9/11 conspiracy theory points to "molten steel"

[AVengeance]

We've all seen the discussions back and forth.

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

The terr'rists flew the plane into the WTC building. Fuel started fires, the fires melted the support columns, and caused the building to collapse.

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

The fire could not possibly have gotten hot enough to cause the metal to melt. There was no fuel present to create that hot of a fire.

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Uh... Well, the steel wasn't actually melted, it was just softened. The metal was softened by the heat of the fires from the jet fuel.

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

But didn't most of the fuel just shoot out of the tanks, though the building, out out in a big fireball and burn off quickly? That's what the video footage shows.

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Yes, but there was plenty of paper, desks, and other typical office building stuff to burn. Regular stuff in an office building burned, causing the heat the softened the metal that supported the building, causing it to collapse.

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

But could there really be enough regular stuff in offices to do that? Plastic, paper, wood, and like items, along with a bunch of empty space between floors and in the middle of the building?

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Of course! The fires raged worse and worse, getting hotter and hotter until the buildings collapsed.

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

But weren't firefighters calling in to say that the fires were getting more and more under control?

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Uh....

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

And According to James Williams, at SEAU, "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning, and molten steel was still running."
So was the steel just softened, or melted?

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Uh... you're just a conspiracy nut. The government didn't hide anything having to do with 9/11 from anyone!

Originally Posted by conspiracy nut

Well, let me quote some more by Mr. Williams "All photographs shot on-site shown on TV were pre-approved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view.

Originally Posted by gov't sackrider

Uh... you're just a conspiracy nut! The government is just protecting us from the tru- I mean from graphic images! Yea, that's it!

source:
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

The important thing of note is that I hear the banter back and forth about how there was or wasn't "molten" metal. The metal being only softened sounded almost realistic. But it is now known that the metal was, in fact, melted. So, I'd like to ask all the people that think the planes alone brought down the towers: was the metal molten, or not? If it was in fact molten and running 21 days after 9/11, exactly what fuel was there to produce this kind of heat?

[Roonie]

The towers were designed to
withstand the impact of a Boeing
707 flying at approximately 180
mph. The much larger jets used in
the terrorist attacks were estimated
to be traveling as much as 360 mph
at impact (and fully loaded with
fuel).

There were 59 columns in each
exterior face. It is believed that two
thirds of the perimeter columns in
the face of the building were badly
damaged or destroyed at impact.
Other columns may also have been
damaged.

This is a quote directly from your source.

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

Not sure why there is a need to make this a conspiracy. It is a tragedy first and foremost.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Roonie

This is a quote directly from your source.

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

Not sure why there is a need to make this a conspiracy. It is a tragedy first and foremost.

My question is about the molten steel. Molten, or softened? I'm coming up with people "in the know" that support the official position saying there was molten metal. People trying to knock down the conspiracy theorists regarding thermite or other high-temp fuels or explosives say the metal was never truely molten, only structurally weakened (which, like I said, sounded believable).

[Simius]

No molten steel at the WTC site
One of the many arguments conspiradroids attach themselves to is their belief of "molten metal" at the site of the WTC - a remark allegedly made by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the buildings. 911myths.com do another outstanding job of debunking this particular theory. The question is simple: is this solution acceptable to the tinfoil-hat nation?

Leslie Robertson


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Although this is generally attributed to Leslie Robertson, it’s not at all clear that he ever said these words. The quote actually comes from an article by James M Williams, recounting a keynote address that was delivered by Robertson, so it’s at best a second-hand interpretation of what he said. What is the truth, then? We sent an email to LERA, Robertson's engineering firm, in an effort to find out:

I have a question regarding some claims in the October SEAU Newsletter (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf) In this article it is stated that"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."This statement has been attributed to Leslie Robertson and used to support some of the more unusual claims regarding the 9/11 attacks. I was wondering, is this statement correct, or could you clarify it at all?

And a short time later, an email arrived from Leslie E Robertson himself:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

Brief, but direct: he doesn’t recall making the statement, and wouldn’t have known if it was true anyway.It looks like the phrase is Williams alone, then. Perhaps he had some other source of information for the existence of “molten steel”, but given that he’s recounting Robertson’s address, it seems more likely that he’s used the phrase to add a little colour to the piece (perhaps just based on shots taken of fires at the scene). Either way, it’s clearly far from definitive evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero.

9/11 Conspiracy Smasher: April 2006


I stole this from another site.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

My question is about the molten steel. Molten, or softened?

Neither. It was WEAKENED. Steel is still hard at 1000°C, but at that temperature it loses close to 90% of its strength.

It is, however, conceivable that the steel could have melted if the aluminum (you know, airplanes have a lot of it) ignited. Aluminum burns white-hot at > 3000°C - more than double the melting point of steel.

[AVengeance]

Looks like it was more than just the words of one man.


New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

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."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

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."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

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."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “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”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

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 that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

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."

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Neither. It was WEAKENED. Steel is still hard at 1000°C, but at that temperature it loses close to 90% of its strength.

