Not only that, but the simulations actually “[do] not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
Windows are not really important here, the building itself works a giant heat-sink and spreads the heat around so it doesn’t get very hot where the fire is. On the other hand, I left my metal stove on for an hour and a half the other day and that completely collapsed, so I don’t know…
So …you take from my post that the color red is my sole reason for thinking there was molten steel?
I am afraid I don’t quite follow your last statement… “only” 100 meters? What, pray tell, is the distance it takes for an object falling through air (and steel and concrete) to be affected by air resistance? Were the first 30 meters a vacuum?
Sorry for all the multi-posts but I just wanted to thank griffin1977 for this. Interesting.
Steven Jones of BYU, however, your Wiki link provides the same sources:
one statement by the president of the construction company that there was “literally molten steel” below the surface
one statement attributed to the design engineer
and one pair of statements by a rescue dog handler and a medical doctor.
In fact those seem to be the only sources for the claim.
The issues are:
The construction company president used a phrase (quoted with no provenance) that is typical of late 20th/early 21st century speech in the U.S. where “literally” does not mean “actually” but “I really want to make a point.” Since we have no reference to when he is supposed to have said this, we do not know whether he was expressing a personal and emotional view of the magnitude of the situation while employing fairly standard hyperbolic language or whether he was providing a technical description of the event. Given the language, (and lack of provenance), his comment is not a reliable indication of actual molten steel.
The statement from the design engineer is reported by a third party, so we do not even know what words he used or whether he was describing a technical situation or employing the same sort of hyperbole that the first quotation seems to employ. For that matter, the “still running” comment could have been a simple error of chronology: if the fires were still burning (fueled by various plastics and composites and fabrics) after 21 days–a point I readily grant–then there could have been bits of metal that actually were melted after being subjected to the strains of pressure and long periods of heat. These would not necessarily be load-bearing steel objects, but they could have been metal.
The third and fourth statements are by persons who are simply not trained to identify molten steel and neither actually describes witnessing it, anyway, merely stating that it was there.
If we had actual molten steel in the rubble, there should be reports from the people doing the excavating and removal that they encountered it along with the steps they had to take to deal with it. (I’ve never worked a construction site where the foremen did not have to keep tabs on all their activities. This should have been easy to find.) There should be reports of large blocks of cooled puddles of steel once the “molten” steel finally cooled. These should also be easy to find. They would probably not make it into a daily repot by the excavation and removal team, but they should definitely have shown up in the dailies of the people who were examining the rubble in New Jersey before it was recycled or it should have appeared in the purchase documents for the people buying the recycled material. (The NIST report shows that there were tens of different varieies of steel employed in the construction. Someone buying scrap would have to determine the variety of steel in order to know what process to use to recycle it.)
My focus is specifically on the word “molten.” To a person who has never worked with metals, “molten” may simply convey “red hot,” and there is no question that there was a lot of red hot steel in the rubble. However, the photographs presented up thread were all of glowing sheets and beams, not puddles. The claim for the thermite (or other pre-set agents) requires that the steel actually melt. This is why people who want to find conspiracies perk up at reports of “molten” or “running” metal. However, the actual descriptions and photographs of material being removed all display metal that has been raised to a temperature hot enough to deform (consistent with the 800° - 1100° temperatures reported, depending on the type of metal) but not hot enough to actually melt into puddles.
If the steel actually melted, that information should show up in a LOT more places than two off-hand comments cited with no context and two comments that do not include claims to have witnessed it by people who are not trained to recognize it.
(There may even have been molten pools of some other substance in the rubble, but we have not even been provided with that sort of claim.)
I believe firefighters used hoses to put out the fires that were underneath the rubble and to prevent boots from melting.
Also the video that the banned guy posted with the workers and firefighters shows them doing this.
If that is insufficient, CNN has something…
They would have sprayed the rubble with water, and lowered the temperature of the debris before removing it.
If you are going to say that all cites are just third party information and can’t be trusted, I don’t know what I can do, to be honest. I really can’t get all these people to talk to you directly.
There are videos of people working in the rubble talking about not being able to do …something because of molten metal that they discovered there. At the moment I can’t remember where you can see this but I’m pretty sure it’s in “Why the towers fell”.
I agree. The NIST and FEMA reports totally ignored the reports of molten steel, which is one of the things I find so terribly wrong about them.
Please note that the cites I am providing are indeed just off-hand–as I said early in this thread, I am not bothered enough to give this material the attention it deserves, which is one of the reasons I decided not to be a part of this discussion (man I’m bad at not doing stuff). I can and have found lots more cites for the molten metal thingy but I’d need to find them in a 700-page thread (which actually lost around 200 pages last week because of a crash), translate them and post here.
Molten metal does not nessecarily mean molten steel. While the WTC structure was steel there was significant amounts of aluminum present in furniture, facades, and the two aircraft. Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than steel. Red-hot steel is a solid. Red-hot aluminum is a liquid. If there were pools of red-hot molten metal, they would have to have been aluminum.
If it’s solid, then it’s not aluminum. Aluminum incandesces, but only slightly. It will still appear silvery gray when in a liquid state until it approaches very high temperatures. The picture I saw posted earlier in this thread shows red-hot, solid metal being pulled from the debris.
