Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl "Iron Burns!!!"

Below is a series of E-mails between Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl and various members of the "Scholars for 911 truth", in which he attempts to educates them on how Iron burns. Not only does it burn/oxidize, but it can burn/oxidize at low temperatures.

Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: WTC IRON BURNS!!!

"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm
The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e., "combustion" of some sort).   Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers).  Perhaps it did, by weeks after the collapse.   But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot, red-hot and molten IRON IS COMBUSTIBLE matter.
Here, Jones clearly missed it, when he wrote: 

"At these temperatures, steel will melt, and aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.  ...   The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?"   http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Jones has no clue because he has conception of Steel Burning (iron oxidation) in air. 
Professor Jones' comments and conjectures about the origin of the alleged molten iron found within the three huge piles of combustible matter burning after the collapse of the WTC towers, distinctly prove that Professor Jones is oblivious of the fact that Iron Burns in air.
For perspective, I found this children's educational webpage that further illustrates that "Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent ignoramus because he ignores the scientifically provable (or disprovable) fact that Iron metal itself burns, and that when amassed in large piles can ignite fires (and can even melt itself).   The article discusses child-safe experiments observing a very slow oxidation of iron (rusting at room temperature), but also mentions:
"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.  That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air.  Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."
Beyond the scope of this child-oriented article, it is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures.  This is especially true of iron oxidation.   This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn).  For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams.  This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust).  Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue).  It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by this photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers:
Ancient Wisdom about burning iron:
Thomas Aquinas and other theologians remarked on the famous burning property of Iron:
Aquinas maintains that:
The head causes an influx of sensation and motion to all members of the body. ... [S]omeone can understand “to flow into” (“influere”) in two ways according to the spiritual sense and mode. One mode as principal agent: And thus it belongs to God alone to provide an influx of grace in the members of the Church. In another mode instrumentally: And thus even the humanity of Christ is a cause of the said influx; because as Damascene says ... as iron burns on account of the fire conjoined to it, so were the actions of the humanity of Christ on account of the united divinity, of which the humanity itself was an instrument. Christ, nevertheless, according to the two last conditions of head [governance, influence] is able to be called head of the angels according to human nature, and head of both according to divine nature; not, however, according to the first condition [namely, sameness in nature], unless one takes what is common according to the nature of the genus, according as man and angel agree in rational nature, and further what is common according to analogy, according as it is common to the Son along with all creatures to receive from the Father, as Basil says, by reason of which he is said to be the first-born of all creatures, Col. 1:15.16   http://www.unav.es/cryf/georgemaritain.html
DAMASCENUS, (lib. 3, cap. 17) wrote:
    "For not according to its [the flesh's] own operation, but by the Word united to it, He wrought divine things, the Word displaying through it His own operation.  For glowing iron burns not by possessing in a natural manner the power to burn, but by possessing this from its union with the fire.  Therefore in itself it was mortal, and on account of its personal union to the Word, quickening."  http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/
19th Century:
"Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F], while at the end of the operation in the Bessemer process, when the temperature reaches some 3000[F], the iron burns violently, as demonstrated by examination of the Bessemer flame with the spectro- scope. (See p. 46, Vol. II.)"
Manufacturer and builder / Volume 3, Issue 6, June 1871
"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood."  http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0073.html
Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:
"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work!  …  The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."
Also of note:  Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning incandescent in air (and more brightly in pure oxygen): http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html  ("Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith, and was born at Newington Butts, near London, September 22, 1791.")
A WWII witness in Germany recounts seeing the "iron" of three Russian tanks "burn" from March 9, 1945 until November 3, 1945:  http://members.tripod.com/~radde/RaddesFlight.html  ("The three Russian tanks before Bresin still burned as we passed by them on the morning of 11-3, and this taught me something surprising: iron burns.")  This account suggests that the "critical mass" of iron metal that will sustain itself burning hot may be quite small compared to the huge amounts of iron debris the WTC piles.  This account of prolonged iron combustion also supports the conclusion that the main source of high heat in the piles of the WTC 1, 2 and 7, weeks and months after their collapse, was due to burning iron in these piles.   This conclusion could be readily verified or disproved through simulation or experimentation.
    The other interesting thing about "iron fire" (fast oxidation of iron) is that it creates a "vacuum" of sorts that "sucks" oxygen to itself.  Ordinary carbonaceous "fire" creates carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2), which are gases that can take the place of consumed oxygen (02) gas.  Carbon monoxide production releases two molecules of CO gas per one O2 molecule consumed.  Thus, such a carbon fire requires a "convection" current to remove the hot carbon mon/dioxide (out the top) to make room for more cold oxygen to be brought in (at the bottom). 
    By contrast, an "iron fire" converts the oxygen gas (and possibly also nitrogen gas, but that is tangent) into a solid (rust).  Thus, the burning iron metal effectively sucks atmospheric oxygen INTO the pile of burning metal, regardless of convection currents.  Convection currents are a strong mechanism for REMOVING heat from a fire.  Of course convection currents will also be present even in a huge iron pile furnace, but a result of direct conversion of oxygen gas into a solid (rust) is that there are weaker convection currents and that means that the heat of combustion escapes more slowly from the metal fire furnace than from a carbonaceous fire furnace.  Thus, since the heat of combustion does not leave with the combustion products, a metal-air furnace could become much "hotter" faster than a carbon-air furnace of the same scale (e.g., at the same oxygen demand level).
    Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large air-metal-fire could attain.  It could, in theory, attain a temperature high enough to not only melt iron, but also to boil (vaporize) iron, but not at the same location at the same time.  (You cannot maintain solid, liquid, and gaseous iron at the same location, because "melting" and "vaporization" occur at greatly different temperatures).  The difficulty with that however is that the molten (burning) iron would tend to settle into a pool, having a smaller surface area (on its top surface only), thus reducing its rate of oxidation.
