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.

WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:56 am

1st post. Here goes... after searching and finding only short mention of the topic, which warranted a new thread, I think.

UPS = Uninterruptible Power Supply (lead acid batteries on 81st floor corner) AND United Parcel Service, according to NIST.

See this article: "UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2?" by Enrico Manieri - Henry62

Plus, here's a related article quoted at length:

Paolo Attivissimo, based on research by Enrico Manieri

'UPS vs UPS?'

NIST speculates, in the chapter cited above and in its 2006 FAQ, that the fountain "could have been molten aluminum" from the Boeing 757 [sic] aircraft, which is largely made of alloys of this metal whose melting points are well below steel's.
The molten metal might have pooled within the building and then, as the floor trusses of the 81st and 80th floors failed and tilted, found a path to flow outward.

However, some rather unusual clues found by Enrico Manieri suggested in 2006 an alternative explanation.
NIST's NCSTAR1-1 report, which discusses structural alterations to the Twin Towers made by their tenants, shows that the part of the building where the glowing fountain occurred had been altered: specifically, the so-called "two-way trusses" (the trusses that span the corner area of each floor of the building) had been reinforced on the 81st floor in 1991 "in area occupied by United Parcel Service" (NCSTAR1-1, page 136).
Image
The same alteration is mentioned in the NCSTAR1-1C report, on page xlviii, but with a slightly different wording which will turn out to be very significant: instead of referencing "United Parcel Service", it uses only the acronym ("UPS").
Image
The same acronym turns up in the NIST report (NCSTAR1-1C) again in relation to alterations made by tenants to reinforce structural members: remarkably, it appears in the only two reported reinforcement alterations made to WTC2, as shown below.
Image
Curiously, the floor is the same (the 81st), the trusses are the same "two-way" ones, but the year is given as 1999, not 1991, and the tenant is Fuji Bank.
Note that as mentioned, these are the only reinforcement alterations to WTC2 reported by NIST.
There is no mention of United Parcel Service being a tenant who made reinforcement alterations to the 81st floor. Moreover, the "UPS" referenced here does not stand for United Parcel Service, but for Uninterruptible Power Supply.
This is the name given to battery-based systems which must ensure the continuous supply of electric power for computer rooms and electrical medical devices which cannot tolerate the slightest power outage.
A bank, such as Fuji Bank, would certainly have an uninterruptible power supply for its computer systems.
.
These power supplies are extremely heavy: basically, they are massive racks of lead batteries, which would undoubtedly warrant truss reinforcement.
It is instead quite unlikely that Fuji Bank would perform very expensive truss reinforcement work to accommodate a United Parcel Service workspace. There's more.
.
In the NIST reports there is no mention of United Parcel Service ever being a tenant on the 81st floor of WTC2 at all, regardless of any alteration work.
And NCSTAR1-1H provides a list of all tenant alterations (including non-reinforcement work, such as installing an escalator) to WTC2.
.
In this list, shown below, Fuji Bank is given as a tenant of the 80th and 81st floors in 1990. Its locations are the northeast and southwest parts of the floor (the northeast part is where the plane exited). There is no mention of United Parcel Service.
Image

- NIST confirms 'UPS' on 81st floor of WTC2 was power supply; may explain glowing 'fountain'" by Paolo Attivissimo, based on research by Enrico Manieri (Henry62)


Just to clarify, I know that exceedingly high temperatures were witnessed at Ground Zero.

In response to the above article, it seems important to completely explore the possibility of its accuracy.

Image
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

 

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:25 am

Matt wrote:1st post. Here goes...

Welcome.

I've seen on other threads here that verbose external source quoting is kind of frowned upon. Links are cool, and allow confirmation of full source material. I think it's also reasonable to say that there's very little/no usage of either 'debunking' or '9/11 truth', regardless of personal opinion.

Couple of questions:

1) Does lead glow bright orange when molten, and if so, within what temperature range ?
2) Assuming glowing orange, how far could molten lead fall and remain such ?

