The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Gamolon]

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.

You aren't making sense.

Are you saying there WASN'T a constant source of extreme temperatures? How was the steel supposedly kept molten then?

You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Gamolon]

Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.

No. What I am dismissing is the finality of your conclusion that it was absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, molten steel, solely based on visual identification. I have provided evidence that you cannot visually tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum. There are no "experts" in visually identifying molten steel vs. molten aluminum. If in fact all your "experts" were able to do so, they would have ALL said it was molten steel and NONE would have said molten metal.

By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.

In the debris pile or in the building before the collapse? Notice you also said "first said", meaning they changed their minds? You are all over the place.

Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.

Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?

You keep changing between weaken and melt. Which is it? They are both dependent on very different temperatures. Especially temperatures needed to weaken steel under a load.

BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?

You've posted nothing of the sort. There was an abundance of aluminum for the WTC towers. It there was sustained temperatures for molten steel, then there were sustained temperatures for molten aluminum, which, if you hadn't noticed, has a lower melting point than steel. This fact totally destroys your supposed evidence to try and show that the substance could not be molten aluminum.

To sum up.

1. If there were sustained temperatures high enough to melt steel, then there sure enough temperatures high enough to melt aluminum based on it's lower melting point.
2. You cannot visually identify the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum.

Balls in your court Mr. Jones.

 

[SAYIT]

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.

You aren't making sense.

Are you saying there WASN'T a constant source of extreme temperatures? How was the steel supposedly kept molten then?

You're contradicting yourself.

Of course he is. He has no choice.
Whatever mats were still burning under the rubble at GZ were evidently hot enough to melt many non-combustibles, including lower temp metals. On this both the CTs and the Norms here seem to agree. As of this posting no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or other "secret super-thermite" type metastable intermolecular composite ( MICs) has been found nor any of some "secret super-accelerant" which could keep the rubble burning hot for weeks without leaving a trace. None. What we have here, in all probability, is pretty much what the NIST study found and unless we accept that a cast of thousands of Americans were silently complicit in the planning, perpetration and aftermath of the 9/11 attacks then we are left with the reality that even if one considers the NIST study to be faulty or incomplete, it is the most rational and best informed opinion on the matter.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.

Because, as I mentioned numerous already...aluminum melts at a lower temp then steel...But, it gets rid of the heat faster then steel. This means that if it was aluminum that was melting, and running "like in a foundry" there had to be a very high, and constant heating source/fuel supply in order for the aluminum to react, and be in a constant state of melting. Where did this heat fuel source come from? How did it manage to last for 100 days despite constant efforts to extinguish it, and even resorting to thousands of gallons of pyrocool?
Steel on the other hand, will hold onto the heat longer then aluminum, still the source of the heat/fuel source to maintain the temps, in aluminum or steel, that were reported and measured remains a mystery.
My point is that NIST was charged with investigating any and all evidence, reported occurrences etc, and they did not. This is just one of the first instances that go against the investigative agency. By ignoring this, it shows they were not thorough, or complete.
This is my point.

You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?

What fuel source? Read above...

All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?

NIST was charged with supplying answers to your questions. They did not, and this is the point.

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?

I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers. Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.

I'm still waiting for anyone to post the numbers of the quantity of aluminum vs steel.
Not dust sample info.

As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important. Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time? It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc. So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat. With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.

The pools of molten steel/metal were being discovered weeks after the event, and were being uncovered in deep pockets as they proceeded along in the removal of wreckage.

Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean? What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?

This is what should have been answered by NIST. It's not like they had no time, or budget or enough people to investigate this. Why they didn't we can only speculate about.

I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?

Aluminums more efficient heat transfer rate means that an even greater and constant heat source was initiating the melting.

Look, the WTC towers were made from mostly steel concrete. The core, outer perimeter, trusses, and other supporting components were not fucking aluminum. Molten aluminum is silver in color, steel is orange. I've welded both and seen with my own eyes the difference.
My point in bringing this up first is that it is a main instance of NIST incompetence, or deliberate act of ignoring this important phenomena.

So how much solid aluminum vs solid steel was there in the towers?
What about the testing NIST did that confirms or denies the temps within the towers?
Did their findings indicate any melted steel, that was seemingly confirmed by the melted
components in the piles, and the validation of extreme temps?

