Molten Metal from WTC2

There is clear videographic evidence of brightly glowing molten metal flowing from the north face near the northeast corner of WTC 2 just prior to the onset of collapse.(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, pp 375-376, and Figure 9-75 from 9:53:51 a.m.) The authors of the NIST report offer an indisputably flawed explanation for the observed material, speculating that it was molten aluminum, at or near melting temperature. This is physically impossible. The intensity and spectral distribution of the emitted light provide a reliable indication of the temperature range of the emitter. The fact that the material was glowing sufficiently to be detected by video cameras - to the point of saturating pixels - conclusively demonstrates that the material was not at or near the melting temperature of aluminum.

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-75 Image of the northeast corner showing a bright stream of molten material flowing from above window 256 on the 80^th floor.

This video shows the brightly glowing molten metal under discussion, and gives a good indication of the time of its appearance relative to the time of the collapse of WTC2.

By comparing pixel samples from images of flames with those from images of the molten metal within the same photograph it is possible to determine that the metal was actually hotter than the visible flames escaping from the building. This reasoning follows if both light sources are ideal black body radiators. As it happens, diffuse hydrocarbon flames such as occur in office fires generate their light through thermal radiation of soot which has very high emissivity, closely approximating a black body.[2] Metals, on the other hand, tend to have low emissivity, with the emissivity of aluminum significantly lower than that of iron. The result is that a diffuse hydrocarbon flame will glow more brightly than either iron or aluminum at the same temperature. Iron, in turn, will glow significantly more intensely than will aluminum at the same temperature.(See Jones 2007? for experiments with aluminum)

This single frame was extracted from the video linked above. Notice that the flames appear red-orange, whereas the molten metal is bright yellow-white. A pixel sample from a flame reveals an #RRGGBB (red, blue, green) color of #FFA181, whereas a sample from the molten metal gives #FFFFC5.

Since heat always flows from hot to cold, it is impossible for the visible flames to have produced the temperature indicated by the appearance of the metal. Because there was almost certainly a better supply of oxygen outside of the building than within the fire effected areas, it follows that these were likely the hottest hydrocarbon flames in the fire. Furthermore, it takes time to transfer heat. Any material hotter than the objects with which it is in contact will transfer its heat to the cooler objects. Thus, while heat is imparted to the metal by a flame, it will simultaneously be conducted away. Thus preventing the metal from reaching the temperature of the flame.

In addition, there is no explanation provided for how this significant quantity of metal was melted in such a way as to pool on the floor and retained this extraordinary heat, before spilling out of the window frame. There was no crucible to confine it while being heated.

Aluminothermic reactions, on the other hand, produce molten iron with exactly the appearance preserved in the video record. Aluminothermic reactions also produce a fine white aluminum oxide power identical to that which was observed wafting away from the northeast corner of WTC 2 at about the same time that the molten metal appeared, as can be seen in the photograph taken at 9:52:51 a.m.(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-71)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-71 Image of the northeast corner showing brightly glowing molten material flowing from above window 256 of floor 80. A large plume of white ash is also visible issuing from northeast corner of the 81^st floor.

Such aluminothermic reactions tend to be extremely bright, and even hard to look at with the naked eye. If such a reaction did take place in WTC 2 near the location from which the molten metal poured, we might expect to see such a light source, and indeed, we find evidence for this in a photograph of the northeast corner taken at 9:37:24 a.m. which shows a bright white light shining from the opening produced when part of the airplane exited the building through that corner.(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-45)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-45 Image of the northeast corner showing a brilliant white light shining from within intense flames.

Another indicator of extreme temperatures inconsistent with diffuse hydrocarbon flames is found in other photographs of the flames from this same corner. For example the image recorded at 9:42:31 shows not only a conspicuous stream of white ash wafting away from the area, but also what appear to be "unnaturally" intense flames protruding from the corner of the building at the same location as the bright white light appeared 5 minutes earlier.(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-51)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Figure 9-51 Image of the north face showing conspicuously intense flames issuing from the northeast corner.

The location of all of these indications of a massive aluminothermic reaction is conspicuous because, as can be seen from the extracted video frames found here :Captured Stills from WTC 2 North East Corner Collapse, this is the location where the global collapse initiated. These images also reveal that as the building collapsed, an unmistakable stream of glowing material issued from the location where the molten metal had previously been observed. This material falls faster than the other emerging debris which indicates that it is heavier. The additional weight is probably due to the fact that much of it is molten iron.

Two videos and extracted stills depicting the onset of the collapse of WTC 2, showing a heavy glowing cloud which appears to be an amalgam of molten iron and dust.

The FAQ available on the NIST website attempts to explain the brightly glowing appearance of the molten metal by arguing that it was mixed with organic materials from the office contents of the building. They do not offer any citation to scientific literature in support their assertion, nor do they provide any experimental evidence to support it. Physicist Steven E. Jones conducted experiments attempting to reproduce such a phenomena, and was unsuccessful.

Additionally, there are numerous other phenomena which support this
conclusion such as:

• eutectically eroded structural steel components[3],
• accounts of molten metal in the pile[4],
• photos of brightly glowing steel pulled from the pile weeks later[5],
• cars set on fire by pyroclastic flows issuing from the collapses[6],
• persistent heat on the pile melting worker's boots[7],
• NASA/USGS thermal imaging evincing otherwise inexplicably high temperature[8] and
• Micro-fine airborne metalic particles in the vicinity of the WTC rubble[9].

In summary, the evidence provided by the video record of brightly glowing molten metal flowing from WTC 2 just prior to its collapse argues very strongly for the presence of some type of aluminothermic reaction taking place at this time, and near this location. It is evident that the intense heat thus generated compromised the structure at this location resulting in the structural failure of the effected corner initiating the global collapse sequence.

[1]http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/videos/molten-stream/images.html These are the images used to provide the pixel samples.

[2]http://www.tempe.mi.cnr.it/zizak/tutorial/cairol06-flame-emission.pdf "Continuous spectra, such as the ones radiated by the sun, in which the emitted energy is distributed in a continuous manner between all wavelengths within a certain domain, and which usually exhibits a maximum. This is the general case of radiation emitted by heated bodies in solid or liquid phase. Continuous spectra in combustion systems are generally observed in the sooty region of rich hydrocarbon flames."

[1] http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/videos/molten-stream/images.html
These are the images used to provide the pixel samples.

[2] http://www.tempe.mi.cnr.it/zizak/tutorial/cairol06-flame-emission.pdf
"Continuous spectra, such as the ones radiated by the sun, in
which the emitted energy is distributed in a continuous manner
between all wavelengths within a certain domain, and which usually
exhibits a maximum. This is the general case of radiation emitted
by heated bodies in solid or liquid phase. Continuous spectra in
combustion systems are generally observed in the sooty region of
rich hydrocarbon flames."

[3] http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

[4] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

[9]http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10607Why Did Iron Boil in the Rubble of the World Trade Center?

---

Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...

by Steven E. Jones, August 31, 2006

What I did is an experiment today, with two colleagues here, to test the NIST proclamation:

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

NIST says that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, "can display an orange glow." But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out.

We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch.

Then we added plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.

We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.

This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially-burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an "orange glow" when it falls, when you actually do the experiment! (Refer to attached videos of our experiments.)

In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum "mixed" with organics as NIST theorizes.

What is it? I have a bold hypothesis which still stands all our experimental tests to date, as described in my paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?.

NIST should do experiments to test their "wild" theories about what happened on 9/11/2001, if they want to learn the truth about it.

Videos
Liquid Aluminum Part 1
Liquid Aluminum Part 2

Sincerely,

Steven E. Jones

3 Witnesses to Explosions in WTC2 Basements

Glaring Proof of Something Hotter than an Office Fire in WTC2

This photograph by Frank Silecchia shows hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001; sixteen days after the building collapsed.[7]

For unexplained reasons, this article was pulled from 911blogger.

Revised Sun Feb 15 13:10:43 EST 2009

Revised Wed Nov 28 07:09:00 EST 2007

My purpose in this article is to be brief and to the point. I am not a professionally trained physicist, but I have known about the theory of blackbody radiation since I was a child. It is essential for understanding the science of cosmology in which I took an early interest. Planck's Law of Blackbody Radiation is a fact of Nature which provides a decisive test for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory (OCT). That decisiveness may not be evident to the layman, but it should be clear to any physicist worth his salt. I challenge anybody to reproduce the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal (or any other material exhibiting a similar appearance) using only materials and conditions reasonably present in World Trade Center Building 2 (WTC2) without assuming the presence of some intentionally placed pyrotechnic material such as thermate.

