What caused melted steel under all three collapsed WTC buildings?

[wildbilln864]

Many eyewitnesses said they saw molten steel flowing under the buildings. What could have caused this?
This is the FEMA report, appendix C: pdf link

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

1. It's really idiotic to believe that the average person could...

observe some sort of molten anything and know exactly what it was. It's even more idiotic to assume that, whatever it was, it was some sort of pure material, as opposed to the numerous materials which comprised the building.

[wildbilln864]

2. So you're calling me an idiot....

disrupting my thread and posting off topic bullshit! Imagine that. All in one post!

[SDuderstadt]

3. So much for your claim that you have me on ignore, Bill....

And, for the record, I didn't call you an idiot. I called the claim idiotic. I'm sure you don't know the difference. Again, please explain how anyone could tell something is molten steel merely by looking at it.

[wildbilln864]

4. I think demolition experts would know.

do you?
BTW, I took you off ignore because I wanted to see if you had anything substantive and civil to say. You don't evidently.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Name one demolition expert that said any such thing, Bill...

you've been duped again.


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

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

[wildbilln864]

6. also structural engineer would!

link

[SDuderstadt]

7. First of all, your link doesn't work, Bill...

secondly, if you're claiming it's Leslie Robertson, you've been duped yet once more, Bill.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[wildbilln864]

10. this one...

www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

12. Specifically debunked in post # 7...

nice try, Bill.

[wildbilln864]

8. my mistake yes....

Tully told Loizeaux about the molten steel. Molten steel is fairly easy to identify. Rivers of it flowing would especially be identifiable.

[SDuderstadt]

9. How would it "especially be identifiable", Bill?

Beyond that, please explain how whatever it was would be a pure material, as opposed to an admixture of different materials.

[wildbilln864]

11. who said it was pure?

And why does that matter if steel was melted? What melted it?

[SDuderstadt]

13. Now you're moving the goalposts, Bill....

you claimed earlier that it was identified as "molten steel". The question you can't seem to answer is how someone could positively identify it without testing it. It's really absurd to claim someone could know what it was merely by looking at it.

[wildbilln864]

14. I haven't moved any fucking goalposts! That's bullshit!

If you have a flowing molten metal glowing orange. What else could it be? Not aluminum because it stays silver till heated above certain temps. And if it's AL, then the outer fringes that would cool would be silvery like quicksilver. Now what other metals are there in enough quantity that it could flow like a river if melted?
And no it wouldn't be pure!

[William Seger]

15. "flowing molten metal glowing orange. What else could it be?"

Definitely NOT steel; it isn't molten at the "glowing orange" temperature. Perhaps the people who described it as "molten steel" also were not aware of that?

(Edit to add: Yes, molten aluminum can glow orange. See Judy Wood's site.)

[wildbilln864]

16. I know molten Al can glow orange. I said that...

but some areas on the fringes would cool and look like quicksilver. That is, if it was mostly Al.

[William Seger]

17. Problem is, you have no idea what it looked like

... or how hot the edges were.

So, here's a puzzle for you: We know that there were hundreds of tons of aluminum in the towers, and we know the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum. How come nobody reported molten aluminum?

[petgoat]

18. Probably because it quickly cooled because it wasn't all that hot, while the molten iron

from the thermate reaction, being 4500 degrees F, stayed hot.

[William Seger]

19. We're talking about the "molten metal" seen weeks later...

... which neither thermite nor mini-nukes explain, anyway, but whatever was producing that heat would not preferentially heat the steel and leave the aluminum cool.

I'd say a more probable answer is that people DID see molten aluminum from those known underground fires -- it HAD to be there, given the temperatures -- but didn't recognize it as such. Instead, they reported it as just "molten metal" or misidentified it as "molten steel." Add to that people who may have called glowing orange or red steel as "molten," and you should be able to see the difficulties with drawing conclusions from anecdotes.

[petgoat]

20. Surface temperatures from the AVARIS overflights were 1350 degrees F

That means the temperatures inside the piles were even higher.

