3

I can't find any instances of this question on this website, so here goes.

Conspiracy theorists often claim that molten steel was found at Ground Zero during and after 9/11. A typical example is this compilation [YouTube] of eyewitness accounts, news articles and statements by engineers, including one attributed to WTC chief engineer Leslie Robertson.

For further notability and clarity of the claim made, see Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7, Response to NIST’s Invitation for Written Comments [PDF], which is quoted:

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.” Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you're in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.” Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”

To the best of my knowledge, molten steel is white hot. Not having gone through all of the claims, I can only say that I have not yet seen one description of the "molten steel" that mentions it being white hot, despite the noteworthy nature of such an extraordinary observation.

So, was molten steel, or evidence of such having existed, found in the remains of the World Trade Center?

Abdullah is not an Amalekite
  • 1,372
  • 1
  • 12
  • 24
  • So why is it an issue if it was/were found. What does the presence of molten steel prove? – the gods from engineering Nov 06 '21 at 13:43
  • 5
    @Fizz For our site, it's an issue because it's a common claim among the truthers. They then use that for further arguments involving heat and thermite, etc. If there was no molten steel in the first place, there you go. If there was, follow up questions on the meaningfulness of that may come. I thought we already had a question on this, however??? Took the form, "can steel melt for whatever reasons." –  Nov 06 '21 at 13:58
  • Regarding this question, I don't know how much push there is, whether intentional or not. "hot liquid steel", "white hot", etc. Kind of squirrely terms. I understand metals to have a great deal of changes as they heat, so I think the description of what "molten steel" is should be left to the answers. –  Nov 06 '21 at 14:01
  • Actual temp measurements probably weren't done, but that would be the most scientific way to approach this. –  Nov 06 '21 at 14:02
  • 3
    A very close near dupe: Did molten aluminum pour from the WTC towers before they collapsed? –  Nov 06 '21 at 14:04
  • @fredsbend perhaps you are right. But I am surprised by the number of people on both sides ft who can't figure out that the yellow liquid that poured from the South Tower cannot be molten steel - because it's not glowing hot enough – Abdullah is not an Amalekite Nov 06 '21 at 14:08
  • 3
    @Abdullah I'm just trying to warn that we don't want a slew of questions "was it steel? was it aluminum? was it some other metal?" Let's just be sure to hedge against a goose chase. –  Nov 06 '21 at 14:10
  • @fredsbend if I am wrong, or if molten steel can be authoritatively confirmed otherwise, then there is nothing to stop an answer simply ignoring my description. – Abdullah is not an Amalekite Nov 06 '21 at 14:32
  • 1
    @fredsbend I have however edited my post to de emphasize "white hot" – Abdullah is not an Amalekite Nov 06 '21 at 14:35
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. –  Nov 06 '21 at 16:16
  • Unfortunately my post with facts was deleted because no internet references . But I learned the facts before the internet so i can't give internet references . Partly from evaluating refinery and chemical plant fires. – blacksmith37 Nov 06 '21 at 17:18
  • 10
    @blacksmith37: You don't have to provide internet references, but you do need to provide references. We can't check your personal CV, and we don't want to fall for an apoeal to authority. It isn't enough for you to know something, you need to show how you know. – Oddthinking Nov 06 '21 at 17:44
  • 7
    @blacksmith37 The key is that no one here has any way to tell the difference between your answer based on experience and if say I wrote an answer contradicting what you said (despite my lack of experience with heated metals). External sources are therefore important. You could even cite a hard copy book, or some disaster analysis for refinery & chemical plant fires. The FAQ on the Meta site explains how Skeptics is a little different from many other sibling sites. – fyrepenguin Nov 07 '21 at 06:41
  • @blacksmith37: a problem with your deleted answer is that it assumes we know for sure the temperature in the building. From what I understand (see fredsbend's 1st comment here) the reason why the "truthers" claim molten steel was observed is that they also claim that that is proof that higher temperatures existed in the building, e..g. due to alleged use of thermite. So, unless you have direct evidence of the temperatures in the building, reasoning from those to "steel couldn't have melted" isn't exactly convincing given that the truthers dispute the temperatures as well. – the gods from engineering Nov 07 '21 at 14:12
  • 3
    According to a less cranky (but unofficial) theory, even if it was just molten Al, it could have brought down the building via Al-water explosions https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm – the gods from engineering Nov 07 '21 at 14:37
  • I only stated the temperatures that would be necessary to melt steel or iron. Admittedly one would need some experience with fire/furnaces , etc ,to know the temperatures were impossible in the towers fires, my bad. – blacksmith37 Nov 07 '21 at 21:39
  • 3
    If the answer is 'no' - how can we show that? Findings are published, non-findings are not... – bukwyrm Nov 08 '21 at 00:40

0 Answers0