Sites like 911Myths.com and others have claimed that Leslie Robertson, one of the original WTC structural engineers, never saw molten steel at Ground Zero. However, a video clip recently released from the IC911Studies which shows a presentation given by Robertson at Stanford University shows otherwise.
Robertson clearly states that he saw a "river of steel flowing" at the B1 level of the WTC debris pile.
Related Info:
9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed
In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point. Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say...
Molten Steel in the Rubble of the World Trade Centre Collapse = Inside Job
The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal
Showing posts with label 911 molten metal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 911 molten metal. Show all posts
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Monday, August 16, 2010
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Thermal Conductivity and Corroded Steel
Joseph Nobles' newest additions to his site--FEMA Steel and Wick The Heat Away-- attempt to address some of the issues of how the steel in the WTC was affected by heat. As we will see, Mr. Nobles' assertions are, once again, either false or misleading.
Wick The Heat Away
One of the primary faults of NIST's reports on the WTC is that they did not include the factor of thermal conductivity in their modeling. Mr. Nobles, however, has a different opinion on this.
Right. Because they say nothing about steel conducting and transferring heat throughout the building, obviously it's in the report.
Amazing that thermal conductivity would be so important, but at the same time NIST offers no detail about it in their report. They would do it for concrete, but not the steel.
Actually, someone already has put numbers to this assertion. Kevin Ryan, in his critique of the NIST report on WTC 7, wrote that:
"Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application."
Here is what NIST's report on WTC 7 had to say about their fire simulations of WTC 7.
"The major fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)."
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 4.
And what did NIST say about their fire simulations of the Twin Towers?
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
It is apparent that NIST went out of their way to include no thermal conductivity at all in their modeling.
Now let us turn to Mr. Nobles' section on the corroded steel from WTC 7.
The Pieces of Steel
Mr. Nobles presents what he considers to be conclusive proof that the steel was not attacked by thermate.
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7. NIST states nowhere in their report that any of the steel in WTC 7 had been heated to 1000°C. Their most extreme claim is that the steel had been heated up to 675°C. And NIST has no evidence that any steel in the WTC had been heated up to 700-800°C.
As to why the steel was only heated to 1000°C, I cannot say for sure. But it's important to remember that, although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it. For example, the NIST report on WTC 7 claims that the fires in the building were as hot as 2012°F, but that the steel only reached temperatures as hot as 1250°F (675°C). It is possible that the thermate that melted the piece of steel cooled somewhat as it reacted. But the main point is this: If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then something unnatural must have been planted inside the building. This is the subject of the next part of Mr. Nobles' page.
Where Did The Sulfur Come From?
Like other defenders of the official story, Mr. Nobles offers several possible sources for the sulfur found in the WTC 7 steel, including rubbers, plastics, water, and gypsum wallboard. Wallboard has been cited most often by debunkers due to the fact that sulfur-based drywall was the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC complex. But as others have pointed out, calcium is also in drywall, and the sulfur and calcium are tightly bound into calcium sulfate. Because the piece of steel was found to be intergranularly melted, it means that the sulfur chemically entered into the steel. But calcium was found nowhere in the steel. Also, because it is calcium sulfate and not pure elemental sulfur, it could not have reacted in such a way that it would actually corrode the steel. Mr. Nobles closes this section with the following:
Unfortunately Mr. Nobles, these sources HAVE been ruled out.
In the last two parts of Mr. Nobles' page on the corroded steel, he acknowledges that the piece actually did come from WTC 7 (something that I in fact pointed out to him). But he claims that this piece has no real importance to NIST in their investigation. And contrary to what Mr. Nobles claims, the investigators did suggest it was "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles' final statement is quite astounding.
In other words...
Wick The Heat Away
One of the primary faults of NIST's reports on the WTC is that they did not include the factor of thermal conductivity in their modeling. Mr. Nobles, however, has a different opinion on this.
Right. Because they say nothing about steel conducting and transferring heat throughout the building, obviously it's in the report.
Amazing that thermal conductivity would be so important, but at the same time NIST offers no detail about it in their report. They would do it for concrete, but not the steel.
Actually, someone already has put numbers to this assertion. Kevin Ryan, in his critique of the NIST report on WTC 7, wrote that:
"Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application."
Here is what NIST's report on WTC 7 had to say about their fire simulations of WTC 7.
"The major fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)."
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 4.
And what did NIST say about their fire simulations of the Twin Towers?
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
It is apparent that NIST went out of their way to include no thermal conductivity at all in their modeling.
Now let us turn to Mr. Nobles' section on the corroded steel from WTC 7.
The Pieces of Steel
Mr. Nobles presents what he considers to be conclusive proof that the steel was not attacked by thermate.
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7. NIST states nowhere in their report that any of the steel in WTC 7 had been heated to 1000°C. Their most extreme claim is that the steel had been heated up to 675°C. And NIST has no evidence that any steel in the WTC had been heated up to 700-800°C.