 It has also been suggested that Sulfur especially from tons of decomposing Gypsum (a Sulfur ore used in sheetrock walls and partitions in offices and homes) in the piles accelerated the oxidation or melting of the iron burning in the piles.  "Sulfur is widely distributed in nature. It is found in many minerals and ores, e.g., iron pyrites, galena, cinnabar, zinc blende, gypsum..." http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Sulpher 
    "Dust and debris deposits associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center have left a distinct fingerprint on the sedimentary record in New York Harbor, scientists have found. Their results appear in the January 21, 2003, issue of the journal EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. ... The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur concentrations found in the near-surface sediments ..., are consistent with presence of gypsum as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction." 
The "Sulfides" produced when sulfur dioxide (e.g., from decomposed Gypsum) contacts burning iron have been identified as an agent that supposedly accelerated the "deterioration" of the steel in the burning WTC piles, on a macromolecular level.
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure   ...  Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.  The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid ...." http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
"Gypsum does not have a true melting point, as it decomposes under heat before it can melt" http://www.gp.com/build/PageViewer.aspx?repository=bp&elementid=3358    With high heat, Gypsum decomposes and releases Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, which is a weak oxidizer that can rapidly transfer both its sulfur and oxygen to the exposed iron surfaces in the piles.   "Many metals, including zinc, aluminum, cesium, and iron, incandesce and/or ignite in unheated sulfur dioxide." http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg116.html 
"In some cases, SO2 behaves as both a reducing and oxidizing agent (metals such as tin, iron and magnesium burn in SO2 to form mixed sulfides and oxides)."
and  http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/HAZCOM/MSDS/sulfurdioxide.pdf
In other words, Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts (combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e. burning the iron).  The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by BYU Professor Jones. 
"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.  This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C  by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.  (Barnett, 2001)"
For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface. 
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it).  Sulfur Dioxide gas, has a distinct impact on the nose, and is a respiratory irritant, because it forms sulfurous acid when it combines with water or moisture in the human body.  Sulfur Dioxide can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid (when added to water).  High concentrations of Sulfurous fumes emanating from the piles at Ground Zero have been documented, and have been identified as a probable cause of respiratory ailments suffered by many rescue workers and cleanup crews. "One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)" http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtradecenterarticles2003.htm
Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper --  What is the origin of this sulfur?  No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.  ...  While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic.   ...   Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job."
In addition to sulfidation of cold iron by its exposure to sulfurous (e.g., SO2) fumes, sulfidation by an even more direct transfer of the sulfur and oxygen from Gypsum to Iron might occur where Gypsum (dust) is in direct contact with the burning (e.g., red hot) iron.
Another's lucid rebuttal of Professor Jones' conjectures about the sulfidated iron found in the burning piles of WTC wreckage is self-published as follows:
"The "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" amounts to this: Prof. Jones CLAIMS to have obtained a sample of solidified spatter from post-collapse WTC structural steel. He takes the sample-gatherer's word that this is where it came from. He claims to have determined the sample to be sulfur-contaminated iron. Solely from this basis he leaps to the definite conclusion that it's a residue of thermate (thermite with sulfur and potassium permanganate additives) used to cut the tower's columns. This is quite the leap of inductive reasoning.  As we all know, the debris field of the WTC was an oven of steel-melting intensity. All of the WTC's debris was churned together chaotically in this pile. Steel is basically highly refined iron. The element sulfur is present in abundance in many building materials. Drywall, for example (also known as GYPSUM board) consists primarily of plaster, i.e. gypsum, i.e. hydrated calcium SULFATE. Churn lots of steel and gypsum together and cook them for three weeks at temperatures sufficient to melt both and I would not be surprised to see "sulfur-contaminated iron" turning up in samples of same. This is not to say Jones is definitely wrong as to what produced it, just that it's ridiculously dishonest and irresponsible to hype this as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of the use of thermate. There is at least one other completely plausible completely mundane possibility.  Prof. Jones focuses on the iron/sulfur mix as a signature of thermate, but makes no mention of aluminum oxide, which would also most definitely be present and which he'd certainly test for and mention if it were. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better "
    For practical purposes, all this means that a huge pile of iron beams (e.g., mixed in with tons of other materials initially burning) can itself begin to burn like huge iron logs in a pile furnace, and there is no reason not to expect this system to reach a temperature high enough to melt iron.   Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting temperature.
The first "molten" iron in the WTC piles was reportedly discovered WEEKS AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers, and molten iron was reportedly found regularly during the following MONTHS during excavations of the huge piles.   The only rational explanation for this steady-state phenomenon is IRON BURNING.   "Professor Jones" is not a rational man, and thus he fails to consider the fact that Iron Burns, and instead assumes that the reported "molten iron" was all created (by surreptitious "Thermite") on September 11, 2001 and that all this red-hot liquid metal just stayed clumped together on its chaotic descent down 70+ floors and then stayed in molten form until it was dug up weeks and months later.
Further, as an aside, it is total idiocy for Jones and his associates to assume that someone intent upon both bringing down the WTC towers and being undetected in doing so would go to the trouble of actually "melting" some of the iron (let alone allot of it) within the iron support columns (steel will not "melt" until reaching temperatures of nearly 3000F), rather than just heating some of them to the much lesser temperature point at which the iron would EXPAND and DEFORM (see photos linked below) and become worse than useless to support the enormous weight of the building.  (That temperature can be scientifically calculated given the load parameters, and was evidently equal to or less than the core temperature of the carbonaceous office fires spanning an enormous area e.g., one square acre in size, on each of several floors of each WTC tower).  Note:  "A typical house fire can reach 2000 degrees Fahrenheit after just five minutes of flame." http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online/2004/1104_p4_7.pdf   "THE TYPICAL HOUSE FIRE REACHES A TEMPERATURE OF APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN HUNDRED DEGREES [Fahrenheit]" http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/3685/broadcast_content.cfm   Aluminum melts at about 1218 F.  It is an observable fact that virtually all carbonaceous-fires (e.g., bonfires, house fires, burning-paper fires, airplane fires) are readily capable of melting aluminum.   (Note:  "Fire" is not synonymous with "flame".)
When even smaller aluminum aircraft burn on the ground, the resulting fire usually "melts" their aluminum portions, thus proving temperatures exceeding 1200 degrees Fahrenheit:

