Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion

Prof. Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at Jones' paper and said
there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC.

Prof. Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced
collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days
after 9-11. Asked if he would review Jones's paper, Bazant also refused, "I
have seen Jones's fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is
nothing but sensationalism," he said. "His purported refutation of my
analysis is baseless."

Asked to simply look at five photos showing the cascading molten metal and
core columns, which appear to have been cut with thermite, Bazant responded,
"I do not have time."

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a
member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at
Jones's paper.

"I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent
me," said Astaneh-Asl.

www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutt...ht_down_wt.html

Perhaps the molten metal was iron, not aluminum: but consider this:

An interesting feature of the videos and still photographs of this event is
the bright yellow glow inside WTC 2 from what appears to be the source of
the molten metal. The color and intensity of this glowing ball shows that
something was burning at a very high temperature - perhaps as high as 1100°
C. Such a temperature is well beyond the 800 - 900° range of flame
temperatures attainable in typical solid or liquid hydrocarbon-fuelled
fires. This has led some researchers to invoke the inevitable " pre-placed
thermite incendiaries" as the cause of the bright yellow glow. However,
rather than jump to this conclusion, we offer below an alternative,
less-conspiratorial, explanation of this phenomenon:

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.

Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, 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. We
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 have been hot enough to melt iron, especially in the
presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning
PVC............

Regards, Frank

OK

Lets get this discussion under way.

Now, what I did this morning is, I started to re-examine what I convinced myself of. I hate to say it, but I still feel the same way. Your putting to much weight into those 2 photos. Let me explain why..

I found the SAME EXACT picture on a different book published by the same exact guy...



source: stephenchastain.com/books1.htm

That book is specifically about iron. Now, I am not suggesting that the author is lying or anything...But I am open to the possibility that he uses a few "universal" photos in all of his books. Just to give the reader a visual of what he is talking about.

Where as you are taking his photo and using it as "evidence" that it is aluminum.

Where as I could use your same argument with the SAME EXACT picture and tell you that it is iron because the book says so..

And say something rude like.. "It would behoove you to offer proof for this (seemingly reckless) charge that the textbook authors and publisher deceived their readers..."

But we all know, the textbook is not trying to deceive anybody...The textbook is not about the "color" of aluminum while it is flowing. So the pictures they used served the purpose they where there for, to give a visualization of what he was writing about...

I have started a few threads in metal working forums about this topic. I will wait to see what I come up with and post some of the responses I get.

I am not saying you're wrong. But in the same breath, I am not willing to go against what I have concluded..And that is, that those photos are not "molten aluminum" flowing..

Here is a photo of molten aluminum from the same exact guy.



Notice how that aluminum is not in a red hot container..Looks pretty silvery to me..

Great research, B Real. I salute you.

His forum can be found here under the "metal talk" tab.

stephenchastain.com/index.html

Aren't most of these details being argued over largely irrelevant given the evidence of molten iron itself at the site of the WTC complex?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the preliminary work that Dr. Steven Jones has done from two separate molten metal samples clearly shows that the previously molten metal is, indeed, iron.

I'm anticipating the full report, but I'll work with what I believe are the preliminary results.

Iron's melting point is roughly ~2800 F, so if these two independent samples clearly show that the iron was previously molten, then there obviously needs to be a mechanism for the iron to become molten and raised to the required temperatures exceeding 2800 F. Jetfuel fire could not account for this, nor can diesel fuel. Thermite is a possibility.

Arguing over molten aluminum does no good whatsoever when we have clear proof of a substance that results from temperatures that are only seen in specific kinds of reactions. We should certainly make sure that our facts are solid, however.

Furthermore, the pictures above, from what I understand, ARE molten iron and not aluminum.

Why all this talk of STRUCTURAL STEEL Melting?
There are all kinds of metals in an office, think about it.
Also, while there probably isn't any iron in a 767,(or is there?), there are all kinds of alloys other than Aluminum. (which has been sufficiently ruled out as the source of the stuff pouring out )
But I'm still stumped: Is Mr. Jones suggesting that thermite was strategicaly placed all over the
place in people's offices on certain floors and then planes were crashed into JUST those floors?
How many floors?
And wouldn't the impact tend to screw up any triggering devices?
Or they were triggered by the fires?
And fill me in on just exactly why the towers had to be completely destroyed, as opposed to simply having a pair of 767 jets slammed into them?