Cutter Charges in the North Tower

[Scott G]

Possibly he recalled that others had already brought this data to NIST's attention? No-one likes to divulge their e-mail address without cause.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf

So why did he ask to be sent the material when in the eye of the cameras? Sometimes I wonder if you truly read the entire posts you're responding to.

[flyingswan]

I have noticed that no official story supporter here has acknowledged that even NIST now admits that it's possible that molten steel was present.

Possible doesn't mean likely. Seeing that molten steel temperatures were reached in the Burning Mountain underground fire, it's obviously possible that similar temperatures were reached in the WTC debris piles. However, even if it was possible, there doesn't appear to be any proof, in the form of puddles of solidified molten steel. On Peterene's theories, the bases of the lift shafts would be full of molten steel, which would be quite a problem to remove once cooled. However, no mention of this in any witness statement that I've seen.

By the way, you appear to be under the misapprehension that a metal has just one colour when molten. In fact, colour is a function of temperature much more than of the type of metal. For instance, the orange/red or orange/yellow colour of the cascade from WTC2 indicates a temperature in the region of 900 to 1000 deg C. This means it could be any metal that is liquid at these temperatures, ruling out steel which would still be solid.

Edited February 27, 2010 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

So why did he ask to be sent the material when in the eye of the cameras? Sometimes I wonder if you truly read the entire posts you're responding to.

No-one has a perfect memory, some things come to mind instantly, others take longer. Perhaps he only recalled it in the interval between giving the answer on camera and being asked for his e-mail address.

[Little Fish]

By the way, you appear to be under the misapprehension that a metal has just one colour when molten. In fact, colour is a function of temperature much more than of the type of metal. For instance, the orange/red or orange/yellow colour of the cascade from WTC2 indicates a temperature in the region of 900 to 1000 deg C. This means it could be any metal that is liquid at these temperatures, ruling out steel which would still be solid.

the colour is a also function of the materials emmissivity

aluminium and lead have low emissivity values, steel and iron have high emissivity.

and also a function of the materials reflectivity, which is why night time pictures are not valid comparisons to the wtc.

the colour doesn't rule out iron-sulphur eutectic or thermite residue.

the colour does rule out aluminium or lead.

[flyingswan]

the colour is a also function of the materials emmissivity

aluminium and lead have low emissivity values, steel and iron have high emissivity.

Do you have a source for this, ie emissivity of liquid Al, Pb, FeS, thermite residue at 900 or 1000 deg C?

How do you estimate the emissivity of the molten cascade when you can't measure the size of it accurately?

Incidentally, this video is interesting, Al at 1800 def F. The maker of the video is a bit tricky in panning away to cooler Al after the pour, but if you freeze it at 1:37 you see Al pouring with a nice orangery colour.

Here's another example:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_molten-lg.jpg&caption=The%20Hay%20team%20casts%20the%20crankcase%20from%20aluminum%2C%20which%20can%20be%20welded%2C%20rather%20than%20the%20aluminum%20and%208%20percent%20copper%20alloy%20in%20the%20original%201903%20version%20of%20Taylor%27s%20engine.%20PHOTO%20BY%20JUDY%20HAY

and an outdoor example:

http://eecue.com/img/images_pic-medium-21718-pouring_the_molten_aluminum.jpg

Edited February 27, 2010 by flyingswan

[MID]

Do you have a source for this, ie emissivity of liquid Al, Pb, FeS, thermite residue at 900 or 1000 deg C?

How do you estimate the emissivity of the molten cascade when you can't measure the size of it accurately?

Incidentally, this video is interesting, Al at 1800 def F. The maker of the video is a bit tricky in panning away to cooler Al after the pour, but if you freeze it at 1:37 you see Al pouring with a nice orangery colour.

Here's another example:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_molten-lg.jpg&caption=The%20Hay%20team%20casts%20the%20crankcase%20from%20aluminum%2C%20which%20can%20be%20welded%2C%20rather%20than%20the%20aluminum%20and%208%20percent%20copper%20alloy%20in%20the%20original%201903%20version%20of%20Taylor%27s%20engine.%20PHOTO%20BY%20JUDY%20HAY

and an outdoor example:

http://eecue.com/img/images_pic-medium-21718-pouring_the_molten_aluminum.jpg

Short comment, Swanny.

You aren't getting tired of this.

You have spent alot of time dominating this discussion...and you keep on banging away.

I've got to hand it to you, pal.

