The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Analysis of events and conditions between impacts and onset of collapse.

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:03 pm

femr2 wrote:
femr2 wrote:1) Within what temperature range does lead glow orange ?

Image
Not sure of the original source of this data, but looks reasonable.
Pretty sure the columns are Kelvin, Centigrade and Fahrenheit.
I suggest a reasonable range would be 500C to 600C, more towards 600C than 500C.



i think you mean, F, K, C for the order of the scales. fahrenheit is the largest number, and kelvin is 270 difference from celcius.

so, yeah, how quickly does yellow hot lead cool in freefall on a summery day?
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

 

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:43 pm

newton wrote:i think you mean, F, K, C for the order of the scales. fahrenheit is the largest number, and kelvin is 270 difference from celcius.


Lead — Melting Point: 621.43 °F, 327.46 °C, 600.61 K
(According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead)

That'll make it F, C, K. We'll get there in the end :)
At least the range I stated was correct.


Image
I've uploaded a higher quality version of the animation above here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lP__1ZE1EI

There's some additional discussion of the event here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1967037/1/
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:55 pm

haha! i had a bizarro world logic moment, thinking that K was 270 less than C, 'cause 0 degrees C is 270 more than absolute zero. DOH!
HAHA!
FCK it is!
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby scott » Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:51 am

Some help would be appreciated. I and some others (including peterene from this forum) have been debating official story supporters over at Unexplained Mysteries. One of my 'truther' colleagues had stated:
"I was speculating the pictures were doctored, since they look very different from other pictures i looked up, there is no reflected glow, the middle picture has an unusual dark line around the hot block, no sign of any activity and not independently sourced."

An official story supporter responded:
"Plenty of reflected glow in the third, hottest steel, picture, and it didn't take me long to find the source on that industrial photographer's site. You just went ahead and made some unsupported claims because you don't like evidence that undermines your ideas.

The point is that steel can get a lot hotter than the metal in any of the WTC pictures without melting, so therefore the WTC pictures do not show molten steel.
"

The picture he's referring to is the third one in this post:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... &p=3316539
scott
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:58 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:19 pm

As an appendix to this thread I'd like to add a link to my comprehensive (?) list of molten metal reports at Ground Zero. This leaves no doubt that steel was brought to temperatures exceeding those of jet fuel and office fires. Which of course proves demolition of the Twin Towers. No?

http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:25 pm

Of course, but their ridding a political horse. I would suspect that the molten iron was from charges that were in the basements of the towers, possibly used to attack the 700,800 core rows in order to initiate the collapse. You would need at least ten tons of thermite or more. The molten iron from higher elevations wouldn't reasemble itself in pools as the collapse would spray it over the whole ground zero.
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby SanderO » Mon May 03, 2010 1:23 am

Rows 700 and 800 carried the least loads of the core columns.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:42 pm

A JREF thread reminded me of this one.... I don't post there, fyi, just the occasional read ...
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Darkwing » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:01 pm

Jref makes my head hurt. Why did you you make me click the link, oh my burning eyes!

How can so much stupid exist in one place without causing a singularity on the interwebz?

If they think it could have been lead it is a really simple experiment to demonstrate the principle. You can do the experiment with all the other supposed common materials that can look like this. Until such time as such evidence is duly submitted the only rational thing to do is to follow the empirical evidence, which says it is steel/iron:

Darkwing
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:10 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:37 pm

Upon seeing a clip here --


I looked for it in the documentary to see what time it was supposed to be, and what window it was. It was supposedly 9:38 a.m...


That doc ("102 Minutes that Changed America") was advertised as a minute-by-minute timeline, but of course we can't know without the original vid, which I'm not sure is available in full.

Anyway, here's the window:

Click for full size image
It is the 19th from the east wall, still below the UPS room on 81, which appears to be 2 floors above the window showing molten metal.

Click for full size image

Were the vents by the wall a possible conduit for this substance to flow down?
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:00 am

You can't determine what the metal was from the color alone. Consider that the sun was only about 35° above the horizon as it has risen at 7:37 that morning. Perhaps you can look it up in an almanac. I suspect that there were optical effects from refracting, diffraction, dust in the air and the and the wh1te balance of the camera has not be calibrated. Color distortion is very likely. You would need to control for all those factors.

Of all the corners ... 110x4x2=880... why do we see this *melting" at only THAT one... where the engine of the plane came flying out and it was also near a UPS? And when tower 2 began to tilt... it tilted AWAY from that corner... And that alone seems to indicate that weakening (cutting of steel) is not likely what that was.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby uglypig » Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:18 pm

Why is it the only corner? The amount of molten liquid was quite big, so if it was thermite than at least several hunder kilograms must have been present at that floor. Only the core columns would have required such quantities of thermite.

The remains of AA11 did not have enough enery to dislodge the charges from the core columns on the south side (by the way the left half of AA11 wasn't able to penetrate the tower at all - as witnessed by lack of broken windows on the south face).

UA175, on the other hand, penetrated the tower with no problems. The only place where dislodged core column charges could have ended up was the NE corner of WTC2.

The direction of tilt simply suggests that the SE corner was more damaged than the NE corner. It does not tell you that the NE corner was intact.
uglypig
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:06 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby SanderO » Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:40 am

Are you saying that the plane itself forced *charges* that were inside the core toward the one location on the NE corner and that was the cause of all that melted steel... which is pouring out of the corner? How is that for a coincidence?