"The forward portion of the fusilage [sic] containing the cockpit burned, the aluminum being almost completely consumed by the heat of the fire which ranged from 1310 degrees to 2100 degrees (F)."   http://www.nps.gov/yuch/Expanded/b24/b24.htm


These temperature estimates exceed the melting point of aluminum.   See also the burning-aircraft photos in this thoughtful rebuttal of Professor Jones' lunatic "thermite" theory.  http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm   ("Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.")  (unfortunately, the author of that article also mistakenly assumed that iron is "non-combustible") [edit by Debunking911: I am correcting this with the inclusion of this page.]


It should also be kept in mind that "aluminum ... ignites at relatively low temperature," Aluminum, "melts at about 1,220[F] degrees. At about 1,400[F] degrees, it can automatically ignite and burst into flames without any spark"  "The formation of aluminum oxide is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of heat ...  temperatures can reach around 5,000 degrees."



More information about aluminum is provided here:  http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf  (although I think he tends to oversell the role of melted aluminum in the collapse of the WTC)


In other words, why use readily DETECTIBLE "thermite" (or even "explosives") when just burning tons of paper, plastic, rugs, aircraft-chairs, clothes, flesh, computers, (perhaps aluminum metal), and some hydrocarbon (jet) fuel, would (and evidently did) accomplish the same result?
To bolster his nonsensical conclusions, Professor Jones says absurd and misleading things like:  "Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm
Professor Jones is an attention whore, who does not check his facts:
The essay at http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/
stone_magazine/fire_trap.html by an early American civil engineer of great repute (William Sooy Smith, 1830-1916) explains the known weaknesses of Iron (steel) beams and columns exposed to fire.  He notes that the primary mechanism of structural failure in steel buildings is the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE generated in the steel itself when it EXPANDS due to heating by FIRE.   He describes the destruction of several steel frame buildings due to the heat of fire, including one in New York city.  In view of these examples, there is a warning (or prophesy) by the Fire Chief of the City of New York of the eventual collapse of a very tall steel frame building, (such as the World Trade Center buildings), due to exposure to the heat of fire.   His essay is essential reading for anyone who would express or consider an opinion about the likelihood that a steel framed building exposed to fire would be brought down by the heat of fire.
1)  "Witness the Manhattan Savings Bank building, Broadway and Bleeker street, New York, which was destroyed a few weeks ago by the heat generated in the burning of the ... building next to it."
2)  "fire ... partly destroyed the Athletic Association building in this city. ...  and it is evident that if this heat had continued but a little longer the whole structure would have fallen."
3)  "And notably at the burning of the Tribune building in Minneapolis, about three years ago, which resulted in its entire destruction."
"There may be steel buildings in which the fireproofing has been so well done that they will pass through an ordinary fire without such failure.  But if the steel becomes even moderately heated its stiffness will be measurably diminished, and the strength of the upright members so reduced as to cause them to bend and yield. This is more likely to occur, as the horizontal beams and girders will at the same time expand (unequally from the different degrees of temperature) and throw the posts out of vertical and into buckling positions. This is the third difficulty. ...  The third difficulty, resulting from the expansion and contraction of the metals employed in the construction of tall buildings, may be obviated by protecting these metals absolutely from any considerable change in temperature..."
Chief Bonner, of the fire department of New York, says in reference to the destruction of the Manhattan Bank building:

....We shall have in this city, unless the citizens of New York are warned in time, a calamity by fire which will rend their hearts. ...  The heat thrown from a large burning building of any height is immense.   ...  I am prepared to declare, from my experience, that a building of brick and yellow pine in case of fire is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more slowly and has no chance to concentrate its heat as in the iron and steel structure.

Chief Swenie, of the Chicago fire department, is quoted in the essay as follows:

"I think very much as Bonner does," said Fire Marshal Swenie to-day, when his attention was directed to a statement of the chief of the New York fire department to the effect that the modern skyscraper is a veritable firetrap. ....  Fire in a room so filled with goods might in very short time gain such headway as to imperil seriously the entire structure by the expansion, warping or twisting of the iron or steel framework.

No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand.  The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place.  At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.

...  It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and columns begin moving something has got to break.  Suppose a fire breaks out in one of these buildings. We work at it from below, and the steel beams expand, the ceiling breaks and the floor above comes down. ...

The statements of Professor Jones and others that "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail" are insane distortions of reality and misrepresentations of practical experience of fire-fighters and engineers (See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html  A fire in a Madrid steel-frame building collapsed 10-story sections of the building -even without a plane crash weakening those sections-, and almost brought down the rest of it, which had to be torn down. "At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)" )  See also: http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/02/060206-30A.jpg
    Professor Jones' irresponsible claims disparaging the capacity of fire to damage and collapse iron/steel structures are readily proved false by photographs of iron beams distorted and large sections of buildings collapsed by fire, including those photos of the distorted iron beams in the highway bridge that I include (below).
As for Jones' claims that a molten metal pooled and pouring out of the floors near where the planes impacted was necessarily iron, not aluminum:  How does Jones "get rid of" the Molten Aluminum that would result from contact of the airplane parts with the alleged molten iron?  Molten iron in contact with solid aluminum will produce molten aluminum and solid iron, or motel aluminum and molten iron (i.e., always molten aluminum).   The molten metal emerges (only) at the same corner and at the same floors of the WTC where the aluminum body of the aircraft "gently landed."  What a coincidence.  Also, it almost certain that much of the aluminum of the aircraft had melted in the heat of the fire(s), so if "iron" can "pool" there and pour out as Jones claims, why wouldn't some of the tons of molten aluminum (which just happened to land there) also pour out?  What happened to the molten aluminum according to Jones? Jones only asserts that melted aircraft aluminum "would flow away from the heat source  ... Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum."
Why would melted aluminum "flow away from the heat source" if not by action of gravity and the shape of the surface (floors) it was pooled on?  Molten Iron would follow the same path as molten aluminum.  And, why does Jones suppose that "out a window" is not "away from the heat source"?  Why would (pooled?) molten iron have a preference over pooled molten aluminum to flow "away" out of a window from the same location? 
More fundamentally, what good is molten iron falling out of a window to someone who wants to use it to HEAT a VERTICAL IRON BEAM to the point of failure????  In order to USE thermite to heat something, you have to let the molten iron transfer its heat to that thing, which means that the molten iron would cool and solidify if were actually USED to heat something.   And, since Jones claims that the thermite was placed on the internal columns of the building (since they failed first), how and why would molten iron show up at the outside perimeter (near a corner) to fall out of a window?  Thermite charges are always used ABOVE (or inside) the subject to be heated, because any other position would result in the hot molten iron formed by thermite flowing down away from the subject to be heated and being useless waste.   Jones offers no explanation for why anyone would go to the trouble of using "thermite" to produce many gallons of WASTE molten iron that was not kept in intimate contact with vertical Beams and therefore served no purpose other than to fall out of a window and attract attention to itself.   So, shall we call Jones' Theory:  The Theory of the Incompetent Thermite Bombers Who Just Needed to Call Attention to their Handiwork by Pouring Molten Iron out of a Window.  Or, maybe the Airplanes were really Hijacked by well-intentioned American Patriots who knew that the only way to expose the secret plot to destroy the WTC with Thermite was to fly a plane into the buildings at exactly where the Thermite was installed to hopefully cause some of its residue to fall out a window where the World could see it and certainly know that it was "molten iron" produced by thermite.  Bless their souls.
Jones writes:
"Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11.  Photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below:"

"Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster?  The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC."

Jones admits that: "We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears 'silvery'.  Aluminum ... aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity..."

Look at the shiny blocky highly reflective (silvery) solid masses that were produced from the falling (cooling) molten metal, seen in the bottom of the photo above right.  Is it solid Iron, or solid Aluminum?
I believe that it may be possible to "prove" that the molten metal falling out of the WTC was aluminum based on its behavior (e.g., breaking up in the air, failure to "spark" white all around, and turning into a blocky silvery solid while falling).   Aluminum is much less massive (dense) than iron, so molten aluminum will be more affected by air resistance than molten iron would be.  See the horizontal shift of the falling molten metal in both of the photos above.  (E.g., Aluminum would be broken up out of a poured stream (or blown to one side) sooner than heavier molten iron)   Also, at any given temperature, molten iron would probably be differently viscous or would have different surface tension than molten aluminum.   Thus, it would visibly behave differently upon being poured of a window.   The photos show molten metal pouring out of the WTC that appears to be somewhat widely dispersed (and shifted horizontally) by wind and air resistance, suggesting that it is lighter than iron.   [It just does not quite "look" like a stream of heavy liquid iron.]  Experimentation or simulation could prove or disprove this hypothesis.
Keep in mind also that Jones is oblivious that hot (molten) Iron Burns spontaneously in air.
Another problem with Jones' theory that this falling molten metal is "iron" (and not aluminum) is that IF it were IRON, at the temperature of melted iron, some of it would probably have constantly been seen exploding/flashing/burning into bright white Light upon being released as small particles in the air.  "The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."  http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y
Read Faraday's demonstration of moderately heated iron particles burning in air, producing "scintillations".
"I have here a circular flame of spirit of wine, and with it I am about to show you the way in which iron burns, because it will serve very well as a comparison between the effect produced by air and oxygen. If I take this ring flame, I can shake, by means of a sieve, the fine particles of iron filings through it, and you will see the way in which they burn. [The lecturer here shook through the flame some iron filings, which took fire and fell through with beautiful scintillations.]"  http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html
Absent constant bright White "flashes" of burning iron droplets/particles, it more probably was aluminum at or near its melting temperature.  I have "poured" molten aluminum that I got by melting scrap in a wood-fire, short distances, and that did not readily produce flashes of light (maybe because it cools down faster in cold air than it can oxidize), although it theoretically can.  (molten aluminum is fairly tame)  I have not "poured" molten iron, but see this photo showing the smaller iron droplets burning bright WHITE in air during even a very short pouring operation at a foundry:
And see here, the veritable fireworks of hot iron particles diverging and exploding into white light/flashes during a pour:

"In the foundry. The cast iron is being poured into the sand mould."