For those interested in sustaining the conclusion that the Twin Towers were destroyed by some kind of controlled demolition, I strenuously urge you to use this as a primary argument. I am firmly convinced that it is irrefutable. Though reasonable minds will conclude that massive 110 story skyscrapers do not crumble to dust due to the amount of structural damaged caused by aircraft impact and resulting fires, this is a very difficult fact to prove rigorously. It is possible to hand-wave the physics and thus arrive at collapse times roughly consistent with those observed, so the free-fall speed argument has a rhetorical vulnerability.

There is one actually glaring item of evidence in the body of recorded phenomena from the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 which I assert cannot be reproduced by recreating conditions reasonably present in WTC2, unless we assume the presence of some highly exothermic pyrotechnic such as thermate which would have to have been intentionally placed in the building prior to the airplane impact. This phenomenon to which I refer is the brightly glowing stream of molten metal seen flowing from the 81^st floor near the northeast corner of the north face of the building.

Demonstrations using thermite are performed every year at universities in both physics and chemistry courses. These demonstrations reproduce, on a smaller scale, the phenomenon preserved in the numerous video and photographic records of WTC2.

The laws of physics tell us unambiguously that the temperature of that brightly glowing stream was higher than that which could have been imparted to the material from a diffuse hydrocarbon flame such as occurs in office fires. Specifically, Planck's Law of Blackbody Radiation provides a formula for calculating the intensity profile of the emission spectrum for a thermally radiating material.

The work required to categorically disprove the possibility that the phenomenon was produced by an office fire consisting of diffuse hydrocarbon flame, or something as yet unspecified, using pure theoretical physics beginning with axiomatic principles constitutes an unnecessary effort.[1] Experimental procedures which reliably reproduce the phenomenon using aluminothermic reactions are readily available. There is plenty of corroborating evidence to support the conclusion that some kind of aluminothermic reaction took place in WTC2 prior to its collapse. I point to the white smoke (ash or powder, as you will) seen wafting from the apparent source of the molten stream, and also the well known findings of physicists Steven E. Jones and his colleagues, such as the iron-rich microspheres observed in dust samples collected at the crime scene.[2]

This video shows the brightly glowing molten metal under discussion, and gives a good indication of the time of its appearance relative to the time of the collapse of WTC2.[3]

This single frame was extracted from the video linked above. Notice that the flames appear red-orange, whereas the molten metal is bright yellow-white.[4] A pixel sample from a flame reveals an #RRGGBB (red, blue, green) color of #FFA181, whereas a sample from the molten metal gives #FFFFC5.[5]

To summarize, I assert with conviction that the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal flowing from WTC2 in the moments before its collapse constitutes as simple, undeniable and irrefutable proof of malfeasance on the part of someone who had sufficiently unimpeded access to WTC2 prior to the attacks allowing them to place in the building a large amount of some kind of extremely exothermic incendiary material which produced the observed phenomena.[6] Any professional physicists who denies this without producing experimental procedures to reliably replicate the recorded phenomenon without resorting to the use of some intentionally place incendiary material is unsuited to his or her position. Any physicist who looks at this evidence while having these facts pointed out to him or her, and does not aggressively seek definitive answers is shirking the moral and ethical responsibility implicit in the role society has entrusted him or her with.

I suggest that when discussing the physical evidence for 9/11 truth, we should stick to this point. It is certainly relevant to examine other evidence in conjunction with the recorded molten metal phenomenon, but do not allow professionals in the physical sciences, including engineers, to evade this point. Insist on experimental procedures as the basis for acceptance of a proposed explanation. Provide examples of experiments with thermite in order to support the controlled demolition conclusion. We have reliable procedures for reproducing the phenomenon, and we have a huge amount of corroborating evidence. The stream of molten material (probably iron) is important primarily because it is irrefutably recorded in a form that no sane person could honestly deny.

