9/11 Discussion Thread

What you wanted to see.

Huh? I have no skin in this game. I didn't 'want' to see anything in particular, other than an indication that there was some merit to the idea that there is something fishy.

You continue to ignore all the corroborating evidence.

You didn't offer me corroborating evidence - something like a physical examination which could confirm molten steel. That's what I was expecting.

There were a few guesses and many confident statements. There's more here: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

The confidence with which a guess is made doesn't tell you whether or not it might be true. Whether or not the information is collected under conditions with decent reliability and validity tells you whether or not it might be true.

You were supposed to use your powers of observation and deduction to arrive at the simplest most likely conclusion: that he was lying.

The simplest explanation is that something has been misunderstood.

Apparently all you know how to do is appeal to authority and denigrate people who question it. It is people like you who made the inquisitions and the holocaust possible.

Excuse me? I haven't denigrated you. Nor have I appealed to authority (appealing to knowledge, experience, validity, etc. is not appealing to "authority"). And how does any of this rest on whether or not someone like me can be persuaded? I would just be dismissed as a crackpot.

Linda
 
Just so that I understand. The CTers are saying that the fact that this 'lava' is pouring out from the lowest point of the 80h floor, where we can see the floor sagging, and exactly opposite to the entry point of the aircraft (made of tonnes of aluminium alloy)..... is entirely coincidental?
 
This pissed me off... I censored myself in my last post. I'm trying to be patient with Bart because for all I know he really could be a 4th grader who hasn't learned what a simile is.

But coming from you this is inexcusable. It is just another one of your appalling intellectually dishonest strawman arguments. Sorry I ever gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry. It was meant to be obviously ridiculous so as to make the fallacy obvious. It wasn't meant to suggest that testimony was ridiculous (if that's what you took offense at).

Linda
 
Just so that I understand. The CTers are saying that the fact that this 'lava' is pouring out from the lowest point of the 80h floor, where we can see the floor sagging, and exactly opposite to the entry point of the aircraft (made of tonnes of aluminium alloy)..... is entirely coincidental?

You don't understand. There is probably a causal relationship. I already addressed this.
 
It wasn't meant to suggest that testimony was ridiculous (if that's what you took offense at).

That's not what I took offense too. I took offense to the same slimy intellectual dishonesty which you have exhibited previously. If I say something is like a volcano, that does not mean I literally think there was a volcano. This is a 5th grade level concept. And you either get it and are being coy and intellectually dishonest or are too stupid to get it. Either way I have no further interest in debating with you on any subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
That's not what I took offense too. I took offense to the same slimy intellectual dishonesty which you have exhibited previously. If I say something is like a volcano, that does not mean I literally think there was a volcano.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were. As you say, the level of discussion here is well beyond the recognition that similes aren't literal, so I presumed it went without saying (I'm pretty sure Bart thought that as well).

I just took it as a handy example in order to provide a clear example. If someone had said they saw lava (not intending a comparison to lava, but that they actually thought it was lava), we wouldn't be expected to ignore the absence of any evidence of lava in the rubble or of a volcanic eruption in favor of a Volcano CT, would we? So why are we expected to do so when someone thinks they saw molten steel?

ETA: I also suspect Bart (and Malf) were also making the point that we don't really know to what extent some of the other eyewitness descriptions were more metaphorical than literal, as well.

Linda
 
Last edited:
You don't understand. There is probably a causal relationship. I already addressed this.

Probably a causal relationship.... :)

Something set off 60 tonnes of thermite (based on the amount of "molten steel" produced) in a "controlled demolition"? But this didn't set it off a bit earlier?

North_face_south_tower_after_plane_strike_9-11.jpg

(This is the photo taken from that north face of the south tower.)
 
