Bastardi on the non-existent climate-tornado linkage

UPDATE: Graph added below per request from Joe Bastardi.

But first, let’s listen to expert on all things public, scientific, and climatic, Rosie O’Donnell

From Fox News:

Living in an era when pop culture celebrities can assert “expert” opinions on any subject, why wait for science to catch up with pesky facts?

If Rosie O’Donnell says global warming caused Joplin’s destruction, then it must be true, right? As Hollywood knows best, there’s no need for lab research, instant proclamations are good enough. It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11, so why not weather can’t cause deadly tornadoes outbreaks before this? Must be global warming then. Yeah that’s the ticket.

Alright, now having weathered that, here’s Joe Bastardi on Fox News talking the science.

UPDATE: Joe Bastardi writes in and asks this graphic to be included (which apparently never made it into the interview). Click for a very large version.

 

 

About these ads

166 thoughts on “Bastardi on the non-existent climate-tornado linkage

  1. “It could snow cheese in New York and they would say it was global warming” – lmao

  2. If that item had run another minute or two, I am certain that Joe would have “lost it” completely, and delivered an anti-warmist rant for the ages.

    Maybe, next time (:-

  3. Anthony, watch out for Senate Bill 978. You might have to forego YouTube in the near future: http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/

    Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.

    According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.

    Read Masnick’s article here. He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.

  4. Everyone here, must identify, with the obvious frustration, emoted by JB. All skeptics have this one thing in common! We vary in everything else. GK

  5. Seeing how 1970 thru 2000 was the warming cycle and that the cooling cycle 2000 thru 2030 is here, what else can you expect. Here in Western Oregon I expect to start shoveling snow in about ten years or so in the good old winter time. It will seem like old times just like in the 1960’s removing snow from the sidewalks in front of the family drug store.

  6. I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.

    The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.

    Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.

    Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.

    Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.

    The think about snowing cheese might be clever, but it isn’t really a scientific statement. And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming.

  7. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.

    ———————————-

    I’ve read reviews of all the papers if not the papers themselves on global warming, read the IPCC reports and followed the debate closely for four years now and I’ve never seen affirmation of the theory of global warming.

    I am not alone.

  8. Bublhead says:

    “Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing. Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

  9. Rosie is certainly incorrect about global warming causing tornadoes. However, she is absolutely correct when she states that fires cannot melt steel, so that they flow like rivers, as noted by WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson:

    Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.

  10. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
    “And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming”.

    Maybe if the 2 minute interview had been about the science of Global Warming then he would have refuted it (scientifically,of course) to your liking.
    Given the limited time available to him, I think he did an excellent job explaining the atmospheric conditions which caused these horrendous storms, which was in fact,the point of the interview.

  11. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
    ===================================
    Anyone that can read a chart knows that sea level rise has slowed, it’s obvious that temperatures have declined since 1998, there is no tropospheric hot spot…etc etc

    All the while CO2 levels have increased (saying they are historically high is just hysterics) but they are Hansen’s A.

    How do you explain it without refuting the basic premises of Global Warming.

  12. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    “The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.”

    Warmista have always claimed that one effect of increased CO2 would be higher temperatures in the mid-level atmosphere. In this case, “higher temperatures” means higher minimum night-time temperatures. All the evidence has contradicted this Warmista claim.

    “Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.”

    If you regard Global Average Surface Temperature as something other than an outrageous contrivance, then you still have to relate it to global warming. There is no such relationship in science.

    “Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”

    Atmospheric CO2 levels are not global warming. You and other Warmista must produce a little science to show that they contribute to global warming. There is no such science.

    “Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.”

    Trapped energy, that’s a new one. I thought that the effect of CO2 was to serve as a blanket that slowed Earth’s warming, not that it trapped energy. Can we tap this trapped energy to power automobiles?

    Your pseudonym is remarkably well-chosen. You have great insight into yourself. Now you need to learn what a Bublhead should do.

  13. Bublehead! Nothing you have said shows anything more than your ability to toe the company line! And if CO2 is behind the CURRENT warming trend, please, oh please explain why it ISN’T behind other similar warming trends in the past, and why this “trend” is so, um, special. Please explain also why and how global warming is responsible for the twister outbreak this year, but (and this is a big but) not in previous years, especially seing how global warming has been getting worse since say, 2000 AD. Shouldn’t the twisters be steadily increasing? Oh…right, there’s that ‘tipping point’ thing…and when did that happen? The thing is, B’head, you cannot explain this, because you don’t grasp the physical significance of tornado formation. You assert that Bastardi hasn’t disproved anything, while in the same breath, you have not proved anything. “Creative” cut-and-paste is not going to win any arguments here. To assign the garbage-dump term “global warming” (in itself an effect) as a cause, is worthy of Rosie O’Donnell, but not a scientific forum.

  14. Bublhead says:

    “Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing. Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”

    When CO2 exceeds 5000ppm (not the trivial 390 we are enjoying today) it will finally reach “historic” levels. Until then, learn some science.

  15. curious, that post really belonged in Tips and Notes, I think. But I note that the sponsors are notorious Democrats, from Feinstein to Franken. No way it passes the House.

  16. thereisnofear: Was that metal structural steel, or one of the many other metals, with lower melting points, that are often found in buildings.

  17. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
    I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.

    Perhaps that could be because he was not trying to refute the entire concept of AGW in this interview, but merely to counter the absurd notion that this Spring’s tornado outbreaks were the result of AGW or any other kind of warming. It’s sometimes hard to refute a hypothesis, when its proponents claim every possible result as falling within their projections, but such an argument tends to leave them looking like Harold Camping after a while.

  18. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.

    That’s because he wasn’t trying to say that: he was saying that global warming wasn’t what was causing the tornadoes, but the mid-level cooling and the change in wind patterns. He was also saying (or inferring, actually) that it is unsupportable to link every extreme or unusual weather (or cheese ;) event to global warming. Simple enough to follow.

  19. Fred from Canuckistan says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:39 am
    “I have it on good authority that global warming caused Rosie O’Donnell.”

    Fred,

    As we all know correlation does not equal causation.

    Pablo

  20. Look at the North American snow cover on April 20th, in the middle of the mid-April Tornado outbreak. This snowcover is at least 3 weeks behind normal.

    As Joe Bastardi says, it is completely opposite to the proposition that global warming caused the outbreaks. Global cooling and the La Nina are the primary mechanisms.

  21. Sorry to contradict you and the estimable Rosie Whoever, but steel can be melted like that in an office fire. It all depends on length of exposure, ventilation and the local heat feedbackplus the size of the fire and the structure, of course. Just because it is rare, does not mean it “can’t happen.” It is rare, but it was also noted after the fire storms that destroyed Hamburg and Dresden to name just two.

    Let’s not get into the 9/11 was all an internal plot to justify the war on terror.

    Look into the ‘models’ used to support the “Warming” panic – they use surface temperatures, but they also only model the lower atmosphere as far as I am aware and they don’t do anything with oceans (also part of the atmosphere) or the upper atmosphere and they certainly don’t predict tornadoes. Hollywood has a lot to answer for in clouding this debate.

  22. Bublhead,
    Professor David Evans was head of the Greenhouse Gas Commission in Australia for 10 years.
    The AGW hypothesis was that the warming signal would start in the trophosphere first and then spread.
    Despite measuring the trophosphere with air balloons and satellite, the warming could not be found.
    Therefore the hypothesis was wrong, Evans decided.
    The graphs above show the trophosphere cooling while CO2 is rising.

  23. They used to laugh at the idea that every company needed qualified computer geeks.

    Today people laugh at the importance of unbiased and objective meteorologists, still. With the state of the globality of the global world, and it’s only going to get more “global”, but would anyone, today, really want to invest in even a single shipment of goods if we didn’t have objectively interpreted weather data for the shipping time? But who would you trust: The unbiased weather man working for whom ever or the “insurance company’s own weather man”?

  24. Bublhead said: “I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming.”

    It’s a case of guilt by association. Gore’s latest book cover directly blames tornadoes on AGW by Photoshopping in a bunch of them at once:

    However tornado numbers are “up” only because of better detection by satellites. That’s not a controversial statement. Strong tornadoes which do not suffer from a lack of detection (!) have been declining in number for decades according to the NOAA’s own official plot:

    “Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.”

    He did mention one thing about that, in fact: it’s cooling outside despite claims that rising CO2 is now driving everything! The oceans are an order of magnitude more important in terms of heat capacity and they too are cooling according to ARGO buoy results that have now been data embargoed as far as I can tell.

    Please explain why the recent big dip (1940-1970) and surge in T exactly matches the dip and surge that happened prior to it?

    Better yet, explain why there is no explanation offered for this. I made that a year or two ago and posted it far and wide on AGW enthusiast blogs and never got a straight answer. The best they offered was that the past simply did not matter since now CO2 is in charge, seemingly by dictate alone. Then they link bombed me with primary literature articles that did not robustly support the claims they assumed they did. All the while they did a victory dance, claiming I must not be a scientist. When I pointed out that I was trained by the best in the business, they went on and on about how funny it was that even idiots could sneak into grad school. Then I was asked to speak for scientific academies I have no contact with, though both the Royal Society and the APS (Am. Phys. Soc.) have both experienced internal rebellions concerning their public statements on AGW, the first having had 45 of about 1300 members revolt, and the later having 800 of 47K involved. Also a recent poll of sorts was made of hard science (chemistry/physics) Nobelists: of the 137 that are still living a mere 10 signed up for a petition to support AGW theory, leaving 93% of them who declined to sign on the dotted line of what amounted to an AGW activist manifesto.

    You are a history major. Consider what history has to tell us about dominant scientific theory. There is an ether that pervades space. Continents don’t move (despite an obvious jigsaw puzzle match between them)! Dirty hands don’t kill surgical patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat human beings as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is just “junk”. Man will never fly. Viruses have nothing to do with ulcers or certain cancers. Bacterial spontaneously generate. Dietary cholesterol dominates heart disease occurrence just as CO2 dominates the latest warming trend.

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  25. thereisnofear says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:31 am

    You are right. Any structural engineer will tell you that no office or hydrocarbon fire can melt steel alone. Given that the tower fires were oxygen poor (i.e. lots of black smoke), the temperature of the flames were no where close to weakening and even less close to melting structural steel.

    Because science teaches us not to trust the government about Climate Change, the same science also tells us not to believe their fairy tale report on the way those towers collapsed. You can’t cherry-pick science.

