Here's some info for the viewers to check out. http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affil...se-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/347...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/547...s-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html
yeh well wait till you see what the posers think they see and the fantastical conclusions they make. sometimes shocking
no no no, only the posers would include jet fuel since it had to burn off in seconds, the only thing left was furniture, the invisible fire that no one ever did find, the steel weakened steel that no one can show us and a lot of ridiculous assumptions. - - - Updated - - - oh? and specifically what in that pdf do you think supports your claims? - - - Updated - - - yeh scott, but these people dont understand such simple concepts of solid reason and logic.
Back to the metal streaming out from below the site where the aircraft wreckage came to rest. In this enlargement the material changes colour from yellow/white to silver. This also supports the aluminium/impurities hypothesis as steel develops a layer of surface carbon as it cools (black; steel being 90-95% Fe, the remainder, carbon). http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
From the above site: "Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk." Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up. The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high it is almost impossible to separate them. THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron. Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling. I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely. Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. "
You want me to boil down a comprehensive analysis of exactly what you requested to a few sound bites that you can misrepresent and deny. Forget that noise. You can read the report, or don't. I don't care.
the guy cant even get the first 2 statements correct, so lets see your proof he is anything but a poser crackpot. - - - Updated - - - thats ok, if you do not have an argument then we have nothing to debate do we. - - - Updated - - - it brilliant white, not silver
You have had nothing to debate..ever. Let me know when the truthers have built and fully tested a model that meets their own demands.
If I'm following this right you're actually making different claims The particular study you linked doesn't suggest temperatures high enough to create molten steel, which is what Koko is claiming. It does suggest temperatures more than enough to severely weaken exposed steel, which I think is what you're trying to claim. The temperatures mentioned are far more than enough to melt the aluminum expected be around there (as well as many other metals if they happened to be around). So Blues comment seems more directed at the point of discussion. Though I don't think the summary ruling out steel holds in that you could have steel melting in a specific hotspot while enough remains at a low enough temperature to keep the building together. Though substantial quantities of molten aluminum from the plane and office furniture mixed with other substances would have been around and it does seem to cool to a more silvery color so I can see why people figure that's what it is. In so far as I can tell there hasn't been significant effort put into determining hotspot temperatures, considering other exothermic reactions involving aluminum, iron, or the gypsum, nor looking at conditions in the rubble pile. The NIST experiment's point seems to be more about determining if such buildings would be safe from regular fires or arson. I suppose there's a question as to the value of such other than debunking.
I agree with you. The answer to the questions most truther's raise is, "What value would such a study hold?" Obviously we went to great length to put to test our building standards and procedures to determine if and where failure took place. What's the point of a lengthy and expensive study of smoldering rubble?
Oh thats easy to prove, there would have been lots of this stuff: which of course there is not, but then that goes hand in hand with the invisible fire these people like to imagine.
I agree. It's a matter of probability in this case more than anything as the data is insufficient. I think much is overlooked in the debate regarding molten metal. The fires WERE hot. There was approx. a 6 storey in the side of WTC1 through which 25mph+ winds were fanning the flames. The fuel load travelled up the core as well as down immediately after the impact, thus creating a chimney effect as holes were blown in the roof (see video footage for smoke streaming from the hat truss). What is a forge but a fire, a fan and a chimney? I do not discount the possibility of the existence of molten steel in the pile owing to convection, as that is not abnormal. I do object to the immediate assumption that the high temperatures could not be achieved without human intervention (and the assumption that is therm*te). Furthermore, the witness testimony also demonstrates that the terms 'metal' and 'steel' are interchangeable, therefore I do not put much stock in the testimony of those who were unable to make an accurate identification of the material in a stressful environment. There is an inherent paucity of logic in the CD tale. That too, is a good point. Who would care other than those who have much invested in the alternative hypotheses?
Empty blather. It's the material after it cooled in the pic. It's silver all right. Your gif is irrelevant.
that is patently ridiculous that anyone would promote the 'fuel load' since it was instandtly mistifed therefore gaseous for all intents and purposes and all burned off in a matter of seconds. you post such absurd arguments. no matter what crazy story the posers want to toss out here, where is the metal that failed due to overheating by an office fire as I have posted earlier? Its very easy to properly assess the metal was steel, just that you do not know why or are unwilling to learn which is another story entirely.
So again you have nothing but vapid personal attacks. Noted. Listen Idiot, if you can't address the evidence, I'm not interested in your posts. Lift your game to that above the playground or go back on ignore, ok? Why can't the other guy who uses your profile post? He is at least articulate.
Red Herring and you know it. Just a reminder, we are talking about the material streaming out from the impact point, not the sedimentary meteorite. I hope that clears up your confusion.
How again does the entire remaining fuel load of a 767,thousands of gallons,become instantly 'mistified'? Jet fuel doesn't burn until it vaporizes anyway