...someone's going to get it, eventually...

[Little Fish]

Do you have a source for this, ie emissivity of liquid Al, Pb, FeS, thermite residue at 900 or 1000 deg C?

How do you estimate the emissivity of the molten cascade when you can't measure the size of it accurately?

Incidentally, this video is interesting, Al at 1800 def F. The maker of the video is a bit tricky in panning away to cooler Al after the pour, but if you freeze it at 1:37 you see Al pouring with a nice orangery colour.

Here's another example:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_molten-lg.jpg&caption=The%20Hay%20team%20casts%20the%20crankcase%20from%20aluminum%2C%20which%20can%20be%20welded%2C%20rather%20than%20the%20aluminum%20and%208%20percent%20copper%20alloy%20in%20the%20original%201903%20version%20of%20Taylor%27s%20engine.%20PHOTO%20BY%20JUDY%20HAY

and an outdoor example:

http://eecue.com/img/images_pic-medium-21718-pouring_the_molten_aluminum.jpg

your first example - watch it again. the aluminium is reflecting the yellow-orange glow from the steel container, the aluminium is not emitting a yellow-orange glow. watch it again and look at the pan. the pan is reflecting the glow too, and the pan is steel which has lower reflectivity than aluminium. aluminium has a high reflectivity rating so will reflect more of the light from its surroundings than the steel pan. there is no orange-yellow colour from the molten aluminium, it is silver reflecting the orange glow, and any orange glow from the aluminium is minimal.

your second example is no good, it is not daylight conditions.

your third example is not yellow orange, it is silverish pink which is the correct colour for molten aluminium at 1000 celcius. it looks nothing like the colour at the wtc event, which is the acid test.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Little Fish

[aquatus1]

You see a steel beam that's dripping what clearly seems to be molten metal.. I suppose you could say that it's some other metal dripping off of it, but I think that the likelihood is that it's the steel that's dripping, especially considering that aluminum is silverish when melted and in daylight conditions.

If it is in a furnace and pure, sure, it's often silvery. What if it is melted in an office fire? What if it's mixed with paint, oxides, drywall, plastics, various chemicals, and everything else found in an office?

You figure it's still silverish? I'm an avergae joe when it comes to molten metals. I wouldn't even hazard to guess.

Not only that, but the color of the metal dripping from the Tower shortly before collapse in the video makes it clear that the metal couldn't have been anything but iron; aluminum simply doesn't drip that way, as has been made clear here numerous times, by numerous people here.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that addresses my question that you were responding to. It does, however, neatly demonstrate whatever happens when I do ask the question, which is why I've never really gotten an answer to it.

The fact that official story supporters can't seem to differentiate the background, which is silverish in color, from the metal, which is clearly yellow/orange, is something that frustrates me, but it's something that I also understand, given how I've found that official story supporters are generally quite loathe to consider that truthers may actually be (gasp) right.

So, you are claiming, as an average joe, that no matter what the conditions, be it in a smelter or in an office fire, molten aluminum will always be silverish? You are so confident of that claim that you are actually getting frustrated when people don't agree with it?

It sounds a lot like loathing to consider that "truthers" may actually be wrong.

average joe?

these are firefighters saying "molten steel! like lava from a volcano, like you were in a foundry".

I know many firefighters. None of them deal with molten metals on a regular basis (or any basis, to the best of my knowledge). As far as molten metals go, a firefighter is no more an expert on the matter that anyone else. Unless you deal with molten metals, you are an avergae joe. If you like, you can modify my question to this: "How would a firefighter determine that a molten metal is molten steel?"

how does molten aluminium resemble lava from a volcano?

Well, much like lava, I would imagine it would have to be full of impurities and at a rather base temperature, but that is purely a guess. I know very little about molten metals, except what I learned in shop. I have worked with molten plastics however (at least, I've observed them more often than most people not in the field, I think). I would say that I have seen molten plastics that would do a pretty decent job passing as molten metals, all orangy and goopy (I suspect there are more technical terms, but it isn't my field).

So, my question remains: A person can call it molten steel all they want. Similarly, they can hear explosions and claim that there were bombs going off. It seems that you are convinced that these people have the ability to hear and see things, and make accurate and immediate conclusions as to their source and make-up, all while in the midst of a disaster situation. My question is not why you believe this (I have my own answers to that). My question is how you think this occurs.

How would an average joe be able to determine that molten metal is composed of molten steel.

