WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[Stundie]

On the contrary, we have these photos of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, and remember, they are falling toward the ground, not rising into the sky.

Simple common sense would dictate that the molten aluminum you see in the photos would have been found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Sorry but you are not metallurgist and therefore not qualified to make that judgement...lol

And this doesn't disprove the multiple eyewitness accounts at GZ I'm afraid, regardless if you have manage to pull the wool over your own eyes and think it does...lol

[skyeagle409]

Fire fighters are not morons...

Nor, are they knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal.

Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Sorry but you are not metallurgist...

On the contrary, what you see in the photos is what I have worked with for over 40 years.

Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Nor, are they knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal.

Sorry but they are more than knowledgable......They put the fires out and would have identified the source of the molten metal. You are even saying that Ironworkers are too dumb to recognise molten steel and confused it with aluminium. hahahahaha!!

And then you want us to believe that those who said they saw molten beam or girders were mistaken cause they are made of aluminium aren't they Sky.... lol

Everyone at GZ is wrong, yet internet keyboard warrior who was not there is right...lol

Hilarious to think that you are taking yourself seriously! lol

Edited March 14, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

SAnd this doesn't disprove the multiple eyewitness accounts at GZ I'm afraid, regardless if you have manage to pull the wool over your own eyes and think it does...lol

Consider this:

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner.

Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/03/30/129774

[skyeagle409]

.They put the fires out and would have identified the source of the molten metal.

Since the recorded temperatures at ground zero were far below the temperature needed to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then it is very lear that the molten metal seen was not steel at all.

Now once again, where is your evidence that molten steel was at ground zero?

Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Consider this:

I considered this...that the person who wrote it was not a metallurgist and therefore unable to qualify what metal it was...lol

And you also do not understand the word apparent in context with the article...apparent source with the actual source..lol

Edited March 14, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

Since the recorded temperatures at ground zero were far below the temperature needed to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then it is very lear that the molten metal seen was not steel at all.

Again bringing up the surface temperature and estimate to make your argument make you look silly. Its hard to take someone seriously who doesn't understand the difference yet keeps referring back to it as though it makes your point, when it clearly doesn't...lol

Now once again, where is your evidence that molten steel was at ground zero?

Eyewitness accounts...loads of them...lol

[skyeagle409]

I considered this...that the person who wrote it was not a metallurgist and therefore unable to qualify what metal it was...

Consider this: I have the experience to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum.

[skyeagle409]

Again bringing up the surface temperature and estimate to make your argument make you look silly.

On the contrary, I have already provided evidence and temperature data to backup my claims, whereas, you have offered nothing of substance.

Eyewitness accounts...loads of them..

From witnesses not knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal nor knowledgeable to differentiate the sound of falling elevators and bomb explosions.

In addition:

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Nothing recovered at ground zero capable of producing molten steel and temperatures recorded were under 2000 degrees.

Edited March 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Consider this: I have the experience to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum.

Oh I'm sorry I Skyeagle,

Your arguments makes so much sense now!! Because you claim you can differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminium, that must mean that all those at GZ are wrong. Even though you were not at GZ and never saw what they say, even though they say they saw molten beams and girders, even though there was vaporised steel, there is NO EVIDENCE of molten steel, but LOTS OF EVIDENCE of molten aluminium because you know better.

How foolish of me...lol

After all fire fighters are not metallurgists and we all know that only a metallurgist and yourself, are the only people in the world capable of identifying molten steel, even a metallurgists in training isn't capable of differentiating between molten steel and aluminium until they are fully qualified.

I think you have proven that your expertise in metals, while sitting behind a keyboard trumps that of the multiple independent eyewitness accounts at GZ.

Cheers

Stundie

Edited March 15, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

On the contrary, I have already provided evidence and temperature data to backup my claims, whereas, you have offered nothing of substance.

On the contrary, I have already provided evidence estimates and surface temperature data to backup my claims, whereas, you have offered nothing of substance. <---Fixed that for you....lol

I have offered nothing of substance to offer, because I understand the difference between surface temperatures and those within the rubble as well as estimate.

From witnesses not knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal nor knowledgeable to differentiate the sound of falling elevators and bomb explosions.

So I have eyewitnesses for the molten steel, from people who you think are not knowledgeable.

And yet you have no eyewitnesses for the molten aluminium, who apparently have the knowledge to identify molten metal, which disproves the eyewitnesses above.

