FEMA did an analysis of some of the steel from building 7:

A) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Look at the photos of the sample in that pdf especially the first and second photos.

Then look at the experiment that the guy did in this video @10 minutes 35 seconds.

B) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQu18DHuutU#t=10m34s

The FEMA sample (A) and the steel cut by thermite in the video (B) look almost identical.

The FEMA PHD's in material science could not figure out what caused the melting in (A). They did not analyse for explosives of accelerants. They asked that there be further study to determine what caused the melting. Take a wild guess if there was further study done.

Also look at the color of the smoke in the video and then look at the color of the smoke that blasts out of the windows ahead of the crashing towers. The color is identical.

that vid link has been removed.

after twelve and a half years, they are still busy arguing and removing content from 3rd party websites that disputes the official story.

that somebody is busy defending the official story with obstruction, tells a big story itself.

Figures.

Found another copy, FTFY.

Thanks

Def looks like molten steel to me.

Unless aluminum gets to about 4000 F, it's going to be silvery. Even slag from the smelting process is silvery.

However, steel at about 2500 F turns a nice yellow-orange color, and will act exactly the way the video shows. http://youtu.be/1L115szWbjg

Also, a thermite reaction reacts in a very similar manor.

Here is a good example of heat color for mild steel.

There is also the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The red hot steel in the picture on the right shows that metal is over 2300°F. Even if the "aluminum" pouring out of the towers at it's melting point of 1220.58 °F, it still cannot transfer it's heat to the other steel objects around it making them hotter. For example, if you pour a bunch of super hot aluminum( say +1400 °F) on a bunch of steel ibeams and rebar, it is physically impossible for it to warm that steel up to +2300°F. It's like putting hot coffee in a thermos, only to find it way hotter 6 hrs later.

Unless aluminum gets to about 4000 F, it's going to be silvery.

Yeah, no.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/htchar1.gif

Watch this short video where they pour molten aluminum into an anthill. Notice how quickly it turns silvery. It only took a couple of minutes to harden for the people to remove the preserved ant structure.

This is almost 2 weeks later and still super red hot. I see some rebar and other metal scraps. Aluminum pools into clumps. It doesn't reshape itself back into steel i-beams. And it doesn't maintain a heat level of over 1200°F for very long, let alone 8+ weeks. The anthill was underground and well insulated by the dirt.

Here is another one, cause it's really cool to watch. :-)

Watch this short video where they pour molten aluminum into an anthill.

Yes, and? Are you saying it has the same temperature as the stuff we see in the video? How do you know?

This is almost 2 weeks later and still super red hot.

Are you saying this is the same stuff that was seen in the first video?

You notice yourself that it isn't molten and you can make out rebar.

I'm not saying that the molten stuff is aluminium but there is simply no way anyone can identify what is is from looking at a video.

Are you saying it has the same temperature as the stuff we see in the video? How do you know?

Because aluminum won't stay +2800°F for 8+ weeks on its own.

I'm not saying that the molten stuff is aluminium but there is simply no way anyone can identify what is is from looking at a video.

These people seem to be able to identify stuff being pulled out at ground zero. Firefighters, Civil Engineers, Construction Workers, Architects, etc...

+2800 degrees.....

The reaction between aluminum and iron(III) oxide can generate temperatures approaching 3000 degrees C / 5432 degrees F.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC

Because aluminum won't stay +2800°F for 8+ weeks on its own.

Steel does?

Steel does?

Let's review the 1st law of thermodynamics:

The internal energy of a system can be changed by heating the system or by doing work on it; the first law of thermodynamics states that the increase in internal energy is equal to the total heat added and work done by the surroundings.

So in order to achieve ground temperatures of +2800°F, which sustained themselves for +8 weeks, the whole entire system must have had added heat/energy from another source other than office fires and jet fuel.

When the towers collapsed, the heat put into the system was greater than +2800°F.