---

[1] I have made considerable progress in this direction, but, due to the complexities involved, attempting to present such a proof seems more likely to obfuscate than to illuminate. The interested reader should consult such works as The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Richard Philip Feynman, et al., and Theoretical Physics by Georg Joos and Ira Freeman.

[2]Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 By Jerry Lobdill, Journal of 9/11 Studies, June 15, 2007 http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[3] If you are viewing this in hard-copy or some other format which does not support embedded videos, you can find the video at the following URL http://vehme.blogspot.com/2006/09/evidence-of-molten-iron-and-thermite.html

[4] Obviously, the camera used to record the video was not calibrated to serve as a precise optical pyrometer. Nonetheless, the difference between the color of the flame and the molten metal indicates that the temperature of the molten metal was much hotter than that of the fire. This is significant for multiple reasons. First of all, net heat flow is always in the direction of lower temperature, which means that the red-orange flames simply could not heat the molten metal to the temperature indicated by its yellow-white color. Furthermore, in order for fire to heat an object, it must transfer its heat energy to that object through either direct contact, or through thermal radiation. Since the reaction zone of a flame is a thin sheet into which fuel-rich gas flows, and out of which gas laden with the combustion products flows, this hottest part of the flame will not come into immediate contact with material surfaces where such flow is not possible. Therefore, the maximum flame temperature indicated by the color recorded in the video is significantly higher than the temperature the flame could have actually imparted to a material body. In addition, it takes time for a flame to impart heat to surrounding bodies. Consequently, if we assume the molten metal was produced by heat from the office fire, the solid material which was melted would have to have been in extended contact with this exceptionally hot flame and the molten product which was created first would have to retain this heat while the flame continued to melt more of the solid. The highest temperatures in the fire would have been near the ceiling, while the liquid metal will find the lowest available location. In a steel foundry melted metal is retained in a crucible designed for this purpose. We have no explanation as to how such a process might have spontaneously occurred in WTC2.

[5] One subtle point worth discussing is the effect of saturation on the apparent color recorded by a camera. Observe that in both the flame and molten metal pixel samples, the first two digits are at their maximum values, 'FF'. This means that the amount of red light incident on the image sensor at that location was at least as bright as the maximum sensitivity to red light, and any amount exceeding the sensitivity played no role in effecting the red bits of the pixel. In other words, the pixels are saturated in their red bits. Typically a better color sensitivity for a bright subject is achieved with a faster shutter speed since the amount of light impacting the sensor is a product of the intensity and the time of exposure. This helps explain why a flame might appear red in one image recorded by a still camera, while the same flame appears yellow or white in a picture taken from a different camera, or using a different shutter speed with the same camera. Though video cameras don't have shutters in the same sense as still cameras, the frame duration plays a comparable role to shutter speed.

The important factor in comparing the flame color to the molten iron color is not the absolute intensity in each color, but the relative intensity between the recorded colors of the two distinct sources. It is thus important to use a single image, if possible, when attempting to evaluate temperature differences based on the recorded color.

[6] The following graphs are from an unpublished detailed theoretical study of this topic.

This graph shows the thermal radiation curve for T = 640°C - a temperature slightly above the melting point of Aluminum [ Molten Aluminum ]; T=1200°C - the maximum temperature in a fully developed office fire [ Office Fire ]; T=1540°C - the melting point of steel [ Molten Steel ]. Centigrade temperatures were converted to Kelvin before calculating the plot points.

h = 6.62607 x 10-34 [Js] Planck's Constant K = 1.38065 x 10-23 [J/K°] Boltzmann's Constant c = 299792458 [m/s] Speed of Light	ν = c/λ [s-1] Frequency λ = c/ν [m] Wavelength T [K°] Temperature

This image shows the portion of the previous graph which falls in the range of visible light. Note that the curve for molten aluminum is coincident with the horizontal axis in this range. The curve for the office fire temperature shows a small amount of energy emitted in the red region of the visible spectrum. Only the curve for molten steel shows a ponderable amount of radiation in the yellow and green regions of the spectrum.

[7]
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?[PDF], by Steven E. Jones, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 - September 2006

Top-down Controlled Demolition

It is often argued by defenders of the 9/11 OCT(official conspiracy theory) that all controlled demolitions proceed from the bottom up. This short video puts the lie to that contention in a mere 29 seconds