  26. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

    David Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Australian Government that tracks carbon in plants, debris, soils, and agricultural and forest products. He researches mathematics — Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials. While valuable, this activity pays nothing. So David has been investing on the stock market, and doing the odd consulting job, since 1990. David also has a keen interest in monetary history, banking, and detecting scams.
    Read and weep for your theory Bublhead

  27. thereisnofear says:

    Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.

    Do you know what a cupola furnace is? It is a vertical shaft that is filled with layers with wood charcoal and iron fragments. After the charcoal is lit and allowed to heat up, a taphole is opened up and *molten* iron flows out. That’s right, iron is melted wood fire – pretty much common knowledge since the dawn of the iron age. With regards to the melting of steel, the difference between a small cupola filled with charcoal, and skyscraper filled with jet fuel is only a matter of scale.

  28. I have it under excellent authority that Rosie O’Donnell breathes out over 40,000 PPM of CO2 with every breath. Perhaps she could do something to contribute to her perceived need to decrease global atmospheric CO2 levels and stop breathing out so much.

  29. MarkW,

    Some have tried to argue that the material was aluminum. However, aluminum does not effervesce in the same way that molten iron does. It remains silvery, while the many eyewitnesses of this material have reported orange-red material. Consult the research of Stephen Jones.

    Gray Monk:
    The melting point of steel is 1510 deg. C. A hydrocarbon fire (jet fuel), under optimum atmospheric conditions, burns at about 815 deg. C. Office materials are similar. There were no other conditions present that could have doubled the available temperature to produce rivers of molten steel.

    If office fires could melt (not just weaken) steel, it would NEVER be used as a structural material.

  30. Re Smokey says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Many thanks for the “clicks”. I can use the charts to good effect – well, show /discuss them anyway, but warmista are very resistant. Gotta keep on keeping on tho.

    Will send to my MP (Member of Parliament). inter alios. UK Govt. quite nuts on Climate Change, unfortunately, and on windmills as one of the key solutions.

  31. thereisnofear says: “Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.”

    Oh dear, you don’t get it, do you? God I hope they moderate this out since I’m showing all our cards now, since I can’t bear the weight of it any more. We skeptics are the conspiracy of which you bespeak! Via massive influx of ExxonMobile money, in between champagne fueled gentleman’s parties in black Hummer limos, we intend, by hook or crook, to make caring tree huggers who support selfishly heroic scientists to look like addle minded conspiracy theorists. Now you, dear soldier, have fallen into our spider web, too. Confusing is our only game, not truth. That’s what the secret encoded cell phone rays from Koch’s Industries that are bounced off the flat moon moon tell us. It’s flat because we put it there. Have you never noticed that it never rotates?!

    Note to Bublhead: this is how skeptics deal with junk science. We smash it to pieces.

  32. Rosie is a poster child for stupidity. You can go on youtube and see a tanker truck fire melt the steel support structure on the roadway above where it crashed. video

  33. Now that I have stumbled upon the how . . . . for anyone who wants to refer to a prior post all you have to day is put the cursor over the date under the commenters name it will turn red click once and the link to that comment will show up in the URL (address bar??) you highlight that Ctrl C for copy and Ctrl P for paste in your Comment as is demonstrated for:

    The Gray Monk says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/03/bastardi-on-the-non-existent-climate-tornado-linkage/#comment-673192

    SOOOO. . . . Anywho . . . . Not on subject . . . But hopefully helpful!

  34. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    The think about snowing cheese might be clever, but it isn’t really a scientific statement. And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming.

    You expected scientific statements of fact on a 24-hour televised news channel? Did you just get off the alien spacecraft?

  35. I like the interviewer’s grasp of the subject: “this, err, cold-warm thing you were talking about …..” That is the trouble with the media, they are mostly brain-dead, and more than happy to pass on something sensationalist – because sensationalist sells.

    .

    However, there’s been a big change at the BBC, folks. We have just had the warmest spring on record in the UK – and not one BBC reporter has mentioned Global Warming. So what do they know that we don’t?? Are they just hedging their bets? Are they jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon? Have they been told something we have not? Are they going back to being a neutral reporting agency?

    One thing is for certain. An executive order has come from the top of the BBC – the very top – to not get involved in the AGW debate, but to just report the facts. That is what the BBC should have been doing from day one, of course, but this is one hell of a change in attitude and policy. A US equivalent, would be Fox News arguing that communism would be good for America.

    .

  36. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.

    The only temperature that’s relevant to tornado formation is the contiguous US Average Surface Temperature. It’s down about 3% over the past 15 years, iirc.

  37. Good yer Joe,tell it like it is.Seems celebrity rules over the truth/science.
    perhaps Anthony could aske Rosie to do a guest post on here,now that would be comedy.Anthony you could start a new page called “Celebrity Science”where Hollywoods great and good could express there versions of climate science and tell us mere mortals how to save the planet,whilst they leave carbon footprints that would make Al Gore blush,
    You could award a prize at the end of the year like the Oscar.and call it the Michael..

  38. ***If office fires could melt (not just weaken) steel, it would NEVER be used as a structural material.***

    Bullspit. That’s what FIREPROOFING steel columns is for.

    Go away, troll, and take your spoonfed soundbits with you.

  39. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    So Joe did not refute Global warming in a two minute explanation of how and why there are tornadoes now (as there have been in the past).

    But I am so glad that you did not find anything strange about Rosie O’Donnell, explaining how Global Warming is the only reason for having the tornadoes.

    sarc And obviously she is all knowing and can prove that tornadoes like these never happened before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere a little over 100 years ago. /sarc

  40. thereisnofear: You said that the molten metal was found in the basement. If that was in fact a true statement, then we have in hand, the metal in question and there should be no question as to what it is.

    Now if you are going to change the subject to the liquid seen leaking from the fire zone, then in truth nobody has any idea what it was. On the other hand there is no possible way it could have been structural steel. If that much steel had already melted, then the buildings would have collapsed long before that point.

  41. Gunny says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    thereisnofear says:

    Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.

    “Do you know what a cupola furnace is? It is a vertical shaft that is filled with layers with wood charcoal and iron fragments. After the charcoal is lit and allowed to heat up, a taphole is opened up and *molten* iron flows out. That’s right, iron is melted by wood fire – pretty much common knowledge since the dawn of the iron age. With regards to the melting of steel, the difference between a small cupola filled with charcoal, and skyscraper filled with jet fuel is only a matter of scale.”

    No! This can’t be true! No one melted iron before there were acetylene torches! /sarc :)

  42. Ray: You declare that any fire with a lot of smoke is defacto oxygen poor, and you then have the gall to criticize other people for not following science?

    Have you ever seen gasoline burn in an open pit? Lots of smoke.

    As someone else pointed out, there is a youtube video of a tanker crash under a bridge. Guess what, lots of smoke. Guess what else, the bridge collapsed, the fire got hot enough to soften the metal girders holding it up. And those girders were not carrying anywhere near the weight that Twin Towers girders were.

  43. Tornadoes are caused by cold northern air meeting warm southern air. The reason for all of the tornadoes this year is because there has been an enormous mass of cool air covering the American north-west.

    So Rosie is basically arguing that global warming caused this mass of cool air.

  44. thereisnofear: These rivers of molten steel exist in your imagination only. There is a picture of something liquid leaking out of the building, it is your assumption that this liquid is melted structural steel. You have no data beyond your personal belief to back this up.

  45. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    “The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.”

    Thank you, Bublhead for providing another example of the unscientific “method” ipcc Climate Science uses to protect its “theory”: in practice it will simply not let its CO2=CAGW theory be challenged or falsified. Therefore, its theory is not a scientific theory, and in fact it says nothing about the real world!

    The “theory’s” function is Dogmatic or Propagandistic, where the “theory” appears by its linguistic structure to be scientific or assertional as to fact, but in regard to its actual function as allowed by its authors, it is not.

    ipcc Climate Science’s “method” also resembles that of an Infantile mind which contents itself with repetitive, “No, you can’t make me,” chants. That’s its strength and appeal.

    Right, Bublhead?

  46. I don’t want to enhance this steel melting debate. However, British Steel did a number of full-scale fire tests of burning office buildings in the 1990s (the Cardington Tests), and the temperatures hit 1,213 oc – quite enough to plasticise steel and make it fail structurally.

    This was one of the beams, after the test. If this is not melting and plasticising, I don’t know what is.

    The situation in the WTC would have been worse than this, as the majority of the fire-proofing was blown off in the explosion. Then, with open holes at the top of a big tubular structure, with lift and stair-wells exposed, you end up with a chimney and an actively force-fed oxygen fire. If you can hit 1,200 oc in a test building where the floors remain largely intact, you could easily hit 1,600 oc in a blast-furnace chimney.

    .

    Here is a detailed report:

    http://fire.fsv.cvut.cz/fracof/en/02_FRACOF_observation_on_fires.pdf

    http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm

  47. NikfromNYC,
    Please re-read what I wrote. I agree that Rosie gets it wrong about tornadoes. I am thoroughly skeptical about the AGW hypothesis. I take that position because it is scientifically problematic. I prefer to stick to demonstrable scientific fact. Ordinary office and hydrocarbon (kerosene jet fuel) fires only burn at about 50% of the temperature required to melt steel under atmospheric conditions.

    Gunny: “the difference between a small cupola filled with charcoal, and skyscraper filled with jet fuel is only a matter of scale.” The two are not even remotely similar. Coke burns at a much higher temperature than kerosene (jet fuel), up to 2000 deg C under forced air conditions, which is how a cupola operates.

  48. Oh Rosie.

    I am not worthy – no – We Are Not Worthy.

    Oh – had We an Intellect such as Yours…

    Please respond, oh exalted one…

  49. Michal Jankowski,

    I am a professional civil engineer. Believe me when I say that it would fly against every known engineering principle to specify a building material that melts if the fireproofing were ever exposed. That would be insanity.

    Fireproofing slows heat transfer into the beams, which delays weakening of the steel, thus allowing people to escape and allowing extinguishing of the fire. But the simple scientific facts are that office fires and jet fuel fires cannot possibly generate temperatures of 1510 deg. C. That is not trolling. I am not promoting conspiracy theories. I am only discussing scientific facts, which is what WUWT is supposed to be all about.