It seemed to be. You’ve offered cites that there was red-colored molten metal. Your claim is that there was molten steel, which is white. Red-hot (but not molten) steel could plausibly be described as “molten” by a non-expert, or red-hot molten metal of some other kind could have been what they saw. In either case, the temperature is indicated by the color, and red-hot is within reason for these fires.
It just goes round and round, doesn’t it?
Have you actually been reading the thread or did you just jump in at the end? What more can you do? Only what we’ve been asking for since around page 1…show us some objective PHYSICAL proof. i.e. how about show us some a report by a reputable person detailing the ‘molten metal’? Some lab evidence describing the ‘molten metal’? A report by one of the recycling vendors describing ‘molten metal’ removed from the site? A detailed report by puzzled structural engineers who actually worked the site describing ‘molten metal’? Some non-subjective (i.e. not blury, in context, by a reputable agency with details) photos of ‘molten metal’ being removed or examined on site (here’s a hint…the pictures shown so far do not constitute this proof).
Then it should be childs play for you to get the requested information (see above), yes? Since everyone was having the problem there should be myriad reports from the top down detailing this ‘molten metal’, describing in offical reports the ‘molten metal’, giving technical analysis of the ‘molten metal’, etc etc. Right? Of course, perhaps it was just HOT there…you know, since the frigging building was on fire prior to the collapse and, being in a huge rubble pile it remained hot for a long time afterwards? IIRC shoes and such melt at temperatures significantly lower that it takes to melt structural steel into puddles. Also, humans FEEL heat at significantly lower temperatures than it takes to melt steel into puddles.
If you aren’t getting this let me put it simply…‘molten metal’ is not required for it to be hot within the rubble pile.
(as an aside, why is it the the CT’s appearently keep forgetting that there was a huge fire in the building set off by all that jet fuel…a fire that then raged for something like 50 minutes prior to the collapse. Its like they think that because the building collapsed the fire just disappeared or something)
Why not produce them here then? SHOW us the official reports of ‘molten metal’…I’ve yet to see one. All I’ve seen so far are ‘reports’ that are third hand or from completely unqualified people…and I’ve only see a few at that. If the ‘molten metal’ was so wide spread in the wreckage then there should be hundreds or thousands of such reports…as I said, from the top down. There were thousands of workers, inspectors, engineers, etc litarlly crawling through the wreckage for months. So…SHOW US THE MONEY! (or, to use another paraphrase…‘where’s the fucking beef?’).
Convient. Please note that the ‘cites’ you have used is the exact same bullshit that the OTHER CT’s have been using for something like 8 pages now. We have YET to get this other non-subjective non-bullshit information. So…either provide or just leave. Please. You have brought zero additional data to the thread…just recycled the same old bullshit yet again as if it were new.
-XT
Any complex event is going to have strange and inexplicable aspects. That’s why it’s pointless to try to debunk C theories by getting into a detailed hypertechnical debate about the science of collapsing buildings. C theorists can argue about the behavior of Kennedy’s head, fer cryin’ out loud. It’s no challenge for them to play spot the anamoly with an event as huge and unprecedented as the collapse of the towers.
Reality will always be surprising. Right now a satellite is about to explore Venus. One interesting thing about Venus is that the winds in the upper atmosphere are tremendous, reaching speeds of hundereds of miles an hour. Yet Venus rotates more slowly than any other planet. How can such winds exist? It doesn’t make sense. Yet there they are. Reality is under no obligation to conform to our understanding of it.
Conspiracy theorists must do more than argue about how such and such aspect of the collapse doesn’t make sense. They must provide actual evidence of a conspiracy. They must explain how such a vast conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people didn’t have a single leak or defector. They must explain how the Conspiracy wired the buildings, both of which were occupied and busy 24/7, without anyone saying “Hey, what the hell are you doing,” or even anyone remembering any of the large teams of demolition experts that would have had to crawl through the buildings. They must explain why the Conspiracy found it neccessary to blow up the buildings in the first place, when the aircraft impacts would have caused enough public outrage for whatever ends the Conspiracy required. They must explain why the conspiracy thought it necessary to blow up WTC 7.
They must show some positive evidence of a conspiracy. Blowing smoke about how the collapse was weird just doesn’t cut it. Of course the collapse was weird. Nothing like it had ever happened before.
Again, the color indicates the temperature, and red-hot is within the range that a fire fueld by paper and furniture could cause. The conspiracy claims were that steel was molten, requiring higher temperatures that you could get with those sources, but we have zero evidence, not even hearsay or conjecture, for molten steel.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
How about “flowing” and “pools”, what form does that imply: solid, fluid or vapor?
And don’t you dare deprive me of my conjecture and hearsay! The fact that the molten steel was not menioned in the NIST and FEMA reports (even as hearsay) is my very point. This was not looked into at all. I am not trying to prove a conspiracy, I am trying to tell you that the matter should be investigated by a an independent (maybe international) scientific panel, if only to quash the conspiracy theorists. I would take your debunking attempts more seriously if there was more footwork behind them but most of them reek of ignorance on the matter (I don’t mean you personally, CurtC).
