard 2015-03-28
Preaching to the choir? Most of us came here understanding 9/11 & JFK were inside jobs.
3 OnSpeakerCrab 2015-03-28
Not everyone. So why shouldn't he share the information?
Do you not want people to know?
0 redditeditard 2015-03-28
No, I want other people to know.
2 Homer_Simpson_Doh 2015-03-28
But but but, Mythbusters melted some small steel beams with some firewood. Right?
14 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
I had a BBQ yesterday, i am so glad 9/11 physics didn't apply to me and the thing collapse through itself, at freefall and destry 40 bucks of delicious meats
5 Homer_Simpson_Doh 2015-03-28
Good point! Maybe your BBQ is built out of passports?
I like how in Mythbusters they say "Yeah, we cannot bring in an actual real sized beam like the WTC towers because they are too massive and big. So we are gonna use this steel beam that is 1/10 the size of the WTC beams.....
1 wrathwinters 2015-03-28
Why is every direct comment on this post getting downvoted?
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
Because the totality of evidence is too much to contend with
1 thinkmorebetterer 2015-03-28
Okay, here's what I don't understand about claims of "rivers of molten metal" is - what are they suggesting?
If the claim is that the fires within the towers couldn't be responsible, then what is?
Thermite doesn't work because it only keeps metal in a molten state as long as the reaction is occurring, almost immediately afterward the slag hardens.
0 treerat 2015-03-28
Jet fuel cant melt steel beams" debunked here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
7 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
EXACTLY!!
So why was there molten meal at all three collapse sites?
Popular Mechanics lol, proper debunkers do not use them as a reliable source.
But there was molten steel, you have lost your own argument, using an outdated source, that has been proven wrong.
Hahaha
5 HailToTheKink 2015-03-28
I would recommend to you to remove the emotional side to arguments. Less and less people will take you seriously if you continue it.
Keep to the facts.
2 Hotbbqwing 2015-03-28
Just because there potentially was molten steel doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure there are many things inside a high rise building that could burn hot enough to melt steel. And if 9/11 was an inside job, why bother flying a plane into the building instead of just bombing it?
0 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
Go on then, name one thing that would be consistent with the "official story"
2 Hotbbqwing 2015-03-28
Electronics for example can burn pretty hot. What I don't get is why are people so fixated on molten steel. Steel loses a lot of its integrity at lower temperature, and will definitely start warping and bending. It seems plausible that many of the people who claim to have seen molten steel might have mistaken bent and twisted up steel as being molten.
1 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
So you are offering zero evidence or sources, just making random things up?
To be clear, i know for a fact steel loses integrity at extreme temperatures, my point is where did the literal tons of molten metal come from, why where structural beams glowing red, why did NASA manage to record temperatures thousands of degrees higher than any office fire could produce, why do the official reports ignore all this?
0 Gantznaught 2015-03-28
Somebody shoot this out to mythbusters
-3 King-Hell 2015-03-28
Can't melt steel, but it CAN melt aluminium, and there was 30 tons of aircraft aluminium in each fire. What's more, molten aluminium can explode if it comes in contact with water.
8 [deleted] 2015-03-28
That's a myth which has been debunked numerous times. Example 1 and Example 2, enjoy.
-5 King-Hell 2015-03-28
http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/insight_newsletter/Aluminium_Insight_2011-02_Wise_Chem-Explosions.pdf
1 [deleted] 2015-03-28
Not opening a random PDF, sorry.
0 King-Hell 2015-03-28
Here's the text.
Molten Aluminium / water explosions risks and prevention
In the late ‘50s, George Long, working at Alcoa’s Research Laboratories said
“A violent explosion occurs when a thin layer of water is trapped under a sudden rush of molten metal and can be avoided by greasing or painting the bottom of the water container”. Long’s research findings led to further studies that showed organic paints could be applied to aluminium production equipment and materials to prevent these explosions and the first used was t arset s tandard, a bituminous coal tar pitch. When this product was removed from the market due to health risks, Wise Chem e -212-F, a two-part epoxy, became the standard. p yrotek’s Joe r oberts, Global p roduct Manager, Wise Chem, fills in some of the background. i n the aluminium industry the term “pop” is often heard, being used to describe a non eventful splash of liquid metal. t his is actually a Force 1 explosion as defined by t he a luminum a ssociation who has categorized water / molten aluminium explosions into three levels. a Force 1 explosion is also referred to as a steam explosion. t his occurs when molten aluminium traps water which is then quickly vaporized to steam. t he metal is shot up to 15 ft (~4.5 m) and normally involves less than 10 lb (~4.5 kg) of metal. t ypical incidents occur for example with damp moulds, wet starting blocks, or water on the casting table top. i n these cases injuries are minor and often involve minor burns. a Force 2 explosion results from a violent steam reaction. Metal is ejected 15–50 ft (~4.5–15 m) and involves much more than 30 lb (~14 kg) of metal. Metal can often be seen on the inside roofs and walls of the casting area as a result of these explosions. s erious injury and fatalities can result from these incidents. t hey are a result of wet scrap, improperly preheated sows, massive bleedouts, or molten metal being drained into wet or contaminated moulds.
a Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event where a large volume of metal is projected more than 50 ft (~15 m). Fatalities often occur along with near total destruction of the immediate area. a Force 3 explosion is identified by the extent of destruction and a white powder (aluminium oxide) covering the area. o ne pound of aluminium in a Force3 explosion is equal to 3 lb (1.4 kg) of tnt . Molten aluminium can also explode as a result of violent reactions with certain metal oxides, such as iron, lead, copper and bismuth. s ome of these oxides also have attached waters of hydration which makes the situation even worse. Most people are aware that rusted iron or steel will react when in contact with molten aluminium. However, one major aluminium producer experienced a Force 3 explosion in the furnace without any water at all in the area. t his was on a Monday morning after a weekend shut down. o n Friday, the furnace was charged and alloy additions made to produce 2014 aa . t he furnace was then adjusted to low fire for the weekend. a lloy 2014 contains high amounts of copper and during the weekend, the chopped copper wire alloy addition oxidized. When the roof was removed and the crane started the stirring process, a large chunk of dross containing a large amount of oxidized copper was pushed against the furnace wall. t he oxidized copper could not alloy into the melt and a Force 3 explosion resulted when the liquid aluminium came into contact with the oxide. t his was all caught on video from a surveillance camera. n o one was injured, but safety procedures in the plant were modified accordingly. a n a lcoa paper titled “Molten a luminum / Water e xplosions” published in 1979, points out another problem. t his was a test to evaluate various coatings. i t involved the standard 12 x 12 x 12 in box half full of water into which 50 lb (~23 kg) of molten aluminium is dropped and an impact hammer hits the side to initiate the explosion. v arious coatings are tested this way. i n one test, r ed r ustoleum was used, but before the explosion could be initiated it went off by itself. r ed r ustoleum contains large amounts of iron oxide, which reacted with the molten aluminium and caused the explosion. t he experiment was stopped and the aluminium industry was made aware of this problem. With the advent of new technology, new explosion sites have been identified and these will require attention. t he latest involves the pit beneath tilting furnaces and the hydraulic cylinders that tilt the furnace. o nly the bottom 36 in of the pit requires coating but the appearance is enhanced if completely covered. t his improves housekeeping and does eliminate a potential explosion site. o ne coating will last for years.
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
Source for this wild claim, you also disregard that there were steel beams that were melted.
No aircraft hit WTC7 and there is documented evidence of molten steel ay that collapse site.
-1 King-Hell 2015-03-28
http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/insight_newsletter/Aluminium_Insight_2011-02_Wise_Chem-Explosions.pdf
1 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
I can prove this wrong, because many physical experiments do not support their claim, here you go...
Pouring molten aluminum into a pool
Molten aluminum into cold water
You also disagree (even though you don't know it) with the "official NIST report", so you can now be considered a truther, welcome.
0 King-Hell 2015-03-28
You don't prove it wrong by offering a different example. If you read the document you'll see that the conditions for an explosion require a lot of alloy and a thin film of water. That's not what you get when you chuck it in a swimming pool. It can produce an explosion with the same force as three times its weight in TNT.
3 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
Ok, more 9/11 impossibilities, do you have any other source?
Lets assume your conspiracy theory is right, are you now suggesting that aluminum destroyed the WTC towers (but not WTC 7) and thus you disagree with the official US government conspiracy theory?
You can not have it both ways, you have argued yourself into a corner, good job.
1 King-Hell 2015-03-28
I have an open mind about WTC7, and I think there's every
possibilityprobability that it was a controlled demolition.I tend to believe respected trade journals, and when one says that aluminium can explode on contact with water then I believe that too. I am an ex-firefighter and once had to fight a fire in an aluminium smelter. That was just half a ton of very angry metal and it was very scary to be near.
I think it is possible that an aluminium explosion took out the already weakened steel uprights and caused the collapses.
0 3Try8 2015-03-28
Excellent points. It's funny how nobody has debunked this.
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
You do realize that the NIST claim, which they still cling to, had no physical testing done to prove the ridiculous claim and has since been proven 100% incorrect..
0 3Try8 2015-03-28
How would you test that?!
1 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
Physical testing, which NIST never did, how did you misunderstand what i said?
0 3Try8 2015-03-28
Answer my question ;)
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
What do you not understand, they would test the claim by doing real life PHYSICAL TESTING like has been done to refute the NIST claim, actual scientific tests, based on well known laws of chemistry.
If you do not understand, reword your request.
2 ConspiracyFox 2015-03-28
I think they were asking for specifics on how you would do "physical testing". I.E which specific physical test?
0 3Try8 2015-03-28
Bingo
0 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-03-28
What specifics?
NIST made an outlandish claim, that they never backed up via physical testing, just a theory.
Physical tests, which are video documented, prove the NIST theory wrong and impossible.
What specifically do they want? remember, i never made the claim in the first place.
2 ConspiracyFox 2015-03-28
Are you talking about whether or not the molten metal at ground zero on 9/11 was aluminum or steel? Or are you talking about whether aluminum explodes in water?
Because the videos you linked only prove that Aluminum doesn't always explode in water, they are not evidence for whether or not the molten metal in ground zero was aluminum or steel - And presumably we will never know because as you say; NIST claims to have never tested it.
Also you mentioned that there was evidence of molten steel in the collapse of building 7. Just wondering if you could link me this.
I actually do believe it was an inside job, I'm just trying to understand your argument.
0 3Try8 2015-03-28
How would you test that?!
1 King-Hell 2015-03-28
I have an open mind about WTC7, and I think there's every
possibilityprobability that it was a controlled demolition.I tend to believe respected trade journals, and when one says that aluminium can explode on contact with water then I believe that too. I am an ex-firefighter and once had to fight a fire in an aluminium smelter. That was just half a ton of very angry metal and it was very scary to be near.
I think it is possible that an aluminium explosion took out the already weakened steel uprights and caused the collapses.