IMO,NIST should have just confirmed that there was melted steel in the piles, and blamed it on extreme heat. This would have severely quieted the opposition, but they didn't and this was a big, obvious red flag. Or was it a clue? Could the people at NIST have been leaving a trail of these clues for others to notice, while they were being pressured to write a report on behalf of a demanded agenda?
This speculation can be discussed later, but for now I think I made my point.


Let us try to answer these questions-
So how much solid aluminum vs solid steel was there in the towers?
What about the testing NIST did that confirms or denies the temps within the towers?
Did their findings indicate any melted steel, that was seemingly confirmed by the melted
components in the piles, and the validation of extreme temps?
What about the strength of the steel they tested?

 

[daws101]

and again the shit monkeys resort to flinging their shit in a sign of defeat.....

you and handjob can't even get that right.. monkeys fling their shit as a sign disrespect..
you eots have yet to win anything.. beside this is not a win lose debate.

 

[daws101]

"I'm still waiting for anyone to post the numbers of the quantity of aluminum vs steel.
Not dust sample info". sister jones





Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic
additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of
660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.



Eagar, Thomas W., and Christopher Musso. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. 2001. JOM. "The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design" 450,000,000 kg
(each tower)
World Trade Center History. Fact Monster. Family Education Network. 2003. "Weighed 500,000 tons" 450,000,000 kg
(each tower)
World Trade Center Facts. Fox News Top Stories. 12 September 2001. "More than 200,000 tons of steel - far more than the amount required for the construction of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge - was used in the World Trade Center's construction."

" The 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center is enough to build a five-foot wide sidewalk from New York City to Washington, DC." 930,000,000 kg
(overall)
Ashley, Steven. When the Twin Towers Fell. Scientific American. 11 October 2001. "The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said." 450,000,000 kg
(each tower)
Craven, Jackie. Great Buildings. About.com. "Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons." 450,000,000 kg
(each tower

 

[Mr. Jones]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ]Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

bahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Gamolon]

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.

You are making no sense.

Aluminum melting point = 1220 F
Carbon steel melting point = 2600 F - 2800 F

Metals - Melting Temperatures

If I wanted to keep the aluminum in a molten state, I would need to maintain 1220 F temperatures.

If I wanted to keep carbon steel in a molten state, I would maintain 2600 F - 2800 F temperatures.

Do you even understand what thermal conductivity is? It is the process for which a metal conducts heat. Which is why aluminum is used on computer processors. Aluminum has a high thermal conductivity and compared to carbon steel, is much higher.

Thermal Conductivity of Metals

So how are you implying that steel will "get rid" of it's heat faster than aluminum if aluminum had a higher thermal conductivity rating?

If you put steel and aluminum (touching each other) inside a furnace and crank the temperature to 1000 F, are you saying the steel will draw the heat into itself and the aluminum will never reach 1000 F???

 

[Gamolon]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

bahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

It turns silver because it hits the cooler pan!!!!! Heat that pan up to 1800 degrees and see what happens!!!!

What you fail to realize Mr. Jones is that the objects in close proximity to each other INSIDE THE DEBRIS pile will be at the same temperature dependent on the heat source in that location.

It's like the molten aluminum (1220 F or higher) is touching a steel component in the same area at room temperature!

 

[Montrovant]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses? I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.

 

[daws101]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses? I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.

and you'd be correct...!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.

You are making no sense.

Aluminum melting point = 1220 F
Carbon steel melting point = 2600 F - 2800 F

Metals - Melting Temperatures

If I wanted to keep the aluminum in a molten state, I would need to maintain 1220 F temperatures.

If I wanted to keep carbon steel in a molten state, I would maintain 2600 F - 2800 F temperatures.

Do you even understand what thermal conductivity is? It is the process for which a metal conducts heat. Which is why aluminum is used on computer processors. Aluminum has a high thermal conductivity and compared to carbon steel, is much higher.

Thermal Conductivity of Metals

So how are you implying that steel will "get rid" of it's heat faster than aluminum if aluminum had a higher thermal conductivity rating?

If you put steel and aluminum (touching each other) inside a furnace and crank the temperature to 1000 F, are you saying the steel will draw the heat into itself and the aluminum will never reach 1000 F???

So how are you implying that steel will "get rid" of it's heat faster than aluminum if aluminum had a higher thermal conductivity rating?

I said no such thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913451-post104.html

Are you implying that the WTC was comprised of more aluminum then steel?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Bottom line here is NIST was not diligent regarding the extreme temps.NIST did not say that fire weakened aluminum support components and caused the collapses.

