Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Scott G

Cutter Charges in the North Tower

561 posts in this topic

It is very easy to find molten metal in daylight conditions especially steel, it's just not that easy to find molten aluminium, probably because the stuff pouring out of the WTC was not aluminium.

Al is silvery at melting point in daylight, that is why you can't find a picture which matches the photo evidence of the stuff pouring out of WTC 2 before it collapses.

In other words, it wasn't aluminium.

Just to point out that I did in fact find a picture of Al above its melting point in daylight, and it was glowing pink, not silver. Are you claiming that it would go back to silver if it was even hotter?

Can you provide evidence that there were batteries on that floor because even if it was lead, it still shouldn't have been at that temperature to glow as it did.

This isn't my theory, it's from an Italian forensic engineer, Enrico Manierei. He queried NIST about the battery room and got confirmation:

Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Errr...Everything! It's like comparing chalk to cheese! lol

Now who's handwaving? Surely it can't be too difficult to descibe the differences if they are that obvious?

Sorry but if you have no evidence of Al at the temperature to match the WTC photo, then chances are it is not alumiunium.

However, it could be steel seeing as it looks like molten steel.

It doesn't look similar because it is not Aluminium.

Which is still hotter than a hydrocarbn fire in ideal conditions, so what raised the temperature to 950oC??

You haven't read this thread, I've already posted a link showing that ordinary office fires get hotter than this:

http://www.interactfire.co.uk/legislation.asp

No he doesn't just assume it at all, it is obvious that whatever heat source caused that beam to be glowing that hot, would need to be hotter than the steel itself.

It isn't steel because the metal is dripping and 950 deg C isn't hot enough to melt steel.

Yes it does, look at the photo closely, you can see white hot metal dripping from it and eyewitness accounts confirm this.

On the contrary, I've been over the picture in a photo editor and the hottest temp colour corresponds to around 1000 deg C, and Steven Jones is in agrreement with me on this point.

The visible evidence certainly doesn't support Aluminium. :w00t:

No, it is handwaving, you seem to think that out of the 2 competeting theories, that the steel theory requires evidence while your aluminium theory doesn't.

You told us what is required to prove it was steel, yet aluminium doesn't require the same stringent tests.

Not necessarily so.

Probably steel!

That's not very scientific espeically when you have not established whether it was steel or another metal, for all you know the temperatures may have been hot enough to melt steel as those at GZ seem to suggest.

You mistake my argument. I am not claiming that it is definitely Al, I am claiming that it definitely isn't steel because the evidence shows it is not hot enough. It is therefore some metal that melts at the temperatures observed, of which Al is one example, plausible in the circumstances because it was plentiful.

All the NASA photo shows us is the heat radiating at the surface, not the temps underneath.

And the beam shows us a temp of around 1000oC so chance are that the heap/slag it was pulled from was a lot hotter and certainly hot enough to melt the steel.

Once again, you want it to be but you don't have the evidence. The surface temp was 750 deg C max, the highest measured undersurface temp was around 1000 deg C. Anything else is just guessing on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stundie, Flyingswan never advocated aluminum. He believes it was lead (which, if I recall, melts at even lower temperatures than Aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart of em. is the same for all metals (..) lead will glow light orange at 1000°C. Of course, every mole of metal needs about the same energy to get to certain temeprature, as engineer could know.

It means that you need about the same energy to make 1l of light orange/yellow glowing Pb as to make 1l of glowing aluminium. The problem number one: the volume of the spill was at least 100l. That makes over a ton of lead.

Problem number two: lead melts at about 330°C, now any discharge would not heat the lead to this point BECAUSE the lead would have flown away (330-1000°C...). There are other problems but for me it seems impossible to get a ton of molten lead to 1000°C in some kind of discharge, which would occur just minutes prior to the collapse ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the floor on fire? Why is the discharge being isolated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that you need about the same energy to make 1l of light orange/yellow glowing Pb as to make 1l of glowing aluminium. The problem number one: the volume of the spill was at least 100l. That makes over a ton of lead.

Problem number two: lead melts at about 330°C, now any discharge would not heat the lead to this point BECAUSE the lead would have flown away (330-1000°C...). There are other problems but for me it seems impossible to get a ton of molten lead to 1000°C in some kind of discharge, which would occur just minutes prior to the collapse ..

As I said earlier, the battery theory isn't mine, but the originator is an engineer with experience of such systems, and his words are that shorting a room-full of batteries would have "unimaginable thermal effects".

I have never claimed that it is entirely molten lead at that temperature, nor that there is enough energy in the batteries to produce it. I am suggesting that there is enough molten lead to entrain a lot of the already burning building contents, and that the fluid material is initially contained by the walls/floor of the room which eventually give way. I think this covers your problem list.

However, on your own estimate there is something like ten times more energy in the batteries that in your postulated thermite charge, so you have even more of a problem with your scenario.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'wont bother woth your post, you mean something like this? :D

If you have a point to make, why don't you make it?

I can see why you wont bother with my post. Every objection you raise to my scenario applies equally to yours, but yours has an order of magnitude less energy available to produce the cascade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Harrit's stuff has 7MJ/kg a single 200kg charge would produce 1,4GJ the equivalent of the entire UPS room.

Thermite would have no probelm. Bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Harrit's stuff has 7MJ/kg a single 200kg charge would produce 1,4GJ the equivalent of the entire UPS room.

Thermite would have no probelm. Bye

I might remind you that your earlier figure of 800 MJ was based on what you wanted the charge to do to the column. If you have a material with a greater specific energy release, you need less than 200 kg. You can't just change your demolition calculations because they don't match the cascade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong, the excess energy is generated by burning of the carbon in atmosphere, the gas in the charge mediates the heat but does not contribute to the overall energy production, a few centimeter away from the charge it's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong, the excess energy is generated by burning of the carbon in atmosphere, the gas in the charge mediates the heat but does not contribute to the overall energy production, a few centimeter away from the charge it's a different story.

What carbon? Apart from the small quantities present in the mixing steel, I don't recall you having any in your earlier description of the charge. Or are you now going for a Harrit-type thermite and plastic mix? If the carbon comes from the building contents, then that equally gives an extra energy source for the battery room theory or any other explanation.

You picked a size of charge based on the damage you wanted to do to the columns of the tower. You mixed steel with the thermite because you wanted a lower specific energy than thermite alone would give. Now you are claiming a seven times higher specific energy to give a better match with the cascade.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.