To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

King Mob

DublinWriter wrote: »

Multiple sources here:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

In this link it mentions 23 separate pieces of testimony.
Of those:
6 do not refer to molten metal at all.
A further two do not refer to liquid. (one of which claims the steel "evaporated")

Of the remaining 15 only 11 actually refer to steel. The others refer to metal only.

Of the remaining 11, 5 do not report flowing liquid at all.

And of the remaining 6, exactly zero of them refer to pools of molten steel.

And this is taking these testimonies at face value before examining whether the people were actually in a position to see what they claim.
Some of the testimonies are second hand reports:
Examples:

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us...

All of the testimonies are very non specific about where and when the supposed molten steel was seen and in what circumstances.
In some, the people aren't qualified to identify what substances are on sight:
For example:

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

Reporters aren't known for being able to identify different steels.

And in one case, the testimony contradicts the conspiracy narrative:

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

No conspiracy theorists claim building 6 was also targeted for secret controlled demolition.

And in all of those testimonies, there's not one piece of photographic evidence. Not a jot despite this molten steel existing for weeks or months with steel beams being dragged out covered in the stuff.

But again, all of this is a bit irrelevant as the idea of molten steel is not compatible with the idea of controlled demolition.
Controlled demolitions never result in pools of molten metal that persist for weeks or months.
If you believe that there were pools of molten metal, then you have to disagree with the idea of controlled demolition.
There's no way around that.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

another video .... sorry

from 1.55 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xysnVixh1sY

Did you catch the name of the two emergency crew that claimed there was liquid molten steel?

The most interesting part of the clip was that “lava rock” of fused debris, but that’s not at face value hard evidence of thermite or even clarity that it was indeed molten steel. Also the mention of things spontaneously combusting when re-exposed to oxygen (like you see sometimes when you pull a hot coal etc back out from under a bunch of ash/soot. Both of those things just corroborate it was real hot down there.

Overheal

There’s also nothing to rule out that molten metals possibly observed were even steel - just the building in general, with all of its equipment, computers, etc. you’re talking about thousands of miles of wire, sources of solder, Mercury, nickel, etc.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Did you catch the name of the two emergency crew that claimed there was liquid molten steel?

The most interesting part of the clip was that “lava rock” of fused debris, but that’s not at face value hard evidence of thermite or even clarity that it was indeed molten steel. Also the mention of things spontaneously combusting when re-exposed to oxygen (like you see sometimes when you pull a hot coal etc back out from under a bunch of ash/soot. Both of those things just corroborate it was real hot down there.

The thing is that there are witnesses claiming they saw molten metal either dripping or running and yet the lead guy from NIST is stating the complete opposite ... he even claimed there were no witnesses

More on the melted steel

Extremely high temperatures were evident before and during the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and at Ground Zero. Seven minutes before the destruction of the South Tower, a flow of molten metal appeared, accompanied by several smaller flows, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The material’s glowing color showed that its temperature was close to “white hot” at the very beginning of the flow and “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.

An excavating machine at Ground Zero lifts debris dripping with molten metal
The high-temperature phenomena at Ground Zero are documented by various sources:

Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the 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.”

The fact that high-temperature phenomena were an important issue at Ground Zero is underscored by the large number of thermal images acquired: images by SPOT, MTI, AVIRIS/NASA, "Twin Otter"/U.S. Army, and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25. In addition, temperature measurements by helicopter were taken each day, and the firefighters used onsite sensors too.

Many witnesses, including rescue personnel and firefighters working on the piles, described the phenomenon of “molten steel.” Terms used in witness statements are, for example, “molten steel,” beams “dripping from molten steel,” “molten steel … like you’re in a foundry. Like lava, from a volcano.” A photograph taken on September 27 by a Ground Zero worker shows an excavating machine lifting debris from the WTC wreckage dripping yellow/orange molten metal.