As to why the steel was only heated to 1000°C, I cannot say for sure. But it's important to remember that, although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it. For example, the NIST report on WTC 7 claims that the fires in the building were as hot as 2012°F, but that the steel only reached temperatures as hot as 1250°F (675°C). It is possible that the thermate that melted the piece of steel cooled somewhat as it reacted. But the main point is this: If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then something unnatural must have been planted inside the building. This is the subject of the next part of Mr. Nobles' page.
Where Did The Sulfur Come From?
Like other defenders of the official story, Mr. Nobles offers several possible sources for the sulfur found in the WTC 7 steel, including rubbers, plastics, water, and gypsum wallboard. Wallboard has been cited most often by debunkers due to the fact that sulfur-based drywall was the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC complex. But as others have pointed out, calcium is also in drywall, and the sulfur and calcium are tightly bound into calcium sulfate. Because the piece of steel was found to be intergranularly melted, it means that the sulfur chemically entered into the steel. But calcium was found nowhere in the steel. Also, because it is calcium sulfate and not pure elemental sulfur, it could not have reacted in such a way that it would actually corrode the steel. Mr. Nobles closes this section with the following:
Unfortunately Mr. Nobles, these sources HAVE been ruled out.
In the last two parts of Mr. Nobles' page on the corroded steel, he acknowledges that the piece actually did come from WTC 7 (something that I in fact pointed out to him). But he claims that this piece has no real importance to NIST in their investigation. And contrary to what Mr. Nobles claims, the investigators did suggest it was "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles' final statement is quite astounding.
In other words...
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Molten Steel in the Rubble of the World Trade Centre Collapse = Inside Job
The picture here shows superheated Molten Steel being pulled from the rubble of the World Trade Centre buildings weeks after the collapses.We know this is steel because other materials such as copper or aluminium exhibiting a yellow or near white colour would be completely liquid. The melting point of copper is 1080 degrees Celsius whilst the melting point of aluminum is only 660 degrees Celsius. The metal in the picture is still plastic even though some of it is well above 1000 degrees Celsius.
You are looking at building steel that has been heated to an extraordinary temperature in a rubble pile that had neither the fuel or air requirements to do so. For instance in a forge, that heats iron to a red hot appearance, we require a sea of hot coals wherein the iron is submerged. Air is pumped in into this mass to increase the temperature. The problem here is that the rubble pile was not a sea of coals and according to official reports, it presented conditions that were described as "oxygen poor"[US DELTA Study Group].
The ONLY other way of heating steel to such a high temperature here would necessarily require the use of large quantities of explosive incendiary materials. The building fires could never cause such melting and neither could later conventional fires in the rubble pile.
The reports of superheated metals seen throughout the rubble must be taken seriously and the implications recognised. Just from this evidence alone it would appear that large sections of the World Trade Centre Buildings were subjected to the actions of incendiary devices.
Most damningly, analysis of the slag from the steel and also from previously molten iron spheres (which were found all throughout the dust) has revealed the signature of the incendiary Thermate.
This smoking gun scientific evidence shows that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were subjected to large quantities of thermite-type incendiaries confirming that the collapses were not natural fire induced events. 911 was an Inside Job.
Related Info:
9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed
The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal
Friday, September 25, 2009
9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage - 20/07/2009
Steeper33
YouTube.com
September 23, 2009
On Monday, July 20, 2009, Baltimore GrassRoots Media followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.
The final stop was the White House where Gage, with David Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.
Original YouTube post
Related Info:
Even NIST now admits that, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."
"Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that, the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings." - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-demolition-company.html
Remember the BBC WTC7 hitpiece? Remember when Richard Gage attempted to explain the large amount of smoke around the south side of Building 7 by saying it was negative pressure - which he has been thoroughly mocked for? Well it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Click here to see why...
NIST Debunks Itself
The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal
Analyzing Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Comment
"Pulling" Building 7 - An Overlooked Explanation
"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11
WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08
WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08
WeAreChange Debunks the BBC part 2: A Call to Action
I too have been accused of being an "FDNY hating scumbag" for posting this blog, scroll down and take a look at the update.
Many great comments on this video at 911blogger.com
Of course this is all besides the point since the explosives have been found!
YouTube.com
September 23, 2009
On Monday, July 20, 2009, Baltimore GrassRoots Media followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.
The final stop was the White House where Gage, with David Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.
Original YouTube post
Related Info:
Even NIST now admits that, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."
"Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that, the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings." - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-demolition-company.html
Remember the BBC WTC7 hitpiece? Remember when Richard Gage attempted to explain the large amount of smoke around the south side of Building 7 by saying it was negative pressure - which he has been thoroughly mocked for? Well it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Click here to see why...
NIST Debunks Itself
The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal
Analyzing Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Comment
"Pulling" Building 7 - An Overlooked Explanation
"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11
WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08
WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08
WeAreChange Debunks the BBC part 2: A Call to Action
I too have been accused of being an "FDNY hating scumbag" for posting this blog, scroll down and take a look at the update.
Many great comments on this video at 911blogger.com
Of course this is all besides the point since the explosives have been found!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