Jet fuel can only reach temperatures of 1800°F.

Some interesting information..

• 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
• 1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
• 825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.

Temperature needed to melt structural steel is 1510 Celsius.

Compare this.

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975

There are so many problems here.

First, it is myth that molten steel was found 8 weeks after collapse. http://planet.infowars.com/science/911-debunking-molten-steel

Second, jet fuel is not the only thing burning, and the heat of the fire cannot be linked to the burning point of jet fuel. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

Dark smoke can come from oxygen starved fire. However, that is not the only thing that can cause dark smoke. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-black-smoke-and-orange-flames-as-an-indicator-of-an-oxygen-starved-low-temp-fire.2373/

Third, that fire in the 70s was minor compared to the 9/11 fires. Really, there is no comparision.

Still doesn't explain how a system that can only get up to 1800 degrees by jet fuel, can reach temps of greater than 2800 degrees. Some other energy was added to make it that hot. Office fires and jet fuel cannot attain these temps. You can take an abandoned 10 story building and pour 300,000 gallons of fuel on it, it would still never reach 2800 degrees. Nope.

This has been well discussed.

A fire stated by jet fuel is not limited to the burning temperature of jet fuel.

2800 degrees is not established as the temperature of what appears to be molten material flowing from corner (the topic if this thread).

For some time I was satisfied with the reason being that it was molten aluminium from airplane fuselage and office material, until I discovered that molten aluminium is silvery, not orange/yelllow.

Thermite, on the other hand, produces a flow exactly like that with exactly the same color.

Also, in case you didn't know, Neil Degrasse Tyson - from the TV show Cosmos - is the one that recorded the video you linked, if my memory serves me right.

Has Tyson ever made a public comment on his observation? It would seem strange if he did not find it odd with his expertise in science.

Yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9B90npTpg

Although he didn't discuss anything related with the official version and the conspiracy version, he mostly expresses his feelings that day and similar things, and his disgust when Bush used religious politics during 9/11 statements.

[deleted]

^this

Pure molten aluminum is silvery. That stuff was pouring out of a burning office building. It wasn't even slightly pure.

Think you need to reread his comment.

k, done. Now what?

[deleted]

Ever seen wood burn?

[deleted]

Probably never seen aluminum flow through it I bet.

It seemed you were refuting that he was saying that it was molten aluminum coming from the building, when he clearly states that he thought that before he discovered that molten aluminum IS silvery, not orange/yellow, so I didn't understand the point of your comment.

What do you propose the material was and it's cause?

I was pointing out that the orange color does not imply that it's not aluminum. Personally, I think it's very dirty aluminum.

I work in recycling company and can tell you now that dirty aluminium still burns silvery not orange

Just curious: what do you think the orange stuff was?

I'm stumped personally I work in a company where we sell ubc (used beverage cans) into a smelting company which then remakes them into specialist alloys however I haven't seen any steel smelting / brass etc to compare it to.

Well it's obviously not steel, because it wasn't near hot enough.

Oh yeah definitely not steel bro

How could it possibly have been steel? It wasn't hot enough.

I was agreeing with you lmao

Dirty aluminum? Name another METAL that has 1)a melting point less than aluminum, and B) is capable of glowing red/yellow when molten.

I wish you luck. There is nothing that meets this criteria that would be available within the World Trade complex.

Why a metal?

because anything else would vaporize and gas off, thats why.

metals are called metals because they melt and flow at certain temps, and the temperature is precisely color coded to visible temp.

color vs temparature

Why does it need to be less than aluminum? It just needs to be a melting point that was around the temperature of the explosion/fire.

Copper burns red/yellow when molten and has a relatively low melting point (1080 C). There would be plenty of copper in the building and probably some in the plane. 1080 C is a little over the estimate of the max burning temp of Jet A (~900) but not by much.