Your melted aluminum fails on its face, as there was more steel then aluminum to begin with.
It melts in a different color then steel. It transfers its heat faster then steel, thus cooling faster.
Again my point is that NIST failed in this regard, and ignoring it is a cowardice way to proceed in this discussion.
Ball is in your court to produce NIST testing that confirms extreme temps to melt steel or weaken it.
So what have you got?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses? I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.

and you'd be correct...!

Really? Link please.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube

What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses? I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.

The WTC was encased in aluminum cladding, on the outside perimeter. These perimeters allegedly peeled away or blown away...AWAY from the centers of the buildings were the extreme temps were found. Imaging confirms this.
I posted the properties of aluminum and fire/heat effects on it.
There was more steel then aluminum.
Aluminum is silver. Steel is orange when melted.
Aluminum melts at a lower temp then steel, but rids itself of the heat faster.
So we both do not know what was the fuel source and why it maintained the extreme temps for weeks after the event.
NIST did not supply answers for this phenomena, despite it being known, confirmed.

This thread deals with the NIST report and its instances that are being questioned and criticized, this is one of them.
I'm ready to move on to the testing if any of you would care to post what you have about that would be great.

In summary we have extreme temps, that were not addressed in the deep piles of the WTC buildings. The chances of it being aluminum are dismal at best.
WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not covered in aluminum cladding, which we can discuss further down the road.

Again post up what you got on the NIST testing, maybe we can find some answers there.

 

[Gamolon]

I said no such thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913451-post104.html

Are you implying that the WTC was comprised of more aluminum then steel?

Here is your quote.

Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.

You're all over the place Mr. Jones.

Do you understand what heat transfer is and what thermal conductivity is? If the aluminum inside the debris pile is surrounded by objects of the same temperature, where is it going to transfer it's heat to?

The reason aluminum heat sinks work inside computers (on a processor) for example is that aluminum (or copper) heat sink is kept cool by a constant flow of cool air flowing over it. The cooler (do to the flow of air) aluminum (or copper) heat sink continually pulls the heat from the hotter processor into itself do to the high thermal conductivity properties AND the flow of cooler air.

If I insulated the entire computer and had no airflow, the heat sink has nowhere to release the heat to. If I put one fan in there, it will transfer heat according to the amount of airflow. The more fans I put in, the more effective it becomes.

So again, if the molten aluminum in the debris pile is the same temperature of surrounding objects, where does it "rapidly transfer" its heat to?

 

[Gamolon]

Bottom line here is NIST was not diligent regarding the extreme temps.NIST did not say that fire weakened aluminum support components and caused the collapses.

Jesus H. Christ!

MAke up your mind! You keep swicthcing between the debris pile temps and the fire temps in the structure BEFORE the collapse!

You're making no sense whatsoever!

Nobody is talking about "aluminum support components"!

Your melted aluminum fails on its face, as there was more steel then aluminum to begin with.
It melts in a different color then steel. It transfers its heat faster then steel, thus cooling faster.
Again my point is that NIST failed in this regard, and ignoring it is a cowardice way to proceed in this discussion.
Ball is in your court to produce NIST testing that confirms extreme temps to melt steel or weaken it.
So what have you got?

The temperatures in the buildings were enough to weaken the structure, not melt it. That is a fact.

The temperatures in the pile were hot enough to melt the aluminum facade that everyone keeps telling you about.

Your problem is your mixing up the debris pile and the fire temps before the collapse.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

 

[Gamolon]

The WTC was encased in aluminum cladding, on the outside perimeter.

Yup.

These perimeters allegedly peeled away or blown away...AWAY from the centers of the buildings were the extreme temps were found.

Not all of them.

Imaging confirms this.

Yup. Imaging confirms high temps in the debris pile.

I posted the properties of aluminum and fire/heat effects on it.

So?

There was more steel then aluminum.

So?

Aluminum is silver. Steel is orange when melted.

Nope.

Aluminum melts at a lower temp then steel, but rids itself of the heat faster.

Depends on the surrounding environment. If he surrounding environment is the same temp, you're out of luck.

So we both do not know what was the fuel source and why it maintained the extreme temps for weeks after the event.

We do? Explain what you think you know.

did not supply answers for this phenomena, despite it being known, confirmed.

They were gven the job of figuring out what the temps of the debris pile were? Can you link this please?

 

[daws101]

What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses? I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.

and you'd be correct...!

Really? Link please.

none needed ...I guess you never took metal shop..