Larry Borgia, how do you figure you can tell people what they must and must not do and say? I thought this was supposed to be a debate? I most definately don’t see the point in trying to guess what kind of thinking was behind the planning.
OK, I’ll explain one thing:
“They must explain how the Conspiracy wired the buildings, both of which were occupied and busy 24/7, without anyone saying “Hey, what the hell are you doing,” or even anyone remembering any of the large teams of demolition experts that would have had to crawl through the buildings.”
There were two days of unprecedented power downs at the WTC complex the weekend before 9/11 due to maintainance. No security cameras, no security locks and lots of engineers running around.
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint6.htm
http://www.freedomradio.us/news/2004/april/powerdown.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO404A.html
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=35
Nice.
I can’t “tell” you to do or say anything. I’m just pointing out what you need to do to prove a conspiracy. That is, provide proof, not speculation. You’re free to ignore that, but I’m free to point out that neither you nor any other Conspiracy theorist has provided a single bit of positive evidence of any conspiracy.
It would take lots more than two days to wire the towers. lots. And none of these “engineers” has come forward? I just don’t buy it.
:rolleyes:
I said ‘bullshit’ too. Was that all you got out of my post…and all I’m going to get in reply?
-XT
I don’t get this molten steel red herring anyway.
The presence of molten steel is supposed to indicate…what? That there were fires hotter than possible by jet fuel and burning office equipment.
Which indicates…what? Thermite? Huh? Even if you’re using thermite to cut through structural steel, how much molten steel are you expecting? It shouldn’t be that much. The hypothetical thermite charges are just burning through selected steel beams or cables, not melting vast quantities of steel.
The presence of large amounts of molten metal (if we stipulate for a moment that there actually was a lot of molten metal) would be inconsistent with a controlled demolition. If you’re trying to prove that the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition, you shouldn’t expect random hot fires and explosions going off every which way all over the building for almost an hour.
You’d expect the charges to go off, and the building to come down. No charges go off before the demolition, and the building cannot stay up after the charges are blown. The known situtation in the towers…random fires, explosions going off, 612 pound 50 ton presses thrown around, the collapse starting at the site of the plane crash, all argue against a demolition.
Look, I’m going to be plain here. Everyone keeps saying “My God, the collapse was just like a controlled demolition! What’s up with that?” But it WASN’T. The reason the demolition analogy comes to all these people’s minds is that controlled demolitions are the ONLY LARGE BUILDING COLLAPSES THEY"VE EVER SEEN.
How many large building collapse have you seen, in person or on video? Probably lots if you watch the Discovery Channel or the news at all. How many of those were NOT the result of a controlled demolition? Probably one. And what’s that one? The World Trade Center collapse. No others. Why is that? Because 99.9999999% of skyscrapers don’t just up and collapse by accident. Of course it looks like a controlled demolition, because both are large building collapses, and the only collapses most people see are demolitions. How else is a skyscraper going to collapse, except by demolition or some extreme event that stresses the building waaaaay beyond it’s design, like a big earthquake, or somebody driving a fully fueled jumbo jet into it.
And there are significant differences with the WTC collapse and a demolition. The collapse didn’t start with the ground floor. There were fires and explosions and such going on for an hour before the collapse. That never happens in a controlled demolition, in fact controlled demolitions have no fires, and all the explosions are either simultaneous or happen in very rapid succession, within a few seconds.
The WTC collapse is totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition. Never mind the lack of evidence, no det cord, no detonators, no recovered explosives, no strange people discovered wandering around the WTC on Sept 10 with toolboxes full of explosives. The simple events of the collapse argue against a demolition. It DOESN’T look like a demolition, excpet for the fact that the building collapsed, like buildings undergoing demolition also collapse. The only similarity is that both collapse.
Don’t buy it, then. “Evidence” is relative–I, for one, find CD evident from the fall speed of the WT7 until someone can explain it. Why would it take more than two days to wire the towers, exactly? How long would it take?
Yep. Annoying, isn’t it? You see, I deem the rest of the post unworthy of a reply and the only interesting thing about it was the profanity, which I believed was not accepted in GD. Guess I’m a fucking idiot that way too, huh?
So what you’re saying is “don’t pester me with questions, my mind’s made up. The truthieness of the conspiracy theory is all the proof I need.” Fine then. That’s your right.
Why? because CD is a very very difficult job, much more difficult than simply blowing something up. How many? Hell if I know, but a lot more than two.
And of course, this is assuming I believe the assertions of the one guy your links quote. Engineers carrying demolition equipment look different from engineers carrying IT equipment. Also note that one guys speculations don’t become more credible if they’re repeated word for word on three different websites. And see Lemur’s post above, which pretty much puts paid to the CD idea.
UselessGit, there are three reasons to argue with a CT: to the show him/her the error of his/her ways, to prevent him/her from misleading others and to have fun. Reasons one and three don’t appeal to me. And you’re no danger on number two, because you’re working at a level of detail that only a fellow CT would be able to follow you, much less agree. So, have fun with the other folks.