Oh, okay, 3 questions:

3) How would you explain the almost identical appearance of this event ?
Image
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:23 pm

NIST says that there were distinctive pulses of white smoke before each flow, so I don't buy into the UPS wetdream

Image

A floor with mechanical equiqment is a very good place to plant thermite, some of the 1000 row columns were in the open space...........

it's probable that the aircraft impact dislodged some of the charges..... and then the charges became jammed in the rubble pile

the molten metal incident reveals that if there were charges then they were almost certainly timed with some clock mechanism inside them, because the rubble pile would have blocked the signals or the impact would have destroyed the antenna.........

Does molten lead look like red dust?

Image
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:27 pm

femr2 wrote:
Matt wrote:1st post. Here goes...

Welcome.

I've seen on other threads here that verbose external source quoting is kind of frowned upon. Links are cool, and allow confirmation of full source material. I think it's also reasonable to say that there's very little/no usage of either 'debunking' or '9/11 truth', regardless of personal opinion.

Couple of questions:

1) Does lead glow bright orange when molten, and if so, within what temperature range ?
2) Assuming glowing orange, how far could molten lead fall and remain such ?

Oh, okay, 3 questions:

3) How would you explain the almost identical appearance of this event ?
Image


I edited the post to erase the sentence with the buzz words.

Your questions are good ones. Perhaps I shouldn't have been taken in so easily by the UPS story.

RE #3, where's that from?
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:45 pm

IMHO the whole story of the molten aluminium or UPS is utter nonsense

the molten material had to have t>900°C, now there was a fire in that corner, but even fire like that has this high temperatureonly in the upper layer, so the whole fairy tale implies that there was a magical pot on top of the ruble and that the spot contained the material for just long enough ....and then some magical coincidence poured out the molten metal out of the building moments before the collapse without any other ruble falling out

oh, yes NIST atributes it to the local collapse, but we know that there was no saging in that area (the floor trusses in that area weren't connected to the core)

IMHO the storry of sagging trusses bowing only one face without ANY sign of bowing on the other faces is .......
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Matt wrote:Your questions are good ones. Perhaps I shouldn't have been taken in so easily by the UPS story.

RE #3, where's that from?

I haven't found the emissivity data required to answer yet, but I'll keep looking (though someone here is bound to beat me to it ;) )

The thumbnail clip event can be seen at ~1:03 in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BZUR8JQ13U

These clips are also useful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:59 pm

Think of the scale of these images.

I once did a rough calculation of the volume ejected, based on ridiculously conservative estimates.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=8970&#entry303093
(Please copy the link text above and paste in browser, do not give free info to 'redirectingat.com' by clicking directly on the link**)

So ridiculous, they can't be true, but no one noticed. I came up with a volume equivalent to a cube 0.7m on a side. But that was assuming 25% droplet density and a 5 CENTIMETER thick sheet. OK, so maybe the density is more like 10% but who else thinks the sheet is more like 5m thick?

Now, that is just what is visible in one frame. The expulsion began before this frame and some of the material is already obscured. The expulsion continued after this frame and that material was not counted. Since the post last year, I've seen a number of videos showing the expulsion more clearly and indicating a considerably greater extent of flow than was seen in the frame I analyzed, including expulsion on the east side.

There is no reason to assume that all, or even a majority, of the substance was expelled at collapse.

Of course, the material that spilled out prior must be added to the tally, but I consider that insignificant by comparison. There was a page on a debunking site (I really wish I'd marked it because now I can't find it) that did an estimate of the amount of material that dripped out. Perhaps they weren't being as conservative, but their estimate for the amount that dripped out exceeded my estimate for the expulsion.

Given all of the above, I think it's beyond conjecture that the amount of molten material contained inside is rather large, of the order to account for the entire fuselage, or maybe all the alleged UPS racks. Whatever it actually is, it's a lot to be forming in a short time, eh?

It's almost surely primarily metal. How does that much metal melt, possibly flow from elsewhere, pool, and stay liquid under these circumstances? So what if it is lead? What is the mechanism, and how is it contained until collapse?