Great logic.....lol

Nothing recovered at ground zero capable of producing molten steel and temperatures recorded were under 2000 degrees.

Nothing recovered was capable of vaporising steel and the temps were under 2000 degrees, so therefore it never existed...lol

So that is those at GZ who thought they saw molten steel and now FEMA don't know there **** from their elbows..lol

Edited March 15, 2013 by Stundie

[Q24]

Witnesses: -

• Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, "It was dripping from the molten steel" he said.
  

• Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."
  

• A presentation given by structural engineer Leslie Robertson stated, "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
  

• Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.
  

• Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said he saw "molten steel in the basements" at the bottom of the elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed".
  

• Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe recounted, "I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat."
  

• Alison Geyh, PhD. who worked on environmental issues at the WTC site reported, "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
  

• A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal which stated, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains."
  

• Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "
  running down the channel rails, like you were in a foundry, like lava."
  

Observations/studies: -

• Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of
  and concrete."
  

• A geological study of the debris thermal progression describes "molten steel hotspots".
  

• Physics professor Steven Jones collected and analysed previously molten iron-rich spheres from the WTC dust.
  

• FEMA recovered and documented, "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting" which they speculated, "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
  

Edited March 15, 2013 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

Witnesses: -

• Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, "It was dripping from the molten steel" he said.
  

Since the beam was lifted out of the rubble, that steel beam was not molten, which simply means that since the steel beam was not in a molten state, it could not have been dripping molten steel of itself from a solid state. What did he see instead? Molten aluminum dripping off the steel beam because the facade of the WTC buildings contained many tons of aluminum and not to mention each B-767 was constructed of thousands of pounds of aluminum which was exposed to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel.

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.

Dripping aluminum, not steel. The temperature of a "cherry red" steel beam is not hot enough to melt steel, and any aluminum resting on a "cherry hot" steel beam is going to experience some form of melting.

A presentation given by structural engineer Leslie Robertson stated, "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

And since then, Mr. Robertson has corrected himself when he stated for the record that he did not have the knowledge to identify molten metal. Now, for the rest of the story.

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

No one saw pools of molten steel because the temperatures were too low at ground zero to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

• Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said he saw "molten steel in the basements" at the bottom of the elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed
  

Mark Loizearux, didn't see molten steel either and later admitted in a letter that he did not see molten steel at ground zero.

If the beams were totally melted, how could they have been steel beams? There was no source at ground zero with the capability to melt steel, but there was a source with a capability to melt aluminum.

Edited March 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Witnesses: -

• Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "
  running down the channel rails, like you were in a foundry, like lava."
  

I will make it very simple. If molten steel was running down the channel rails, what was its source? Remember, BR misidentified aluminum as stainless steel at the WTC buildings.

Observations/studies: -

• Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of
  and concrete.
  

Let's take a look at what conspiracist have claimed, was molten concrete and steel.

It is evident in the photo that the mass does not consist of molten steel at all. There is no indication that the steel within that mass was ever in a molten state at ground zero and yet, conspiracist claimed the mass is molten steel and concrete.

A geological study of the debris thermal progression describes "molten steel hotspots".

Temperature readings at ground zero were found to be too low to melt steel.

Physics professor Steven Jones collected and analysed previously molten iron-rich spheres from the WTC dust.

That won't work because during clean-up operations with torches and wanes, the WTC rubble was contaminated before dust samples were taken. I might add that Steven Jones is no longer a credible reference, especially after he got caught trying to push a doctored photo as evidence of molten steel, not to mention his own colleagues at BYU have distanced themselves from him.

Edited March 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

On the contrary, I have already provided evidence estimates and surface temperature data to backup my claims, whereas, you have offered nothing of substance. <---Fixed that for you....

No you didn't. The estimates came nowhere near the melting point of steel nor the evidence.

I have offered nothing of substance to offer, because I understand the difference between surface temperatures and those within the rubble as well as estimate.

What was the source of information for temperatures beneath the rubble of the WTC buildings? The "cherry red" steel beams! The "cherry red" steel beams werelike thermometers that indicated the temperatures beneath the WTC rubble were nowhere near the melting point of steel.

So I have eyewitnesses for the molten steel, from people who you think are not knowledgeable.

They were not trained to identify molten metal and no source was ever found to produce molten steel.

And yet you have no eyewitnesses for the molten aluminium,...