WTC clean-up workers and 9/11 artifacts architect Bart Voorsanger, in the PBS video “Relics from the Rubble,” described what must have been several tons of “fused element of steel ... molten steel and concrete and all of these things …all fused by the heat,” weighing several tons each. These foreign objects came to be known as “meteorites.”



The heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent, as proven not only by witness statements and a photograph by LiRo Group / Engineering of orange-red glowing steel as late as October 21, but also by thermal images taken by NASA and EarthData satellites. The EarthData thermal images also show that the “hot spots” remained at the same locations. The phenomenon did not “move” across the site, like one would expect from fire as it consumes the fuel available in any one location.

University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, “I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.” Astaneh also “describes the connections [between supporting columns] as being smoothly warped: ‘If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted – it’s kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot – perhaps around 2,000 degrees.’”.

Iron workers at the site pointed out that huge columns that were bent into horseshoe shapes - without the flanges showing any cracks or buckling. They cited, "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this".

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.

The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross, in the same public talk where he stated regarding the phenomena of molten steel, “I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.” Yet there is abundant proof of the molten metal, which subsequent tests reveal to be iron, in the debris piles. Furthermore, NIST itself performed extensive fire tests to establish the temperatures reached by the WTC office and jet fuel fires. The temperatures established are far below the temperatures required to produce all of the above phenomena – which occurred both before and during the destruction and at Ground Zero.

The steel problem was “solved” by NIST by excluding most of the steel from being systematically examined for failure modes and heat excursions. The steel collected by the Port Authority, which has been stored in Hangar 17 at JFK Airport, was not included in the investigation except for 12 pieces. Of the 236 pieces that NIST possessed, many were excluded based on the circular argument that only columns from impact and fire floors were of interest in the investigation. Thus, NIST avoided having to discuss 51 of its 55 core columns. Sample 1 from FEMA’s Appendix C was also excluded.

In addition, NIST developed a new method of “visual examination” that it then substituted in place of the systematically used tool. NIST’s “paint cracking” method has the following “advantages”: paint cracks can be produced not only by high temperature excursions, but also by “corrosion”/ “environmental degradation” and by plastic deformation; many columns had no paint left for examination, Moreover, by relying on a method that requires microscopic examination, NIST was able to ignore pieces that were obviously heat-affected but had come from non-fire floors. A contractor’s report that employed common visual examination was “reviewed”: NIST contrasted the contractor’s results with their newly developed method and their fire exposure observations, and by employing again a circular argument. NIST’s steel “examination” shows that its “working hypothesis” was in fact its premise, and that NIST gone to great lengths to maintain this premise.



Some want to cite “natural thermite reactions” for the high-temperature phenomena: airplane aluminum must have reacted with rust. This possibility can be ruled out based on the findings of a study that was conducted in 2002 at the Colorado School of Mines for the Minerals Management Service. Officially, the study, whose lead author is a close research associate of T. W. Siewert of NIST, is about thermite-sparking in offshore environments. But due to a very odd study design the question about the feasibility of natural thermite reactions in the WTC is answered too. The authors established the ignition temperatures for rust, dehydrated rust and iron-oxide-based thermite reactions. The necessary temperatures are so high that one can conclude that thermite reactions between airplane aluminum and rust (some rust was on beams according to documents), dehydrated rust (rust dehydrates in fire) or iron oxide (iron oxide was part of the primary paint) were not feasible in the WTC. Also tested was what happens when aluminum impacts rust at very high velocity, so, interestingly, even the possibility that the impacting airplanes caused natural thermite reactions can be ruled out.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I posted one ....you choose to ignore it

Which one?

could you address the question below ?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109660027&postcount=2591

Which council?

Overheal

See my previous post. Any dripping metal could be any metal that melts below 1100 C or whatever the hot spots got to. Eg. Solder, Mercury, etc.

The two guys in the video aren’t necessarily direct eye witnesses, I don’t even know their names?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

The thing is that there are witnesses claiming they saw molten metal either dripping or running and yet the lead guy from NIST is stating the complete opposite ... he even claimed there were no witnesses

That's because there was molten metal, red hot slag, liquid aluminium (with impurities)

Liquid molten steel is different

More on the melted steel

Yup and this has been explained, if there's a part of it you don't understand, ask

What's the source on this? This looks like 10 year old stuff from conspiracy sites?