Probably a causal relationship.... :)

Thermate cutter charges are packed into containers that direct the reacting thermate into a high pressure jet. If any of these containers were damaged by the impacts, it would have allowed the thermate to leak out of the container. So that is one possibility. It is also possible that the debris settled in such a way as to prevent the steel from being spewed inward and instead caused the molten steel to pool and leak out at this corner. Finally, it is possible that a different type of thermite was used at this location.

If you watch these videos of the south tower collapse, you can see the molten steel coming out of the corner and then that specific corner is actually the first to buckle causing the upper block to pivot over it a few degrees. Since the corner that spewed so much molten steel was weakest link and the first to fail, that adds one more indication that this was structural steel and not merely aluminum from the jetliner.



Something set off 60 tonnes of thermite (based on the amount of "molten steel" produced) in a "controlled demolition"?

I'm not sure how you arrived at 60 tons. I don't think anyone knows exactly how much would be required. The engineer in the video I linked above was able to make what appeared to be an 8" cut in the web of a large beam with only 1.5 lbs of homemade thermite which is a fraction of what some other failed debunking demonstrations have used. I would assume DARPA and Lawrence Livermoore Labratories could further improve on the efficiency. There is also a possibility that some beams were sprayed with thermitic paint under the guise of fireproofing paint. This could heat the beams to the point of buckling failure without actually cutting them.

There are different ways to mix up thermite. Some mixes are harder to ignite than others. Thermite is typically ignited with a magnesium strip that burns at 4000 F and even that can be unreliable. Depending on how the charges were shielded or what they were composed of it may or may not have been possible to prematurely ignite them.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how you arrived at 60 tons.
.


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
 
Last edited:
.


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

1) The weight estimate above hinges on the volume estimate and as noted above "it's not easy to get a good number on this." Droplets close together could appear to be a slug. This guy gets quite an impressive light show out of only a 5 gallon bucket of molten iron. If one were too digitally zoom in on this from a great distance it might not be easy to ascertain the volume.

2) not included in the calculation above is the structural steel that would be melted by the thermate. After all, that would be the main purpose of the thermate. Assuming that sulfur was added to lower the melting point of steel to 1500 F (as FEMA indicated in the analysis of the melted eroded corroded beam end) and assuming the heat transfer from thermate to structural steel was only 50% efficient the thermate could have possibly melted about 2.5x it's own weight in steel. That was a quick conservatively calculated estimate done on my phone so feel free to fact check that...

3) Finally, both products of the reaction are liquid and would make up the volume. Some Aluminum oxide escapes as white vapor but most remains liquid and cools into a brittle ceramic. The meteorites shown above contain the rust colored iron as well as this brittle ceramic noted by the journalist in the video.
 
...guess not.

sim·i·le
ˈsiməlē/
noun

A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two things through the explicit use of connecting words (such as like, as, so, than, or various verbs such as resemble). Although similes and metaphors are sometimes considered to be interchangeable, similes acknowledge the imperfections and limitations of the comparative relationship to a greater extent than metaphors. Metaphors are subtler and therefore rhetorically stronger in that metaphors equate two things rather than simply compare them. Similes also safeguard the author against outrageous, incomplete, or unfair comparison.

Here is the exact quote you are referring to:
"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel -- molten steel! -- running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano." -FDNY Captain Ruvolo

The other comparison to lava in the video occurred when examining one of the recovered "meteorites" which I posted pictures of above. The architect, Bart Voorsanger, and journalist say:
"It's this fused element of steel - molten steel - and concrete and all of these things all fused by the heat into one single element." Journalist: "And almost like a chunk of lava from Kilauea or Iceland where there's very sharp but breakable shards on the end here."

Found another comparison to lava:
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster" -Ron Burger
Which is all completely beside the question.
We are not looking at the firemen's statements as literary works, this is not a discussion about style forms.
The point is that these firemen had no way to recognize this glowing stream as molten steel, they had no expertise, it was not part of the job the were sent in to do. Apart from taking samples, establishing a line provenance, sending them of to a metalurgy lab, they could not have known.