  50. /Users/Joe/Desktop/Aqua-AMSU-30N-60N-ch-5-7-temps.png

    The article that accompanies this: ( graphic in open area)

    One of the most refreshing aspects about being on the side of the global warming argument I am is that most of us are true free thinking liberals in the real sense of the word. We dont march along as sheep. Instead the pursuit of the correct answer, what ever that may be, is our goal.
    A simple agenda.. get the answer right.
    I just read another stunningly ignorant article claiming global warming was( is) responsible for all that is wrong in the weather, climate or whatever. I am simply astounded that someone that is accorded the honor of a PHD can think this way. Seriously. In face of major direct contrary evidence, we get people taking the opposite tact of what is actually happening.
    In any case, suspicions have arisen as to the prowess of the Discover site 400mb temp. Since I am friends with Dr. Roy Spencer, we have been communicating back and forth. Roy, because he is a great scientist, raised questions as to whether the temperatures were actually that cold at 400 mb. So here we have a major proponent of the open minded debate side, which is what we are, questioning the data that would seemingly back up the argument that its not warming, but if anything, cooling, that is the problem. After bantering back and forth and acknowledging this could be in error since its so stunning a drop, Roy looked deeper into the problem. He looked at levels AROUND 400 mb to see if there is any of this going on,. And after doing so, he sent me this graphic which supports the contention that there has been major and dramatic cooling and that its real.

    GRAPHIC HERE, IF I GET AWAY WITH THIS, SHOWING THE DRAMATIC COOLING THAT HAS OCCURRED!

    For the nehsayers out there 3 Major point stick out to send you home with a more open mind
    1) over the past 10 years, in spite of the warm pdo till 07 and the still warm amo, there has been no increase in the earths temps in the mid and upper troposphere
    2) The most rapid responses occur after warming or cooling enso events of moderate or greater nature.. showing the direct tie in to the tropical pacific. You would have to be blind, ignorant, deceptive, or all three, if you did not see that.
    3) the temps AROUND the 400 mb level have dropped in a major way. Since the global temp has fallen on the order of .4c since last spring, it follows that the severe weather can not have been caused by warming. I will leave the door open for it NOT being caused by cooling.. because I am a nice guy, though this looks like a 3 strikes and you are out situation.. BUT ITS MOST CERTAINLY NOT WARMING
    Here is 3a) the last monster spring month for tornadoes was May 2008 another cool enso ( la nina) response
    I would suggest the sheep that follow their shepherd of AGW find another pasture to graze in as far as this matter goes
    ciao for now

  51. MarkW says:
    June 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Right you are: the properties of steel changes with temperature, irregardless of whether a fire melts it or not. For a structure engineered to stand at normal temperatures, the properties/cross sectioning/design are calculated at those temperatures, not 2000F. The engineer wins.

  52. Dear Bublhead,

    I’m sorry for your unfortunate selection of screen name, it makes responding to you without sounding condescending more difficult than it would be otherwise.

    You really have to watch out for that straw-man fallacy. If you listened carefully to Mr Bastardi you would recognize that he was not trying to refute ‘global warming’ [meaning Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming based on human CO2 emissions] on this occasion, he was trying to refute the fallacious connection between the recent devastating tornado outbreaks and CAGW theory, two rather different propositions.

    Mr. Bastardi does successfully refute the proposition that warm temperatures and excess moisture in the atmosphere leads to mass outbreaks of destructive tornadoes. It is unfortunate that Fox News could not provide any of weatherbell.com’s usual graphics to support his contention, but Bastardi is factually correct, what turns an ordinary tornado year into a year like this one is an excess of vertical wind-shear do to the intrusion of cold air from Canada.

    If you choose to inform yourself, this blog is chock full of information, the relevant graphs and informed discussion that should convince anyone who is willing to be convinced on the evidence that powerful tornadic activity is associated with cool or cooling trends, and that the switch between such warming and cooling trends is strongly associated with such climatological cycles such as the ENSO, the PDO, AMO, and of course the much discussed Arctic Oscillation.

    There MAY BE an anthropogenic signal in there somewhere, possibly due to land use changes, deforestation, atmospheric pollution do to black carbon, even emissions of CO2, but that proposition is still being debated vigorously, here and many other reputable places.

    But, if you have convinced yourself that the ONLY explanation for the 1-1.5˚C [or whatever its REAL value is] trend in Global Average Surface Temperature in the last hundred fifty years can only be due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, then I don’t know what to say except that you need to broaden the scope of your investigation.

    Best regards,

    W^3

  53. to amplify Gunnys’ statement.

    steel is mostly iron. iron will burn. the most frequently seen example is an aceytelene torch cutting steel plate.

    in the process you heat the steel up to yellow temperature and apply oxygen it will burn and in the burning process it liberates a great deal of heat. if your system is large enough and hot enough you can take the fire from the torch away and keep the burning going with only an oxygen stream. this is called an “oxygen lance”. it is an exothermic reaction and liberates great amounts of heat.

    in steel manufacture this is called the basic oxygen process. an example would be 120 tons of molten steel is poured into a cruicible. 120tons of steel scrap is then poured on top of that. a STRONG stream of oxygen is applied. there is no other source of heat than the reaction and in about 30 minutes the whole charge is molten.

    i watched this in action in a steel mill that made 500tons of steel per hour in southern california. it was shut down by scaqmd for air pollution reasons about 30 years ago.

    if there is any evidence of steel/iron melting in the towers (it would be at the edges of the beams) especially in the upper levels of the fire some burning of steel probably has occoured.

    C

  54. Rosie typifies the American condition Indoctrinated with fear about Global Warming but with enough scepticism to see 9/11 as total BS, in time they will see AGW as part of the same product of fear and dis-information to give all your rights away to the Police State.

  55. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/03/bastardi-on-the-non-existent-climate-tornado-linkage/#comment-673208

    fear: The isobaric adiabatic flame temperature of jet fuel is about 3800 F. Hot enough for you? The typical exhaust temperature of an afterburning military engine is around 3200 F. Will that melt structural steel? Yes. I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers but it’s probably an open-air temperature. Fires in confined spaces like engines, or buildings, get considerably hotter.

    But what does this have to do with global warming?

  56. mark w:

    liquid leaking from the fire zone could have been aluminum. it melts at about 800 degrees.

    it would have appeared as a silvery looking liquid probably with some white smoke around it.

    if you see a tank truck with gasoline or diesel fuel burning then look in the ditches under the wreck and you will see solidified “puddles”. tankers are about 80% by weight aluminum.

    aluminum is alsto used extensively in windoframes, file cabinets, the frames for false ceilings……. there is lots of it around in “fireproof construction”.

    by the way aluminum also burns, bright white flame dense clouds of white smoke.

    THERE IS A PROCESS (THE THERMITE PROCESS) WHERE BY ALUMINUM POWDER IS SET ON FIRE WITH A MAGNIESUM TORCH (RAILROAD FLARE) AND THE ALUMINUM FIRE MELTS IRON OXIDE POWDER WHICH FUSES WITH OTHER IRON IN THE VICINITY AND WELDS IT TOGETHER IN A 100% WELD.

    so tell chubs to shut her piehole.

    C

  57. If google is going to drive people way from sharing or embedding youtube videos then they should probably remove the “Share or Embed” button from the videos.

  58. The folks at Oregon’s Mt. Bachelor ski area “get it.”

    The average seasonal snowfall there is 387″; this year set a new record of 665″ breaking the previous record set during the 1998-99 season. They report that both record years were during similar La Nina events. Extreme weather caused by cooling La Ninas.

    http://www.mtbachelor.com/winter/mountain/snow_report

  59. Rivers of Steel Folks,

    I have no opinion on the veracity of the claims of rivers of molten steel discovered in the wreckage of the former World Trade Center [or Rosie O’Donnel for that matter], but I can tell you on the authority of any standard structural engineering text that the yield strength of unprotected structural steel work takes a crippling turn downward at about 600-700˚C in as little as twenty minutes of exposure.

    Steel is a wonderful building material for high rise structures and has many wonderful properties, but it MUST be protected from fire and extreme heat. Structural steel work at elevated temperature may undergo rapid plastic deformation and subsequently fail completely even under only its own weight, under load it can fail very quickly. If even one building member fails, its load is instantly transmitted to adjacent members this can cause a chain reaction as successively larger overloads are placed on successively fewer structural members. Add tens of thousands of tons worth of intact building above that and you can create an enormous sledge hammer falling directly down on the floors below with a shock load that will very quickly destroy the undamaged levels below.

    Ordinary structural steel in buildings above a modest size is required by code to be fire protected either by a sprinkler system in low rise buildings such as warehouses or by adding layers of fireproofing material such as gypsum board or spray on mineral fiber insulation in high rise ones. If a building structure’s fire proofing material is damaged by say, the debris storm of a 90 ton passenger jet carrying in excess of 60,000 liters of fuel passing through it at say approximately mach .65 it might not take very long for the building to collapse.

    How on earth did we get onto this subject anyway?? Is there a Godwin’s Law corollary for WTC conspiracy theory that we need to be aware of now of???

    your friend,

    W^3

  60. The heat to soften or melt the steel girders could come from burning aluminium, magnesium and the various light metal alloys used in the aircraft. The fresh metal surfaces from fractured metal will catch on fire quite easily in a hot flame. Electrical arcs from severed electrical service lines could also initiate combustion of these metals.

    The black smoke in the fires was probably from the rubber tires and plastic materials such as polystyrene.

  61. Nice to see Ms O’Donnel still can’t refrain from commenting authoritatively on subjects she knows nothing about.

  62. MarkW says:
    June 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    If you try to teach me something in the chemistry of combustion you fail miserably.

    Burning gasoline in an open pit is far from a complete combustion and the smoke you see is a perfect sign of it. A near complete combustion is what your IC engine achieves. Do you see black smoke coming out of your exhaust pipe? A perfect combustion give only colorless water and carbon dioxide and the maximum heat.

    The bridge in question was made manly of concrete. Concrete is not a conductor of heat and and becomes very brittle when heated to high temperatures. This is why it was damaged. The iron bars (which are not structural steel) are not made to support the bulk of the weight, they are there to give the concrete a little more flexibility.

  63. Here in the northwestern part of the U.S., whenever there has been a forest fire that spawns a firestorm, temperatures are reached in which the steel in the left-behind fire-fighting equipment is melted. To only consider the max temperature of a burning fuel in an open environment, without considering other factors such as enclosures and wind, is to do what AGWers do – ignore science.

  64. thereisnofear, you are mistaken.