Dohnjoe

DublinWriter wrote: »

Hard to imagine how burning jet fuel and office furniture could even generate heat in excess of 300C.

It's well known that office fires can hit around 600C and upwards

https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-90/issue-10/features/temperature-of-burning-buildings.html

Brass melts at 1,700 F which is 926 C

Then we're also left with the thorny and well-documented issue of the pools of molten steel still extant at ground zero three months later.

Molten metal*

Some of debris piles were estimated by some experts to have reached 2800 F (office debris, furniture, etc compressed under extreme pressure can burn very hot)

Overheal

Yep Aluminum has a melt point of 660 C, well within the range for the fires and heats seen at WTC and within the burn range for jet fuels

The Nal

We're kind of getting the cart before the horse here. All of this is totally irrelevant unless theres a plausible theory on how "they" rigged the buildings. All 3 of them.

Is there one? Because "elevator maintenance" isn't it.

Only then can we talk about controlled demolitions, fires burning for days etc

Overheal

Here is an iPhone in molten aluminum

Dohnjoe

Yup, alu is a good example, when it melted it was also mixed with impurities from the office fire, while watching the event on TV I saw the clip where it pours from the building - of course at the time I just assumed it was "molten metal" or "molten steel" without giving it much thought

**** got hot, a lot of stuff melted, also in the debris piles afterwards

This obsession with "molten steel" is a (snide and deliberate) attempt to "catch out" the NIST and deflect from basic issues such as 4 buildings on the day collapsing or partially collapsing due to plane strikes, debris damage, and crucially fire effects on steel

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

We're kind of getting the cart before the horse here. All of this is totally irrelevant unless theres a plausible theory on how "they" rigged the buildings. All 3 of them.

Is there one? Because "elevator maintenance" isn't it.

Only then can we talk about controlled demolitions, fires burning for days etc

Correct - it's all a sideshow, all 180+ pages of it

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This obsession with "molten steel" is a (snide and deliberate) attempt to "catch out" the NIST and deflect from basic issues such as 4 buildings on the day collapsing or partially collapsing due to plane strikes, debris damage, and crucially fire effects on steel

This is also illustrated by the fact that conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that molten metal is not possible in a controlled demolition that uses explosives or thermite.
One does not produce molten metal at all, the other has never been observed, so cannot be shown to produce molten metal and is unlikely to be able to do so.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fire weakens steel. At over 600 degrees C steel has lost half it's strength

Temps in WTC 1 reached 1000 C. Unprotected steel in those temperatures reduces to 10% of it's strength

That has nothing to do with "molten steel"

In isolation with no supporting structure, the steel can lose strength at 600c. Carrington Fire tests demonstrated in the ’90s though., steel beams heated to 1000c, sagged, and did not snap and break and cause a failure, and the collapse of the structure was not witnessed.

Fires have never taken down a steel beam high rise before and the fires on 9/11 were not special or unique.

Collapses on 9/11 changed engineering history. These buildings came down during a terrorist event many people find suspicious The narrative is ludicrous.

NIST claimed the fireproofing was knocked off by the two plane impacts. NIST even said in their report the jet fuel fires only lasted 10 to 15 minutes. The fires for most of the time before collapse were just ordinary office fires. When I look at the images from ground zero I see very little fireproofing left on any steel piece. This is highly speculative ( NIST theory is also speculative) my version of the truth is the fireproofing burned off and melted away after it rested in the heated rubble pile? The fires were burning for 100 days during the recovery effort ( chemical reaction of undetermined origin?)

