DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

(bolding mine)
I think if you actually understood what the words "hydrocarbon" "melt" "evaporate" and "steel" meant, and knew a little bit more about fires, you wouldn't make such a definitive statement.

well instead of sounding like an arrogant twat why dont YOU explain to everyone where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel came from?
and remember all you have is jet fuel diesel fuel and office material feeds into the fire.

 

[stateofgrace]

well instead of sounding like an arrogant twat why dont YOU explain to everyone where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel came from?
and remember all you have is jet fuel diesel fuel and office material feeds into the fire.

No, why don't you?

Could you please explain why a controlled demolition of these or any building would produce temperatures that would result in molten or evaporated steel?

Please, can you explain in simple terms why molten metal of any description adds to the theory that explosives or anything other that the planes slamming into these buildings and the resultant fires did not result in the collapse of these buildings?

Please offer your full and qualified explanation as to what on earth molten metal of any description found at the base of the towers or any of the surrounding buildings in anyway adds to the theory that a controlled demolition took place.

I will not accept " Well,it needs investigating" nor will I accept " Well,it is strange"

Tell us all why molten metal found at the base of these buildings adds to your belief that they were brought down by a controlled demolitions.

When you are ready.

Maybe you could stop posting immature insults and fully explain why molten metal of any description equates to a controlled demolition.

When you are ready.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

well instead of sounding like an arrogant twat why dont YOU explain to everyone where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel came from?
and remember all you have is jet fuel diesel fuel and office material feeds into the fire.

Sorry to come off as an "arrogant twat", but I guess that happens sometimes.

Given the tone of your invitation to elaborate, I'll politely decline, and suggest you hie thee to a dictonary and a materials science book or two.

We might have a good discussion down the line when you are prepared.

Respectfully, (sorry, Myriad)

Skinny

 

[Grizzly Bear]

well instead of sounding like an arrogant twat why dont YOU explain to everyone where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel came from?
and remember all you have is jet fuel diesel fuel and office material feeds into the fire.

Corrosion breaks down the iron, corrosion reactions do the same.
On the other hand, at a certain point steel can 'burn',

http://www.popsci.com/node/9344

Obviously we're not talking 'steel wool' for this but the principal is the same, it leads back to oxidation, which breaks down the metal. Extended periods of steel oxidation can lead to a result that as well would imitate 'evaporated steel. Given the length of time all that steel had to undergo the process, it cannot be ruled out.

what i am disputing is that this "sway" was responsible for blowing the windows out in the lobby.

Neither will I argue that it did all of the damage, however the stresses exerted by the torsion of both towers would have contributed to it. THAT is what I am getting at.

 

[thewholesoul]

Could you please explain why a controlled demolition of these or any building would produce temperatures that would result in molten or evaporated steel?

certainly. a thermite reaction produces molten iron and can reach temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel. are you denying these facts?

Please, can you explain in simple terms why molten metal of any description adds to the theory that explosives or anything other that the planes slamming into these buildings and the resultant fires did not result in the collapse of these buildings?

explosives and thermite reactions can produce temperatures hot enough to melt and evaporate steel. planes slamming into buildings and the resulting office fires cannot.

Please offer your full and qualified explanation as to what on earth molten metal of any description found at the base of the towers or any of the surrounding buildings in anyway adds to the theory that a controlled demolition took place.

the full and qualified explanation of FEMA investigators was that the presence of evaporated steel was "baffling". the explanation of NIST is that "it doesnt exist".

pools of molten metal have NEVER been discovered below a natural collapse of a building from fire. no steel frame building in history has ever collapsed from fire. so when we discover molten pools beneath buildings that never before collapsed from fire, rational people start to suspect that maybe something else was happening in those buidligns that caused them to globally collapse in near free fall speed.

whatever way you wish to spin it, the presence of molten pools and evaporated steel DOES NOT SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY for the simple reason that the official story CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENA

and neither can you!

I will not accept " Well,it needs investigating" nor will I accept " Well,it is strange"

what will you accept? molten metal supports the official story?

Tell us all why molten metal found at the base of these buildings adds to your belief that they were brought down by a controlled demolitions.

When you are ready.

follow this line of reasoning.
1. thermite reactions can cut through steel like butter
2. controlled demolitions essentially remove the vertical resistence of a building by cutting through the supporting columns
3. thermite reactions produce molten iron
4. thermite reactions produce temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel
5. molten iron and evaporated steel etc where found at wtc 1 2 and 7

now when your ready go through 1-5 and tell me why they are false.

 

[stateofgrace]

certainly. a thermite reaction produces molten iron and can reach temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel. are you denying these facts?



explosives and thermite reactions can produce temperatures hot enough to melt and evaporate steel. planes slamming into buildings and the resulting office fires cannot.



the full and qualified explanation of FEMA investigators was that the presence of evaporated steel was "baffling". the explanation of NIST is that "it doesnt exist".

pools of molten metal have NEVER been discovered below a natural collapse of a building from fire. no steel frame building in history has ever collapsed from fire. so when we discover molten pools beneath buildings that never before collapsed from fire, rational people start to suspect that maybe something else was happening in those buidligns that caused them to globally collapse in near free fall speed.

whatever way you wish to spin it, the presence of molten pools and evaporated steel DOES NOT SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY for the simple reason that the official story CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENA

and neither can you!



what will you accept? molten metal supports the official story?



follow this line of reasoning.
1. thermite reactions can cut through steel like butter
2. controlled demolitions essentially remove the vertical resistence of a building by cutting through the supporting columns
3. thermite reactions produce molten iron
4. thermite reactions produce temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel
5. molten iron and evaporated steel etc where found at wtc 1 2 and 7

now when your ready go through 1-5 and tell me why they are false.