The comparison with the lava statements was a deliberate absurdisation to drive home that point, a point you still do not seem want to acknowledge.

First explain to me how a firefighter is able to recognize molten steel in the blink of an eye in these very dramatic and confusing circumstances.
If you have done that I may discuss literary style figures with you, that is if you can do this without resorting to insult.

Below you find what I had written about this video before, when this thread was still young.
Go back to page five to get some context, but I think it is useful here too:


I am still not inclined to discuss all specific arguments, there is enough stuff circulating to counter the CT arguments. Take for instance the BBC documentary "the conspiracy files 911 ten years on"
.
Having said that, the "molten steel"video does illustrate what i am trying to say. For instance:

At 10", a pic of some glowing material is shown. We do not know, from this vid, what the material is, nor is it melted. mean while the interviewer is admitting he did not himself witness any molten steel.


At 1'01", there are two firemen testifying to having seen "molten steel running down the channel rails". To me, it is almost certain they are sincere, but what is their expertise to decide it was molten steel? Their experience as firemen does probably not cover it. I am also no expert also, but i do know copper, and even aluminium glow when molten and hot enough.
Maybe even zinc, steel cable ducts are often galvanized with the stuff.
Point is, i don't know, i doubt the firemen know, but most importantly, i highly doubt the people who use this testimony have looked at all these other possibilities.


At 1'21", the blob-o-mass appears, "this is fused element" is said by one of two unidentified men, Do you know what that means? They talk about "steel, molten steel and concrete, and all of these things together all fused by the heat in to one single element", while the other "expert" talks about "Almost like a chunk of lava from Kilauea or Iceland"

Do these things sound to you as experts describing something in the jargon of their field? Because to me they sound as my kids enthusiastically describing something very cool, but totally new to them.
And what do you think for yourself if you look at the blob? why is it supposed to be molten steel if the not-molten steel appears to be sticking out? could it be some other metal(s) fused together with concrete and non-molten steel?

Have Thompson and Thompson done anything to find out?,

At 1'40" another "expert" is called in to give his opinion about a bent I-beam. He finds it "hard to believe it has bent because the size of it". My guess would be that increase in size is no objection for an object to bend, if we also increase the force to the necessary amount. I would be very much surprised if this guy is capable of calculating, right there on the spot, the force of a whole sky scraper falling down on this beam, abeam that is according to him iron, not steel .

The other guy talks about what "typically" happens, How the hell is he to know what typically happens to a beam that size, and that extreme circumstances. How many times has he encountered that?


At 2'18", up to 3'52", we see a series of people expressing their amazement about the residue heat in the days or even weeks after the disaster.

This is truly amazing looked at it from our every day intuition, but this is not illogical, the larger a mass is, the longer it stays hot, and that increase is not linear, the volume increases by the third power, while the surface only increases by the second power.

And even that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the hypothesis is that the buildings were brought down by thermite or explosions, the extra heat from those would be very high locally, but the total amount of heat would not be increased very much, i would guess.

I think an overall temperature that is higher then the conspiracy theorists want to admit, would explain the high residual temperature actually better. Of course that is my non-expert opinion, maybe some of the engineers or architects can calculate that, do you know if one of them did?

At 4'00" The cross, the melodramatic music, the statements "melted together with the intense heat, the two beams never part of the same structure, heat literally melted them together".
Pity it is probably not true, the cross is a almost certainly a crossbeam, look up some pics of it and check wikipedia. and what is the need of bringing religion into all of this?

At 5'30" thermal images are shown, they do not mean anything without the color to temperature ratio visible, this scale is adjustable in to better suit the temperature range you want to observe.

This video actually underscores what i wanted to say about unwarranted claims of expertise, it is full of that.
There is also a lot of judging by the standards of our normal intuition, which is completely inadequate for this unique situation. I have the feeling that if people are confronted which such dramatic events, they are forced to have an opinion to stick with, it might be helpful whether it is the right one or not.

This video is interesting, but what it is not, is proof of molten steel.
 
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
It is laudable that you have altered your habit to post only links!

As I see it, your analysis is not complete. The stoichiometry is OK, but there is also the energetic side. The reaction produces a high temperature and that energy can smelt more steel, especially if there is also sulfur in the thermite.
 
Notice that we are seeing toasted cars again, at the Tianjin incident in China 2015-08-13.
9/11 might not have been an unicum.
tianjin-explosion-china-4.jpg
 
Which is all completely beside the question. ...The comparison with the lava statements was a deliberate absurdisation to drive home that point, a point you still do not seem want to acknowledge.

You did not make any point. You presented the similes as if they were literal in order to make them seem absurd and ridiculous. This is the absurd fallacy or the appeal to ridicule which is a form of appeal to emotion.

So the buildings were destroyed by a volcano?
If you consequently take witness testimony as proof, there was lava pouring down, why don't you defend that hypothesis?

And now you're backpedaling and changing tack and pretending like you actually made a legitimate argument.

...if you can do this without resorting to insult.

If you can abstain from rhetorical tactics and fallacies that were popular in grade school, then you will not deserve any insults, and I will not supply them.

The point is that these firemen had no way to recognize this glowing stream as molten steel...

Now you're moving the goal posts from the original argument I was having with Linda. Bill Gross said, "I know of no eyewitnesses who have said so..." These firefighters and clean-up workers were eyewitnesses who said that they saw flowing molten steel. Is one statement alone from 3 firefighters enough to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was molten steel? Obviously not. Is it proof that Bill Gross was either lying or ignorant? It absolutely is.

There were more than just these 3 firefighters who stated they saw molten steel. I posted a link above with dozens of statements. Given the number of witnesses stating this and the additional corroborating evidence of molten steel and excessive temperatures, I find it impossible to believe Gross was ignorant of all this - especially since we have pictures of him with his hand on the end of a beam that was analyzed and found to have been melted. And we also have the video of molten steel pouring out of corner of the South Tower and Gross knows what that is. He knows it isn't aluminum. But whether he was ignorant of it or lying - either way it proves that he is unfit to lead the investigation and that his conclusions are suspect since they did not take into account the plethora of evidence which contradicts his conclusions, nor did they analyze the evidence in search of incendiaries as any legitimate investigation would be required to do.

Now I'll get to the points you made back in post #92

At 10", a pic of some glowing material is shown. We do not know, from this vid, what the material is, nor is it melted.

Glowing_beam.jpg


This appears to be steel because:
1) The towers were primarily composed of thick structural steel box members and steel-rebar reinforced concrete. The glowing lump appears to be two (edit: looking again it appears to me to be one larger rectangular box) thick boxes compressed into trapezoidal shape. We also see a piece of glowing steel re-bar at bottom left.
2) The Aluminum facade was thin sheet metal and this member being removed is clearly thicker than sheet metal.
3) As discussed above, aluminum does not glow brightly in the red/orange temperature range.
4) Aluminum does not glow with the same intensity as steel, yet we see the same intensity of light from the steel re-bar
5) Aluminum would be completely liquid at the temperatures that correspond with these colors.
6) If you want to assert that this was copper or some other metal, you need to explain its origin - how did such a large chunk accumulate?
7) Regardless of the material, the color indicates temperatures of 2300 F or more at the end.

Finally, if you look closely, you can see that the end of the steel member is dripping. This is corroborating evidence for these testimonies:

"He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life." -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters
"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" -Greg Fuchek
"O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. It was dripping from the molten steel," -Joe O'Toole FDNY
"With no special protective gear, he worked within a few feet of still burning fires, “like a volcano,” hot enough that molten steel could be seen dripping down. “My boots melted every night,” he recalled. “You just didn’t stand in one place too long.” -Tom Hickey

At 1'01", there are two firemen testifying to having seen "molten steel running down the channel rails". To me, it is almost certain they are sincere, but what is their expertise to decide it was molten steel? Their experience as firemen does probably not cover it. I am also no expert also, but i do know copper, and even aluminium glow when molten and hot enough.
Maybe even zinc, steel cable ducts are often galvanized with the stuff.

Most men who are into doing manly things or whose occupations have involved heavy physical labor have had some experience with molten steel by way of welding or cutting. Surely they at least had experience with using an oxy-acetylene torch to cut steel since that could be required in a rescue or clean-up operation. In fact video shows men using oxy-acetylene torches during the 9/11 clean-up operation so if they didn't have experience before 9/11 they probably got their fill during the 9/11 cleanup. Also, they probably would have had training on how to deal with various kinds of fires including those with metallic combustion.

I have dealt with the possibility of aluminum and copper above. Zinc melts at 787 F and would not produce the orange to yellow to white colors seen unless it was superheated - which leads back to problem of excessive heat. Also, the amount of zinc in the form of galvanized conduit would be minuscule compared to the amount of steel.

Point is, i don't know, i doubt the firemen know, but most importantly, i highly doubt the people who use this testimony have looked at all these other possibilities.

Yes, you can come up with all sorts of fanciful explanations for the stuff that looks like molten steel and the testimonies of seeing molten steel. You can say that maybe it was unicorn piss and I can't disprove that. But we have to look for the most likely explanation that fits ALL the evidence instead of taking every piece of evidence and isolating it and carrying alternative explanations to absurdity. The explanation that best fits all the evidence is that what looks like molten steel was in fact molten steel.

At 1'21", the blob-o-mass appears...

I discussed this above. I won't take the time to repeat.

At 1'40" another "expert" is called in to give his opinion about a bent I-beam. He finds it "hard to believe it has bent because the size of it". My guess would be that increase in size is no objection for an object to bend, if we also increase the force to the necessary amount. I would be very much surprised if this guy is capable of calculating, right there on the spot, the force of a whole sky scraper falling down on this beam, abeam that is according to him iron, not steel.

Structural steel is a crystalline structure composed primarily of iron with small amounts of carbon and traces of other elements. When steel is ductile, the faces of the crystal grains slide over one another. When steel experiences brittle fracture, the crystal structure snaps apart creating visible cracks. Whether the failure mode is brittle or ductile depends on various factors including composition, temperature, thickness, and strain rate. A low strain rate allows for ductile failure and high strain rate results in brittle fracture. At a given temperature, increase in thickness increases the potential for brittle fracture. And as temperature decreases, so does the tendency towards brittle fracture. The steel beams were made of A-36 carbon steel which has a good balance of properties but does not have as great of toughness as other types of steel.

The bent structural steel shown is very thick and was subjected to very high strain rate (probably a fraction of a second considering the entire collapse took only about 11 seconds and involved the deformation of thousands of beams). This should have caused brittle fractures. Only 1 small crack is seen. In order to rapidly deform thick steel like this without cracking or snapping it, the beam would have had to be very very hot. Typical temperatures for steel extrusions are around 2200 F - 2400 F. The entire beam would have had to be at temperatures near this in order to rapidly bend without cracking.

The other guy talks about what "typically" happens, How the hell is he to know what typically happens...

Science... experience...

...to a beam that size, and that extreme circumstances.

As I explained above, as size increases, so does susceptibility to brittle fracture. As strain rate increases, so does susceptibility to brittle fracture. Extreme temperature would be required to overcome these properties of the steel.

At 2'18", up to 3'52", we see a series of people expressing their amazement about the residue heat in the days or even weeks after the disaster. This is truly amazing looked at it from our every day intuition, but this is not illogical, the larger a mass is, the longer it stays hot...