**this is what the underlying link is after forum inserts spy link:
http://redirectingat.com/?id=593X1004&url=http%3A//www.physforum.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D12383%26st%3D8970%26%23entry303093
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:13 pm

Image

molten lead in daylight.

seems to cool pretty quickly.
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:52 pm

newton wrote:seems to cool pretty quickly.

I'd imagine it reverts to a silver colour even more quickly than aluminium (which has already been discounted as being the metal in question), but I've been unable to find any empirical data for how quickly droplets of red hot lead would cool and revert to silver/grey.

OWE is quite right about how unlikely it is that such a volume could suddenly get into red-hot state in the first place, especially as the melting point of lead is relatively low (327.46 °C, 621.43 °F), at which point it is still very much silver/grey/yellow(ish).

It would melt and 'run off' well before it reached red-hot temperature (I haven't tracked down the temperature range of 'red hot' lead yet...)
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:00 am

yeah. that picture was a pre-emptive strike, so to speak. i found the hottest lead picture i could, and it clearly illustrates that even a large pool of molten lead loses heat quickly enough that it is no longer yellow even a few seconds after being removed from the heat source.
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:29 am

I still wonder, after seeing glowing molten lead in the photo above, if the UPS theory is possible.

Here's a link to an MSDS for a UPS battery: http://www.powersource.net/msds.htm

Within these racks of batteries we would have thousands of pounds of lead. The floor trusses on the 81st floor were strengthened by LERA for the purpose. The batteries would have produced hydrogen gas, creating an incinerator of sorts. Since the UPS would be kept behind closed, sealed doors, the atmosphere in the room would heat up like an oven. The floor would give way after sulfuric acid corrosion and - of course - molten lead. This would explain why the 80th floor windows were the source of the drip.

As the lead ran through its channel in the wall/floor/ceiling, it would pick up debris that would add a more fiery quality to the substance, once the open air breathed oxygen onto it, fanning the flame so to speak. In the 9 seconds or so of freefall, the color would probably change little.

Or would it?
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:52 am

1) Within what temperature range does lead glow orange ?
2) How far could molten lead in droplet form fall in air and remain glowing brightly orange ?
3) How would you explain the almost identical appearance of this event ?Image

I suggest the only practical way to progress is to determine empirical answers to these questions (Well, the first two at least). Without those answers speculation is a bit pointless.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:31 am

On #3 I'm confused, because I thought that was what we were talking about.... That's the WTC2 molten metal drip. I'm missing something you're trying to say.

For #1, I'm still drawing blanks with my search word parameters.

And on #2 I was wondering if combustible material caught in the molten flow could give a brighter appearance to the lead.

Granted, this issue may have been part of the plan to deceive us.

Another important question is:
Could it be said with high probability that there would have been molten lead present?
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Dr. G » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:46 am

Here's some thoughts on this topic:

Localized Oxygen-Enhanced Fires in WTC 2

Information available on U.S. FAA websites, and confirmed in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5 report, indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC Towers carried a number of oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators. A NASA report by T. L. Reynolds, (No. NASA/CR-2001-210903, issued in May 2001), discusses Onboard Oxygen Gas Generating Systems, or OBOGS, and other sources of breathable oxygen on aircraft:

“Oxygen systems, as they are currently designed for use on commercial transport aircraft, include passenger oxygen for use in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure (provided by either compressed oxygen or solid chemical oxygen generators) and gaseous oxygen for use by the flight deck crew. There is also portable gaseous oxygen available for medical use and for protective breathing equipment. The use of oxygen on commercial aircraft, required by FAA regulations, does pose a potential fire safety hazard because of the extremely high gas combustion temperatures that can be produced by combustible materials burning in either pure or oxygen-enriched air environments. This is true of any oxygen system in any environment.”

