Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

So you admit that you haven't done any metalurgical analysis.
You admit that you are assuming based on a photo.
Also, you are admitting that the metal looks like a thicker aluminum.

Great.

Have you heard of an alloy, Clarky?
Without a metalurgical analysis, all you have is the assumption that the melted metal was not an alloy, and must have been one of those four specific materials.
That is a flawed assumption.

What's your source on that quote anyways?
 
I am starting to think that you haven't read the article clarky.

Clarky's article. said:
Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
Click to expand...

Even you peer-dismissed pseudoscientific article by a nuclear physicist who has no background in any relevant domain of science is calling you wrong.

Take the hint.
 
It was located all over the site as NASA's satellite photo's, the bulk of the buildings material was concrete , next steel and Iron There where no large quantities of alloy in the structure that can account for the amount of molten pools and steel slag, as is shown in the images.. the image, the colour the consistancey is a very powerful tell tale sign of the material.

The quote is from the physic's proffessor's article, and ive checked and colour is independent of material, so it is correct.

Its simply denial from one point to the next with you, its still a valid question that hasnt been explained.

"Conclusively"

key word

You can still determine strong evidence of the material via observation of colour and consistancy, they are accurate indicator's.

Your just nit picking now, FEMA did the only metallurgical analysis it was not an alloy, it was steel, its as conclusive as it gets when the rest of the evidence is taken away from the scene. I dont believe you remember you where talking crap earlier when you said NIST was doing one we would of seen it in their report.
 
It is not a valid question.
It is a claim that the metal was steel.
You have no conclusive evidence to support such a claim.

"Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail."

You have failed to provide this analysis.
This analysis is NEEDED.
It is not optional.

Your source has not been peer-reviewed.
He could be saying anything.
And, honestly, the idea that Clarky confirmed his facts is not exactly convincing.

Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquified has yet to be conducted.

No actual science has been conducted involving the allegedly molten metal.
You are relying on pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is a lie.
 
Nor has he answered why the firefighters never reported seeing thermite going off or any explosions for that matter.

Not to mention after a thermite reaction the metal begins to cool. For the metal to stay hot for days means there was obviously a very hot fire that was burning for a while.
 
The visual evidence is fairly conclusive,

It cant be aluminium, the lemon yellow indicates 1000 C, it would be totally runny if it was aluminium, there are not large amounts of alloy in the building, cooled steel molten slag peices have been retreived, that photo 1/4 down the page is evidence of that, The colour of the metal matches the consistancy of Iron or steel at that temprature.

and you say you have to repeat yourself.

If you watch the footage in loose change second edition, fire fighter's.. dozen's of memeber's of the public all from inside and close to the building all report hearing explosion's pre collapse.

Thermite does not begin to cool, the reaction goes on for ages, and eats anything for as far as it can go, the 2500 C + temperatures take hours and sometimes days to cool off providing they have a good air supply.
 
clarky003 said:
The visual evidence is fairly conclusive,

It cant be aluminium, the lemon yellow indicates 1000 C, it would be totally runny if it was aluminium, there are not large amounts of alloy in the building, cooled steel molten slag peices have been retreived, that photo 1/4 down the page is evidence of that, The colour of the metal matches the consistancy of Iron or steel at that temprature.

and you say you have to repeat yourself.

If you watch the footage in loose change second edition, fire fighter's.. dozen's of memeber's of the public all from inside and close to the building all report hearing explosion's pre collapse.

Thermite does not begin to cool, the reaction goes on for ages, and eats anything for as far as it can go, the 2500 C + temperatures take hours and days to cool off providing they have a good air supply.
Click to expand...

So why wasn't it reported by the fire fighters? Also thermite burns pretty bright, we would be able to see that through the windows during the explosion...not to mention and explosion so blow the beam out of place would also by chance blow away the thermite. This theory of yours just doesnt work...
 
The visual evidence is not conclusive.

The source you are getting it from says it is not conclusive.
You even said it was not conclusive.