Also, the obvious one: Plastics. There would be literal tons of plastics in the plane and building. Plastics melt at very low temps (~75-260 C, well below the fire's burning temp). Check out this plastic on fire and dripping: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfGOkPAsG8s, looks kinda like what we see in the WTC video.

plastics decompose into gasses when heated, the gasses will burn, but its not going to flow down, flow upwards and burn off.

dirty aluminum?

Mixed with other hot and burning materials, yes.

What kind of materials are going to melt at the same of lesser temps and flow uniformly with aluminum?

They don't have to melt and it doesn't have to be uniform.

K, why does it need to be dirty to fit your observation?

Because it's not silvery.

I feel like we're staring to go in circles.

K, you haven't proposed what those other materials might be, and when you do, how do their characteristics, mixing with aluminum, make this color possible, whereas aluminum couldn't produce this color it by itself, but when mixed into a "dirty ratio" with unknown material, it can?

I mean, it's not molten plastic, carpet, wood, paper, sheet rock, or concrete, so what is going to melt, glow, mix and flow with aluminum?

it's not molten plastic, carpet, wood, paper, sheet rock, or concrete

Why not?

I don't think you're even being serious, but I'll play.

Concrete doesn't have a melting temp, it decomposes.

Ever seen wood or paper flow out of a fireplace?

Carpet burns. gypsum's melting point is 1400 C, so no way in hell we got to that temp with an office fire. Don't know it's characteristics upon melting, though.

Plastic burns at lower temps and would already be decomposing at these temps, not flowing.

That's why not, so what else could it be?

Have you ever tried to mix molten metal with any other material than another metal? Go melt a stick of butter and a few lead sinkers from your pappy's tackle box and see what happens.

The fact that you lack even a basic understanding of this is quite surprising/shocking. Yet you speak of possible scenarios that attempt to explain away the fatal flaws that summarily prove the fully engineered staged event on Sept 11.

The mixing of plastic and molten aluminum to make a flowing metal that looks remarkably of steel, and nowhere near possible for aluminum - even alloyed with another "substance" #shakes my goddamn head with surprised disgust at this sad excuse#

Okay.

Seriously, what else do you propose somehow mixed in with your aluminum to allow the aluminum to glow and spark just like molten steel, and how was their combination conducive to this effect?

govt issue kool-aid, thats what they drink on their breaks from shilling or trolling BS in forums.

where ya at bro?

Real life. Maybe you've heard of it?

shhhh quiet now

dirt and debris floats on metals, it will not mix with the molten stuff, at least not to any noticeable degree.

molten aluminum will flow out from under any dirt as clean white metal.

liquid metal of an orange/red color or hue, that is molten steel.

It was nice of the plane to stay all together after melting.

an aluminum plane with some steel parts, trouble is the jet fuel and office crap cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

but something did burn hot enough, the videos of the orange steel pouring out the corners of the building show something very hot going on in the tower.

There is no evidence that that is steel.

It wasn't even slightly pure.

I will be waiting for that claim's corroboration, until it is provided it is not only baseless as it is meaningless.

Do you really think that it would be pure after flowing though a building on fire?

That's not what I asked and I don't understand why are you trying to shift the subject to a matter of opinion. I am still waiting for your claim's corroboration.

Obviousness. That's my corroboration. It's not possible any other way in those conditions.

Obviousness. That's my corroboration. It's not possible any other way in those conditions.

For a moment I felt like I was Bill Nye listening to Ken Ham. I see the kind of mind yours is now and I now know that I will never see any corroboration for your claim and because of that your claim is confirmed to be as good as nothing.

no u

Seriously though, do you really think it's possible for it to somehow remain pure in those circumstances? If so, how?

I see the kind of mind yours is now and I now know that I will never see any corroboration for your claim and because of that your claim is confirmed to be as good as nothing.

Seriously though, do you really think it's possible for it to somehow remain pure in those circumstances? If so, how?

