See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Molten What?
Source:
Journal Of 911 Studies
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 29, 2007
Author: Jerry Lobdill
Post Date: 2007-05-17 19:29:14 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 115
Comments: 7
Molten What? By Jerry Lobdill 29 March 2007 There is much misunderstanding about the meaning of the colors we see when we look at pictures of the WTC towers before they fell. 9/11 literature is full of faulty assumptions, assertions, and conclusions. In this short paper I will present a case for how the pictures should be interpreted regarding the colors of thermal emissions we see in them. The case is based on the physics of black body radiation and gravity flow of liquids. Definitions Emissivity—This is a dimensionless constant, the ratio of the energy radiated by a material to the energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. This is the total energy across the emission spectrum. Emissivity is a number less than or equal to 1. Planck’s Radiation Law—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation. Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency. Discussion It is very clear that the hydrocarbon fire from jet fuel could not have weakened the towers. All private and government researchers agree on this point. It is also very clear that the tower construction materials, together with the planes that crashed into them on 9/11, contained nothing that could have produced the incendiary reaction that was observed on the 82nd floor of WTC-2 shortly before the tower began its collapse. What do we know about the incendiary event? From the video and still photos we see glowing metal that appears to be in the solid phase inside the opening. Its color is orange. We see a shower of white-hot sparks emanating from the opening. We see a yellow-orange liquid flowing from the opening. This material becomes more orange as it falls. As far as we can see it in its fall it seems to remain liquid. This material is clearly liquid that is flowing under gravity to the opening. Recent discussion on the stj911 forum points out that emissivity is not really a constant, but the participants in the discussion agree that for purposes of estimating temperature from the radiated spectrum this assumption is probably good enough. See http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/viewtopic.php?t=300&mforum=stj911, post by Greg Jenkins, Apr. 29, 2007, 9:10 PM There has been controversy over what this material is. It has been suggested that it is molten aluminum alloys from the plane. Some have suggested that it might be a mixture of aluminum alloys and organic material. Others have suggested that it is molten iron. Amazingly, in a televised Q&A session, a NIST official, John Gross, denied being aware of any molten iron in the rubble, and although NIST’s investigation was limited to the time interval between the plane crash and the initiation of collapse Gross did not mention the event we are analyzing here. Experiments have been conducted in the attempt to settle the issues. To date the parties do not agree on what the material is. Planck’s law and the nature of emissivity assure us that we can, with confidence, determine the approximate temperatures of all glowing hot objects in the pictures and videos without knowing what the objects are made of. There is no need to repeat here the table of colors vs temperature that has been published elsewhere. All parties agree that it is accurate. Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle. The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel. Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum. The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron. http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=89
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
B.S. Ch. E. Really? Very clear? So why are no structural engineers, demolition experts or REAL experts in fire and steel members of the truth movement? Really? Well that's news to me and I'm sure news to them. Especially all those who have publically stated that the fires started by jet fuel and unassisted by thermite weakened the tower steel. Lobdill sure is confident. Confidence must come from having a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. They don't call it a BS degree for nothing. But I guess Lobdill missed seeing the papers from Dr Greening ... who has a PHD in Chemistry. He certainly thought there were items in the construction materials that could produce some very high temperatures. In fact, I believe he said all the chemical ingredients for thermate were present. And I guess he missed the fact that the fires were clearly hot enough to melt aluminum (even hydrocarbon ones can get this hot), and that the corner of the structure where material came flowing from is where much of the aluminum skin from the airplane would have come to rest, and that numerous experts have said the material flowing out looked to them like aluminum. So maybe his confidence is misplaced. All true, although I would add that videos show at times the material took on a reddish-orange color and after falling a certain distance, the stream of molten material occasionally took on a more silverish look. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you can see that. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material that does this begins around 55 seconds into the video and continues for about 10 seconds. Then at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is VERY CLEARLY SILVER, NOT ORANGE. I only mention this because it might be important later on. I actually have some respect for Dr Jenkins (PhD In Physics). He did a service by showing that Dr Woods (another expert in the *truth* movement) is a complete idiot in a video interview that he conducted earlier this year. Dr Woods is the *expert* folks now quote when claiming that the towers should have taken 89 seconds (or so) to collapse. I agree, that was amazing, even though as Dr Jenkins pointed out "NIST’s investigation was limited to the time interval between the plane crash and the initiation of collapse". Despite my admiration for him, however, what Dr Jenkins claims in this case is not necessarily true. The molten liquid very well could have been trapped in the region of the heat source for some time ... getting increasingly hot. Especially if it was aluminum trapped by steel and concrete. This is suggested by the fact that the molten material gushed at times from the structure rather than being a steady stream. Other experts believe that as the temperatures in the region increased, the structure was deforming and at some point made it possible for a pool of previously molten material to find a route out of the structure. And note that the location in that corner where the material was coming out of changed over time. Increasing deformation inside could account for that as well or it could be that there were multiple pools of the molten liquid that required further deformation to release them one by one. In any case, his reasoning does not necessarily lead to the conclusion the material was molten iron. Sure it's orange, but Dr Jenkins doesn't have a problem with the notion that aluminum can emit orange ... if heated higher than the melting point. The above logic shows that could have happened. I find it interesting that Dr Jenkins is quoting Dr Jones as an authority. But of course he has to given that he's an important chap in his particular sect of the *truth* movement. Isn't he aware, however, that Dr Jones is now telling folks that the color of the material streaming out of the WTC tower was not reddish orange or orange, but ""yellow-white hot molten metal". Jones says "molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.)" Of course, maybe Jones heard Thomas Eager of MIT on the subject when he said (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html ) "I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him." Maybe Dr Jenkins should go interview Dr Eager on camera. Now that would be interesting. I wonder if the tables would be turned? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Really? Very clear? So why are no structural engineers, demolition experts or REAL experts in fire and steel members of the truth movement? Determining the nature of a glowing metal has nothing to do with structural engineering. Really? Well that's news to me and I'm sure news to them. Especially all those who have publically stated that the fires started by jet fuel and unassisted by thermite weakened the tower steel. What kind of word is publically? Any amount of fire can weaken the steel to some degree. The only three times it has ever allegedly weakened steel enough to drop a high-rise steel frame building all occurred on 9/11. In all other cases, the normal rules of science applied. Confidence must come from having a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. They don't call it a BS degree for nothing. One must presume you have an M.S. and a Ph.D. More shit and piled higher and deeper. But I guess Lobdill missed seeing the papers from Dr Greening ... who has a PHD in Chemistry. Chemistry? CHEMISTRY? What, no degree in Structural Engineering??? He certainly thought there were items in the construction materials that could produce some very high temperatures. In fact, I believe he said all the chemical ingredients for thermate were present. You might go to your pantry and find all the ingredients to make a cake. It will not make itself. You might go into the woods and find all the ingredients necessary to make a log cabin. Log cabins do not magically appear because the ingredients happen to be present. All the chemical ingredients for an intelligent being might be present in BAC, but look at the stupid result. And I guess he missed the fact that the fires were clearly hot enough to melt aluminum (even hydrocarbon ones can get this hot), and that the corner of the structure where material came flowing from is where much of the aluminum skin from the airplane would have come to rest, and that numerous experts have said the material flowing out looked to them like aluminum. It would still flow out long before reaching the temperature required to melt iron. As it would never reach the temperature required to melt iron, it would never reach the color of molten metal at that temperature. It appears that you are just too stupid to appreciate the obvious. I would add that videos show at times the material took on a reddish-orange color and after falling a certain distance It could have fallen into the abyss and resumed solid structure while so doing, and that would not explain how it ever achieved the temperature of molten iron without flowing away from the heat source. It was not in a pot and obviously had an escape route. I actually have some respect for Dr Jenkins (PhD In Physics). He did a service by showing that Dr Woods (another expert in the *truth* movement) is a complete idiot in a video interview that he conducted earlier this year. Dr Woods is the *expert* folks now quote when claiming that the towers should have taken 89 seconds (or so) to collapse. Anything more than 10 seconds is more than adequate to show that it is your position that is idiotic. As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. Are there any windows on the mechanical floors? Can a beam at the core be burned without it being visible to the outside world? [BAC] All true, although I would add that videos show at times the material took on a reddish-orange color and after falling a certain distance, the stream of molten material occasionally took on a more silverish look. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300).... When the writer said, "We see a yellow-orange liquid flowing from the opening," you admitted that was TRUE. Now you want to downgrade it to a "red glow or red orange glow." Red Orange is 1100-1200F. Yellow Orange is 1800-2000F. If the substance was "yellow orange" as you admitted was TRUE, then it could not have been aluminum.