You are assuming it is steel.
You are assuming there were massive quatities.

This steel claim has all the elements of a pseudoscientific claim.

* by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
Previous results show that it was not a demolition.
* by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
You are presenting no clear evidence of what the material is.
* by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
Scientists have concluded that the steel did not melt.
* by habitually changing the nature of its claims to deflect criticism;
You said that it's not necessary to be conclusive, then you said it was almost conclusive.
You said the article was right, then you siad the article was wrong.
* by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
Obviously.
* by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
Your (only) source is a failure at peer review.
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
You are claiming that your evidence is "conclusive enough".
It is not.
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
You have not presented adequate evidence of steel.
* by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible;
Your theory requires the rejection of all other fact and the assumption of an international conspiracy and invisible bombs.
* by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
You refuse to provide more or conclusive evidence.

You are failing at science.
 
Its not my theory, there are physical attributes of the event that point towards it, You cant see the core columns from the outside, and if you want symmetrical collapse you take out all the core columns at once. You would only need cutter charges for main support's possibly in the lower half of the building.

Firefighter's reported as high as the 74th floor indicating that the fire wasnt a blazing inferno, the question still remain's how do hydrocarbon fires create large quantities of molten steel in the basement level's.

Lets not forget the official explaination that a fireball barrelled down the elevator shaft's of a hermetically sealed building melting some of the steel in the basement, even the official story admits it was molten steel.

Your in denial mech, your the one indicating that the established science of temperature colour chart's are wrong and pseudoscientific. all your retoric that you come up with to try and negate the question is pseudoscientific and more focused on personal attack's.

There are images of molten steel slag included in the article, I directed you to look, you ignored.

There is a comprehensive analysis of the temprature colour chart and the metals consistancy, indicating molten steel or Iron, your appear to be choosing to ignore.

There are FEMA's metallurgical analysis of steel section's, showing
eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

Official documentaries even state the large amount of molten 'steel' found in the basement

The origional theory even suggest's that the molten 'steel' in the basement was caused by fire barrelling down the elavtor shaft's.

Official's on the ground have said it was molten steel there is a palethora of link's from news sites and books on the issue http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html, You have no real substance to the molten steel answer so you denie it like a true pseudoscientist, instead giving plenty of waffle as your looping fickle counter arguement on this point, with no material explaination's as to why or what else may of caused it.
Click to expand...
 
No it does not.
That claim is also baseless.

Show me one "official" scientific and peer-reviewed source that claims that molten steel pooled in the basement.
 
Actually, it's VERY easy to skew colors with a camera, the automatics do it all the time. You can't really trust photos or video for accurate color rendering, unless done by a pro under ideal conditions.

<--photographer.
 
...which is why this photographic evidence is not considered conclusive by anyone who takes science seriously.

Thank you Maxi for your input!
 
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

page 3,

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running
Click to expand...

http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm

These candidly shaken macho guys recall scenes still haunting their nightmares two years after 9/11 - a 4-foot-high pile of bodies hurled from the towers, finding faces that were ripped from heads by the violence of the collapse, and heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel
Click to expand...

And in the book 'American Ground' page 32, reference to molten rivers's and pool's.

The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:

... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10
Click to expand...

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

http://www.911research.com/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
Click to expand...

http://www.911research.com/cache/wtc/evidence/gcn_handheldapp.html

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
Click to expand...

http://www.911research.com/cache/wtc/evidence/wasteage_sanitationworkers.html

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
Click to expand...

http://www.911research.com/cache/wtc/evidence/jhsph_welch.htm

Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.
Click to expand...

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
Click to expand...

http://www.911research.com/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples
Click to expand...
 
As much as I would love to have Mecha continue to be the guardian angel of logical thought, this is slowly turning into a flame fest, with one side constantly repeating the "colors=heat" arguement. Im seriously calling for a lock, and an official announcement that Mech won.