The few columns on the NE corner would not support the tower nor would their loss cause the section above to collapse... It took much than a few facade column failures to collapse the top.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby uglypig » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:41 am

Yes, it was the only place in the towers where material from the core could have ended up near the facade. For what we know it may have been only a single charge - the high estimates of the molten material volume don't seem convincing to me. Anyway, we both believe that the collapse was (at least partialy) caused by collapse of 1000 row columns. Now, how would you collapse those core columns without thermite? Those connections were welded.
uglypig
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:06 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby SanderO » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:30 pm

I am not convinced that the material pouring from the corner is iron or steel. Color on the video is simply unreliable and uncontrolled as a metric for what the material is. There are other metals which could have been melted at that corner.

The collapse of the core did not require a single mechanism. There were 24 perimeter columns in the core which supported the OOS floors. Clearly you don't have to destroy ALL 24 for the floors to drop or for the top come down.

What most likely happened... since what happened seem to TAKE TIME for it to happen was that there was a PROGRESSION of columns failures from MULTIPLE causes:

mechanical destruction from the plane strikes
weakening from the elevated temps from fires
uploading as columns failed and loads were redistributed
possible explosive or incendiary devices attacking the joints/splices
possible incendiary devices cutting away parts of the columns sections.

core wtc 80-83.pdf
(21.46 KiB) Downloaded 49 times

core load percentage.pdf
(18.83 KiB) Downloaded 45 times


As you can see from the 3 attached slides the perimeter core columns did not carry equal loads. The 4 corners carried 28% of all the loads, the columns on the sort span side carried 20% of the total load and the columns on the long span side carried about 52%

You can also see that as columns are destroyed the loads are redistributed to the remain columns. If we accept the NIST assessment of destroyed columns from the plane crash... (red backgrounds)... this comes to about 33% of the axial load was removed. But.. perhaps NIST was over estimating the extent of damage?

Working with the assumption that the perimeter of the core lost about 33% of its capacity to support the floors the remaining 16 columns were then supporting these loads. Of course the floors around the destroyed columns would collapse locally, but the floors above them remained *intact* and attached to the columns which now had no support beneath them. The floors above acting like membranes/plates had their loads supported by the 16 intact columns.

Since the tops did not collapse from this amount of core damage we know that the FOS was at exceeded. This means that a column can support more load than it was designed to support... In this case 1/3 of the loads were now being re distributed to the remaining columns. If it were an equal load redistribution... 16 columns shared an extra 33% of the load or about 2% each.

If we look at any particular column... such as one of the strong corners which supported 7% of the loads prior to the plane strike ... it now was carrying and extra 2% bringing it to 9% of the total floor load. Its load has increased 35%

I did an Factor of Safety study of the WTC steel and determined it was about 1.65. This is not a precise number because it is derived from a ratio of the entire set of column's yield strength divided by the mass of the tower.. the load those columns support. My 1.65 number was based on a mass of 500,000 tons... with the A36 steel with a total yield strength of around 800,000 tons. If the towers mass was lower, the FOS would increase. Urich came to a mass of about 400,000 tons... giving an FOS of 2. My guess is that GU's mass is too low and perhaps 500,000 tons is too high. But it's safe to say the FOS was between 1.65 and 2.0. The average FOS for steel skyscrapers is apparently 1.42... so it appears that the twins were stronger than average.

Returning to the NIST assessment... 33% of the yield strength has been removed... the core can now support .67 x 800,000 tons or 536,00 tons. If the mass had been 500,000 tons the remain core was approaching its limit and the FOS was perilously now close to 1 at about 1.07! If the mass was 400K tons, the FOS was down to 1.34

Now we need to consider the effect of heat on the strength of the remaining steel. If steel is heated by 300°C it loses 20% of its yield strength. We do know that there were fires up there. We don't know how hot they were or how extensive they were. We do know that for wtc 2 they burned for about 1 hr. And so we don't know how much they might have weakened the steel.

If we look at another column such as the ones on the short span side. They too picked up an additional 2% of the total load. Those columns were each originally supporting about 2.5% of the loads... and now picked up 2% bring them to 4.5%. The problem here is that if they had an FOS of 2 they were seeing about an 80% increase in loads and this exceeded their yield strength. It would seem that they would have buckled from the redistributed uploading.

My hunch is that there was load redistribution to the 23 columns in the center of the core AND there was not an equal load redistribution to all remaining columns. The hat truss now was pulled into service and part of the core was in tension now *hanging* from the hat truss which was loading up the columns it was bearing on which were continuous to the foundations. The hat truss had 8 trusses with 4 in each axis over the outside rows and the two center rows.

What we can't know is:

How much did heat from fires weaken the remain columns?
How extensive was the plane damage to the core
If there were any devices to attack the core (there didn't need to be too many)

We do know that the progressive failure of the core took about 1 hr for wtc 2... and once the core's FOS descended below 1 the remaining columns buckled and the tops section descended and tilted favoring the most damaged side of the core.

The core collapsed up there because the remaining columns could not support the loads upon them... the redistributed loads overwhelmed those columns.

Could devices have been dislodged from the core and made their way to the NE corner? Perhaps. But that seems highly unlikely.

I think more study about the weakening of heat is in order. How much heat would it take to reduce the strength sufficiently to buckle those columns???
Attachments

core failure- 8 col.pdf
(29.78 KiB) Downloaded 46 times
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

PreviousNext



Return to WTC1 and WTC2 - Post Impact to Pre Initiation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred