Fire does NOT melt steel! Wholly beside the point?

[cherokeeprogressive]

As a Southern Californian, I was treated (horrified is more like it) this last Saturday morning to pictures and video of the devastation at the Oakridge Mobile Home Park in Sylmar, CA. The very first thing I noticed is that the framework of steel beams that comprise the foundations of those mobile homes were twisted and sagging so they looked like so much cloth ribbon that has gone slack or like melted ribbons of taffy. As soon as the park was declared to be a crime scene, the photos and video pretty much dried up. They'll be back though, and when I find them, I'll post them here.

The issue is NOT at what temperature steel melts, but at what temperature it becomes MALLEABLE (picture a blacksmith making horseshoes). There was nothing extraordinary about the fuels that fed the fire. Carpet, pressed wood and plastic, drapes, furniture, and insulation. Aided by a very healthy supply of oxygen provided by 70mph winds, the steel foundations that held the weight of the mobile homes sagged and failed. How hot did the fires get that they caused such things to happen? Hotter than the fires at the WTC? I think not.

I'm wondering what CT'ers think about this. The fire didn't get hot enough to MELT the steel, but DID get hot enough to make it malleable. Those good sized steel beams weren't supporting that much weight. They were supporting enough weight though, to make them bend once the point of malleability was reached.

Thoughts?

[wildbilln864]

1. No, it is the point! Reports say.....

steel was vaporized in the WTCs! Not just made malleable. Why did the steel vaporize is one of the questions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Can you point me to a link where the claim is made that all the steel vaporized?

Not to argue or anything, but I'd like to see someone of consequence publicly make the claim that ALL steel vaporized.

Thanks in advance.

[wildbilln864]

9. not all. but some. nt

[greyl]

10. Well? Did the fucking Angel Moroni reveal that to you, or what? nt

[wildbilln864]

18. It seems you're agitated a bit?

Oh well. :rofl:

[anigbrowl]

26. Where's your link?

Otherwise your ROFL smiley is admission of fail.

[wildbilln864]

32. read this thread! it's there. nt

[Ohio Joe]

5. Vaporized?

I missed that, which reports claim that?

[greyl]

6. Back to zero again, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x196388#196449

[wildbilln864]

11. umm, no!

I said reports claimed the steel was vaporized. Kenneth Chang reports that. He reports on Dr. Astaneh's study of some of the WTC debris.

[LARED]

7. What the reports says is that a small quanity of steel was found

that corroded via a sulfidation attack while exposed to underground fires over many weeks.

It did not vaporize. It melted or became part of a corrosion product.

[LARED]

8. Updated report here -->

WTC 7 Follow up Metallurgical Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=227336&mesg_id=227336

[sofa king]

2. Steel has been made since at least 1400 B.C.E.

So obviously, it has been well within the capabilities of humans to create and fashion steel--using fire--for a long, long time.

It requires a few things, most of which were available to the two main towers on 9/11: plenty of fuel, a massive flow of oxygen, and usually a specific airflow direction. The steel to be melted does not need to be in contact with the fuel, rather, it must be in contact with the superheated exhaust gasses, and if those gasses can be induced to run in a direction other than up, they'll heat everything along their path. High altitude relative to average ground level also helps airflow, which is why ancient furnaces were built on tall hills. The planes themselves punched holes in the buildings which penetrated to the central shafts, creating a pretty reasonable facsimile of a reverberatory furnace.

Nobody has ever questioned the possibility of deforming the steel-hulled ships of World War II. At Midway, four Japanese aircraft carriers were wrecked by bombs without putting a single hole below the waterline of any of them (though almost all of them were actually sunk by torpedoes later, once they were damaged beyond hope of salvage).

The thing is, I'm not sure those conditions were recreated with the collapse of WTC-7, and I think that's why many people are suspicious of that sub-incident.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Understood.

My OP is intended to support the fact that the WTC 1 and 2 were not brought down by controlled demolition, rather by initial impact damage and then structural failure due to heat.

I've never bought the CD theory.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

16. who the fuck are you calling Crazy Bill?

[david_watts]

13. NIST showed WTC steel bending two inches.

Lab tests by (even) NIST showed WTC steel bending two inches. Their own models showed greater than 40 inches was required to all collapse initiation. Two inches ain't close to 40+.