Honestly, the argument for steel is indistinguishable from the arguments for Bigfoot.

[Little Fish]

aquatus, your are suggesting that firefighters cannot tell the difference between melted plastic, molten aluminium and molten steel. do you think seasoned firefighters have no experience of these things? they are not average joes in this matter. they were there and saw it and deal with fire situations daily, yet you know they are wrong?

The question is not whether a firefighter can determine whether it is steel, but whether he can tell the difference between molten aluminium and molten steel with his own eyes and own experience.

no-one has been able to reproduce the appearance of the molten material falling from wtc2 in daylight, except with thermite, so it is consistent with thermite.

many reports of "molten steel" are consistent with thermite.

liguefied steel beams are consistent with thermite.

molten alumino-iron and iron spheres found in the dust are consistent with thermite.

descriptions of "like lava from a volcano" are consistent with thermite.

proven unreacted thermite chips in the dust ARE thermite.

how about you prove 1+1=2

[aquatus1]

aquatus, your are suggesting that firefighters cannot tell the difference between melted plastic, molten aluminium and molten steel. do you think seasoned firefighters have no experience of these things? they are not average joes in this matter.

Plastic, most likely they have some experience in. Molten metal, some may. Molten steel, I doubt any of them do. But more important, I think, is that you are still not answering the questions. You are simply trying to say that it should be obvious to anyone that trained firefighters have the ability to tell that molten metal consists of steel. The question is how firefighters (or anyone who is not a smelter by profession or hobby) would be able to tell that molten metal consists of molten steel.

they were there and saw it and deal with fire situations daily, yet you know they are wrong?

I don't believe I ever said they were wrong. I asked, quite reasonably, how you can be so sure that they were right. And no, I do not believe that dealing with fire situations daily means that they deal with molten metals daily, or that it gives them the ability to tell that molten metal is made up of molten steel.

The question is not whether a firefighter can determine whether it is steel, but whether he can tell the difference between molten aluminium and molten steel with his own eyes and own experience.

no-one has been able to reproduce the appearance of the molten material falling from wtc2 in daylight,

How could they? From what I can see, none of you can even agree what the appearance of the material falling from the towers is.

except with thermite, so it is consistent with thermite.

Except for the part where people disagree with that.

many reports of "molten steel" are consistent with thermite.

liguefied steel beams are consistent with thermite.

molten alumino-iron and iron spheres found in the dust are consistent with thermite.

descriptions of "like lava from a volcano" are consistent with thermite.

proven unreacted thermite chips in the dust ARE thermite.

how about you prove 1+1=2

I'm not really interested in proving the existence of Bigfoot. I would like to hear what sort of experience you believe a firefighter might encounter that would give him the ability to tell that a given molten metal in a middle of a fire is molten steel.

[SolarPlexus]

average joe?

these are firefighters saying "molten steel!"

Yeah i guess they know a thing or two about how stuff reacts to heat ....

Short comment, Swanny.

You aren't getting tired of this.

You have spent alot of time dominating this discussion...and you keep on banging away.

I've got to hand it to you, pal.

As if!

Edited February 28, 2010 by SolarPlexus

[flyingswan]

your first example - watch it again. the aluminium is reflecting the yellow-orange glow from the steel container, the aluminium is not emitting a yellow-orange glow. watch it again and look at the pan. the pan is reflecting the glow too, and the pan is steel which has lower reflectivity than aluminium. aluminium has a high reflectivity rating so will reflect more of the light from its surroundings than the steel pan. there is no orange-yellow colour from the molten aluminium, it is silver reflecting the orange glow, and any orange glow from the aluminium is minimal.

your second example is no good, it is not daylight conditions.

your third example is not yellow orange, it is silverish pink which is the correct colour for molten aluminium at 1000 celcius. it looks nothing like the colour at the wtc event, which is the acid test.

All I can say is that you don't see the examples the way I do. For instance, if you think the first example is just reflection of the container, you have got a very odd idea of how reflection works, the angles are all wrong. How come the pour no longer reflects the container when we see it again, cooled, at 1:49?

I note you are avoiding my questions about your emissivity claim. Did you make that claim off the top of your head without having the actual emissivity numbers to hand?

Edited February 28, 2010 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

your third example is not yellow orange, it is silverish pink which is the correct colour for molten aluminium at 1000 celcius. it looks nothing like the colour at the wtc event, which is the acid test.

The pink suggests nearer 900 deg C to me.