Yes, the larger the mass, the larger its heat capacity. The fact that such a large mass of material stayed hot for so long indicates a tremendous amount of heat was supplied and absorbed into that material. Office fires and the jet fuel which burned off in 20 minutes are not sufficient to explain this extraordinary quantity of heat.

And even that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the hypothesis is that the buildings were brought down by thermite or explosions, the extra heat from those would be very high locally, but the total amount of heat would not be increased very much, i would guess.

In a typical high-explosive demolition this is true. Most of the energy goes into kinetic rather than thermal energy. But in the case of thermite which releases about 4000 kJ/kg of thermal energy over a longer period of time, most of the energy stays thermal and does not get turned into kinetic energy. The specific heat of steel is .49 kJ/kg K. So 1 kg of thermite can potentially release enough heat to raise the temperature of 8 kg of steel by 1800 F. Efficiency would be less if heat was lost to atmosphere, but if the collapsing debris insulated the molten material, this would increase efficiency.

I think an overall temperature that is higher then the conspiracy theorists want to admit, would explain the high residual temperature actually better. Of course that is my non-expert opinion, maybe some of the engineers or architects can calculate that, do you know if one of them did?

NIST used a two-level model and said that the upper level of air in the compartment would have had a maximum temp of 1800 F. Not sure what the lower level of air's max temp would have been. They said average temp would have been 1500 F max. And as I've said numerous times, the steel temp would significantly lag behind the air temp. In the 263 beams from the fire zone that NIST examined they found evidence for max steel temps of 600 C (1112 F) (most did not show this high temp) with the exception of the two melted beam ends that they didn't mention in their main report.

At 4'00" The cross, the melodramatic music, the statements "melted together with the intense heat, the two beams never part of the same structure, heat literally melted them together".
Pity it is probably not true, the cross is a almost certainly a crossbeam, look up some pics of it and check wikipedia. and what is the need of bringing religion into all of this?

Agreed. It looks like the cross was assembled this way during construction.

At 5'30" thermal images are shown, they do not mean anything without the color to temperature ratio visible, this scale is adjustable in to better suit the temperature range you want to observe.

As discussed above, they indicated max surface temps of 1341 F 6 days after collapse. As quoted above, thermal readings were also taken from helicopters daily and measured surface temps from 400 F to 2800 F.
 
Last edited:
Slorri, I can't tell what you're getting at. Do you mind explaining?

Being observant.
Is this a similar type of event?
We see the cars are toasted (burnt perhaps), the roofs have caved in, and the rims of the wheels are tilted in. The majority of the cars are not moved, so it's not a kinetic force.
If it is a similar or the same thing going on here as at 9/11, then it is a clue.
 
Notice that we are seeing toasted cars again, at the Tianjin incident in China 2015-08-13.
9/11 might not have been an unicum.
tianjin-explosion-china-4.jpg

This was from a rapid series of explosions at a warehouse where shipping containers with hazardous materials caught fire. One explosion was equal to 21 tons of TNT.

I'm not sure what comparisons could be drawn between that and 9/11. Anyone?
 
Yes, you can come up with all sorts of fanciful explanations for the stuff that looks like molten steel and the testimonies of seeing molten steel. You can say that maybe it was unicorn piss and I can't disprove that. But we have to look for the most likely explanation that fits ALL the evidence instead of taking every piece of evidence and isolating it and carrying alternative explanations to absurdity. The explanation that best fits all the evidence is that what looks like molten steel was in fact molten steel.
Exactly! Debunkers never take the big picture into account. They always concentrate on one thing, without connections to other things logically supporting your claim. I tried to tell Linda about the connections of the molten steel and she called it "fallacious inference", without knowing anything about metallurgy:

You are correct, I do not understand why a claim is regarded as valid based on a fallacious inference. There is no way to make a connection between a white-orange glow on a grainy video and some findings under markedly different conditions later on in the rubble. The suggestion that not only is it possible to do so, but that it must be done, doesn't make sense.

Linda

"Under markedly different conditions" – really.
 
Back
Top