There are videos of a plethora of witnesses talking about seeing molten steel at ground zero a week+ after 9/11

Try to find any mention of this in the NIST report. Witnesses are only acceptable when they mesh with the official story. Same thing with the workers in the basement of WTC that were knocked down/lit on fire/injured by an explosion before the first plane hit. Again, noticeably absent from the NIST report.

Its like the television trying to tell you that the characters and world of Terminator 2 ars real, and the movie you were just shown is true reality. Believe it! These massive continuity, logic, and factual errors will not be addressed. You still must believe its real. Not a depiction fk reality, a capture of reality.

Of course its goddamn molten steel. That is the only material present capable of glowing at that temperature and its the only material present capable of holding in that much heat for a period of well over a month. Terminator 2!!! YOU MUST BELIEVE!

ditto with Sandy hoax and the Boston smoke bombs.

A printer exploding, don't you know they do that.

[deleted]

haha :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11351372

molten aluminium, color depends on temperature

I'm sorry, but molten aluminum does not occur in office fire conditions. Did we see molten metal in the allegedly hot Building 7?

Did we see molten metal in the allegedly hot Building 7?

Yes we did.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

Exclusive to American Free Press

By Christopher Bollyn

American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained...

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Cause a 767 flying into a building is totally normal office fire conditions.

It wasn't aluminum, brother.

Yeah it's obviously thermite.

Seriously, you make an observation of something, you have to explain it. What do you propose it was? The temps weren't available to get aluminum hot enough to glow this brightly from fire. So, what do you propose?

you got nothing……..we've got another sleeper over here!!!

I'm with you on that one. Anyone who trolls in these threads makes me super suspicious.

I think I would like you better if you had an appropriate user name.

Normal enough for the towers architect and builders to engineer the ability to withstand the fully loaded impact of multiple airliners travelling at top speed. Physically engineered from the beginning to be able to withstand multiple (see: more than one) airliner impact.

Normal enough for the towers architect and builders to engineer the ability to withstand the fully loaded impact of multiple airliners travelling at top speed.

No.

Not "multiple airliners."

The building was designed to withstand the impact of the largest aircraft at the time - a Boeing 707 - traveling at near-landing speed with limited fuel.

Do we really need to go over these facts yet again?

You straight up lose on speed issue, sorry…...

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

^they say "jetliners"---plural, although it's not clear that they're referring to an actual number it can withstand vs. multiple models of jetliners.

But Demarini, construction manager did say he believed it could withstand multiple----

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting"

Do you have a source for this white paper?

Did the paper factor in a plane crashing into the building at an angle not parallel to the ground, destroying multiple floors as it impacted?

Did they factor in the fires as well, or was this just the impact?

How much structural design knowledge does a construction manager have?

Your information leaves a lot of variables out.

a plane crashing into the building at an angle not parallel to the ground, destroying multiple floors as it impacted?

spreads the impact load, less damage and less penetration.

By shearing through multiple support trusses on multiple floors this REDUCES the damage?

What color is the sky in your world?

[deleted]

So you cite a paper that you cannot find and then expect me to just believe it because you said it?

[deleted]

In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11

Do you have any idea how wrong that statement is? Clearly you dont, since this is the talking point that every truther uses. This point has been argued thousands of times. You cannot compare the WTC to ANY other building. They are simply not the same thing.

Sorry I didnt address the rest of your wall of text.

[deleted]

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

[deleted]

Talk is cheap. Show me this white paper.

Frank A. Demartini video

[deleted]

Can you blame him? Conceding this means that everyone he knows that enlisted subsequent to 9/11 was fooled, that his friends may have died in vain. It means that his own job might have furthered these events. It could destroy his perception of his own life, friends, family, etc.

The argument today isn't about thermite or demolitions. It's about whether one's life has been so closely tied to those events that questioning them is wholly destructive to it.

[deleted]

No, no he really doesn't. (and if you could keep this about the issue and not attack the person addressing it, that would be swell.)