I'm not claiming the WTC2 cascade is Al, I'm just showing that the claim that Al is always silvery is demonstrably false.

Edited February 28, 2010 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

Short comment, Swanny.

You aren't getting tired of this.

You have spent alot of time dominating this discussion...and you keep on banging away.

I've got to hand it to you, pal.

Thanks, though I could do with some help when it gets out of my area of expertise.

...someone's going to get it, eventually...

I'm not holding my breath.

[Little Fish]

I'm just showing that the claim that Al is always silvery is demonstrably false.

who claimed that?

[flyingswan]

who claimed that?

It's a fairly common claim of the conspiracists:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12793

and in this thread it was Scott G in post #445.

Edited February 28, 2010 by flyingswan

[Little Fish]

thats a good analysis, it confirms what's being explained to you.

[aquatus1]

Yeah i guess they know a thing or two about how stuff reacts to heat ....

So, again, the answer to "How would the average joe (or fireman) know that molten metal is actually molten steel?" is...what?

"Well...obviously they would know!"

Like I said, my question remains unanswered, but it is interesting to notice how often it gets dodged.

[flyingswan]

thats a good analysis, it confirms what's being explained to you.

It confirms that Al is silver at just above melting point, it doesn't say much about its appearance at 900 or 1000 deg C, which is why I posted the other pix.

Why are you still not answering my questions about emissivity?

Edited February 28, 2010 by flyingswan

[Little Fish]

why am i obliged to answer your questions?

you have access to the internet, maybe you should do the work yourself.

the last episode ended with you saying it was too complicated for you, why should i waste my time.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Little Fish

[aquatus1]

why am i obliged to answer your questions?

No one ever said you were. What I said was that no one has addressed the very reasonable question of how to tell if molten metal is molten steel. I also said that people kept dodging the question.

you have access to the internet, maybe you should do the work yourself.

If it was a topic that held enough interest for me, I would. My interests, however, lie in other directions. After all, I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am merely asking how you have come to a conclusion regarding these claims of molten steel. It seems that your entire basis that these people are correct in saying "molten steel" is...well, nothing more than the assumption that they are correct.

You aren't obligated to answer my questions to anyone (although that, in and of itself, is an answer). You should, however, at least be able to answer the question to yourself.

[Little Fish]

No one ever said you were. What I said was that no one has addressed the very reasonable question of how to tell if molten metal is molten steel. I also said that people kept dodging the question.

If it was a topic that held enough interest for me, I would. My interests, however, lie in other directions. After all, I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am merely asking how you have come to a conclusion regarding these claims of molten steel. It seems that your entire basis that these people are correct in saying "molten steel" is...well, nothing more than the assumption that they are correct.

You aren't obligated to answer my questions to anyone (although that, in and of itself, is an answer). You should, however, at least be able to answer the question to yourself.

I was responding to fs, not you.

what the firefighters reported is consistent with the liquefied steel beams found by fema.

it is difficult to accept that the description by firefighters who deal with fire destruction all the time, of "molten steel, like lava from a volcano" is molten aluminium.

no firm conclusion can be drawn from a single data point as you hyperbolate my position to be. it appears to me that you have a tendency to only focus on single data points in isolation. the dust contains unreacted thermite which goes off at 400 celcius to produce molten iron, these temperatures existed below the rubble, so the fires in the rubble would have ignited these red chips in the dust to produce molten iron. if this stuff was abundant in the dust, then it suggests molten iron in quantities was there and correlates with what many witnesses describe.

[MID]

I'm not holding my breath.

Oh no, no, no, I'd never advise that.

I'm not sure a human being can possibly do that long enough!

[Q24]

So, again, the answer to "How would the average joe (or fireman) know that molten metal is actually molten steel?" is...what?

"Well...obviously they would know!"

Like I said, my question remains unanswered, but it is interesting to notice how often it gets dodged.

The many witnesses who described “molten steel” were there, they made the judgement call based on what they saw – melted and dripping structural steel elements as they said. The physical evidence that supports this description is also present in the FEMA Metallurgical Examination so there is simply no denying that molten steel was present.

I think that the above is sufficient answer by itself without going into your logic failure regarding probability of what the witnesses saw. As Little Fish said, you are trying to isolate and excuse evidence and in doing so are unfortunately failing to see the big picture.

[SolarPlexus]

I agree. Very often pseudo-skeptic's greatest weapon is spliting the hair