Twin Tower Fires Weren't Very Hot

How hot were the fires in the Twin Towers?

Well, NIST itself says that paint tests indicated low steel temps -- 480 Fahrenheit -- "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire". NIST also said that microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values of 600 Celsius (1112 degrees Fahrenheit) for any significant time.

In addition, Thomas Eager, a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a defender of the official story, concluded that the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 800 Celsius (1472 degrees Fahrenheit). Eager pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, jet fuel from the planes did not increase the temperature of the fires.

Moreover, thermal images taken by Jersey Infrared Consultants suggest that the temperatures of the steel in the north tower were not much more than 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of the fires (see also this).

Finally, 4 additional pieces of evidence are cited by Jim Hoffman to show low temperatures in the Towers:

(1) At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the tower was destroyed.

(2) The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage in either tower. Window breakage is a common occurrence in large office fires, particularly when temperatures exceed 600° Celsius.

(3) Unlike the North Tower, in which some fires were visible well above the impact zone, the fires in the South Tower never spread beyond the impact zone. In fact there is no evidence that the fires on the floors at the impact zone even spread to the opposite side of the building. By the time the building collapsed, the fires appeared to be suffocating, as no flames were visible, and only black smoke was emerging. At that time the vast majority of smoke was coming from the North Tower.

(4) The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.

See also this page.

The fires were not very hot. So why did the Twin Towers collapse?

Flame or Molten Metal Coloration?

Flame or Molten Metal Coloration? Is it possible to have flames of one color, (white, thermite) and metal of another color (iron, orange)? Yes

My conclusions...

I've talked to Steven Jones about the NIST claims of low temperatures on the steel.

As you know this is problematic for his thermate hypothesis because thermate burns at 4000dF.

The destruction of vital evidence is central here.


"...the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occured represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas."

They then admit that it is not possible to "...extrapolate from such a small sample size..."

Well hell, that's what we've been saying for years! They destroyed (illegally) the smoking gun evidence that temperatures DID get hotter, much hotter, but only at specific points where they were cut.

This destruction of evidence must be exposed, and prosecuted as a crime. All available data must be made public, and those who destroyed evidence arrested and charged with the applicable crimes.

Nothing is problematic for Jones' thermate hypothesis because

the only way to explain the vast pools of molten iron found under the wtc buildings is from the use of incendiaries like thermite/thermate.

Wrong. It's HIGHLY problematic.

When we accept the NIST claim that fires didn't get hot, it effectively disproves the thermate hypothesis. It falsifies it.

The FEMA/NIST data is incomplete (by far), and that is the only explanation to counter this falsification.

We have to be very careful to qualify our endorsement of the NIST "low temperature" claims (as I implored Dr. Jones to do).

I believe I have shown in no uncertain terms WHY their "low temperature" claims are useless and baseless, as even NIST admits extrapolation from their small sample size isn't valid.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

The thermate hypothesis implies temperatures of 4000dF-4500dF in numerous places, cutting steel columns.

Siding with NIST's claims about no samples getting above 1472dF is in essence, tossing out the possibility of thermate/thermite (and probably other conventional explosives as well).

Think about it before you respond with knee jerk claims.

Digg it!!

The Media Confused....

..people by replaying the crashes and the collapses, but not all of the time elapsed in between. The mind then associates the two together as one event, as if the power of the impacts was horrible enough to create the volcanic heat needed melt the Towers. Now everything is censored ...."to show respect to the victim's families". And number seven was and is hardly ever shown falling AT ALL.

what a shame.

This Might Seem Too Big For Some... Visualize. But it's far from impossible.

If the Towers were designed to be hit by jumbojets of approximately the same size and the remaining supports left behind were to be strong enough to support the weight load, THEN it would take a temperature of at least 600 C to make the remaining beams lose 50% strength to allow failure to even be a possibility. Probably at 50% strength the Towers should've still stood quite comfortably. But even if that temperature was reached we should've seen the broken windows.

It's very very easy to see that it just doesn't add up.

Moreover we are talking about metal supposedly gradually heating up, not a house of glass. If explosions didn't take out the columns, the steel should have gradually weakened and we should've seen an assymetrical gradual leaning then collapse....not a symmetrical implosion/explosion kaboom.

Not Quite Johndorami...

FEMA also mentioned sulfidation. The sulfur might mean that a lower melting point was needed for the thermite. Fema also mentioned eutectic corrosion. The eutectic has a lower melting point as a mixture than its constituents do separately. Lower temperatures than F4000+ may have been required as a result.

addendum: Let me add in editing that I didnt really address your concern John, with my comment above. Your claiming that the temperatures cited by NISt knock out the Thermate claims because there is no metal found that showed exposures to thermate level temperatures (ie 4500dF). Fine. They admit they looked at only a small sampling and most of the steel was shipped out to Lord knows where. So your argument is moot because it proves nor disproves anything.

There is the question of the

There is the question of the WTC iron-rich spheres (as to what formed them), which is considered a great mystery.

These spheroidal particles contained iron, which has a melting point of 2800 F. This suggests the temperatures that produced the particles had to be greater than that temperature.

So, there is the question: What caused this intense heat?

Thanks to Dr. Steven Jones for pioneering work in this area.

deleted as a moot comment