The Twin towers were built with A36- and (A41 steel external columns) more than adequate strength to resist fire with fireproofing for over an hour. The total collapse at the end (mushroom cloud of debris) what happening there? The steel and concrete are not breaking away and falling, it been destroyed in mid-air ( have never seen a natural collapse like this) the energy to cause this huge. NIST ignores there undamaged floors with steel untouched by fire (resistance underneath0 will slow the rate of fall to the ground. The Towers just kept moving as if there was nothing there to jolt back and stop the descent.

Buildings don’t come down- symmetrically by taking out one column on one floor. Demolition experts would be out of a job if it was this easy.

Overheal: I understand what you saying and information in your link I am aware of this. Still, have you seen this demonstrated 1000c+ sulphur can do this to same steel? If true there must be a video demonstration of it online? None of this matters anyhow because there was no fire that got this hot on any floor inside WTC7.

I agreed with you aluminium was not found in the FEMA study. If they not hiding this evidence then yes I agree with you it unlikely nano-thermite was used to bring down WTC7.

The scientific testing has been done by independent scientists and they confirmed Harrit findings. Only James Milette disagrees and he was involved in the US government study of the dust not independent at all.

Overheal

I don’t have any video link for the eutectic iron-sulfur mix, but it’s melting temp is 950 C. Aluminum was not identified in the sample collected by FEMA.

As previously mentioned aluminum is melted at 660 C. There was plenty used in the exoskeleton of the building. There is nothing about any of the alleged testimony that actually confirms that rubble crews witnessed molten steel and not molten aluminum or other molten metals with lower melting points.

Do you have a link for that 1990s fire study you just mentioned?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t have a link for the eutectic iron-sulfur mix, but it’s melting temp is 950 C. Aluminum was not identified in the sample collected by FEMA.

As previously mentioned aluminum is melted at 660 C. There was plenty used in the exoskeleton of the building. There is nothing about any of the alleged testimony that actually confirms that rubble crews witnessed molten steel and not molten aluminum or other molten metals with lower melting points.

Do you have a link for that 1990s fire study you just mentioned?

https://www.bregroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BRE-Cardington-Steel-Framed-Building-Fire-Tests-SM.pdf

FEMA said there was a liquid of Iron (it then cooled). They confirmed this phenomenon. The rubble crews were finding this molten liquid in a hot rubble pile, it had no time to cool.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.bregroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BRE-Cardington-Steel-Framed-Building-Fire-Tests-SM.pdf

FEMA said there was a liquid of Iron (it then cooled). They confirmed this phenomenon. The rubble crews were finding this molten liquid in a hot rubble pile, it had no time to cool.

We’ve been forwards and backwards about the “liquefied” metal sample FEMA reported on.

Rubble crews may or may not have found molten metal - they didn’t confirm its chemical makeup. It could have very easily been molten/liquid aluminum which flows colder than steel.

Overheal

Thanks I’ll look at that paper later today

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

We’ve been forwards and backwards about the “liquefied” metal sample FEMA reported on.

Rubble crews may or may not have found molten metal - they didn’t confirm its chemical makeup. It could have very easily been molten/liquid aluminum which flows colder than steel.

FEMA said the liquid of Iron formed on the steel member. Where else would the Iron content have come from? Steel is Iron. It's logical when the steel member started to break down and melt ( you find the Iron)

The reason I don't dismiss them when say it was molten steel they found in the rubble pile.

Overheal

Iron in the aforementioned iron-sulfur eutectic liquid compound found intergranually in the surface of the metal sample.

It’s sulfidation, it is a type of corrosion like oxidation ie. Rusting.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In isolation with no supporting structure, the steel can lose strength at 600c.

Fire weakens steel - which is why steel in buildings has cladding and fire protection

Again, this is all deflection from the thread subject (and partially my fault for entertaining it)

In your theory, who planted the explosives in each of the buildings?

Dohnjoe

Another reminder of the first post in this thread

Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

Overheal

Yeah before I dive into this paper I note a couple things namely: the test building was only 8 storeys, the trade center buildings experienced much heavier top loads (including much of the bulk material from a fully laden commercial airliner. Also, the WTC was a steel-frame with an aluminum exoskeleton, this study involved a composite steel/concrete frame. Concrete is a ceramic with double the heat capacity of steel and 1/45th the thermal conductivity. The test is not analogous to the WTC.

Overheal

Yeah, neither of the two tests ran in this paper are very relatable at all. The building uses concrete columns and brick walls. And the fuel for these fires was timber. They don’t actually simulate the combustion of office materials. They don’t simulate a fire accelerated by jet fuel. They don’t simulate steel with total or partial fireproofing: I would imagine a steel beam that is 90% covered in asbestos say, would have an entry point for heat but no real exit point. And these timber fires weren’t sustained for a long period of time either, only 40 minutes for peak burn and 80 minutes to ember off. These were also two independent burn tests in isolated sections of the building - WTC 1 and WTC 2 experienced fire in a very broad swathe from where each plane smashed into the building and exploded. WTC 7 experiences multiple ignition points as well. But hey you still observe incredible damage to the structure, if it had been a more real simulation the structure might have failed. I do certainly see where the steel yielded and sagged under the test parameters - bearing in mind, these floors aren’t at their maximum design load. The building wasn’t overloaded with airliner debris, nor did it experience seismic events. Had it burned longer or the floors been loaded less conservatively, it’s totally reasonable to expect this test structure would have failed. We could probably rebuild the same structure and actually furnish it like an office, spray jet fuel everywhere, simulate the extra weight of aircraft debris and light it up and expect to see a failure.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, neither of the two tests ran in this paper are very relatable at all. The building uses concrete columns and brick walls. And the fuel for these fires was timber. They don’t actually simulate the combustion of office materials. They don’t simulate a fire accelerated by jet fuel. They don’t simulate steel with total or partial fireproofing: I would imagine a steel beam that is 90% covered in asbestos say, would have an entry point for heat but no real exit point. And these timber fires weren’t sustained for a long period of time either, only 40 minutes for peak burn and 80 minutes to ember off. These were also two independent burn tests in isolated sections of the building - WTC 1 and WTC 2 experienced fire in a very broad swathe from where each plane smashed into the building and exploded. WTC 7 experiences multiple ignition points as well. But hey you still observe incredible damage to the structure, if it had been a more real simulation the structure might have failed. I do certainly see where the steel yielded and sagged under the test parameters - bearing in mind, these floors aren’t at their maximum design load. The building wasn’t overloaded with airliner debris, nor did it experience seismic events. Had it burned longer or the floors been loaded less conservatively, it’s totally reasonable to expect this test structure would have failed. We could probably rebuild the same structure and actually furnish it like an office, spray jet fuel everywhere, simulate the extra weight of aircraft debris and light it up and expect to see a failure.

If only there was a second building of identical size that suffered almost the same conditions as the North Tower

Sarcasm aside, truthers consistently miss the glaring fact that what happened to the South Tower literally proves the theory of fire and damage related collapse

There couldn't be a more perfect demonstration

Overheal

Or it just proves 8 people are really good at not getting caught planting enough explosives over the course of one weekend to take down 3 skyscrapers :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Or it just proves 8 people are really good at not getting caught planting enough explosives over the course of one weekend to take down 3 skyscrapers :rolleyes:

And also really good at evading the largest criminal inquiry in FBI history, at one point it's estimated that one out of every two FBI agents was working on the 911 case

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And also really good at evading the largest criminal inquiry in FBI history, at one point it's estimated that one out of every two FBI agents was working on the 911 case

Well they were government, so inherently part of the conspiracy

The Nal

Overheal wrote: »

Or it just proves 8 people are really good at not getting caught planting enough explosives over the course of one weekend to take down 3 skyscrapers :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring of course ignores this.

Both of the towers started to collapse at the points the planes impacted debunking the controlled explosion theory.

Its a laughable theory. We know the towers werent brought down by explosives. They couldnt have wired the buildings without anyone noticing.

We have proof that the planes were flown by Al Qaeda.

18 years later and not one conspirator has been uncovered. Because there werent any.

Closed case.