    I plugged kerosene and air into CEA, a program used by rocket engineers like me to predict the combustion and performance of rocket engines. I set the “chamber” conditions to be 14.7 psi, with room-temperature ingredients, kerosene and air at a mixture ratio of 14:1 air:kero. The adiabatic flame temperature is 2227 Kelvin, or 3548 Fahrenheit. You bet your ass kerosene fires can melt steel, even without containment of the heat.

    THEORETICAL ROCKET PERFORMANCE ASSUMING EQUILIBRIUM
    COMPOSITION DURING EXPANSION FROM INFINITE AREA COMBUSTOR

    Pinj = 14.7 PSIA
    REACTANT WT FRACTION ENERGY TEMP
    (SEE NOTE) KJ/KG-MOL K
    FUEL kerosene 1.0000000 -506264.000 .000
    OXIDANT air 1.0000000 .000 .000

    O/F= 14.00000 %FUEL= 6.666667 R,EQ.RATIO= 1.059263 PHI,EQ.RATIO= 1.059263

    CHAMBER THROAT EXIT
    Pinf/P 1.0000 1.7962 26.180
    P, BAR 1.0135 .56428 .03871
    T, K 2227.09 2011.48 1150.26
    RHO, KG/CU M 1.5489-1 9.5713-2 1.1490-2
    H, KJ/KG -238.90 -603.30 -1819.31
    U, KJ/KG -893.26 -1192.85 -2156.25
    G, KJ/KG -21620.9 -19915.2 -12862.8
    S, KJ/(KG)(K) 9.6009 9.6009 9.6009

    M, (1/n) 28.298 28.368 28.384
    (dLV/dLP)t -1.00181 -1.00035 -1.00000
    (dLV/dLT)p 1.0552 1.0119 1.0000
    Cp, KJ/(KG)(K) 1.9662 1.5679 1.3384
    GAMMAs 1.1970 1.2362 1.2802
    SON VEL,M/SEC 885.0 853.7 656.8
    MACH NUMBER .000 1.000 2.707

  65. @Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    “…Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising….”

    Good name. Now Joe might not refer in a 2-minute segment to “historically high CO2 levels” but here’s a few references for you to chew on:

    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

    http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html

    These show, within the time frame of the last 600 million years (where we have much rock in which to find a record), CO2 is essentially at historically low levels. We’re not too far from killing off lots of plants. We are in fact in a global ice age that will probably last tens of millions of years.

    Now, you may dispute these analyses (I suspect you’ll just ignore them) but then you have to overturn the science used in making these estimates. Good luck with that. There a several independent studies that give similar results.

    This whole “AGW” thing makes me angrier by the day. There are many contributors to whether the Earth is a place hospitable to life, or a cold, sere ball of ice. CO2 is about as important as the second-team punter in the game of life.

  66. That cheese rain would probably turn me into a believer, depending on the type of cheese as it wouldn’t be too unusual to see American cheddar rain.

  67. Curiousgeorge says:
    June 3, 2011 at 10:45 am

    According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.

    The fact that I would be perfectly able to embed a video of my own making that then pops up a random (well, google-chosen) video that may be played in the embedded frame makes a complete mockery of that.

  68. Bublhead says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.

    The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.

    Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.

    Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.

    Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.

    The think about snowing cheese might be clever, but it isn’t really a scientific statement. And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming.

    As far as I can tell, you must be deliberately missing his point in order to make your own irrelevant point.

    Joe’s point was that this sequence of weather is not created by Global Warming. He in no way tries to refute Global Warming itself. He is scathing of those who are trying to pin this not-unprecedented tragedy on Global Warming.

    What bit of that is not immediately clear?

  69. The funny thing is that I’ve shown countless people the NOAA data on F3-F5s and on F5/EF5s, and they just dismiss it because it’s “obvious” that stronger tornadoes are linked to global warming.

    Talk about “deniers.”

  70. The skyscraper was not filled with jet fuel so the scale is irrelevant. Most of it ignited immediately upon impact as you can see by the massive fireballs blasting out of the WTC buildings.

    This is a largely scientific site. Anyone who can filter thru this much AGW bullshit shouldn’t have a problem looking at the work performed by Richard Gage et al at Architects & Engineers to determine that official 9/11 theory is just as bunk as AGW.

    They even have an ad hominen, derogatory nickname for such people, “Truthers”, which as “Deniers” we should be able to empathize with them as well as recognize the establishment tactic of inventing such slogans to be used by main stream canned commentary.

  71. Near the end of Joe’s video there is what looks like a tornado spout going sideways. Was it really, or was that just an optical effect? Being from the UK, we don’t get many (thank $deity) and hadn’t seen video of one doing that before. What causes that? Guessing may be windshear?

  72. @TravisB:
    There is no reason for empathy. B.S. is B.S. and the truthers are just as full of in as the alarmists.

  73. Re: Thereisnofear said regarding Rosie O’donnel, “she is absolutely correct when she states that fires cannot melt steel, so that they flow like rivers, as noted by WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson:: Rosie O’donnel was correct.”

    There was a forest fire several years ago, and it engulfed a tram system at Bridal Falls. The girders were all twisted and bent. I didn’t know that the steel in the WTC flowed like a river.

  74. I cannot believe that this discussion has taken place. Anyone who has seen a blacksmith work, seen video of a blacksmith working, or even heard of a blacksmith should know that fire melts steel all the time.

    The WTC was going to have asbestos foam fire proofing, but it was found that asbestos causes cancer. There was no readily available substitute at the time that was as light and as fire proof. What was used was not adequate.

  75. thereisnofear says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Gray Monk:
    The melting point of steel is 1510 deg. C. A hydrocarbon fire (jet fuel), under optimum atmospheric conditions, burns at about 815 deg. C. Office materials are similar. There were no other conditions present that could have doubled the available temperature to produce rivers of molten steel.

    If office fires could melt (not just weaken) steel, it would NEVER be used as a structural material.

    Why the “not just weaken” caveat? The steel didn’t have to melt. All it had to do was “weaken,” then buckle due to the load to collapse the building(s). Are you saying that….Eh, never mind.,

  76. I believe what Rosie was trying to say was that never before in history (until 9/11) had we witnessed steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire. I don’t know whether or not that is factually correct; however, she did make an interesting point that building 7s collapse was the result of small fires started by falling debris, not jet fuel. It is pretty amazing to think that a building fire could cause an implosion like the one that news crews filmed of WTC 7.

  77. thereisnofear says on June 3, 2011 at 11:31 am

    … However, she is absolutely correct when she states that fires cannot melt steel, so that they flow like rivers, as noted by WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson:

    Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.

    Are you a metallurgist – or can you give a metallurgical cite, something – anything about modulus of elasticity regarding steel at elevated temperatures?

    Like this: http://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing_spec/properties_of_metals_strength.htm

    or this: http://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing_spec/average_properties_structural_materials.htm

    You also might need to know the exact type of steel alloy …

    (See, steel doesn’t simply melt like ice …)

    .


  78. MarkW says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Bublhead says:

    “Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing. Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”

    When CO2 exceeds 5000ppm (not the trivial 390 we are enjoying today) it will finally reach “historic” levels. Until then, learn some science.

    MarkW you are right about Bublhead but some sources indicate that the Bublhead was off by even more than you have indicated. This link http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm shows a CO2 concentration of about 7000ppm during the Cambrian.

    Or just the graph may be seen here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

  79. “They own every answer. It could snow cheese tomorrow in New York and that’ll be from global warming.”

    That’s gotta be the best description of the alarmist world view I have ever heard.

    Thanks once again Joe, you have made my day.

  80. @Michael Jankowski

    A history channel program on the collapse of the twin towers several years ago revealed that only the lower 1/4 of the support beams in the twin towers were insulated against fire because when the building reached that point a ban against asbestos was in put in place at that time. So no insulation, lots of fuel and a building that acts like a big chimney, of course it’s going to collapse. BTW the asbestos that was used was in a location where after it was applied no one would ever come into contact with it.

  81. The Gray Monk says: (June 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm)
    …but steel can be melted … It is rare, but it was also noted after the fire storms that destroyed Hamburg and Dresden to name just two.

    Thank you. A little history is a wondrous thing.
    Lest We Forget.


  82. I don’t think you can get a better explanation than this as to why the towers collapsed.The steel did not need to melt,just buckle.
    For Elizabeth

  83. I don’t know about you but when I use my BBQ, which has a near perfect combustion stoichiometry (thus maximum temperature), I don’t see the grid melting away every time I use it.

  84. Maybe we need to start another web page just to discuss the WTC collapse.

    Steel fails in fires all the time. Truss type roofing is especially vulnerable because it is so light in weight. Lots of cases of this happening as even a small, localized fire can collapse a roof. That’s why sprinklers spray up, to protect the structure.

    Charts showing the allowable loads on columns and beams have a temperature limitation noted, above which they no longer maintain their rated strength. It’s not all that high. At 550 deg. C, steel loses about half it’s tensile strength.

    In the case of the WTC, the fireproofing was removed by the impact of the aircraft, which were moving at about 400 knots. For an exercise, calculate the kinetic energy of 90 tons moving at 400 knots stopping in a few feet. Without fireproofing, all that is needed for structural failure is for one beam or column to fail in the right place. Remember that several columns and the outer structural walls were compromised by the impact, placing abnormal stress on the remaining components. They didn’t need to get very hot to fail.

    Some people claim that hot, molten material running out of the building is evidence of some especially hot incendiary device. Ever see a car that was allowed to burn? Rivers of molten aluminum if it had an aluminum engine block, transmission case, or other major component. Now, where could aluminum come from? What did those airplanes weigh? Melting point of Al, 660 deg. C.

    Now, let’s get back to global warming and tornadoes.

  85. Charlie Foxtrot says:
    June 3, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Nah, we don’t need to discuss the WTC. The engineer won.
    Joe Bastardi just graded Rosies misinformed ticket. She flunked.
    The meteorologist wins.

  86. Many of my critics are missing my point. I am not arguing that the fire didn’t weaken the structural members sufficiently to initiate collapse. I am not trying to make the case that the collapse shouldn’t have happened. That is an entirely different discussion. Instead, I am arguing that there is abundant eye-witness testimony of molten metal found in the rubble – days, weeks and months after the attacks, including the structural engineer who was part of the WTC design team. You can read a summary here:

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

    NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology, consider this the equivalent of the IPCC) performed a computer simulation of the fire conditions in the WTC towers. They report that the maximum fire temperatures reached peaks of only 1000 deg C, and these were short-lived (15-20 min) and mobile. These conditions could not have melted the steel found in the rubble, which require persistent temperatures in excess of 1600 deg C. (ref. NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)

  87. E.M.Smith says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    @SteveSadlov:

    Nice article. I took a stab at translating it to English . . .

    As the guy said: “Only human beings create knowledge and science, and those who bet on the computers made a wrong diagnosis. It will be Nature that will show which theory is correct, “and yet” the professor concluded, “the Earth cools.”

  88. This request stems from the phrase “the science behind global warming “ quoted by a much responded to comment above.

    Please, please, please, where oh where, are there any tutorials on THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING that explains how “greenhouse” gases “trap” anything in the atmosphere?

    The AGW crowd have had some fourty years to prepare a few courses. Anybody know?

  89. >>thereisnofear
    >>I am a professional civil engineer. Believe me when I say that it would
    >>fly against every known engineering principle to specify a building
    >>material that melts if the fireproofing were ever exposed. That would
    >>be insanity.

    Err, you mean like the insanity of building wooden houses all over America? See the pic I posted, of the melted steel RSJ support (a pretty meaty support too).

    .

  90. I think people arguing the steel did not melt but only weaken should realize that there are four independent and well documented lines of evidence that indicate that is what did, in fact happen.

    1) Eyewitness reports
    2) Satellite imagery
    3) Iron sphere’s in the dust
    4) Footage of molten iron pouring from the buildings

    For 1 see:

    Numbers 2 and 3 are well attested by official sources such, Fema and Nasa respectively I believe.

    As for 4:

    Having established that it certain looks and behaves like molten iron it has been a longstanding challenge to demonstrate that any other candidate metal can be made to look like that. This challenge has never been met.

    It is only in people’s imagination that anything but molten iron looks like that.

    So…

    The question isn’t IF there was molten iron, but why it was was there.

    Also. Most people would not use the word “fire” to describe an oxy-acetylene torch or a furnace and plasticized steel is not molten steel.

  91. @The Folks Advocating for Molten Iron:

    There is no way to know what any falling molten “stuff” was by inspection of a bit of tape. All you know is the color temp and a bit about the way it interacts with air. I’ve melted a LOT of metals (that “smith” in the name is hereditary as the family were working smiths and my Dad taught me some of the craft…). You have NO IDEA what the alloy was that was falling (IFF if was metal…). To me it looks about like any of a dozen different alloys, potentially with a lot of entrained carbon (i.e. bits of carbonized paper making some sparks as the carbon burns off). It could also be brass (any guesses as to what furnishing were like on any specific floor? Any statuary? Were there added power transformers on that floor? Elevator motors? Yeah, no clue…

    It is about where the airplane hit. Care to speculate what metals IT was made of and what they might have interacted with inside the work space? Don’t forget all the moving parts inside the engines, all the electric motors and miles of wiring. Molten copper is quite red. There are so many moving parts to that and so many potential odd alloys to form that I’d not even begin to hazard a guess what the melting temp was of any resultant stuff.

    FWIW, I’ve had aluminum up to red hot before… if flows about like iron, but the surface is a bit more oxidized and the slag is a bit different. It does rapidly cool and get a silver surface again, so folks dumping it into a pan and saying “look it is silver” have just cooled it off again. Now figure that the stuff is NOT pure after it has run all over a building and you have No Clue what alloy and what temp you are seeing.

    So until someone picks up a chunk, does a chemical assay of it, and a melt test, you can say exactly nothing about what will, or won’t, melt it.

    As to fuels: Buildings are just FULL of fuels. Paper, plastics, metals, you name it. You have no idea what fuels were burning (nor, I might add, what the air velocity was…) At best you can guess from the visible color temperature, but that does not tell you interior temps.

    As to what it means:

    Doesn’t mean jack. There was ample heat to soften the floor pan and start a cascade failure of floor pancaking. Anything else is just a “distractor” from those simple facts.

    The building was a stressed skin design at the limit of technology. That it continued to stand at all after the plane crash is a miracle. Don’t think so? Stand (carefully!) on an empty beer can with one foot. Slowly bend over and “tap” the sides of the can with something (if your fingers, get them pulled back fast). You will rapidly be standing on a crushed can. That’s what happens to stressed skin structures when the skin gets deformed… The interiour was advertized as “special” for the lack of internal columns. It all was “hung” on that skin. Once a fire weakens a floor and it sags, the building is toast. It does not matter what glowing stuff is running out from where the plane crashed, burned, and potentially melted…

    Can we just lose the “Conspiracy Theory” stuff? Please? It’s just a waste of brain cells…

  92. This credulousness goes straight to the heart of AGW, people think with their emotions instead of their intellect. It is the same lack of a well developed skeptical faculty that causes everything from the financial crash of ’08 to the hockey stick.

    If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. I stand for consistent empirically based skepticism, I would have thought anti-AGW sentiment derives from the same source.

    Molten copper:

    Molten Aluminum:

    As I said, it is only in your imagination that this looks anything like molten iron. And that is only one of the lines of evidence.

  93. Just hold on tight, solar activity remains low despite sunspot groups, volcanic activity remains high and shows no sign of slowing to speak of. Sharp temperature gradients, probably like it was going into the LIA.

  94. I find it ironic that one could find Mr. Smith’s tale convincing, given that the idea that the skin was the main structurally element flies directly in the face of the facts of the matter.

    The idea that it was a miracle that it survived a plane crash flies directly in the face of the facts, since this was a design requirement of the structure.

    So does the idea that the fire was super intense.

    The “official” telling of the facts that is, not even conspiracy nut’s versions of events.

    It is the same thing that leads one to believe AGW, if you are inclined to imagine big bad factories making everything dirty you will be lead to deny the simple facts of reality. If you believe that governments never lie to their citizens then you have already let go of reality and so ignoring the facts, however disconcerting, becomes trivial.

  95. My takes a litttle different. My hobby is silver smithing. But I have made a number of my own tools. Give me a torch and a piece of tool steel. I can twist or bend it pretty fast. Doesn’t take long at all. An that’s all you need.

    But I’m not an expert like Rosie.

  96. “Anthony, watch out for Senate Bill 978. You might have to forego YouTube in the near future:” http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/

    There is a risk that Osama Bin Landen will have the last laugh. The “land of the free” is quickly becoming a totalitarian state. Fear of 911 has replaced freedom with a police state, where personal liberty is subverted in the name of “the greater good”.

    The founding principle of the US constitution, “without freedom there can be no justice” has been replaced by “without justice there can be no freedom”. This transposition of words is a small but important political change, as it subverts freedom in the name of the law, and replaces the US constitution with the courts as the final authority on liberty

    The proof?
    “The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 incarcerated per 100,000 population.[2][3][4][5][6]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

  97. thereisnofear writes:

    Ordinary office and hydrocarbon (kerosene jet fuel) fires only burn at about 50% of the temperature required to melt steel under atmospheric conditions.

    I am a professional civil engineer. Believe me when I say that it would fly against every known engineering principle to specify a building material that melts if the fireproofing were ever exposed. That would be insanity.

    Then I suggest you update your PE license, for anyone who is familiar with material properties knows you do not need to melt a solid in order to significantly weaken it. And in fact, the Young’s Modulus of steel will drop approximately 40% when heated from 20 deg C to 500 deg C, which is WELL below your office fire.

    Melting of the steel is NOT required to cause the part to fail; you just have to heat it enough that the Young’s modulus falls to a point where it fails, and that often happens WELL below the actual plastic temperature point of steel. Even if you over-engineered your building for a factor of 2 loading, that would buy you – at most – heat resistance to roughly 650 deg C (E dropping by more than 50% at this point). Again, well below your 810 deg C office fire temperature.

    Rosie has an excuse for her ignorance; she’s an entertainer. Much like Algore is a politician and not scientist, and thus his ignorance had at least an understandable foundation (its continuance in the face of copious facts to the contrary points to his lack of wisdom, as well). As a person with a supposed PE, your cover is considerably thinner…

  98. “Maybe we need to start another web page just to discuss the WTC collapse.”

    Follow the money. The hundreds of billions of dollars that were transferred immediately ahead of the 911 attacks indicate a wider conspiracy. The collapse of the WTC and especially the neighboring buildings covered up the transactions and their source.

    The governments of the world were more than capable of cooperating to trace these transactions, as the banks involved were not destroyed. These transactions have never been traced. This points to very high level involvement.

    Some person or persons with access to hundreds of billions of dollars in credit knew the attacks were going to take place. Rather than sound the warning they kept quiet and transferred hundreds of billions of dollars to take advantage of the confusion.

    Had the attacks not occured, they would simply have been out the cost of the transfer fee. If the attacks succeeded, they stood to make hundreds of billions of dollars. The real question for the US citizens is not whether the attack was a esult of a conspiracy, it is simply “who benefited”?

    Where is the money that was transferred on 911? Why have the banks involved not come forward to name names?

  99. Joe is beautiful! A simple and clear exposition that should clear up any debate on the subject.

    To Anything is possible:

    Instead of attacking something that you, in your imagination, would have thought he would have said if he had more time to speak, why don’t you dare to comment instead on what he said?

  100. Bulbhead (way down on the list):

    Joe Bastardi didn’t attempt to refute whether or not humans are causing warming (I believe without a doubt we are, to at least some extent). As anyone checking the current status of the world’s climate knows, the recent and intense La Nina has caused a general cooling of the planet. Thus, if this current global cooling is relatively concentrated outside of the tropics (any comment on this here?), then the temperature difference between arctic and tropic would be increased thus increasing the probability of tornadoes in the US Midwest. Bastardi’s hypothesis is therefore reasonable while yours appears not.

  101. E.M.Smith says:
    June 4, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Excellent explanation.

    Regarding the appearance of the falling “molten metal” …for those of us old enough and lucky enough to have seen the daily evening “Firefall” at Yosemite National Park (in days of yore), the appearance is similar to that of the tower footage. And that [the Firefall] was nothing more than falling embers from a wood fire begun earlier in the day. I am not saying that is what we are seeing in the tower footage, but simply that there are multiple possible explanations.

  102. Noelene, the youtube link of your video clip contains the following corrections from the publisher of the video: “the claim in this video that the fires were “likely fed by a series of diesel generators” turned out not to be the case, and the hypothesis that the collapse started with Truss 1 was also incorrect. The collapse actually started in the same vicinity only a few floors up, with the collapse of Column 79.”