And, see all the bright white sparks flying in this series of photographs of an iron pour:
Dante observed and wrote about this commonplace property of poured molten Iron, in his The Divine Comedy:
 "I could not endure it long, but enough to see him sparkle all round, like iron poured, molten, from the furnace.  And suddenly, it seemed that day was added to day, as though He who has the power, had equipped Heaven with a second sun."  http://www.tonykline.co.uk/PITBR/Italian/DantPar1to7.htm
This video   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11.    noted by Jones does show a few reluctant "sparkles", (which of course could also be consistent with aluminum particle flashes), but does not quite show the constant "sparkle all around" that would be expected (by Dante) from poured molten iron at the temperature of 1000C claimed by Jones.  
    Also, more definitely, the falling molten material clearly turns into a silver colored (highly reflective) (flat, blocky) solid material after it cools (as soon as it stops glowing) after falling down a number of stories (strongly suggesting aluminum metal, not iron).  Solid iron is generally not that highly reflective without polishing, but aluminum is.  [Molten iron would probably not loose its glow and convert into a solid so quickly, since it does not conduct heat as well as aluminum and because it would be formed much hotter than molten aluminum. 
    Also, iron would be expected to coalesce into a rounder clump while falling before solidifying. [Shot towers are used to form iron ball-bearings, and lead musket balls, out of poured molten metal.  But, there is no indication that aluminum can be formed into round balls by this method, perhaps because it cools down to quickly]   If the "shot tower" behavior of iron (forming spherical balls of molten iron before solidifying) holds with larger amounts of poured iron, then the molten metal pouring out of the WTC, IF IT WERE IRON WOULD HAVE FORMED CANON-BALL SHAPED gobs of molten metal before it cooled down and solidified.
    The falling metal pieces formed by that pour out the window of the WTC tower are clearly NOT ROUND and are very elongated, or flat, indicating a very rapid cooling of the falling poured (aluminum) metal.  [These distinctions can be readily proved or disproved by experimentation or calculation].  Jones does not comment upon the silvery flat, blocky, (not round) metal pieces visible falling in the photo frames in his own thesis.
The NISC report seems to agree:
"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)
There is of course the possibility that the falling molten metal was some other material from the airplane or offices other than aluminum or iron.  But, I believe that there is enough information from the video to scientifically determine its approximate density and also its Specific Heat, its melting/solidifying temperature, and its thermal conductivity.  The latter determinations could be based on standard formulas used to determine cooling rates due to "forced convection."
"Bah. This guy has been debunked all over the web. Professor Stephen Jones is wrong." 

http://www.answers.com/topic/steven-e-jones  linked from http://reddit.com/info/48t1/comments

"A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."
About Professor Jones, associated with the so-called "9-11 Scholars" website, I previously wrote (to him) substantially the following assessment of his wacky half-baked theories about thermite and molten iron:
Speaking as an engineer of high academic achievement, I am shocked that Brigham Young University has employed an ignorant moron of such epic and treasonous proportions.  I will be further shocked if he is not removed promptly from his position of trust and confidence.  It has been my understanding that the Latter Day folks are a close knit group who watch out that their members far and wide do not embarrass the community.  In other words, it is my hope that the Latter Days will take the initiative to contact the leadership at BYU so that justice to the truth may be served.
Excerpt of published assertions by BYU professor Jones:
      "Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

      . Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature. 

   .... No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says."
Having seen first hand the rubble of the WTC on the night of September 11, 2001, I can tell you there was fire and fires everywhere around the scene, and fumes rose steadily from the "piles" after the collapse, and fumes continued to rise from the piles when I went back to Ground Zero over a week later.  As I described it " I saw a hellish vapor slowly rising everywhere from the rubble like something out of Dante [Inferno]."  See:  While Leaving Ground Zero - September 11, 2002  http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4108   (Note, I am not the same "Mark Ferran" as the NYC fireman by that name, and we have never met)  When I first heard about the fires in the WTC buildings that morning, I said to myself, in my office, that the metal must be getting very hot.   When I later saw the images of smoke and fire billowing out of those buildings, I knew they would not stand.  After they fell, the huge piles of iron beams and combustible materials formed two enormous furnaces, comprising burning office materials, burning metal, and burning human flesh (not to mention many tons of combustible aircraft aluminum and iron, i.e., thermite) which over the course of several weeks and months.   It was widely reported that the temperature (e.g., measured by infra red imaging from above) in the interior of the piles INCREASED in the weeks after the collapse of the towers, due quite obviously to the combustion of combustible matter in these large furnaces. 
The moron employed at BYU seems to have no conception of the nature of a furnace, no concept of the fact that metals burn, and seems to be unable to comprehend that there were much combustible materials in the piles from the collapsed buildings OTHER THAN what the airplanes brought in.
"[W]hile the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper [and humans, and aluminum of the planes]. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F [even before the buildings collapsed]." The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes.  It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."   http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
Even ordinary dry WOOD (charcoal) in a large enough furnace, is capable of melting iron:
While a mixture of aluminum and (oxygen and iron) (e.g., rust) called "Thermite" is capable of producing molten iron,  evidently, a combination of metallic Iron and Oxygen (or Carbon Monoxide) is itself capable of melting iron in a large pile furnace.  Large piles of pure iron dust are capable of "burning" themselves into a molten mass solely due to the heat of combustion of the iron itself.  Iron itself is a combustible material (and is commonly used in powder form to warm hands and feet in little packs sold at Wal-Mart etc., and in MREs).
It is certainly known to be possible for ordinary hydrocarbon fuels (like oil, gasoline or jetfuel) alone to destroy heavy iron and iron-concrete structures, as in the case of the Bridgeport gas tanker fire which destroyed a highway overpass formed of large iron I-beams and concrete.  http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t3161.html  ("a fiery tanker truck [carrying 12,000 gallons of fuel oil ] melted a bridge on Interstate 95" in Massachusetts) See also http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/eads/ead032604.doc
I believe that these photos (below, and seven images at http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm) fairly illustrate the type of expansion, distortion and yielding that most likely happened to destroy some of the iron columns supporting the enormous weight of the World Trade Centers' top 30+/- floors.  