[Make7]

14. NIST showed WTC steel bending much more than two inches.

 


-Make7
Welcome back?

[david_watts]

24. NIST's own models only concluded that that cross member steel beams would have sagged 2 inche

NIST's own models only concluded that that cross member steel beams would have sagged 2 inches from the heat. And their analysis showed greater that 40 inches was required to initiate a failure. So they kept tweaking the inputs until they could get it to 40 + inches.

[William Seger]

15. Watch this video, closely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ

I'm not sure where you're getting that "two inches" from, but there weren't any "lab tests" on the columns, and the NIST report says that some columns were bent in as much as 50 inches. Regardless, this WTC 2 video shows that the columns were already bent inward before the collapse began, and the collapse began when they completely buckled inward. There was no debris ejected until those columns buckled and the floor above hit the floor below. In other words, there was no similarity whatsoever to a controlled demolition. Beyond any doubt, something pulled those columns in, and neither explosives nor thermite explain what this video shows. The only thing that makes a lick of sense it that it was the floors, sagging after being weakened by the heat, that pulled the columns in.

[wildbilln864]

17. no it's not the only thing!

This video shows a hot molten metal(iron IMO) flowing from a floor before the collapse. It is not Al. and it is not Pb! Now thermit placed on the floor connectors when ignited could cause the floors to detach from the columns. So it's not the only thing.

[William Seger]

19. 1) You have NO idea what that is dripping down

... and 2) detaching the floors from the columns would obviously not pull the columns inward.

[wildbilln864]

20. I do have an idea what that is!

and I didn't say it would pull columns I merely debunked your assumption that it was the only answer is all.

[William Seger]

22. WTF are you talking about?

Are you claiming you can identify molten metals from a video? That's pretty much the same as claiming to be psychic.

You seem to have completely lost the plot here. What I said was, you can't explain what we're seeing in that video -- columns bent in and then buckling inward to start the collapse -- with thermite or explosives. You claimed that they disconnected the floors from the columns with thermite. But now you're saying, no, you didn't mean to say that detaching floors from columns with thermite would pull the columns in, you "merely debunked" my "assumption?"
:wtf:

[wildbilln864]

23. no!

you said "I have no idea..."!
I corrected you. I do have an idea what it is. What I don't have is proof.
I did not claim "they disconnected the floors from the columns with thermite." I claim it's a possibility.
You're being dis-ingenuous IMO.

[wildbilln864]

21. What melted car engines?

Dan Abrams video.
a quote:
"...at one point I think they were at 2800 degrees."

[William Seger]

34. No need to explain things that didn't happen

That video does not show any "melted car engine." It merely shows a few people apparently using the word "melted" in a very careless fashion.

[Twist_U_Up]

29. only people who are virtually in a coma could accept this kind of rubbish

[William Seger]

33. Your denial of the obvious won't change the facts

You and your fellow paranoid conspiracists cannot explain this video with anything remotely resembling a rational hypothesis involving either explosives or thermite. But not only do you cling to your fantasies, you claim that "only people who are virtually in a coma could accept this kind of rubbish?" I'm sure you have no idea how foolish that makes you look to rational people.

[Twist_U_Up]

28. So if NIST is headed by Bush-appointed officials,

then is it fair to say that the Bush administration is, in effect, investigating itself?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. So when Bill Richardson takes over NIST and they keep saying the same thing...

Is that the Bush Administration investigating itself?

[jberryhill]

25. Fire Bad

[Twist_U_Up]

27. If you belive the NIST all of the the following MUST be true....

Of course all Demoltion Companies have now stopped using explosives, following the discovery on 911 that buildings can be bought down by lighting a few small fires . . . The discovery that not only will this bring down a building in hours rather than days provides a significantly cheaper costs revolutionizing the demolition industry.

Demolition companies are make huge cost savings after paying off to lay off highly skilled workers. The new science is thought to have profound effects on the construction industry as now all the worlds sky scrappers need to be rebuilt, and off course before that can happen the old buildings need to be removed by demolition.

The Universities are preparing for a huge influx of Qualified Architecure Practioners who need urgent re-trainning, and fire departments world wide are also re-training.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "Truther strawman"....

please show where ANYONE claims only a "few small fires" brought down ANY building on 9/11.