We all saw the gaping hole that was punched through that "screen netting." deMartini mentioned.

Was deMartini a structural engineer? No.

Was deMartini involved with the design of the building? No.

Therefore, his opinion doesnt mean shit.

[deleted]

The point remains that Building Manager does not equal Structural Engineer or Building Architect.

This is like saying a guy that operates a microwave at a diner is a nuclear physicist.

Quit trying to make this about me and instead focus on the real issue.

[deleted]

Matter of fact, if you're a construction manager you must have immense knowledge of design to understand what it is you're building and to do it correctly

If you're a construction manager, you know how to manage the people who construct things...who follow a plan...called blueprints...that were created by the architects and structural engineers.

Just because you know how to follow a recipe doesnt make you Julia Child.

[deleted]

OK, then let's look at the evidence:

deMartini said that the building was designed so that a plane crashing into it would be like a pencil through a screen netting.

This doesnt really look too much like a pencil hole to me.

What could possibly explain this?

Oh, that's right: deMartini was WRONG.

[deleted]

No need to throw insults around.

And the fact that both towers just happened to collapse at the exact point where a plane flew into them is what...coincidence? Really tough thermite cutter charges? All carefully planned?

[deleted]

So the terrorists, who were trained in Arizona for a few months before and had absolutely no experience flying a real 767 - managed to hijack the planes and expertly fly them into the EXACT points of the buildings where explosive charges were placed, and without the charges being dislodged by the impact?

And this was all part of the plan?

Here's what it took to bring down much larger structures:

Doesn't factor in nano thermate, which you would need much less of.

KingDome = 4000 lbs of conventional explosives

Texas Stadium = 3000 lbs

Veterans Stadium = 3000 lbs

Hudson Department Store = 2,728 lbs

Ocean Tower - 1550 lbs

Old Humana Building = 550 lbs

Stella Wright Homes = 500 lbs (thirteen buildings)

Here's a list of a couple of dozen implosions, none over 1000 pounds conventional.

Typical Magliner hand cart. Gemini XL under Capacity, as platform truck. This typical cart can carry 1250 lbs.

One person could have brought what was needed before their morning coffee break without breaking a sweat.

somebody told them to remove the page with the cart on it, its gone.

this one works

Thanks.

color vs temparature

Yeah, because a left leaning organization it's the best source for irrefutable proof.

Oh dear. Someone thinks left and right are more than general labels for political beliefs.

It's the fantasy of partisan politics. Those who stil buy into the fact this is only ever done to divide and conquer. All the while perpetually stalling as to ensure nothing ever changes. Long live the corporate party. Long live corporate welfare. Long live the fools who buy into divide and conquer.

Thermite.

When a conspiracy theory hinges on the most arcane analyses like laymen commenting on characteristics of molten materials, it's a good sign the conspiracy is bunk.

monoatomic gold nanoparticles from the souls of the innocent. its called alchemy! ;)

Why do you even bother? That's right, because you've got nothing….

oh, too soon?

dirty aluminum?

Dirty aluminum? Name another METAL that has 1)a melting point less than aluminum, and B) is capable of glowing red/yellow when molten.

I wish you luck. There is nothing that meets this criteria that would be available within the World Trade complex.

Okay.

I'm with you on that one. Anyone who trolls in these threads makes me super suspicious.

I work in recycling company and can tell you now that dirty aluminium still burns silvery not orange

It was nice of the plane to stay all together after melting.

dirt and debris floats on metals, it will not mix with the molten stuff, at least not to any noticeable degree.

molten aluminum will flow out from under any dirt as clean white metal.

liquid metal of an orange/red color or hue, that is molten steel.

an aluminum plane with some steel parts, trouble is the jet fuel and office crap cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

but something did burn hot enough, the videos of the orange steel pouring out the corners of the building show something very hot going on in the tower.

Well it's obviously not steel, because it wasn't near hot enough.