    There are other inaccuracies, such as contrary to the video clip firefighters did report hearing explosions before the building collapsed. For a “debunking of the debunkers” see:

  103. “Ray says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    thereisnofear says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:31 am

    You are right. Any structural engineer will tell you that no office or hydrocarbon fire can melt steel alone. Given that the tower fires were oxygen poor (i.e. lots of black smoke), the temperature of the flames were no where close to weakening and even less close to melting structural steel.”

    Do you own a steel columned building? I do. And the steel columns are not “fireproofed” and because of this the building’s insurance bill is double that of another similar building we own that is built solely from concrete. Why would that be? And yes, during construction a structural engineer told us why.

    Doing your own homework and getting the real facts is a lot harder than passing on hearsay……..

    Jose

  104. @ ferd berple:
    June 4, 2011 at 8:04 am

    If you read the article you cited . . . . Bryan McCarthy going to stream the Super Bowl . . . that like stealing cable signals . . . . it is illegal . . . . just like stealing electricity or phone service . . .

    Anyone can link to the utube on the site itself . . . .
    Giving credit where credit is due . . . is right . . . .

    So I don’t know what alarmist fire you are trying to start . . .

  105. The average surface temperature started to climb right after we moved the thermometers from the woods to over by the office air conditioners in the parking lot full of hot pickup trucks.

    Obviously, this caused “a few thermals” that rotate into thunderstorms or worse. We’re sorry…..

  106. @Bublhead

    I don’t think he was trying to refute anything you said. He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was not behind the tornado outbreak. You didn’t list the one and only thing he intended to refute in your list of things he failed to refute.

    BTW, most of the readers on hear know that there is a slight warming from increase of CO2. It is the feedback that is in dispute. You didn’t list that item, either.

  107. Oops, in reply to Bublhead,

    The following:
    “He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was not behind the tornado outbreak.”

    Should read:
    “He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was behind the tornado outbreak.”

  108. @Laurie Bowen

    I don’t think Ferd is interested in what mechanical and civil engineering experts have to say on the issue of the WTC collapse. He’s more focused in why money was transferred on this particular day (as if money isn’t being transferred all the time). His theory is a lot like saying some particular person’s sneeze caused the Japan earthquake. Certainly he could find someone who would remember someone sneezing right before the quake.

  109. >>Neanderdull
    >>Having established that it certain looks and behaves like molten iron
    >>it has been a longstanding challenge to demonstrate that any other candidate
    >>metal can be made to look like that.

    An aircraft contains a hell of a lot of aluminium and magnesium alloys, which all melt at lower temperatures and burn with great ferocity. And if you get the heat up a little, as a blast-furnace chimney will, there is also a lot of glass around there that will look just like that when it melts.

    You really are clutching at straws with this conspiracy. Aircraft hits building, and building burns – I reckon that is prima face evidence of the true cause in any courtroom. But you want to believe that aircraft hits building, and a man in black overcoat and dark glasses sneaks in and plants explosives or the like. That, is pure nuts. Why would he bother? The job has already been done, for the price of an airline ticket and a box-cutter, why spend any more time and money, and get found out in the process? The perpetrators would not want the buildings to fall – best leave them burned out and standing, as a lasting legacy to their evil work. The falling bit was both unnecessary and unwanted, so your nutty conspiracy fails on all counts.

    .

  110. “The melting point of steel is 1510 deg. C. A hydrocarbon fire (jet fuel), under optimum atmospheric conditions, burns at about 815 deg”

    Must be magic then. 30 feet back from an F-14 at maximum power the exhaust is at about 982°C. I guess that is not optimum since the temperature is too high.

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine-05.htm

  111. >> Shanghai Dan says: June 4, 2011 at 8:37 am
    >> Again, well below your 810 deg C office fire temperature.

    I shall repeat it again, but see my posting above.

    British Steel did a full-scale fire test on a steel framed office, full of normal office materials, and it hit a peak temperature of 1,223 oc. Centigrade, mind, not fahrenheit. That is pushing the melting point of steel, just with a six-floor steel structure.

    And that was an office that did not contain 40 tonnes of kerosine and another 20 tonnes of aluminium and magnesium.

    And as I understand it, you can make thermite with aluminium and plaster. Now the WTC not only contained a great deal of plaster (it was used as the stairwell fire proofing), it now also contained a great deal of aluminium. Ever seen thermite burn?

    .

    .

  112. >>mike g says: June 4, 2011 at 11:10 am
    >>I don’t think Ferd is interested in what mechanical and civil engineering
    >>experts have to say on the issue of the WTC collapse. He’s more focused in
    >>why money was transferred on this particular day.

    But that is quite logical, and not a conspiracy theory at all.

    There would have been a number of people who knew this would happen, and some of them, like Bin Laden, were well versed in world investments. It would not take much for Bin Laden to ring up a few mates in Saudi and the USA and say: ‘I’ve got a top tip here from an inside source – short sell airline stocks at the end of October.’

    How do you think these guys finance terrorism? And do you really think that anyone in Saudi would warn America, even if they knew exactly what would happen? Don’t be so naive – there were parties being held all over Saudi (and in many towns in Britain) after 9-11.

    .

  113. “His theory is a lot like saying some particular person’s sneeze caused the Japan earthquake”

    Immediately prior to the 911 attack there were massive financial transactions likely to benefit from the attack, such as short selling of airline stocks. The size and nature of these transactions was not in line with normal trading patterns. While it was widely reported at the time that these transactions took place, the source of these transactions has never been made public.

    These likely explanations come to mind:

    1. Co-incidence. Investigators typically don’t believe in co-incidence as an explanation for events where humans stand to benefit financially.

    2. The events never took place – possible but they were widely reported at the time and there have been investigations trying to uncover the source of the funds and the beneficiaries.

    3. Bin Lauden and cohorts did the trading – perhaps but then why were the financial transactions never traced? The banks involved were not destroyed and governments around the world would have cooperated.

    4. The computerized trading programs recognized that current events were unfolding in a pattern that matched disaster related events, and automatically traded to take advantage of pending events. This begs two questions. Why did the trading computers recognize a pattern that the law enforcement and intelligence agencies computers and human agents did not? Also, back to point 3. If it was computerized trading, why did the banks not come forward to reveal the source and beneficiaries.

    5. The reason the banks have not come forward to reveal the source and beneficiaries is because the person(s) involved control the banks. These people need not have planned the attacks, simply through their own private intelligence agencies became aware of events ahead of time and moved money financially to take advantage of the possibilities. Rather than inform the authorities to prevent the attacks, they allowed them to happen to gain financial advantage.

    One should not underestimate the size and power of the banking industry worldwide and the intelligence agencies they control. The US Federal Reserve, the source of the money in circulation in the United States, is not owned by the US government. The US Federal Reserve is owned by private banks.

    When the US government bailed out the banks during the financial crisis, where did the money come from? It came from the same banks that were being bailed out, through the US Federal Reserve – which is owned by these same banks. The US government borrowed the money from the banks and them paid it back to the banks to bail them out. Leaving the US taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Remember the panic of the financial crisis? How the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve chairman told us we had to act immediately to bail out the banks? Do you really believe the timing was a coincidence? That the financial crisis occurred immediately before a Presidential election? The sense of panic and urgency in Washinton this created. Do you really believe the financial trading ahead of 911 was a coincidence? If so, why have the banks never come forward to identify the parties involved?

  114. “It would not take much for Bin Laden to ring up a few mates in Saudi and the USA and say: ‘I’ve got a top tip here from an inside source – short sell airline stocks”

    And the banks, seeing this activity, by people in a place to know, moved to take advantage. Someone in high places starts shorting airlines, you could ask “why”, or you could say “I better do the same”. Likely the banks did both. It isn’t like bankers to bet on anything less than a sure thing. As a result, the banks have never come forward to identify the parties involved, because the fingers would also point at them.

  115. Sorry, I meant at the end of August. Why do Yanks write the date backwards? Its bl**dy confusing.

    .

  116. Shanghai Dan & Jose Suro:

    Nowhere do I claim that office fires do not weaken steel. Of course fire can weaken steel. My comment was with respect to MELTING of steel. Engineering principles would not permit the use a material that completely deteriorates under anticipated extreme conditions.

    A fundamental engineering principle of disaster response in structural design is “deformation, but not collapse.” When designing a building for earthquakes, the Design Philosophy is to permit sufficient ductility so that the building deforms during the event, but it does not collapse. The building may not be salvageable afterward, but you have mitigated loss of life because the building has not collapsed and people have had a chance to escape. Note that there were very few (if any) building collapses at Fukushima as a result of the earthquake. (Of course the tsunami was an entirely different story)

    The same Philos0phy applies to Fire Protection Design. You permit deformation of the building, but you design to avoid complete catastrophic collapse. This principle applies to the primary level of protection, i.e., the structural members, exclusive of the fireproofing applied later to the members. Buildings are designed with very conservative factors of safety and multiple levels of redundancy so that even if localized fire temperatures were high enough to induce significant loss of strength you incur only deformation, rather than catastrophic collapse. However, if typical occupancy fires were hot enough to reduce structural strength to zero, that is, to the melting point, you can be assured that it would never be used as a building material in high rise buildings.

    Having said all that, my main point is that there is abundant and extensive eye-witness testimony of molten metal found in the rubble pile weeks and months after 9/11. The reports are coming from the cleanup workers and experts like Leslie Robertson, WTC structural designer. These people will know the difference between molten aluminum and molten iron. NIST claims that gaseous temperatures did not rise much above 1000 deg C, and that those events occurred for no more than 15 to 20 minutes in any given location. Note this is the gaseous temperatures, not steel temperatures. Steel temperatures would have been much lower. This cannot explain the molten iron found in the rubble piles.

  117. something that i have not seen addressed is that fact that inside the towers there was a very powerful electric service.

    somewhere in one of the vertical corridors in the building (either a trunk near the elevators or at one of the corners of the shell) there are copper cables about an inch in diameter that feed stepdown transformers that provide the power for hotel services…..

    also somewhere in the building is an airconditioning system that will really suck the juice.

    what i’m leading up to is that there is a lot of electricity in the building. when transformers short out they EXPLODE. when one inch copper cables ground out they can also make a noise that is very much like gunfire.

    and so we see in the case of many industrial fires the assertation that there was a bomb in the place. didn’t happen, it was the electric power system destroying itself.

    and so for those among us who can screw a lefthanded nut on a right handed bolt, the chances of a 90 ton aircraft at 600 kts. made mostly of metals (all of which conduct electricity) plowing through a building with a large componenet of its structure being steel and not grounding out the electrical service would be somewhere between slim and none.