And as a New Yorker I will say this, The NYPOST is a joke, and not trustworthy of the 50 cents that it costs.
 
Well thats biased if I ever heard it, im not going to flame, im just proving Mech is in denial of the well established presence of molten steel at ground zero.
 
Besides 3 guys saying "its molten steel' can you get them to at least explain that explains the fact in the same manner the NIST commission did?

"A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

Quote:
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off."

For this to be true the fires would be pulling in vast amounts of air from, somewhere. Yet as they would, they would create highspeed winds, and lots of noise. BTW as someone that actually was there in SEPT, OCT, AND JAN, 2001-2002, I can say that there was no smoke, no smell of burning materials, and no evidence of a fire past sept(including "heat"). For a fire to continue to burn for that long (months) it would require a LARGE fuel source, much like a coal mine.

ALSO any fuels that you have suggested, thermite, explosives, dont burn for that long. Thermite only lasts as long as there is a combination of the reagents necessary for the reaction. If you've ever played with thermite, you'd know it doesnt last months, even if the WTC was completely made of it(materials necessary).
 
Clarky!
Clarky, I asked you for official statements based on peer-reviewed science.
You are giving me eyewitness guesswork no better than your own.

Eyewitness accounts are not conclusive, Clarky.

You said that the official scientific conclusion states there is molten steel.
Yet no official scientific source makes such a claim!

Just look at your sources:
-A Utah newsletter that copied its facts verbatim from the early media reports.
-Two conspiracy websites.
-The New York Post, thirdhand eyewitness accounts.

Focus, Clarky!
 
I clearly cant convince you outside of doing exactley what FEMA did, with metallurgy, so you want an impossible examination that i dont have the funding to do, but the likelyhood given that the images are accurate is that it is molten steel and/or Iron, FEMA's metallurgical analysis is as good as it gets for you, demand some more if you want it so bad.

What makes it wholey pathetic is this new arguement that the camera isnt picking up colours right, the colours are balanced and there is no discolouration in the image seen from the surrounding colours and other images of ground zero, the colouring is comparably accurate.

NIST even mention's molten steel and gives its highly unlikely hypothesis on how it got there, even they dont deny it existed, you are either truely delusional or dont care for it and would prefer it just not to be there anyway which is off the scale of stupidity for someone claiming im using pseudoscience.
 
Ok so wait, how did Bush Plan the attacks again, how was thermite used, who jacked the planes, whats the theory on the

1. Agents who jacked the plane.

2. Explosives in the building.

3. Thermite in the building.

4. Why would they need to have TWC # 7 pop?
 
clarky003 said:
the likelyhood given that the images are accurate is that it is molten steel and/or Iron,
Click to expand...

The accuracy of the images in not a given.

The claim that they are a given is a lie.
You have a photographer calling you on that fact.
You do not know more than him.

FEMA did not analyse "molten" metal, to my knowledge.
You do not know more than them.

NIST mention's it as molten steel and gives its highly unlikely hypothesis on how it got there, even they dont deny it existed, you are either truely delusional or dont care for it and would prefer it just not to be there anyway.
Click to expand...
Show me the quote and a link to the full context.
I suspect you have made a mistake, since every other aspect of your argument has fallen under scrutiny.
 
There are only question's, question's that need to be directed at the authorities.

Its FEMA who mention molten steel and metallurgically anaylised an intact piece in WTC7, NIST dont mention it atall. I mixed the two report's up ill find that mention and quote the link from FEMA.

Wiki

The molten steel observation has not been elaborated on or picked up by most news groups. 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 in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
Click to expand...
 
Give me the source for your NIST molten metal claims, Clarky.
Show me the quote and a link to the full context.

The only valid question you are bringing up is why you keep misusing your apostrophes.
Or should I say "you're apostrophe's"?

(I know it's pedantic, but I've put up with the "you're apostrophe's" stuff for 20-ish pages now. Plus, better grammar couldn't hurt Clarky's credibility any.)
 
MaxiKana said:
Actually, it's VERY easy to skew colors with a camera, the automatics do it all the time. You can't really trust photos or video for accurate color rendering, unless done by a pro under ideal conditions.

<--photographer.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to emphasize this once again. I had the same exact thought once the point of "match the color to the metal" was brought up. Such an analysis is inaccurate and would certainly not stand up to the rigorous standards of a true peer reviewed examination.
 
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

" bright bright redish orange colour" ground zero workers confirm the colour of metal associated with 1000 C temperatures

Here's FEMA's mention of evidence that suggests sulphur which has been posted before, the interaction creates rapid melting of steel.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.
Click to expand...

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
Click to expand...

FEMA shows these reaction's taking place in their metallurgy, that and the tempratures recorded by NASA are in large areas in the wreckage, the temperature is still 1000 F plus in alot of main areas including WTC7 wreckage enough heat to make steel turn the exact colours that are reportedly observed.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
 
Excellent! You have finally presented a source with information.

Now, that all makes sense to me. What are you claiming is wrong with this data?
Your original claims were that it was physically impossible for the temperatures to reach 2000-something and melt the steel.
The report very clearly points out that sulfur lowered the melting point of sections in the steel, making your point about temperature invalid.

You have just disproved yourself, Clarky. :p
 
Yes the report very clearly makes no reference to the high-temperature fires on the upper floors being the 'sole' cause.

huh? that is the point of my arguement that the temperatures detected in the wreckage show that the fires 74 stories up cannot be the sole cause of this continuing heat.

You have just credited me saying that FEMA's metallurgy and temperature imaging cannot conclude that fire is the sole cause of such a mass of persistant heat.
 
Yes, exactly.

You have confirmed that the metal could and did melt without all that thermite bullshit!

Thank you! :p
 
lol, man are you dumb? hydrocarbon fires cant reach those temperature's so your accepting the indescrepancey between the persistant high tempratures at ground zero and the fact that even a highly efficient fire cannot reach those persistant temperatures, so you sound like your accepting that there must be another cause for the excess heat, let alone that they were finding the molten metals in the basement level's.
 
The fires are confirmed to have been up to 1800 degrees F.

The effect you are talking about requires only 1000 degrees F.

Sorry Clarky. You've p'zoned yourself.
 
One thing. If you prove it one way or another, will it change the fact that the towers fell down, and thousands of people died?

Even if it didn't happen, Bush was going to find some way of invading another country. Hell, he'd still get support and the go-ahead if he said "God told me to".

-Angry Lawyer
 
Not necessary Lawyer, as he's already provided a plausible, peer-supported and Occam-safe scenario where he is incorrect.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
The fires are confirmed to have been up to 1800 degrees F.

The effect you are talking about requires only 1000 degrees F.

Sorry Clarky. You've p'zoned yourself.
Click to expand...

You are thick arnt you, the reaction had 'sulphur' which cause eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." reactions that dont take place with hydrcarbon fires, temperatures recorded after the incident have time to cool, it infact reflect's higher temperatures involved in the collapse, unless the molten slag magically retained all of its heat over the weeks it was being discovered.

The molten temperatures in the rubble remained long after the fire burnt out, and NIST even mentions that the fuel burn would of only lasted for minutes, diffuse flames dont reach the maximum temperature for long, and several samples NIST tested reported temperatures not in excess of 600 C.

The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
Click to expand...
NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)
Click to expand...

the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127)
Click to expand...
 
You are misquoting your own source here.

"This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C"

Note the past tense.
There is no mention of a current time here. All that was needed was some instance of heat occuring at half the possible fire temperature, which I have experts on record saying may have topped off 1800 from the combination of jet and other fuel sources.
Could the metal retain half that heat? I'd say yes.
The source agrees.

You do not know more than them.
 
