The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[eots]

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

I just quickly wanted to comment about this. It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves. daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum. This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

 

[daws101]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

I just quickly wanted to comment about this. It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves. daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum. This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

ok! ye of the anal aperture, which one is which.....

 

[eots]

this video clearly shows the silver color of pouring aluminum

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U]Pouring molten Aluminum - YouTube[/ame]

this clearly shows the orange color that indicates pouring steel

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE]WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner - YouTube[/ame]

this is molten metal

 

[SAYIT]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

I just quickly wanted to comment about this. It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves. daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum. This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

how could you rule this: "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." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally misleading... you shit head...

Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.

 

[eots]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

how could you rule this: "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." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally misleading... you shit head...

Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.

lol...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

how could you rule this: "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." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally misleading... you shit head...

Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.

lol...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

Typically lame propaganda piece. Not very convincing.

 

[Gamolon]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550.

TThe melting point of aluminum is 1220 F.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.htmlhe

And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.

Wrong. The perimeter columns were ENCASED in an aluminum facade. All 1300 feet, four faces of each tower.

Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

So what, in your opinion, maintained these temperatures for that long?

 

[Gamolon]

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

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.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

And within your link, it states-
But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on
9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!”

Direct evidence??? Ok lets see what else it says that provides "direct evidence"??

Here are the
pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3,
page 34:
“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal
- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out
of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80
th
floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:
“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the
top of window 80- 256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears
intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation
of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of
the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten
aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

It is not "direct evidence" it is an assumption, and you are getting more shit from your debunking site instead of linking to the source of where THEY get their information.
NIST and links you dufus..

Is it possible that it could have been aluminum?

Yes or no?

If you answer "no", why not in your opinion?

 

[Gamolon]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?

Again. You cannot tell a molten substance by sight alone. Especially when there are other materials that could have mixed with it.

That is a fact.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.

How were the temperatures maintained? It couldn't have been thermite as that burns very rapidly.

So what do you suggest?

 

[Gamolon]

I just quickly wanted to comment about this. It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves. daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum. This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?

Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot.

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.

 

[Mr. Jones]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550.

TThe melting point of aluminum is 1220 F.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.htmlhe

And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.

Wrong. The perimeter columns were ENCASED in an aluminum facade. All 1300 feet, four faces of each tower.

Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

So what, in your opinion, maintained these temperatures for that long?

This is not for me to speculate at this time, this thread is supposed to be about the reported information, and what if anything did NIST do about it, and what it is their reports concerning it.
I have been posting what was said to have been found at GZ, and what NIST reaction was, and how it reflects in their report.
In trying to stay true to the theme of the thread, I am not speculating or what my opinions are, and in agreeing with your requests to try to link to info that is being discussed, and sourced, I've been trying to stay true to that as well.

In fact maybe you could link to the amount of aluminum on/in the towers that you mentioned? We should reasonably expected NIST to tell us what THEY thought kept the fires in the rubble burning for 100 days, and what the fuel source could have been.
Is there anything withing the NIST reports that mention any of this, or comes close to an answer?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

And within your link, it states-
But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on
9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!”

Direct evidence??? Ok lets see what else it says that provides "direct evidence"??

Here are the
pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3,
page 34:
“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal
- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out
of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80
th
floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:
“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the
top of window 80- 256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears
intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation
of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of
the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten
aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

It is not "direct evidence" it is an assumption, and you are getting more shit from your debunking site instead of linking to the source of where THEY get their information.
NIST and links you dufus..

Is it possible that it could have been aluminum?

Yes or no?

If you answer "no", why not in your opinion?

I know you want Jones to answer (as do I) but his script contains no direct answer to your question so I will answer for him:
If the molten mats could have been aluminum then there may have been no molten steel which means Jones's CT and all his "research" takes a fatal hit, therefore the answer is "no," it could not have been aluminum. See how easy that is?

 

[eots]

you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum

And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?

Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot.

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.

what other materials would that be

 

[Mr. Jones]

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?

Again. You cannot tell a molten substance by sight alone. Especially when there are other materials that could have mixed with it.

That is a fact.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.

How were the temperatures maintained? It couldn't have been thermite as that burns very rapidly.

So what do you suggest?

The thing with aluminum is that it cools more rapidly then steel, this is why it is used as heat sinks in many electronics. It has a higher heat transfer rate then steel. This is why aluminum engine heads are used. It radiates/conducts away all of its heat so rapidly that it cools off much faster than anything else. So if a piece of aluminum were to be in contact with a piece of steel, at melting temps, the aluminum would transfer its heat to the steel.
Aluminum will not stay hot longer then steel. Certainly not for the length of time the piles
remained at the reported temps. Please correct 5this if I am wrong...
Which will cool faster? Archive - Physics Forums Archive

Hot objects transfer heat to their surroundings by radiation. If you put a pot on top of the red hot coils, the coils often cool down enough to see the decrease in the brightness of the coils; this is because conductive heat transfer away from the coils decreases the amount of power that must be removed by radiation and convection to the air.
When you start stacking metal layers on top of each other, like a sheet of
steel and a sheet of aluminum, you are adding interfaces. And the heat
plate is going to have to get hotter to transfer the same amount of heat
through these interfaces.

Aluminum is superior to galvanized steel for efficient heat transfer. Tests have proven conclusively that an ammonia evaporator made with aluminum tubes and fins will have a cooling capacity that is 12 to 15% higher than a galvanized steel evaporator having the same dimensions.
http://www.advancedfreezer.com/listings/files/73_1.pdf
Question: I am in search of a metal that when heated, rapidly dissipates the heat, and cools quickly.
Replies: In terms of cooling quickly, what you want is a material with low heat capacity and high thermal conductivity, and you want to have as little of it as possible (low mass). There are lots of metals that fit that bill, but in terms of overall usefulness and cost, aluminum comes to mind.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05119.htm

The specific heat capacity of solid aluminum (0.904 J/g/°C) is different than the specific heat capacity of solid iron (0.449 J/g/°C). This means that it would require more heat to increase the temperature of a given mass of aluminum by 1°C compared to the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of the same mass of iron by 1°C.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/u18l2b.cfm


IOW's, if it was aluminum melting in the rubble piles, the fuel source would have to remain high and constant, as aluminum rids itself of the heat much faster then say steel...Regardless NIST ignored the reports of the molten steel/metal altogether, and this is one strike against them IMO.
We have to dig into their reports to find evidence of any extreme temps and times that suggest any steel was melted or weakened
I would like to discuss this next, after any opposing comments..

 

[SAYIT]

Relevant info on melting points:
What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

What's the melting point of steel?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY]Molten Aluminum Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?

Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot.

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.

what other materials would that be

Hmm. You seem desperate, Princess. Can it be the basis of your CT is melting away? We both know you aren't stupid and are well aware what other mats were present but I'll name just one and provide a link [Jefferson Labs] to its melting temp: Steel alloys.
What's the melting point of steel?

 

[SAYIT]

According to Jefferson Labs "Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F)" which would explain the collapse and no hard evidence of molten steel from the support beams has been found. None. All you have is self-serving conjecture.

What's the melting point of steel?