The iron columns of the WTC towers did not "melt" in the scientific sense of the word, but they certainly EXPANDED (due to heat), and yielded (due to the enormous pressure caused by their own thermal expansion).  Just turn these above pictures from horizontal to vertical, and think what would happen if that beam were instead a column holding up a heavy building. (Look at the distorted iron, heated by ordinary hydrocarbon fuel burning, and keep in mind what Professor Jones said:  "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." )  Also note how the metal of the fuel tank itself so completely disintegrated. (see the other photos at http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm). It's tank may have been made of flammable aluminum metal, like the skin and structure of a jetliner, or of stainless steel.   I believe that the fires confined inside the world trade center towers could have been much hotter than this fairly "open air" (unconfined) gasoline fire, due to the greater containment of the heat-of-combustion by the ceilings, floors and debris in the burning WTC towers.    See  http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944  

    The False Leaders of the so-called "9-11 Truth" movement typically do not understand or don't acknowledge the power of ordinary FIRE nor the known weaknesses and behaviors of iron exposed to fire, and they peddle their false explanations of occurrences to people even more ignorant than them.  They are the blind leading the blind.  Most of the uneducated people (e.g., WebFairy, Lisa Guliani, Victor Thorne etc.) selling videos books, etc., claiming that "fire could not have destroyed the WTC towers" are just pathological liars who will tell any lie to take a buck from the gullible.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "maximum temperature" for the combustion of any dry fuel.   If you raise the temperature of a dry fuel, like paper, or wood paneling, or charred flesh, and then expose it to oxygen, its temperature will INCREASE, not remain the same.  Duh!!!  The bigger the furnace, the higher the temperature of the unburned fuel gets before it combines with oxygen, and thus still higher will its temperature be when it finally combusts.  "Temperature" inside of a furnace system is solely a function of how much heat enters the system versus how much leaves the system, over time, and not a function of the type of fuel.  Insulation, or a large enough mass, slows the exit of heat from the system. (Note: melting things removes energy from a system)  A large pile of debris forms an insulating furnace retaining much of the heat of combustion, raising the internal temperature, evidently high enough to melt iron.  That is how the ancients used piles to make and refine and melt iron from ore.
It is shocking that a "professor" would assume that molten iron found weeks or months later in the bowels of a huge pile of continuously burning debris (containing tons of combustible iron and other materials) would have to have been generated at the very beginning of the fire, or even before the pile was formed.  It is even more nonsensical for him to presume that a molten metal supposedly formed before the buildings collapsed would remain molten for months without some subsequent source of heat being applied to it.   And, it is totally absurd for him to presume that a molten (liquid) metal supposedly formed in the top floors before the buildings collapsed (his "thermite" theory) would remain both molten and intact after it fell 70+ stories in a chaotic collapse while even more solid objects (bones, concrete, flesh) were obliterated on the way down.   The "professor" also seems to be oblivious that (aircraft) aluminum is itself a high-energy fuel, that would not be found in bright molten form weeks later (because it burns continuously when molten and exposed to air).  (They use Aluminum metal as fuel to propel the Space Shuttle into Orbit around the Earth). 
Also apparent, is that the so-called "professor" is incompetent or lazy in the use of search engines, such as Google.  On this very subject, I wrote this back in 2001:
"Furthermore, if it is true that "pools of molten steel" were found in the (basement of) remains of the WTC twin towers, this molten material probably began to form and accumulate days AFTER THE COLLAPSE of the tower, when the huge mass of material trapped the heat of slowed combustion that continued within the pile. I saw the fumes of combustion folks, the piles were slowly burning after the buildings collapsed. Everyone with the slightest recollection of the events knows this. Even a huge pile of iron filings will form a red-hot fused mass of metal because the heat produced internally by rusting will build up in the pile. Any combustible material in the "piles" of the WTC that was exposed to heat and to any amount of infiltrating air (oxygen) would contribute to hot-spots. All of the conjectures that say the steel formed before the buildings collapsed are ignorant and preposterous. The Steel in the rubble of the WTC melted, if at all, because of the enormous size of the piles and presence of much combustible materials in them, not merely because of the burning of jet fuel. Those who say otherwise are either lying, or are overlooking something fundamental. While jet fuel flame burning in OPEN AIR will may not maintain the temperature you need to melt steel, if you inject any fuel mixed with air into a huge porous mass that cannot rapidly release the built-up heat of combustion, you will produce a furnace capable of melting steel or practically any other metal. An open flame rapidly dissipates the heat of combustion, but a furnace conserves and accumulates the heat of combustion. Any fuel will produce this effect in the appropriate furnace. Its like the difference between the heat of an open wood-flame of a single stick burning in open air, compared to the (steel-melting) white-hot heat produced in the bottom of a large pile of wood and burning wood-coals. This is also the principle by which large piles of organic materials (e.g., saw-dust, leaves, hay) will spontaneously begin to burn- the heat of decay builds up inside them. "No matter which mechanism is involved, the oxidation reaction will generate heat. If there is some form of insulation, which is usually provided by the mass of the material itself, the heat cannot be dissipated. Because the heat is not dissipated, the temperature of the material increases. The increase in temperature will in turn increase the rate at which the oxidation reaction occurs, which in turn will increase the amount of heat generated, and so on. This increase after increase continues until either the heat is dissipated some way [e.g. by melting steel], or the material reaches its ignition temperature and starts to burn. (the same basic process occurs in stored green bio-mass materials such as hay, saw dust, corn cobs, etc. but the heat is generated by the life process of micro-organisms)." http://bifrost.unl.edu/ehs/ChemicalInfo/flamsol.html "

"This scientific principle of a furnace, understood by primitive humans since the bronze age, could potentially destroy the credibility of anyone who forwards and endorses the erroneous theories (e.g., "nuclear" bombs). You are literally playing with fire by promoting such bogus theories. People, for the sake of our country, and out of respect for those who died at the WTC, please do not promote or forward those Urban Legends.

"I am sorry if my words are harsh, but I do not have much patience for people who are either irresponsible for forgetting what they themselves saw, who pretend to understand physical principles that they have not studied or otherwise have no competence in, or who are simply liars who are out to make a reputation by misrepresenting to others what happened on September 11, 2001. Everyone with common sense knows that two commercial air planes hit and burned inside the towers and caused the towers to break and to fall. Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl http://billstclair.com/ferran/index.html