It means that unlike the losers now promoting these silly conspiracy theories (many for profit, I might add) which contradict the images and videos widely available on the internet of what happened, the real professionals with knowledge in those disciplines actually related to 9/11 phenomena have put their reputation on the line in real public venues and in technical documents that are widely read worldwide. Yes, chemistry. And unlike Lobdill, we actually know who Dr Greening is ... where he got his schooling, where he worked, and what he worked on for many years. Lobdill is just a name on a paper posted at one conspiracy website and who CLAIMS to have a BS in Chemical Engineering. I don't suppose you'd care to tell us more about this mysterious Lobdill ... You are wrong if you think that the color ALONE tells you a molten metal is molten iron. I guess you failed to really understand what Dr Jenkins actually said, despite how bright you are in comparison to me. He said that even molten aluminum can reach the color seen in those videos IF it gets hotter than just the melting temperature. His ASSUMPTION was that as soon as it melted, it flowed out of the building. But that's not an established fact. As I pointed out, there are good reasons to suspect that it was not just allowed to flow away after melting but continued to get even hotter than the melting point. Why? You think aluminum can't be heated to 1800-2000F, genius? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What kind of word is publically? It means that unlike the losers now promoting these silly conspiracy theories (many for profit, I might add) which contradict the images and videos widely available on the internet of what happened, the real professionals with knowledge in those disciplines actually related to 9/11 phenomena have put their reputation on the line in real public venues and in technical documents that are widely read worldwide. You mean you have once again discovered that your alternate verions of reality does not exist and choose not to admit it. Try switching your spell checker to English. --------------- Yes, chemistry. And unlike Lobdill, we actually know who Dr Greening is ... where he got his schooling Yeah, but he is not a structural engineer. And we know who your purported "Lead Structural Engineer of Record" is and where he got his education. He got a B.S. degree, and BAC has reminded us all what that means. No engineering degree. BAC has reminded us that all the major design work was completed by 1964. And we know that Robertson did not get his license as a Professional Engineer until January 1965. --------------- You are wrong if you think that the color ALONE tells you a molten metal is molten iron. I guess you failed to really understand what Dr Jenkins actually said, despite how bright you are in comparison to me. He said that even molten aluminum can reach the color seen in those videos IF it gets hotter than just the melting temperature. The color shows the temperature of the metal. In the example, aluminum gets hotter than its melting temperature while in a pot. It does not flow away because it is in a pot. In the WTC, whatever metal reached the temperature needed to melt iron, it was not in a pot. Had it been aluminum it would have melted at a lower temperature and flowed away. As the video clearly demonstrates, it had a path of egress away from the heat source and out of the building. -------------- His ASSUMPTION was that as soon as it melted, it flowed out of the building. But that's not an established fact. That is the way gravity works. Liquid flows to the lowest point. You can look at the video and see science at work. Unlike the BAC crackpot theories, this does not rely on the suspension of the laws of science. -------------- Red Orange is 1100-1200F. Yellow Orange is 1800-2000F. If the substance was "yellow orange" as you admitted was TRUE, then it could not have been aluminum. Why? You think aluminum can't be heated to 1800-2000F, genius? ROTFLOL! Without containment, as exhibited by the molten metal flowing from the WTC, it will flow away, moron. That is not a theory. The video shows the molten metal flowing away. -------------
So you don't think aluminum could have pooled in the tower after melting? You are claiming that as soon as aluminum melted, it would have flowed out? Well the engineers at NIST certainly don't agree: ********* From http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf "Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time. During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source." *************** And you think it's just coincidence that this happens where the aluminum airliner in that tower came to a halt? Because you don't think that material was aluminum anyway. You think it was steel ... melted by thermite charges. So does this indicate the thermite devices were being set off at 9:52:51 am? Does this indicate the thermite was still being set off at 9:58:37 am, almost 6 minutes later? Do such charges take 6 minutes to work? Or were different charges set off at different times by someone observing from a distance or by a built-in timer? If so, why spread the ignition of the charges out? Weren't they taking a large risk that the fire would disable the charges or whatever material that was needed to trigger the thermite or receive the detonation order? I'm just curious about the logic of this demolition scheme you and Jones have concocted out of thin air, NC. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather.
Worthwhile topic bump.
By Jerry Lobdill
It is very clear that the hydrocarbon fire from jet fuel could not have weakened the towers.
All private and government researchers agree on this point.
It is also very clear that the tower construction materials, together with the planes that crashed into them on 9/11, contained nothing that could have produced the incendiary reaction that was observed on the 82nd floor of WTC-2 shortly before the tower began its collapse.
From the video and still photos we see glowing metal that appears to be in the solid phase inside the opening. Its color is orange. We see a shower of white-hot sparks emanating from the opening. We see a yellow-orange liquid flowing from the opening. This material becomes more orange as it falls. As far as we can see it in its fall it seems to remain liquid. This material is clearly liquid that is flowing under gravity to the opening.
Greg Jenkins
Amazingly, in a televised Q&A session, a NIST official, John Gross, denied being aware of any molten iron in the rubble,
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same.
As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.
The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.
Dr. Jones
The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
#2. To: BeAChooser (#1)
From the video and still photos we see glowing metal that appears to be in the solid phase inside the opening. Its color is orange. We see a shower of white-hot sparks emanating from the opening. We see a yellow-orange liquid flowing from the opening. This material becomes more orange as it falls.
#3. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#2)
What kind of word is publically?
The only three times it has ever allegedly weakened steel enough to drop a high-rise steel frame building all occurred on 9/11.
Chemistry? CHEMISTRY?
It would still flow out long before reaching the temperature required to melt iron. As it would never reach the temperature required to melt iron, it would never reach the color of molten metal at that temperature. It appears that you are just too stupid to appreciate the obvious.
Red Orange is 1100-1200F. Yellow Orange is 1800-2000F. If the substance was "yellow orange" as you admitted was TRUE, then it could not have been aluminum.
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#5. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#4)
Without containment, as exhibited by the molten metal flowing from the WTC, it will flow away, moron.
#6. To: BeAChooser (#5)
#7. To: Kamala (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest