'Molten' metal found at WTC 1, 2, and 7, 8 weeks after 9-11?

[Apollo20]

DC:

You are correct, there are many thermite formulations....

D. L. Halcomb and J. H. Mohler have one described in a US patent, (No. 4,963,203; dated Oct 1990). It's for a "thermite" composition with CuO in place of Fe2O3 or Fe3O4 plus, I believe, a "gas producer" which could be a chlorate, perchlorate, nitrate, or even RDX.

It is said to be suitable for applications where production of high pressure and high velocity gas is required, "such as in the demolition of concrete."

DC, do you think this is what was used to bring down the towers and subsequently melted the steel in the rubble pile?

Apparently, some people do ............

But there are also patents for formulations with CoO, NiO, Sb2O3, MoO2, Cr2O3, PbO2, MnO2, WO3, etc, as the oxidizer with additives such as Si, SiC, Mg, etc, plus formulations with gas producers such as CaSO4, as in US patent 4,349,396, designed for "metal-cutting".

So what does all this prove DC?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think any amount of thermite will burn for weeks if it's in 1 big pile. Just divide the propogation rate of a thermite burn (anyone know that?) by the width of the pile, and that's how long it'll take for the whole thing to be burning at once. I don't know exactly how fast it burns, but I know it's a lot faster than the width of the rubble pile per several weeks.

The only way to get thermite to burn for weeks would be to arrange it in a pile that is very long in one dimension. Think of the old 'gunpowder leaking from a keg' gag you see in cartoons. How long would the trail of powder have to be for it to take weeks to burn?

Seems someone has done it, if you can get access to the paper.

Here's another paper for those that can get access to them

 

[HeyLeroy]

Are you joking? Let's give an example of the CD of a 30 story building (not 110 stories):

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

And why would you think I don't believe in the proven progressive collapse?

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1233&view=findpost&p=8350

 

[CHF]

what did i claim happened?

and i dont know how much thermite it would need to destroy all the steel columns on 2 floors.
i dont even know if such thermite devices are working.

I suggest you try finding out how much thermite would be required to a) bring down the WTC, and b) create molten steel in the rubble.

The answer would probably force the entire twoof movement to abandon this thermite idiocy - which might explain why none of you make the slightest effort to look into it.

 

[jaydeehess]

what did i claim happened?

and i dont know how much thermite it would need to destroy all the steel columns on 2 floors.
i dont even know if such thermite devices are working.

I suggest you try finding out how much thermite would be required to a) bring down the WTC, and b) create molten steel in the rubble.

The answer would probably force the entire twoof movement to abandon this thermite idiocy - which might explain why none of you make the slightest effort to look into it.

JAQ, but doesn't care about finding answers.

 

[deep]

But here you once more run into the issue that if the fires in the piles were hot enough to keep motlen (sic) metal molten, then they were hot enough to create the molten metal in the first place, thus removing the need to invent the Therm*te to make it molten.

Sometimes I put hot soup into a basic non-powered thermos, and it always remains hot until I open the thermos up later in the day. Does that mean my thermos is capable of heating soup?

It becomes clearer to me every day why you guys believe the things you do.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Sometimes I put hot soup into a basic non-powered thermos, and it always remains hot until I open the thermos up later in the day. Does that mean my thermos is capable of heating soup?

It becomes clearer to me every day why you guys believe the things you do.

does it keep your soup hot for weeks in the freezer?

 

[gumboot]

Sometimes I put hot soup into a basic non-powered thermos, and it always remains hot until I open the thermos up later in the day. Does that mean my thermos is capable of heating soup?

It becomes clearer to me every day why you guys believe the things you do.

This comment is so stupid I have nominated it for a Stundie.

 

[deep]

I suggest you try finding out how much thermite would be required to a) bring down the WTC, and b) create molten steel in the rubble.

The answer would probably force the entire twoof movement to abandon this thermite idiocy - which might explain why none of you make the slightest effort to look into it.

According to you, that number is 0. Sorry, but I don't foresee this "thermite idiocy" being abandoned in favor of your theory.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sometimes I put hot soup into a basic non-powered thermos, and it always remains hot until I open the thermos up later in the day. Does that mean my thermos is capable of heating soup?

It becomes clearer to me every day why you guys believe the things you do.

You are now saying that the molten metal deposited during the time of collapse was insulated by the rubble and that heat generated by the fires made up for some the heat loss through that insulation.

Three things are possible then;
-the heat loss is less than the heat input from the fires in which case the underground will get hotter. Given that the temp is already enough to allow molten metal then as it gets hotter more metal will melt.(this means that the fires could also create enough heat to melt metal on their own)
- the heat loss will exactly match heat input allowing the original molten metal to remain molten, no more, no less (this means that the fires had to occur very close to the originally melted metal)
- the heat loss will be greater than heat input and thus the amount of molten metal will decrease.(this means that the molten metal discovered is less than the amount originally melted)

Now that this is established as a hypothesis, all that remains is for you to convert your handwaving arguement into some sembalence of a scientific study that predicts what was actually discovered.
Let us know how that turns out. You know the 'answering questions' that neccessarily follows JAQing

 

[jaydeehess]

According to you, that number is 0. Sorry, but I don't foresee this "thermite idiocy" being abandoned in favor of your theory.

Zoom, right over your head , deep44.

You have postulated that thermite was responsible for causing the collapse therefore it is up to you to present a coherent arguement for such a thing which neccessarily means calculating how much of it would have to be used IF , as you contend, the office fires could not initiate collapse and gravity alone could not cause the collapse to continue.