    C

  118. It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11,

    I’m still having trouble believing that those small fires in WTC7 brought that building down as if it was imploded. Of course, I don’t believe for a second that if it was imploded, it was done by our government.

  119. there is no fear:

    most industrial materials (including steel) have a property whereby they soften under pressure.
    you use examples of this pretty nearly every day, every minute and every hour.

    they are called injection molded plastics.

    when they make the keys on your computer keyboard they pour “pellets” of plastic into a chamber (that is warmed) a piston raises a certain amount of pressure and the plastic flows through passageways into a mold. when the pressure is released the plastic solidifies and alah you have the button.

    about bldg 7, ask the fireboys, fires can lay dormant for considerable amounts of time. its not uncommon for very small forestfires to lay down for up to a month. also see my comment above. a heavy ground in electrical service can be unnoticed in the “fog of war” and contribute to precisely this problem.

    besides there can be god knows what kinds of chemical reactions going on in the rubble. thats why the fire departments are so interested in what chemicals you use in your endeavors and where they are. colleges and other places that have “chemistry labs” have a habit of having a little store room about that has huge numbers (in small amounts) of things that are truly horrible. if they tried to dispose of them properly it would cost as much as a new building. (however when the corks and stoppers on those liddle boddles rot out they will need a new building anyway.)

    C

  120. Still waiting for JB’s prediction about a recovery of the arctic sea ice from the long term downtrend to show up in the real world. Joe seems to think humans have no effect at all on climate and we can just look back in the record books and wait for some long term cycle to repeat itself. Problem is Joe, that there is no 30 or 60 or 100 year cycle that includes the current levels of CO2. We’d have to back at least 800,000 years or more. Now, the 2011 tornado outbreak and other wacky weather around the world certainly has happened before (at least the tornadoes did during the last cool PDO/La Nina), and it is premature to link them to AGW, but currently arctic sea ice remains at or near modern record lows, and you’d think if JB is right, we should have started to see a recovery. With all this cooling that supposed to happening, why is the the arctic not cooling and the sea ice not recovering? Why? Because the arctic is responding to long term warming of both ocean and air temps in the region, and is less influenced by the short term ENSO cycle which an cause the rapid up and down extremes in troposphere temps that Joe alluded to– though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.

  121. thereisnofear writes:

    Nowhere do I claim that office fires do not weaken steel. Of course fire can weaken steel. My comment was with respect to MELTING of steel. Engineering principles would not permit the use a material that completely deteriorates under anticipated extreme conditions.

    The conditions weren’t anticipated. Listen to interviews with Leslie Robinson, the engineer who built the World Trade Centers. As a fellow engineer, you obviously understand that you cannot design for every single catastrophe or condition – it simply isn’t possible or feasible. You take the best you can estimate, add a safety factor, and go with it.

    Having said all that, my main point is that there is abundant and extensive eye-witness testimony of molten metal found in the rubble pile weeks and months after 9/11. The reports are coming from the cleanup workers and experts like Leslie Robertson, WTC structural designer. These people will know the difference between molten aluminum and molten iron. NIST claims that gaseous temperatures did not rise much above 1000 deg C, and that those events occurred for no more than 15 to 20 minutes in any given location. Note this is the gaseous temperatures, not steel temperatures. Steel temperatures would have been much lower. This cannot explain the molten iron found in the rubble piles.

    Here’s a direct yes-or-no question for you: have you ever actually been involved in and witnesses the process of refining and forging steel?

    I’ve done quite a bit of it (as well as with aluminum, plastics, and other metals); in fact, I was just at a foundry in Shengzhou this last week checking over a new production of forged components. You learn a lot of things hanging around a foundry, things you never learn in school or from textbooks. Like how iron that splatters from the crucible into the coke pile actually experiences a higher temperature – out of the frying pan, into the fire, so to speak. Inside the pile of coals and burning debris you find higher temperatures – ask any good pitmaster about that!

    And how simply dropping more iron ore into a crucible of semi-molten steel will cause spattering, with wonderful little droplets cast everywhere – even when the temperature is NOT above the official melt-point of steel.

    You may know building codes; you may know how to do static and dynamic loading analysis of metal beams with your FEA packages; you may know the proper density for rebar in concrete. However, do you know how to actually work and forge metal? That’s the question, and for all the references you supply – I don’t see anyone who’s actually worked metal and who does so day-in and day-out. Ask a foundry worker about how steel behaves before it turns completely liquid – you’ll find that it’s quite a bit different than what you think.

  122. R. Gates says:
    June 4, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    “though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
    ==========
    Whatever, now we come to the crux of the problem.
    Who will pay for these flights of fancy?

  123. “GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700″

    Temperature has been increasing rought .5C per century since the little ice age. No one knows what caused the little ice age so it is impossible to say why temperatures would increase afterwards. We do know that increasing temperature releases CO2 from the oceans, which is consistent with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The problem for climate science is that the GCM do a very poor job of answering why temperatures were flat to decreasin from 1945-1975, or why the the predicted tropical hot spot has never been observed.

    When Einstein made his theory(s) of relativity, he made a number of unexpected predictions, some counter-intuitive, and they have all been observed to be true within the limits of error.

    Predicting that climate will change is not an unexpected prediction. Climate always changes. Predicting the tropical hot spot was an unexpected prediction, and had it been found this would have helped validate GHG theory. However, the failure to find the predicted hot spot despite repeated observation is fairly strong evidence that the GHG theory is fundamentally flawed.

    Had Einstein’s theory of relativity failed to correctly predict subsequent observations, the theory would have been rejected. The failure of Climate Science to treat GHG theory with the same skeptical approach demonstrates that GHG theory is not scientific. The GHG theory is a political and economic theory.

  124. I have worked doing structural steel for many years, many of you people don’t seem to realize that there is a huge difference between heating a thin light gauge truss, and applying heat to a column or beam, that has flanges, web’s or box section that is two to four inches thick, these heavy gauge steel’s require a huge amount of heat/energy to straighten or bend. If you set up one of these piece’s of steel and lit a fire beneath it, it would take many many hours of constant fire to warm it enough to make it slightly plastic.

    Some in here don’t seem to know anything about the construction of those towers, they had a massive core structure, read this about the core column’s, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

    Then you have to understand that every perimeter and core column was joined by the “Hat Truss”, this is what allows the column’s to share load and also this redistributes load in case of a aircraft impact. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

    This guy certified the steel.

    Kevin Ryan has addressed the issues of fire and steel temperatures in a now famous letter to the NIST. Ryan has played a major role in the so-called “9/11 Truth movement”. He had been a certified expert working for Underwriters Laboratories, which was tasked with the responsibility of analyzing the fire and collapsed buildings at the WTC. He sent this letter of rebuttal when he began to realize there was a government whitewash going on.

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) had been working on a report that was allegedly going to explain how mere ‘fires’ brought the Twin Towers crashing down. On November 11, Mr. Ryan sent the following letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST.

    The response to Ryan’s correspondence was that he was immediately fired. This gives a partial answer to the question some may have as to how such huge undertakings could be successfully kept from the public:

    There are in fact, quite a number of ‘whistle blowers’ who have been unjustly gagged, fired, marginalized, imprisoned and murdered as they have attempted to reveal many of these shenanigans. Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News is one such fatality, and more will be said about that later on.

    Here are some excerpts from Kevin Ryan’s letter:

    There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel. He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.”

    We know that the steel components were certified to ASTME119. 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.

    Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

    However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C [500F].”

    To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C [about 2200F]. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

    This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.

    I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

    (Letter from Kevin Ryan.)

    GRUDGING CONFIRMATON FROM NIST

    In September of 2007, there was an interesting development on this issue of steel temperatures at the WTC. A rather amazing and grudgingly concessionary letter from the NIST, written to the head of the largest “9/11 family members group”, Bill Doyle (who has also strongly concluded 9/11 was an “inside job”)…in which the NIST is doing some very strange backpeddling.

    Under pressure from the family members of 9/11 victims, the NIST has now admitted (as of September 27, 2007) that all the steel samples they have retained from the WTC’s “ground zero” and have subsequently tested…were shown to have heated to no more than 500F. (See Section E)

    Just exactly as Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, unwilling witness “Corus Construction” and several hundred other experts have predicted. My oh my. So, how could these buildings have possibly collapsed if the steel never heated beyond 500F??

    You can barely bake a cake at 500F, let alone cause a 110-story steel structure to freefall into a pile of smoldering rubble.

  125. u.k.(us) says:
    June 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 4, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    “though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
    ==========
    Whatever, now we come to the crux of the problem.
    Who will pay for these flights of fancy?
    ———-

    You are probably talking about financial payment but that may not be the most important kind in this instance. The Holocene has generally been pretty kind to humans and allowed our numbers to expand to some 7+ billion. We can be sure that some kind of Black Swan event will test our ability to keep this large mass of humanity fed in the coming decades…whether human caused or natural. That test will be the true payment…

  126. ferd berple says:
    June 4, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    “GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700″

    Temperature has been increasing rought .5C per century since the little ice age. No one knows what caused the little ice age so it is impossible to say why temperatures would increase afterwards. We do know that increasing temperature releases CO2 from the oceans, which is consistent with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
    ——
    The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the end of the Little Ice Age has been primarily due to human activities. It has reach levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. These are the known facts. What we don’t know is exactly how the climate will respond to these levels as the natural response through the carbon and rock weathering cycle is to accelerate the hydrological cycle which increases rock weathering and this will slowly bring CO2 levels back down. This process is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.

  127. I am not aware anyone has made the claim that the 9/11 fires melted steel that THEN caused a collapse? So we are starting out with a straw man’s argument (kind of like what Al Gore does all the time).

    However fires easily weaken and soften steel unless you never heard of a blacksmith using a wood fire to make horseshoes?

    The twin towers structure is also most unique as there’s no central steel structure that supports the building as you see in a typical building. The load bearing and structure of the building is actually on the outside. The best way to think of the twin towers is to think of a cardboard milk carton like this picture:

    Cut the top off of the above carton and you can support a can of paint on top of that.

    And here’s a picture of the twin towers. You again clearly see the support structure is on the outside of the building.

    Cutting out part of the structure (where the plane entered) means that serious load bearing material was removed. Same goes for the milk carton above and cut it with a knife or have any twist in that structure and it will not support even a coffie cup on top let alone any kind of load.

    Here is a great shot showing the external skeleton of structure on the towers and how amazing hollow the building is

    Above is an amazing picture since it really shows how unique those buildings are (before furniture and offices been walled in).

    This unique building approach saved significant costs by reducing the amount of steel and materials required for such a building. It also did a spectacular job of increasing the available floor space inside.

    With a fire to weaken and soften that load bearing structure that had been cut like a knife by the plane entering, then that structure ceases to do its purpose. A bit of twist and leaning of the structure and it going to come down. In fact you do not even need a fire at all.

    And when a building comes down, it going to come down due to gravity in exactly the same way when a building is demolished as that’s how they always fall down (it called gravity). Any building coming down is going to look like any building coming down.

    It’s also not clear at all as to what melted materials people are talking about. There are all kinds of materials like aluminum and ventilation ducting materials that will easily melt under such heat. There is also the issue of this huge pile of rubble with fires burning under that mess for weeks. And assuming the ridiculous position of demolition charges you NEVER see pools of melted steel in such demolitions anyway. It just silly to claim that melting steel was to blame for taking down the tower or even that it shows charges were used when charged explosions never create piles of melted steel either.

    As for the financial transactions? Who says the transactions were massive? And who says they did not trace where these transactions came from? And if the government did this job then why would they need to make some transactions to make money on this? You have to be a fool to be so smart to pull off such a magic show and then blow the whole cover by phoning up your stock broker? Transactions traced no doubt would go back to the terrorist groups and their immediate families. After all Bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Family.

    Like the claim of global warming, intelligent digging into the facts shows that man’s co2 is not driving temperatures as claimed and it not a reasonable position that charges were used to take down the twin towers.

    Albert D. Kallal

  128. R. Gates says:
    June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    This process [weathering] is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.

    Gates, despite your “begging the question” fallacy above and crude boiler plate attempt to induce fear, your retreat to pure fear-mongering itself only shows that you don’t have anything real to base your fear upon – quite simply because nothing has occurred in the modern era which exceeds the bounds of our natural climate, although black carbon and land use might be producing some localized anomalies.

    The “method” which ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science uses involving demonizing CO2 and disasterizing GW is simply not part of the scientific method.

    Moreover, “the alleged cure is worse than the alleged disease”: bringing about an obvious disaster by de-developing in order to allegedly prevent a completely unhinged alleged future CAGW disaster, again ideas derived solely via the induction of panic, is just plain stupid.

    Perhaps you have never heard of China and India?


  129. >Here are the WTC Blueprints

    Sure there is a core structure, but the load bearing and how that building functions is NOT a typical steel grid of beams bolted together. A laughable kettle you are to stand here and state I am spreading disinformation.

  130. Albert, I doubt very much that you know what you are talking about, Have you built a skyscraper ? Have you demolished a skyscraper ? Have you been involved in the repair of a skyscraper after a fire ?

    I have, and you need to stop talking crap and try to educate yourself.

    “One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

    There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.” 9 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    You really don’t have a clue how strong these buildings were, the only fault that they had was the fact that the design allowed for them to be easily demolished.

  131. JPeden says:
    June 4, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    R. Gates says:
    June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    “This process [weathering] is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.”

    Gates, despite your “begging the question” fallacy above and crude boiler plate attempt to induce fear…

    ________
    Fear? I’m not afraid, why would I want to make others that way? I simply state facts. If these facts cause some to be afraid…that’s from them…not me.

    JPeden goes on to say:

    Moreover, “the alleged cure is worse than the alleged disease”: bringing about an obvious disaster by de-developing in order to allegedly prevent a completely unhinged alleged future CAGW disaster, again ideas derived solely via the induction of panic, is just plain stupid.

    Perhaps you have never heard of China and India/

    ______
    I’ve never mentioned “de-developing” anywhere in my posting. Not sure where you get this from. As far a China and India go…together they make up nearly a third of the world’s population. They’d darn well develop as they’ve got a lot of hungry mouths to feed.

  132. R. Gates says:
    June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the end of the Little Ice Age has been primarily due to human activities. It has reach levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. These are the known facts.
    =======================================================
    Gates, can you point me to that fact?
    Co2 levels were in the thousand ppm in the Eocene, just 50 million years ago.

  133. {snicker}

    While looking something else up, I ran across the adiabatic flame temperature for kerosene. 2093°C.

    Granted… it’s still not “optimum”

    ROFLOL.

  134. >>To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need
    >>to be above 1100C [about 2200F]. However, this new summary report
    >>suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the
    >>steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
    >>This story just does not add up.

    I have said this two times already. The British Steel Cardington fire test on a 6-story steel framed office block, filled with normal office equipment, got up to 1,213 oc (centigrade). And that was a normal fire with normal office fuel for a fire.

    .

  135. thereisnofear, how to you know that the smoke from the fires was black? According to the “live” news broadcasts from that day, the smoke could be gray or white or some other color too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUXJXAPUUg

    And as a structural engineer you should be aware of that a high rise steel building can never collapse from top down by gravity into rubble due to local damages up top and create a Ground Zero. Anders Björkman has a $ 1 500 000 price for anyone that can prove this: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm

  136. What is wrong with debate and listening to both sides of the defining issue of our time? If the official line is so correct and defensible, what does it have to fear from skeptics?

  137. @ elbuggo June 6, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Thanks for calling attention to my famous Heiwa Challenge. Evidently no structure A (eg WTC 1 and 2 at NY) of any kind can be crushed down into dust by a top C of itself A (as happened ‘live on TV’ on 911 2001).
    So it seems USA blow up its own towers on 911 and then Obama killed a person Osama not responsible for it last month.
    You wonder what will happen next!


  138. And that was a normal fire with normal office fuel for a fire.

    What you state could certainly explain the melted materials viewed in the huge pile of rubble that burned for days.

    As pointed out, the temperature these fires were probably not that high anyway. (I mean, with all that black smoke, the temps may only have hit 600°). However, that all the heat we need for this type of failure. In fact even softening that metal to half of its strength the building would easily remain standing as long as nothing breaks.

    The collapse was due to the floor connections between the outer box and the central support tower are what failed. The heat softened the connections (a rather small lip) and the real kicker was the several hundred degrees of “difference” of parts under heat of the fire that expanded more than parts that are cold. This uneven expansion damaged and broke the connections to the lip that holds those floors. Once that connection failed, down came the floor, and without such a connection between the outer box and inner box (central pillar), the walls simply could not stay together either and would fall apart. Melting was not needed for this failure anyway.

  139. Ralph,
    You keep on raising the specter of the Cardigan Tests, as though they somehow explain how pools of molten metal can be generated from the WTC fires. You claim that temperatures reached 1213 C (which is still well below the melting point of steel). But you fail to note that these are gas temperatures, not steel temperatures. In all of the Cardigan Tests, steel temperatures remained below 1000 C, which is less than 2/3 the temperature needed to even initiate melting, let alone to create “rivers of molten steel” that persist months after the event.

    And significantly, though this is beside the point, the structure in the Cardigan Tests DID NOT COLLAPSE, even though the steel was unprotected.

    NIST, the official assessors of the WTC collapse, claim that atmospheric gas temperatures only reached about 1000 C in the fires. Their response to the overwhelming evidence of molten metal was first of all to ignore it, and when they could do that no longer, to deny it.

    As for the fanciful notions put forward by some others about conditions in a foundry (Shanghai Dan), temperatures out the back of an F-14 (SSam), or mysterious chemical reactions in the rubble (pk), I must say, with all due respect, that these are irrelevant.

    The conditions in a foundry or out the back of an F-14 are in no way analogous to an office fire in a high-rise structure. First of all, even NIST admits that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial inferno that accompanied the original collision, and that the remainder of the jet fuel was lapped up within a few minutes. Therefore, the jet fuel could not contribute significantly to any melting steel. But even so, the temperature created by an F-14 is irrelevant since that represents a carefully controlled combustion with optimal air-fuel mixtures.

    Secondly, in a foundry air is forced into the burning coke fuel to induce higher temperatures. This is not at all similar to office fires in oxygen-deprived conditions.

    I don’t understand the statement about iron drops experiencing higher temperatures when they splash into the coke pile. Isn’t this intuitively obvious? The fire is hotter than the metal in the crucible, so the iron should get hotter – radiative heat transfer and all that.

    Finally, pk suggests that the mysterious chemical reactions in the rubble may have created the necessary heat conditions. But this is nothing but fanciful speculation. What kind of chemicals may have been present in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 (where molten metal was also found) in sufficient quantities to create the conditions necessary to generate pools of molten metal? These were office buildings, not chemical manufacturing facilities. If you have something meaningful to propose, please notify NIST, because that would help alleviate their embarrassment over being unable to explain the molten metal.

  140. Do not be silly, the floor collapsed without ANYTHING falling on top. If a floor can collapse without anything falling on it then of course floors below (and even above) are also ready and free to collapse with little effort.

    Once that floor goes there is little holding the outside walls from moving. This means additional floors (both above and below) are now at risk. It is NOT only the weight falling on the floor below, but the loss of the connection and integrity of the outside structure. Once the floor is gone you have several floors now at risk. The outside walls are now movable and thus cannot support floors above or below. It is the walls falling that the floors are attached to that is the issue. With the walls being movable then the floors are now going to move with that outside part. In fact the walls not being attached to anything means that you do not even have to break the connection between the floor and the wall. The floor simply has no support. The wall is free to move and thus this means the floors attached to that wall are also free to move.

    The key concept here is the connection between the outside shell and the central support and that wall moving. Just losing one floor will not cause this because the outside parts are still attached above and below. However that above + below connection was broken when the plane cut into the building. This is not a simple weight of a floor falling below as to how this works.

    The idea that the building was full of explosive charges on each floor is silly. Worse if there is not explosives on each floor then explain how the pilots knew what floor to hit where the collapses started? And I supposed these pilots had perfect skill to hit correct floor? So now the pilots were able to hit the exact floor two times in a row exactly where the collapses started?

  141. thereisnofear says:
    June 6, 2011 at 10:42 am

    You keep saying “molten metal”, “molten steel”, etc. Which is it? If it’s molten metal of some unknown type then you really have nothing to say. Could be molten electrical conduits, the aircraft skin and structure, thousands of computers, metal desks, office chairs, etc. And how much “molten metal” are we talking about?

Comments are closed.