Your assumption that what produced the heat would not preferentially heat the steel
neglects to allow for the fact that there was no need to use thermite on the aluminum.

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (fallenbrothers.com)



http://nasathermalimages.com/#

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a Civil Engineering Professor at Berkeley, said he saw melted girders.
That's not aluminum. That's steel.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

[hack89]

22. But the heat was evenly distributed in the rubble pile

as was the aluminum - how could it not be melted?

[William Seger]

24. You seem to be suggesting a couple of absurdities

First, that if the steel had been melted with thermite, it would still have been molten five months later. And second, that regardless of the source of the heat, you wouldn't expect aluminum in the pile to be melted.

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you... ?

[petgoat]

26. If the thermate by product was insulated, sure it would still be hot months later.

How would the aluminum get into the basement? It was
exterior aluminum cladding. How would it get under the
bottom floors? That's absurd.

[hack89]

28. In which direction would a molten metal flow?

down wards perhaps? Besides the cladding don't forget all the aluminum within the towers - furniture, HVAC ducts, lighting fixtures, filing cabinets, etc. There was aluminum in every part of the rubble pile - a pile we all know was hot enough to melt aluminum. Since the bottom floors were not intact, what would stop molten aluminum from flowing to the lowest point of the pile?

[William Seger]

30. You're not making much sense

What could possibly insulate it well enough to retain that heat for months? No, that's absurd; there would need to be some continuing source of heat under the rubble, and thermite doesn't explain it. If the metal was aluminum (or some other metal with a low melting point, e.g. the lead from uninterruptible power system batteries), then a simple explanation is at hand: the known fires under the debris. You don't have any evidence that the metal was really steel, and you don't really have any explanation for molten steel months later unless there was some type of blast furnace effect from the fires.

As for aluminum "under the bottom floors," hack89 already explained why it obviously wouldn't need to start out at the bottom of the pile to end up there after melting.

[wildbilln864]

32. delete

[hack89]

23. That aluminum sat for weeks in temperatures above its melting point

how could it possibly cool in the rubble pile?

[wildbilln864]

21. because it didn't melt in any great quantity.

my understanding is that the steel perimeter columns were Al clad. Is that correct?

[William Seger]

25. Yes, the the building exterior was glass and aluminum

So, what prevented the aluminum from melting in those fires under the debris?

[wildbilln864]

27. I think the exterior was glass and steel....

clad in Al. A very thin cladding I suspect. Nothing prevented some of it from melting. Yet steel melted also.

[hack89]

29. Except there is no actual evidence of steel melting. nt

[wildbilln864]

31. witness testimony is evidence used in courts across the land.

but of course we should listen to those who weren't even there as opposed to those who were. :crazy:

[hack89]

33. And eye witness expertise and judgment are questioned in court every day

truthers keep saying that office fires are not hot enough to melt steel therefore thermate was used. That being the case, how does any firefighter know what molten steel looks like? He's never seen it before. The same applies to any first responder or construction worker - where are they going to gain the experience to distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel - as you keep telling me, that never happens at normal fires.

[wildbilln864]

34. you assume they've not seen it before! nt

[hack89]

36. Where would they see it?

I thought the molten steel at the WTC was unique? Are you saying it happens frequently enough for people to learn what molten metal at a fire site look likes? How is that possible?

[wildbilln864]

35. Even I could tell the difference! nt

[hack89]

37. A meaningless statement

unless you are willing to tell us your education and professional background.

[wildbilln864]

38. you don't have to be a phd to be able to tell the difference.

between two completely different metals if you're familiar with them.

[hack89]

39. But when the metals are mixed with soot and concrete dust

just how did you learn to analyze that?

[William Seger]

40. You would at least need to know....

... enough not to say something this ridiculous: "flowing molten metal glowing orange. What else could it be?" You would at least need to know that molten metal glowing orange is definitely not steel. (Of course, you don't know what the witnesses really saw, which is the real problem, so neither your speculations nor your fuzzy thinking are really relevant.)