Furthermore if thermite is the source of heat for the underground alledged molten metal(steel?), then it is up to you to provide a mechanism by which the observed heat distribution can be explained by the use of thermite.

 

[deep]

does it keep your soup hot for weeks in the freezer?

What freezer? Did you understand the context of my example? Maybe you should go back and read the claim I was replying to - just keep re-reading it until you figure out why there wasn't a freezer involved.

 

[deep]

Zoom, right over your head , deep44.

You have postulated that thermite was responsible for causing the collapse therefore it is up to you to present a coherent arguement (sic) for such a thing which neccessarily (sic) means calculating how much of it would have to be used IF , as you contend, the office fires could not initiate collapse and gravity alone could not cause the collapse to continue.

Furthermore if thermite is the source of heat for the underground alledged (sic) molten metal(steel?), then it is up to you to provide a mechanism by which the observed heat distribution can be explained by the use of thermite.

Zoom, right over my head? When I said, "according to you, that number is 0", I meant that your claim assumes that everything you mentioned (molten steel, etc) can happen without thermite, or any other incendiary/explosive.

So if I say that it would take 100 lbs of thermite to do everything, who are you to argue? You believe something like that can happen with no thermite at all.

 

[deep]

You are now saying that the molten metal deposited during the time of collapse was insulated by the rubble and that heat generated by the fires made up for some the heat loss through that insulation.

Three things are possible then;
-the heat loss is less than the heat input from the fires in which case the underground will get hotter. Given that the temp is already enough to allow molten metal then as it gets hotter more metal will melt.(this means that the fires could also create enough heat to melt metal on their own)
- the heat loss will exactly match heat input allowing the original molten metal to remain molten, no more, no less (this means that the fires had to occur very close to the originally melted metal)
- the heat loss will be greater than heat input and thus the amount of molten metal will decrease.(this means that the molten metal discovered is less than the amount originally melted)

Now that this is established as a hypothesis, all that remains is for you to convert your handwaving (sic) arguement (sic) into some sembalence (sic) of a scientific study that predicts what was actually discovered.
Let us know how that turns out. You know the 'answering questions' that neccessarily (sic) follows JAQing (sic)

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm making no such claim - I was refuting an outrageous claim made by someone else. It's their burden of proof, not mine.

 

[jaydeehess]

Zoom, right over my head? When I said, "according to you, that number is 0", I meant that your claim assumes that everything you mentioned (molten steel, etc) can happen without thermite, or any other incendiary/explosive.

So if I say that it would take 100 lbs of thermite to do everything, who are you to argue? You believe something like that can happen with no thermite at all.

Yes, I do, and the method by which this could occur has been pointed out here even to the point of illustrating the temps reached in underground fires that do occur elsewhere with nary an ounce of thermite present.

Your turn, what is the mechanism by which one could acheive the results seen using thermite?
Hey, its YOUR contention, try to convince me!

 

[jaydeehess]

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm making no such claim - I was refuting an outrageous claim made by someone else. It's their burden of proof, not mine.

You stated it in refutation but did not actually mean it?

You taking lessons from DC?

 

[gumboot]

What freezer? Did you understand the context of my example? Maybe you should go back and read the claim I was replying to - just keep re-reading it until you figure out why there wasn't a freezer involved.

Maybe you should go back and reread the claim until you work out why your example was stundielicious?

 

[DC]

DC:

You are correct, there are many thermite formulations....

D. L. Halcomb and J. H. Mohler have one described in a US patent, (No. 4,963,203; dated Oct 1990). It's for a "thermite" composition with CuO in place of Fe2O3 or Fe3O4 plus, I believe, a "gas producer" which could be a chlorate, perchlorate, nitrate, or even RDX.

It is said to be suitable for applications where production of high pressure and high velocity gas is required, "such as in the demolition of concrete."

DC, do you think this is what was used to bring down the towers and subsequently melted the steel in the rubble pile?

Apparently, some people do ............

But there are also patents for formulations with CoO, NiO, Sb2O3, MoO2, Cr2O3, PbO2, MnO2, WO3, etc, as the oxidizer with additives such as Si, SiC, Mg, etc, plus formulations with gas producers such as CaSO4, as in US patent 4,349,396, designed for "metal-cutting".

So what does all this prove DC?

well i was really honest when i said im a total chemist layman.
i really have no clue if that is what they used. i dont even know if that really works.
would i have knowledge in that i would prolly search for a thermite that would fit those higher levels of elements that you mentioned. or i would know there is no reaction that would fit that "fingerprint".

but i lack that knowledge, so i have to "trust" on the words of experts.
something i dont like

but i think you and others that pointed it out, are right, the reaction is fast. so i dont think there was still thermite reactions in the pile. but i still doubt that the fires in the rubble was able to melt steel, but to keep molten steel molten maybe. if there was indeed steel, or whatever metal that was once molten.

but tbh, i also think that Cahill's explenation sounds somewhat plausible.
i didnt read into that before you mentioned it.

 

[DC]

JAQ, but doesn't care about finding answers.

yes i dont care, thats why i totaly ignored what apollo posted and did not read anything about what he thinks is the reason.......

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sometimes I put hot soup into a basic non-powered thermos, and it always remains hot until I open the thermos up later in the day. Does that mean my thermos is capable of heating soup?

I suggest you try leaving your soup in the thermos for four months and then seeing how hot it is.

Dave