On the contrary, I have already posted photos of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2. And in addition:

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner.

Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

http://www.taipeitim...02/03/30/129774

----------------------------------------------------------

Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess you missed where I posted that observers saw automobiles sitting in pools of "harden molten aluminum." I have posted that message multiple times but it seems that you haven't been paying attention.

Sorry but you are not metallurgist and therefore not qualified to make that judgement..

On the contrary, I have seen dripping molten aluminum on many occasions to make that judgement call. In fact, I was here as I watched as this aircraft burned at my base.

[skyeagle409]

Your arguments makes so much sense now!!

Why of course!! Not to mention that "cherry red" steel beams could have been used as thermometers to gather temperature information within the rubble of the WTC buildings. Using the chart below, what temperature range can we deduce from a "cherry red" steel beam?

[Q24]

It has been confirmed through metallurgical examination that structural steel at the WTC melted: -

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”

http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_apc.pdf

Evidence of the phenomenon is seen here: -

And here: -

And here: -

The phenomenon occurs upward of 700^oC.

Which fits fine with a cherry color, the witness observations and this picture: -

The damage is clearly localised/focussed in the steel, not widespread as in a fire, and thermite is a possible cause.

[Babe Ruth]

Given the presence of the by-products of the thermite reaction, thermite is a probable cause.

[skyeagle409]

It has been confirmed through metallurgical examination that structural steel at the WTC melted: -

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”

http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_apc.pdf

That has nothing to do with thermite.

Evidence of the phenomenon is seen here: -

And here: -

And here: -

The phenomenon occurs upward of 700^oC.

"Occurs at 700 degrees C." is much too low a temperature to melt steel and I have to add that the steel in the hands of that worker does not depict molten steel nor does it indicate that steel was ever in a molten state during nor after the collapse of the WTC building.

Which fits fine with a cherry color, the witness observations and this picture: -

The damage is clearly localised/focussed in the steel, not widespread as in a fire, and thermite is a possible cause.

The cherry red color indicates a temperature of that steel is far below the melting point of steel, which simply means that piece of steel is not in a molten state. In addition, you cannot lift anything molten with a mechanical grapple.

Thermite does not leave behind molten steel after a certain period of time and thermite burns out in a matter of seconds, so there is nothing there to continue the burning process after that short period of time, much less for several weeks. It has been shown in other articles that I have presented, that debris can smolder for many days after a fire has been dealt with by firefighters. In fact, I have posted news articles to that effect.

The lower photo does not indicated molten steel and that can be ascertained by the fact the steel is reddish in color which indicates that its temperature is far below the temperature range needed to melt steel. With many tons of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, there are going to be pools of molten aluminum mixed with the rubble at ground zero.

There is nothing in the photos that indicates molten steel. The steel you see are not in a molten state nor does the photos indicate the steel was ever in a molten state after the WTC buildings collapsed.

Look at this photo. Is this the molten steel that firefighters claimed to have seen at ground zero?

Does the following photo depict a pool of molten steel?

Compare the color with the color chart to obtain its temperature.

Edited March 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Given the presence of the by-products of the thermite reaction, thermite is a probable cause.

The laws of physics says you are incorrect. Is it any wonder why colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him? Were you aware that Steven Jones has lied and was caught misleading people with a doctored photo?

[skyeagle409]

And here: -

Does the harden molten metal in the following photo look anything like the steel in the upper photo?

Edited March 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

It has been confirmed through metallurgical examination that structural steel at the WTC melted: -

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting"

http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_apc.pdf

This is just wilful ignorance on your part. You've had years now to educate yourself on the difference between melting and intergranular corrosion, but you'd rather parade your confusion for all to mock.

[Babe Ruth]

Call it what you will Swan. How do you explain it?

[flyingswan]

I'll leave that to Prof. Sisson, one of the people who descovered the phenomenon. Here he is talking to the BBC:

Sisson: Well, it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as iron — a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen. You can see what it does is it attacks the grain boundaries, and then this bit would have eventually fallen out, and it would have continued the attack.

Narrator: Professor Sisson says that it didn't melt. It eroded. The cause was those very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel for weeks. The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverized and burned in the fires.

Sisson: I don't find it very mysterious at all — that if I find steel in this sort of high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect.

[Babe Ruth]

Any ideas on where that liquid slag might have come from? Either from you or Sisson?