The standard oxygen cylinder carried on all U.S. commercial aircraft contains 3200 liters of O2 stored at 1850 psi when full. Details of the over-pressure relief of these cylinders are provided in a FAA report by T. R. Marker et al., (No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN98/29):

“Different types of pressure relief devices are used for storing breathable oxygen. There are two types of rupturing relief valves, a frangible disc that will fail under excessive pressure (typically 2500 psi) and a thermal disc that will fail when the temperature exceeds 165°F or 225°F, depending on the type. The rupture disc pressure relief device is the only type used on gaseous oxygen cylinders for crew and passenger breathing systems on commercial transport aircraft….. Ironically, the rupture disc type pressure relief devices pose a more serious concern in a fire environment because, with these relief devices, it is possible for the entire contents of the oxygen cylinder to be discharged at elevated temperatures.”

Marker’s report describes studies showing that rupture disc failure occurs within 15 minutes for cylinders exposed to temperatures as low as 200° C.

The standard chemical oxygen generator used in the OBOGS on commercial aircraft consists of a small metal canister equipped with a spring-loaded striker. When activated, a “candle” of sodium chlorate and additives such as barium peroxide undergoes spontaneous thermal decomposition releasing oxygen gas. The OBOGS units installed on most Boeing aircraft contain about 250 grams of NaClO3 per canister that generate about 50 liters of O2 in 12 minutes – an amount of oxygen considered sufficient to supply two passengers during an emergency descent.

NIST report that the Boeing 767s involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC Towers carried about 100 canisters per aircraft; each canister capable of 12-minute oxygen generation for a total of 5000 liters of O2 per aircraft; the canisters were located in compartments above the passenger seats. Researcher D. Blake, in a study of the response of aircraft oxygen generators to elevated temperatures, (See report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/35), found that the lowest temperature for self-activation of a generator canister was 315° C. Other tests conducted by Blake showed that more than 80 % of generator canisters heated to 370° C activated during an hour of heating.

Based on the experimental data presented above it appears quite probable that a significant portion of the oxygen carried by the two aircraft that hit the Twin Towers was released prior to the collapse of these buildings. Experimental data also show that gas cylinders undergo acute release of oxygen at much lower temperatures than the chemical generators onboard the aircraft. Furthermore, the chemical generators release oxygen in 50-liter increments involving many locations in the aircraft cabin, while the bottled gas supply would be released in one 3200-liter pulse at the front-end of the aircraft fuselage where the cylinder is wall-mounted.

In one of the tests described by Marker, 600 liters of oxygen was released into a cargo container where a small fire had been deliberately set. The initial discharge of oxygen caused a very violent combustion reaction that ripped open, and subsequently destroyed, the container. Other data from fire tests in oxygen-enriched environments show that cellulose-based materials such as wood, cardboard and paper, burn almost four times faster in air enriched to 40 vol % O2. This increased combustion rate induces a comparable increase in the heat flux from the burning material and results in flame temperatures as much as 600° C higher than the flame for the same material burning in air – thus flame temperatures up to 1500° C are possible.

The observed final trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2 shows that the forward cabin area of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear. As many videos show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the northeast corner of WTC 2 – these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200° C. I therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires.

These fires would involve the combustion of metallic aluminum with the production of a white smoke of Al2O3, as observed. It is also possible that structural steel close to these aluminum-oxygen fires would produced red-orange smoke from the formation of Fe2O3.

The WTC offices were loaded with PVC in the form of vinyl flooring, window blinds, computer housings. It is also likely that the aircraft passenger comparment contained PVC. When PVC burns it releases copious quantities of HCL which reacts with Zn, Pb, etc, to form white smokes.

It is finally worth noting that the injection of chlorine species into oxygen lances produces temperatures up to 3000 deg C .....
Dr. G
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:10 am

Dr. G wrote:The observed final trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2 shows that the forward cabin area of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building.

The aircraft impacted in a ~zero degree orientation, as shown clearly by the study performed by P1, and easily confirmed.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simulation-wrong-t181.html

Could you re-assess the post once you have digested the linked thread please.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Next



Return to WTC1 and WTC2 - Post Impact to Pre Initiation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

suspicion-preferred