Thats a theoretical maximum in 'air' not steel, the flames heat cannot transfer 100% of that energy into the steel and its typical fires like that barely reach even those high theoretical tempratures of 800 C not enough to melt steel and leave the prolonged high tempratures at ground zero, a majority of that heat is simply lost entropically to the air. It still doesnt account for all of these factor's under gravity driven collapse which you unquestionably support.

The near free fall speed.

The near 100% amount of pulverised concrete and dust and 500 to 800 foot distances of energetically ejected debris.

The disintigration of the structure at the top.

In the assumtion of gravity freefall driven collapse Newtons laws of gravity are all totally ignored by all these physical occurances.
 
Please stop constantly repairing your posts after I address them.
It is terribly rude.

Are you claiming that the expert quoted in the Popular Mechanics article is lying?
Please disprove the 1800 degree number with valid source.
Also, we are talking about the melted steel in the debris.
The steel did not melt on impact, so that is a straw man argument.

Also, your quotations are wrong.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
Page 127 of the full NIST report makes no mention of temperature at all.

Pages 176 -177 make no mention of steel.

Page 179 talks about building codes.

What the heck are you using as sources?

Interestingly, pages 176 and 177 describe how the debris was likely laden with fuel from the building's fuel oil system.
 
Mecha just m-m-m-m-m-m-m-monster killed this thread. Fo sho.
 
Ah, so we are changing the subject back to gravity now?

Since the whole fire argument you made has been disproven, that's a logical next step.

The near free fall speed.

The near 100% amount of pulverised concrete and dust and 500 to 800 foot distances of energetically ejected debris.

The disintigration of the structure at the top.
Click to expand...

Please provide peer-reviewed sources for those there claims.
100% dust? What?
What is your source for the 500 foot measurement, and why is it impossible?
What is the exact time for the building's fall?
What is the exact expected time?
Provide a peer-reviewed quote, with context, for all your claims.
I am not going to take your word for it, especially after you've been so wrong in the past.

First impressions:
The building did not fall at freefall, as shown by the debris breaking off of the main building and falling faster.

The other two are consistent with the actual events.
I sure hope you didn't expect the top of the building to just snap off as a perfect chunk.
I also hope you didn't expect the dust not to spread.
 
I took a few days rest from this thread, but coming back and reading the 8 pages of nonsense, I am respectfully bowing out of this conversation.

I see the evidence from both sides, and there are strengths and weaknesses to each story, but neither can be disproven nor should they be condemned.

Nobody was in the building taking temperature readings.
Nobody who is alive knows the exact situation inside the building following the impact.
Nowhere does a comparable event exist in history.
Noone can guarantee the data collected from the site is 100% accurate or reliable.
No source is more trustworthy than any other.
No amount of degredation of others can prove your point.
Finally, nobody on this forum is worth wasting this much time since nothing is going to change anyone's mind.

That said, I am giving clarky the benefit a many doubts as the explanation he agrees with (hence doesn't have to prove, as someone else is doing the feild work), I find the most credible.
 
-Dozens of scientists were able to estimate temperatures based on knowledge and tests.
Clarky is guessing based on a webpage.
The belief that both are equally valid is a fallacy.

-The idea that one-off eyewitness accounts are more reliable than controlled scientific testing is a fallacy.

-100% accuracy is impossible under even the best case scenarios of scientific analysis.
Nothing on Earth is 100% accurate.
The idea that 100% accuracy is required to understand something is a fallacy.

-The idea that all sources from opposite viewpoints are equally valid (AKA "fair and balanced") is a fallacy.
ESPECIALLY when one is based in science and another is not.

-Facts are used to prove points. Judging someone's science based on how "mean" they are is a terribly flawed methodology.

-The idea that we should simply "ignore" the liars is stupid. I refuse to let pseudoscience go unchallenged, and every post I make is a direct blow to Clark'y attempts to convert people.

He has clearly, very clearly, managed to convince you too.

Please read these three articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Please.

Believeing Clarky is equally valid as science is a horrible, quantifiable mistake.
His arguments are entirely based in the lies described in those articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top