But at what temperature does it lose 90% of its strength. And what do you mean by strength?
And if it lost the strength to support the weight above it, how come the buildings didn't collapse upon this loss of strength, but rather, after the fires were becoming more and more under control. Wouldn't the metal, as it cooled, start becoming stronger again?

It is, however, conceivable that the steel could have melted if the aluminum (you know, airplanes have a lot of it) ignited. Aluminum burns white-hot at > 3000°C - more than double the melting point of steel.

[/quote]
I haven't heard that theory before. Interesting. Where is that theory from?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

But at what temperature does it lose 90% of its strength.

Um, at around 1000°C, like I said.

And what do you mean by strength?

I mean it's less strong. Maybe it's just me, but your questions aren't making sense. A wire coathanger is less strong than the shaft of a steel hammer. That's why you can bend one and not the other.

And if it lost the strength to support the weight above it, how come the buildings didn't collapse upon this loss of strength, but rather, after the fires were becoming more and more under control.

It happens when it happens. Fire isn't an exact science.
And the fires were NEVER under control.

Wouldn't the metal, as it cooled, start becoming stronger again?

Yes, it would. There is no way that there were rivers of molten steel 5 months after. That's utter NONSENSE. If there were enough heat to keep steel liquid for 5 months, there would have been no solid steel and no combistibles left at all. EVERYTHING would have burned.

I haven't heard that theory before. Interesting. Where is that theory from?

What theory do you mean? Aluminum burns at over 3000°C. That's fact.

[Joe_Cool]

I see you reading the thread, AVengeance, so refresh and read my edits.

[MTdream]

Too much focus on jet fuel, Jet fuel was the catalyst...and other combustibles were causing temp increase...temps were analyzed at around 1832 degrees...

the quote is from Popular Mechanics...they addressed/debunked virtually all these goofy myths...

"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."

[DosEquis]

A friend of mine is a volunteer fire fighter. They wear temp guages on the outside of their jacket to serve as warning if it gets to hot. He said going in to a burning room during your basic house fire temperatures are usually about 500-600 degrees. He has had a couple house fires where the temperature reached 900 degrees on his suit. I can see an airplane crashing into a building generating a fire capable of 1000+ degrees.

[David Octavius]

I don't believe the conspiracy theories, even if the steel did not melt the buildings could still collapse due to the redistribution of thousands of tons of pressure. When the planes hit the pressure of the buildings shifted more weight to other points in the building, a failure of just one of these points to the added pressure could of started a chain reaction that caused the other points to fail too, leading to collapse

Edit - the heat - if not melting the steel - was still be a contributing factor as it could degrade the strength of the surrounding steel that got the added weight

[avsp]

I havent read all the links here, nor is my physics up to much so i'm just saying this a possibility & leaving it to those with the skills to comment

wouldnt the potential energy released by the actual collapse of the building be enough to melt the steel? Its got to be in the order of 10's of thousands of tons falling hundreds of feet, with just the noise & dust cloud to deduct the remaining energy must largely have been converted to heat.

[AVengeance]

Popular Mechanics is not exactly... a scientific source. I read the whole thing, and they use generalties, unnamed sources, inflammatory remarks, and a host of other logical fallacies.

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree {unnamed "experts", appeal to authority} that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt {melting was given by numerous eyewitnesses, even experts that agree with the official story, but they want to set up their straw man anyway, so they can knock it down}, they just had to lose some {generality, no references or proof} of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less {another generality} 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." {I bet Mr. Dunn had also never seen a building like the twin towers and WTC7 collapse, either. Isn't that relevant? That this guy has seen twisted, distorted steel yet never seen such a building collapse because of it?}
"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." {this would be useful if it were somehow applied to data gathered during the WTC fires} NIST also believes {NIST is now a faith-based organization?} that a great deal {unknown quantity, so let's just generalize} of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely {you hear stuff like this a lot- probably, likey, tyipcally- it all means jack shit} knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. {all theoretically possible, but no evidence given}
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 {thanks, capt. Obvious!}. 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. {I'd like to know how they gathered the data to come up with that number. There's no way the items they mention could burn at that temperature- that's 1000° centigrade!}
"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."

That's just insane.

[Simius]

walloflinks.jpg

I don't have time to go through every link you posted. Which one do you think is the most credible? We can take a deeper look at that one and see if it is as unsubstantiated as the one in your first post.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

But at what temperature does it lose 90% of its strength. And what do you mean by strength?
And if it lost the strength to support the weight above it, how come the buildings didn't collapse upon this loss of strength, but rather, after the fires were becoming more and more under control. Wouldn't the metal, as it cooled, start becoming stronger again?

I'm not sure it is the case that the fire was under control, but to answer your question, no, the metal would not regain it's strength necessarily if slowly cooled. Forging steel to certain strengths is a suprisingly complicated process, the times and temperatures steel specifically is heated and cooled at has enormous effects on it's strength. Most commonly, with many metals, if heated up, then quenched it will be stronger than metals slowly cooled, which would be the case in a dieing fire.