I am aware that there are millions of science-ignorant people and some total morons walking around America babbling about the World Trade Center (and I have tried in vein to address this  http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944  ) , but when a "professor" who knows that he has no formal education nor any practical education in the science of chemistry, combustion, nor of metallurgy, nor of the Strength of materials decides to spew his ignorant reckless notions as scientific "FACTS" to the gullible volatile public at a time of crisis, I feel that his reckless conduct warrants extreme and swift punishment.  Professor Jones has also misrepresented the significance of the "Law of Entropy" to bolster his false claims.  Given the tendency of this professor's misrepresentations to give aide, comfort, and encouragement to those who have overtly declared Jihad against our pathetic country, (and who must be able to recruit more jihadists just by laughing at our domestic morons) I would be satisfied to see this "professor" tried, convicted, and executed for Treason.  He breached a Trust in time of WAR.  Jones' reckless remarks will probably kill as many Americans as President Bush's misuse of the word "Crusade" has and will.
I have never heard of a single NYC fireman doubting that a fire of the proportion of those in the towers could destroy such a building that was not designed to withstand such an enormous fire.  See, e.g., http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/vallebunoa.html   ("We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall").
I think it is preposterous for anyone to assume that a tall building or any conventional material or mode of construction can not fall down if you fly a large fuel-laden airplane into it at more than 500 miles per hour.
In summary, we have a moron posing as President, and now we have morons posing as "Professors" too.   No wonder that the people of the world increasingly find it necessary to destroy US for their own preservation.
Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
Snopes may be a good starting point for information to counter some of the Anti-American 9-11 propaganda (e.g., from the French):

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Professor Jones: WTC IRON BURNS!!! updated July, 14 2006

From: Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl  www.billstclair.com/ferran
Professor Jones of BYU has since acknowledged in an email to me the fact that "iron burns" but attempts to limit this chemical reaction to only "under certain conditions" (he specifies pure oxygen as supposedly being a requirement), but Jones has failed to acknowledge that hot Iron is combustible (it oxidizes and generates heat) when combined with ordinary air, and Jones has not responded to the following observations that iron is usually sulfidated upon exposure to the fumes from ordinary fires.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Professor Jones: WTC IRON BURNS!!! updated July, 14 2006

MARK:  Now we are getting somewhere. Obviously iron burns at some temperature. At what temperature does iron reach the condition at which it burns and at what temperature does structural steel, which is what was used in the construction of the WTC buildings, reach the condition at which it burns? Is the temperature for the condition which causes the burning of structural steel higher than that of iron? What American Society Of Civil Engineers (ASCE) specification did the structural steel used in the construction of the WTC buildings meet? Did the specifications meet the requirements of the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC)?
At what temperature does jet fuel burn?
KEEP up the good work Mark. With a name like Ferran, we can expect the best information about ferro!-----BILL

To: William
Cc:  Kevin Barrett
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Professor Jones: WTC IRON BURNS!!! updated July, 14 2006

William, you asked these innocent questions:
"Obviously iron burns at some temperature.  At what temperature does iron reach the condition at which it burns and at what temperature does structural steel, which is what was used in the construction of the WTC buildings, reach the condition at which it burns? Is the temperature for the condition which causes the burning of structural steel higher than that of iron?"
Let us use the word "oxidizes" instead of burns.   "Burns" is not a precise term.  "Burning may be a slow oxidation like that which occurs when a iron rusts, or it may occur quickly in a very fast oxidation ..." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03035.htm
"When elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are burned, they will yield the most common oxides. Carbon will yield carbon dioxide. Nitrogen will yield nitrogen dioxide. Sulfur will yield sulfur dioxide. Iron will yield iron(III) oxide."  http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembakaran
Fe + O2 ->  FOx plus heat.
For example,
4 Fe(s) + 3 O2(g)  ----> 2 Fe2O3 (s)
Delta Go = 1487 kJ
"In order for something to burn (oxidize), ignition heat and oxygen are necessary."  http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03035.htm
"In general, we think of the oxidation of iron as rusting however all other metals such as copper, aluminum, zinc, etc., oxidize meaning that they combine with oxygen. ...  All oxidation reactions produce heat."  http://chemsrvr2.fullerton.edu/HES/combination/comb.htm
Iron wire ("Steel Wool"), which has a coating of oil to prevent rusting, will "ignite" and quickly transform the fine iron wire into iron oxide(s), with just the touch of the small flame of a match.  So, the activation energy/temperature for fast iron oxidation is not very high relative to the heat of an ordinary flame fire. 
"rusting (oxidation of iron) is overall very exoenergetic.  Even though under normal conditions the oxidation reaction proceeds very slowly, there is sufficient energy to initiate the process at room temperature. Once begun, the process can sustain and slightly accelerate itself by using the heat released from the reaction and that initially available from room-temperature to provide the necessary activation energy."  http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03046.htm
"'Rust' is really a family of iron/oxygen compounds with various ratios of: Fe, O, and H (as in water).  All the 'rusting' reactions are exothermic to the tune of from about -60 to -190 kcal/mol  That is they all liberate a substantial amount of heat. In fact one can generalize that for most metals oxidation is exothermic. Now the "activation" energy to which you refer has to do with just how "fast" the reaction occurs.  In the case of  iron. I do not have the numbers in front of me but from qualitative observation I would expect it is quite small...."  http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03046.htm
Impurities, (e.g., water, salt) and even some bacteria may promote or catalyze iron oxidation (rust) at room temperature.  You generally cannot prevent room-temperature iron surfaces exposed to the environment from oxidizing in air except by painting it, coating it (e.g., galvanizing), or combining it with something else (e.g., adding chromium in to make stainless steel).   Structural Steel is not "stainless steel" and therefore it is chemically reactive the same as pure iron, for purposes of oxidation by air.
Pure Iron oxidizes fairly rapidly at "hot" temperatures.  The hotter it is, the faster an exposed hot iron surface will react (oxidize) in air, generating more heat.   The iron-oxidation reaction and resulting reactive surface temperature may be further increased by adding pure oxygen, but that is not necessary to sustain exothermic (i.e., heat-producing) iron oxidation.  To get the reactive surface of a mass of rapidly oxidizing iron to incandesce bright white you probably have to add pure oxygen, which will raise the iron-oxidation reaction rate at the surface, and raise the temperature at the surface, etc..  Some people would identify this incandescing phenomena as "burning" iron/steel.  But, even while not incandescing white, red-hot iron exposed to air is "burning", just somewhat slower.
Red-hot iron exposed to air IS OXIDIZING, (or "burning"), the only question being "how fast" is it "burning".  In a big deep pile like the debris piles of the WTC buildings, the iron-oxidation reaction will probably be moderated by the availability of atmospheric oxygen.  In other words, the reaction will take place at the rate at which oxygen from air infiltrates into that part of the pile (e.g., by convection).  [Note that SO2, e.g., generated by Gypsum decomposing in the piles will also cause additional iron-oxidation, plus sulfidation]  However, the resulting change in temperature is a function of how much heat is generated minus how much heat is lost by convection, conduction, and radiation within a period of time.  Deep inside the piles these losses are relatively small, and the larger the scale of the red-hot iron-fire, the smaller these losses are on a per mass basis.  See http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/uts/essay6.pdf#search='
Professor Jones himself expressly notes that the pile has "insulating" properties and would conserve the heat of oxidation, but Jones overlooks that it is primarily hot IRON that will be oxidizing weeks and months after the collapse.
You asked "What American Society Of Civil Engineers (ASCE) specification did the structural steel used in the construction of the WTC buildings meet? Did the specifications meet the requirements of the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC)?" as if these specifications or requirements were somehow related to the oxidation (burning) of hot structural steel members.
The ASTM or ASCE or AISC standards do not have anything to do with the chemical reaction between hot iron and oxygen.
The AISC does not certify individual pieces or batches or structural steel.  It only ANNUALLY certifies the methods and procedures of the manufacturer:
"AISC Certification sets a standard for the steel industry. Companies that are AISC Certified have been through a rigorous initial evaluation, and are subject to yearly reviews."  http://www.aisc.org//Template.cfm?Section=AISC_Certification
Kevin Ryan committed deception and was properly fired.  Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications."
I looked up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is.  ASTM E119 does NOT test "steel" nor "steel components" per se as Mr. Ryan had implied.  Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance: 
"ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:

"• Flame penetration through the wall section;
"• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
"• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.

"Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire."  http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html
    The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing.  Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested.  After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials.  The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
There is no "structural steel" column that is going to continue to support the weight of a heavy tall building after being directly "exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours".  ASTM E119 certification does not purport to impart such super heat-resistant properties to structural steel.  See also
Kevin Ryan's own words indicate that he really knew nothing at all about the ASTM E119 testing that his "company" supposedly performed on WTC "steel", and that he had no right to misrepresent it's significance.  Hence, he was incompetent and presumptuous, and he deserved to be fired, or even sued for fraud, or even criminally punished. 
The only thing Kevin Ryan was certainly right about is that structural steel in the standing WTC buildings did not actually "melt" (to a molten liquid) before the collapse of the WTC buildings.  It did not have to. "It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and columns begin moving something has got to break."  http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/
However, at least some of the aluminum alloy metal from the crashed airplanes certainly did actually melt before the collapse, and that indicates a temperature of about 1,200F in the infernos at the crash sites.
You ask, "At what temperature does jet fuel burn?" as if that were a meaningful question.
The answer(s) depend upon what the temperature of the Jet Fuel is at the moment that it combines with oxygen, and upon the temperature of the environment that it is burning in.  I have a now-rare device called a Kerosene flame-thrower that I used to use to crack/shatter hard rocks and melt glass just because it's flame was hot enough, and because it was fun.   
There is a coil in the hot end that transports and pre-heats the kerosene before it is released out the flame nozzle through the coil.
If you had just poured the same kerosene onto a rag and lit it up, it would not burn as hot as the flame coming out of the nozzle of that burner.
If you construct a large enough furnace in which the temperature of the liquid fuel itself will be increased to its boiling point and then further heat the fuel vapor before exposing it to air, then there is no limit upon the temperature that may be attained by burning kerosene (Jet fuel) except that the fuel will decompose into carbon at some high temperature (and thus cease to be that fuel).  A pure-carbon (charcoal) fire is very capable of melting steel.  If you super-heat jet fuel, you can get pure carbon and hydrogen anyway.  So, depending on the size and configuration of the furnace, you can melt iron with jet fuel.  I do not believe that flaming jet fuel literally melted any iron in the WTC towers.  No one with any intelligence does.
Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
P.S.  Thank's for noting that my family's name is derived from the Latin Root word for Iron, Ferr, Ferro, Ferris.   You are the first to notice that.

From: William
Cc:  Kevin Barrett
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:33 PM

MARK: First, I want to thank you for responding forthrightly without the accompanying characterizations ( although "innocent questions" might fall into that category).
The terms oxidizing and burning, in my mind, represent two states of the oxidation process. There is the slow oxidation process at relatively low temperatures, such as the oxidation of copper roofs or gutters or flashing which produces a coating on the copper that is green or the oxidation of grandma's family silverware which  produces a coating on the silver that is gray. There is even a special alloy steel called Corten steel that produces a protective rust coating that serves as a barrier to further oxidation and therefore does not require painting to preserve its integrity. The Ford Foundation Building in New York City used exposed Corten steel as an architectural enhancement.
The state of oxidation of the examples cited is distinctly different from the oxidation that takes place with the fire of fuel oil in the basement furnace or of the wood in the ski lodge fire place or of the fire from propane gas used to solder the copper pipes. This different state of oxidation is like the different states of water as liquid, or as a solid ice, or as a gas steam--- they are all water but in a different state that require different temperatures to produce the different states.
Burning, therefore, is the state of oxidation that occurs at the time that ignition temperature is reached which is generally when the temperature is sufficiently high to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state. It is an ignition temperature which increases with the increase in the mass of the oxidizing material. The ignition temperature would be lower, for instance, to ignite steel wool than the temperature required to ignite the three inch thick steel column flanges used in the World Trade Center Twin Towers. To prove my point, after igniting your steel wool with a match try using a match to ignite your screw driver.
Furthermore, the product of the oxidation that produces ferrous oxide, or copper oxide, or silver oxide is completely different than the product of burning which produces carbon.
So, to clarify or to be more precise with the questions I asked-------
What is the ignition temperature of iron and what is the ignition temperature of the steel that was used in the construction of the WTC buildings? Is the ignition temperature of structural steel higher than the ignition temperature of iron?
What is the temperature required to cause iron to begin to become flexible or steel to begin to become flexible? How long would that temperature have to be sustained to create the flexible condition in the two or three inch flange of a structural steel column of the Twin Towers?
What is the burning temperature of Jet fuel? 
In this respect, the American Society for Testing Materials test 119, ASTM119, does not test for the ignition temperature of structural steel but, as you have correctly shown, for testing a protective coating or assembly. For instance, a three hour rated wall used in the construction of the stairwell of a hi-rise apartment building is for the purpose of providing protection for three hours in the enclosed stairwell. The same is true for a three hour rated door used to access the stairwell.

To: William
CC: ; Kevin Barrett
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Burning Iron and Jet Fuel

My response was geared towards someone who I had supposed to be completely unknowledgeable, and was thus simplistic, and the question did not mention "ignition" and so the response did not get into a discussion of tipping point of "ignition" temperatures.  The only relevant point is that oxidation takes place on a red-hot surface of iron/steel.  It does not matter that such red-hot metal is not oxidizing rapidly enough "to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state", and to thus produce incandescence.
It is not necessary that the "oxidation" occurring that the surface reaches the tipping point of "ignition" at which the temperature rises abruptly due to the rate-of-oxidation (rate of local heat generation) exceeding the rate of heat-dissipation.  PRIOR TO THAT POINT, heat-generating oxidation is already taking place.   If you somehow shave off a razor-thin slice of a red-hot block of iron, (the only thing changed being the ratio of mass to surface area of the shaving)  the shaved slice will likely ignite and incandesce just like burning "steel wool" because of the change of the mass associated with its reactive surface area (also doubling the surface area).  The initial rate of oxidation at the surface at that red-hot temperature is not different.  What changes is that the heat already being generated by oxidation at the surface is not drawn away by conduction into the larger mass (and is doubled).   So, while it is true that there is a point of "ignition" (with incandescence) of iron, such ignition is CAUSED BY the heat generated by the slower oxidation already taking place at that surface.  Ignition (oxidation at a rate sufficiently high to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state) is not the point at which oxidation begins.  The loss of heat generated by oxidation at the surface is dependent upon conduction (which depends upon the mass of the material heat-sink), and upon radiation and convection (both of which depend inversely upon ambient temperature).  So, when you increase the mass, you most compensate by increasing the ambient temperature.  And this is why: "ignition temperature .. increases with the increase in the mass of the oxidizing material".
When you are oxidizing a large tangle of iron masses in a large pile furnace, and the iron masses and the ambient gases and the neighboring materials are all at approximately the same temperature, there are minimal losses of heat from the whole SYSTEM, so the temperature of the whole system gradually increases with continued oxidation of the iron, even though there is no incandescence (no very high rate of oxidation).  [the temperatures of the iron masses and the ambient gases and the neighboring materials will continuously equalize as they increase together]
Your additional questions concerning "What is the ignition temperature of iron" and its structural alloy (steel) are purely academic SINCE: IF that "ignition" point is defined as the ambient temperature at which the oxidation of iron is fast enough to heat the iron's surface temperature high enough "to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state", THEN an "ignition" (incandescence) point was probably not attained within the burning debris piles at WTC.  There is no evidence that oxidation of steel (iron) in the piles proceeded fast enough "to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state" with attendant white incandescence. 
And differences between the theoretical ignition points of pure iron and alloys of iron (steel) are likewise academic and immaterial to the discussion of "molten steel".   Professor Jones does not claim that there was "gaseous steel" in the piles, and there is no evidence of it.  Neither do I.
    Most people use the term "burning" to denote the point at which oxidation becomes noticeable to them, such as the point of incandescence.  However, materials at temperatures that are below their "ignition" (incandescent burning) temperature will still be oxidizing.  That is why a pile of oily rags (or a pile of sawdust) can increase its internal temperature and "spontaneously combust" with flames.  If there had been no slower oxidation prior to the visible manifestations of combustion (e.g., smoke and flames) there ultimately would have been no spontaneous combustion.
    So, "oxidation" is the proper terminology to describe both slow oxidation (rusting) and medium oxidation (hot, but sub-ignition) and very fast oxidation (ignition with incandescence).
All "burning" is "oxidation." 
All "combustion" is "oxidation".  Arguably, all "oxidation" is "combustion". 
It is an immaterial and unnecessary semantical debate whether all "oxidation" including very slow oxidation (e.g., rusting) is "burning."  I do not believe that the acceptable usages of "burning" necessarily requires that the rate of oxidation "is sufficiently high to transform the oxidizing material into a gaseous state."  Burning pure carbon, e.g., graphite, or carbon soot, which definitely "burns" in air, does not produce "flames", and does not produce at its surface any carbon in a "gaseous state."  The temperature at which pure carbon turns into a "Gas" is a super-high temperature: Carbon boils/vaporizes at about 4500 K.  "Pure carbon boils at 4300 K"  http://www.extrasolar.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60  (Iron boils at "2450 K" http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/db/d0005f.htm ) Thus, although pure carbon "burns" in air, it does not have to reach its vaporization (gaseous) temperature to do so.   An ordinary wood fire burns down to charcoal (after burning off the volatile constituents of living wood) that can burn red-hot without producing any visible gaseous "flames".  Neither gaseous carbon nor flames are necessary for "fire" or "burning" to be occurring.  Neither gaseous iron nor flames are necessary for "fire" or "burning" to be occurring.
I am aware that there are many ways to arrest iron-oxidation at room temperature, but none of these apply to the structural steel exposed to fire in the debris piles of the WTC buildings, so I did not elaborate on them.  Corten Steel is apparently "proprietary" and expensive, used for outdoor applications http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-12,GGLD:en&q=Corten+steel
 and there is no point in using it or stainless steel for internal structural elements, since, structural elements are supposed to be protected from fire and from corrosive elements. 
You now ask questions that appears to be entirely different from the subject of what burned in the debris piles after the collapses:
"What is the temperature required to cause iron to begin to become flexible or steel to begin to become flexible? How long would that temperature have to be sustained to create the flexible condition in the two or three inch flange of a structural steel column of the Twin Towers?"
I think you need to provide much more context for these questions to be meaningful.
Your question seems to assume that the force or pressure on the steel is immaterial to the answer.  This is not the case.  Steel at room temperature is somewhat "flexible" given enough force or pressure being applied to distort it.  Press or strike a room-temperature I-beam hard enough, and it will dent or deform, not shatter.  Unlike cast iron or pure iron Structural Steel ordinarily does not "shatter" when it cannot support a load without deforming.
Your questions also seem to assume that  a "temperature required to cause iron to begin to become flexible or steel to begin to become flexible" must be maintained for some extended period of "time" in order "to create the flexible condition".  That is not correct.  The elastic properties of iron or steel are generally temperature dependent, not time-temperature dependent. 
"The Young modulus for elasticity, E, is a quantitative way to describe the stiffness of a metal. The higher the modulus value is the more stiff the metal."  http://csats.psu.edu/files/GREATT/PropertiesOfMetals/
The Young modulus for steel is temperature-dependent:
When the steel is AT a certain temperature, it has the associated physical properties (e.g., Young modulus) while and for as long as it is AT that temperature (unless the temperature is high enough to alter the microcrystalline structure of the iron).  So, assuming no change to the microcrystalline structure of the steel ("The mechanical properties of steel are dependent on its microstructure"), the literal answer is Zero Time. 
Note: It is an entirely different question how much time it takes to heat up a mass of steel TO such a given temperature.  That question is also totally context-dependent.
All 9-11 internet-published conspiracy theorists, that I have read, are unaware that long before steel members subjected to the heat of fire lose much of their rated strength and rigidity (before their Young modulus decreases too much), they EXPAND in a manner that creates a force that can destroy them, or destroy other members, or destroy their connections to other members.  The combination of thermal expansion with a still-high Young modulus creates an enormous force, which typically causes something to distort, tear off, or to move out of the way.  As they said back in the day, "something has got to break." http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/
Particularly, which "two or three inch flange of a structural steel column" are you referring to, and what is it holding up? floor trusses ends?  And, why do you suspect that such a flange became too "flexible"?
Again you ask "What is the burning temperature of Jet fuel?" without providing the context in which it is burning.   Whatever context, such a temperature is likely comparable to the burning temperature of other hydrocarbon fuels, such fuel oil or gasoline, or diesel fuel. 
Thus, look carefully at the photographs here:  http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm
The hydrocarbon fire (gas, diesel, oil) whatever it was, caused the steel I-beam above it expand, and where the beam was "softest" (its Young's modulus was reduced where it was heated) the beam was deformed by that force.  The beam could not move the objects pinning its ends (could not freely elongate), so a compressive distortion occurred within the length of the beam itself.  Upon cooling, the beam did not resume its original shape, nor its original length, because the forces generated by its thermal expansion had compressively deformed it.  If this were a vertical column supporting a heavy building in parallel with other columns (which would restrain it from freely elongating), the column so heated and deformed would not be able to carry its rated load, and UPON COOLING SOME it would then thermally contract but would be x inches SHORTER than when it was installed and thus it could be PULLING THE BUILDING DOWN INSTEAD OF HOLDING IT UP.
So, to answer your question, "What is the burning temperature of Jet fuel?", I would say that the burning temperature of Jet fuel is about the same temperature needed to cause installed structural steel members to expand and to distort, and to potentially change their shape, position, and/or length.

Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower |
Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery