The Physics of 911

Your questions have nothing to do with the issue of melted girders. And your last question presupposes that Camlok is a follower of people who are fucked up in the head and quite insane.

You're bringing up something that is off topic--check the OP again.

Oralloy: Molten aluminum was visibly pouring out of one corner at one point.
-----------

"one corner"



It was out of the South Tower, minutes before the South Tower was blown up.

That most assuredly, was not molten aluminum. Oralloy. Molten aluminum in bright daylight is and pours silvery.

NIST tried this same song and dance routine. In fact, NIST still has this lie up on its FAQs. Why would NIST lie like that?

After NIST advanced the notion that it was aluminum, many scientists encouraged NIST to do a study to prove it. They never did an exceedingly simple test to validate their false hypothesis. Anyone wondering why?

Independent scientists did do this simple test and proved NIST was wrong. Yet NIST still maintains their lie in their FAQs page. Why?


-----------------

"Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight. [see picture at link]

NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.

Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air. [see picture of this at link]

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do not mix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

oralloy: And there is decisive evidence that this is exactly what happened with the World Trade Center.
=======

And you are withholding this "decisive evidence" why?

oralloy: It is common knowledge that steel does not have to get hot enough to melt for it to lose its strength and give way to gravity.
==========

That is actually a common myth, mostly believed in the USA. There has never
been any collapse of any steel framed tower built like the three WTC towers before or since 9-11-2001.

farmerman: Do you deny a huge fire erupted in the building at the floors where the jets hit?
------------------------

Why are you ranting and raving at yourself, farmerman? And why is a scientist ranting and raving anyway?

=======================

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

...

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

I figure everyone already knows it.

Since the images of the steel columns bowing inward shortly before collapse are a decisive cornerstone of the NIST report, I figure you are very familiar with it.

Also, because this is not a topic that I am inclined to devote a lot of effort to looking things up.

It doesn't matter how big the pools were. That there were pools, and flowing steel in the rubble when there was no legal, legitimate fuel source to do that says it all.

You were given a link to FEMA's Appendix C which had pictures of molten steel, eutectic steel, steel that had been vaporized.

Why do you now deny its existence? Shouldn't a scientist be aware of the Meteorite, which you can see in the video below? A conglomeration of fused metal and concrete. A condition that compels honest investigators to look for exotic explosives.

I posted a video of John Gross, a lead NIST scientist, categorically denying molten metal and the numerous eyewitness reports followed describing molten steel.

9/11: NIST Engineer John Gross Denies WTC Molten Steel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZbUe_tQ0to

Google, "John Gross touching molten steel beam", click on images and who pops up in the first picture but John himself, touching the end of a previously molten, partially vaporized steel beam/column.

Look at the picture to the bottom right, click on it and read about the agglomeration of concrete and various metals which show the result of a thermite reaction. Thermite, in a legal/legitimate sense, should not have been at WTC.

Why wouldn't a scientist be aware of all these things, Farmerman?

The properties of steel are no myth.

Lame lame lame. I have yet to see you post any proof of anything on any topic.

Go and get your "evidence".

The myth that you are deceptively attempting to project is that the fires in the twin towers were hot. They were not.

===================
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

They were hot enough to melt aluminum and to weaken the steel of the towers enough to cause them to collapse.

Molten aluminium is silver. The molten metal seen pouring from the WTC was red .

This video shows molten aluminium being poured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJ2jMZ-gaI

There's no end to the various explanations and theories about how all those various crystalline and spherical iron sulphur combinations occurred, but let's backtrack a little to my other point. Every floor level of all those WTC structures was concrete, right? And every level was supported by spans attached to the steel columns, right?

If fire did, indeed, weaken enough of the steel columns, on the floors adjacent to, but not below, to create the pancaking effect that the NIST report still maintains, brought those towers down, then what happened to all the other steel columns, and more importantly, what happened to all the steel in the concrete slabs, and supporting those concrete slabs?

Freefall pulverisation may have turned everything else into talcum powder, but steel that hasn't been weakened, or softened, by heat, will get mangled, for sure, but will be largely intact, when the collapse is complete; will it not?

Below is the kind of steel commonly used within concrete slabs. In suspended slabs, there are usually two layers, coupled with connecters that allow the slabs to be attached to the supports and collumns. What became of all that steel? Add up the floors, multiplied by the area of the building, and figure out just how many sheets of reinforcing steel are missing.

I see only a professional team of demolition experts. These aren't too hard to find. They even exist within the military, and special forces, right?

How many other "technologies" are you imagining would be required?

And it's clear as crystal that the govt was "involved". Norad was told it was a drill, right? Who told them that?

In response to the obfuscation regarding "truthers" in previous comments, there's more than enough reasons to doubt the official reports.

Here's the NORAD summary from the morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq2z_T-iS-s

Let's focus on the molten metals, shall we?

Yes, the temperature range was in that range where aluminum would melt. But as has been pointed out to you by me and others there was molten steel, fused molten iron/steel/concrete, the combination of which requires investigators to look for exotic explosives.

NIST, an arm of the Bush administration, tasked with "investigating" the collapse of the towers, didn't. Why?

Let's focus on the molten metals like steel and molybdenum that have melting points that are much higher than the temperatures that were reached in the three towers.

Temperatures that were described by NIST and other supporters of the official story which did not come anywhere close to providing the temperatures necessary to melting these described metals.

There was no legitimate, legal, logical reason for these molten metals to be there. The alleged hijackers could not have caused them.

There was no legitimate, legal, logical reason for thermite to be at WTC, let alone nanothermite. The alleged hijackers could not have brought them.

You seem to be invested in refuting the existence of molten metals that the alleged hijackers could not have caused. When its existence is so abundantly clear!

As a scientist, why do you not discuss the nanothermite that was discovered in WTC dust?

As a scientist, why do you not discuss the fact that NIST lied about no free fall for WTC7, then when challenged with a simple analysis by a high school physics teacher, admitted free fall, thereby admitting that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

As a scientist, why do you not take things to their logical conclusion. You ignore science, you ignore reasoned arguments, you ignore dealing with those reasoned arguments. Why?

This isn't what scientists do when they are discussing scientific issues. Scientists deal dispassionately with the science.

Is Professor Leroy Hulsey a "leader[s] of the "TRuthers"?

"may [Professor Leroy Hulsey] just be fucked in the head and [be] quite insane?"?

Would you conduct yourself in this fashion at a scientific conference? Do you conduct yourself in this fashion at scientific conferences?

Of course you can, you only need ask.

"alleged" means ": accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged burglar>" [M-W]

So alleged hijackers means people who have not had anywhere near sufficient evidence put forward that would lead them to be convicted in a court of law.

A much better term would be falsely accused men who could not have caused the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 because of voluminous evidence, presented here and by scientists, engineers, architects, ... from around the world that shows the accusations against them are totally baseless.