And this produces pools of molten metal weeks and weeks afterwards does it?

Does it?

Yes or no ?

ETA Save your "official story” nonsense and answer the question.

Why does molten metal add to your theory that a controlled demolition took place?

 

[X]

thanks for that information X
now for your information i was talking about the "melting" and "evaporation" of steel not "corrosion"

melting and evaporation are temperature dependent.

YOU explain to me HOW a hydrocarbon fire can produce temperatures hot enough to "melt" and "evaporate" steel. my position is simple: ITS IMPOSSIBLE

whats yours?

Based on the conversation to date, I was assuming you were referring, in part, to the steel beams which were thinned, or, "evaporated" (which is a poor description).

My point was that the corrosive chemicals mentioned could eat away the steel, instead of it needing to reach evaporating temperature.

You, it would seem, were not aware of that, which would be why you are insisting the fires were hot enough to melt and evaporate steel.



By the way, my offer to do your homework for you still stands, if you will promise to actually read and make an effort to understand (feel free to ask for clarification on unclear points if you need to) the information provided.
However, since the forum search function is broken (and you were appearantly not concerned enough with the truth to look for yourself yet), I would not be able to provide links to threads addressing your questions, and would instead have to refer to third-party sources.

Do you agree to the promise, or do you not actually care about the truth?

 

[thewholesoul]

And this produces pools of molten metal weeks and weeks afterwards does it?

Does it?

Yes or no ?

yes thermite reactions can and do produce molten iron, as for maining the metal molten for months afterwards i cannot be sure.

maybe something else can produce molten iron, i would not rule out such possibilities, however the official story cannot explain the molten pools. that is the main point.

ETA Save your "official story” nonsense and answer the question.

official "explanation" "story" - no nonsense there just you getting irritated and emotional

Why does molten metal add to your theory that a controlled demolition took place?

i have answered that question already. the molten pools suggest extremely hot temperatures and extremely hot temperatures suggest explosives or thermite reactions which can and do cut through steel core columns like butter

why dont you try answering mine and explain to me where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel etc came from.

and why does molten metal add to your theory that wtc 1,2 and 7 fell naturally?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

certainly. a thermite reaction produces molten iron and can reach temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel. are you denying these facts?

What I fail to see, and people have failed to answer to me is whether or not it can explain the molten steel weeks later. Thermite is a fast reaction. Just because by your logic thermite can 'explain' the presence of molten steel, it does not explain how the thermite not only survived the collapses without being damaged beyond ability to function, survived the collapses without being destroyed period, how such incendiaries would be able to sustain a 'steel cutting' reaction over an extended period of 10 or more weeks.

Do you have any idea how much thermite would be required to sustain a reaction for 10 weeks? The inability or reluctance of people to explain this detail makes detracts from the credibility of such claims.

explosives and thermite reactions can produce temperatures hot enough to melt and evaporate steel.

--Once again I address the issue, is a thermite reaction capable of lasting for ten weeks and sustain metal in a molten state
-- How much of it is required to sustain the reaction for that long?
-- Did rogue thermite charges somehow survive the building collapses?

That's pretty much speculation... and fails to answer to the problems with assuming molten steel found 10 weeks later being a result of thermite.

planes slamming into buildings and the resulting office fires cannot.

These examples show what a 'normal' fire is capable of doing to steel:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_0fSuMnq0F3M/Re5qZn44TfI/AAAAAAAAGIg/RVxlX-0UvJE/s400/a9dFIre_8_resize.JPG

I'm not bringing this up specifically to 'explain' molten steel, but to point out that similar conditions were shaping up in the twin towers and WTC 7. That is how vulnerable steel is to 'fire'.
Steel loses its rigidity under thermal stress, and undergoes 'plastic' behavior meaning it becomes distorted under its own weight and any loads it is sustaining. All three buildings suffered structural damage and ignited. In other words they were all already compromised at the moment the fires began, I imagine that all the structural damage preceding ignition only expedited the weakening process by redistributing building loads to remaining intact columns, some of which, while not severed, were seriously compromised by damage.

pools of molten metal have NEVER been discovered below a natural collapse of a building from fire.

Can you point out a controlled demolition which resulted in pools of molten steel? You seem to keep a distinction between 'natural collapse' and 'controlled collapse'.

-- To this point I fail to see how such distinctions are comparible:
A collapse happens because of:
(A) Poor design, or neglect of the building designers or engineers to account for variable in a building's construction. (Covering failures to account for building codes, fire resistance, temperature changes in a particular climate, engineering calculation flaws, or otherwise)
(B) A Structural breach that compromises the structural integrity of a building's supports (This falls under conditions from impact damages or fire, and other processes
(C) Controlled demolition where the building is intentionally being brought down

There's not really any definition for 'natural', as buildings are man-made to begin with and their integrity is contingent upon those who design it.

Back to the point:
-- By this statement you claim that there is no precedent for 'natural collapses' that have resulted in 'molten metal', does this imply that there have been 'controlled demolitions' which have resulted in molten metal weeks following? Do you have any examples?

no steel frame building in history has ever collapsed from fire.

Nothing that TOTALLY collapsed maybe. We are talking about collapses in general, partial or complete. The statement that NO steel structure has EVER collapsed is inaccurate.

so when we discover molten pools beneath buildings that never before collapsed from fire, rational people start to suspect that maybe something else was happening in those buidlings that caused them to globally collapse in near free fall speed.

-- First you must establish if there was any precedence for the molten steel to see what processes are capable of generating it. Can it be caused by natural chemical reactions, or can it be caused by thermite or other steel melting solutions.

-- Next you must establish whether unnatural causes of molten steel such as thermite can sustain a reaction for the length of time required to sustain steel in a molten state.

-- You must establish whether natural causes of the byproduct can sustain themselves long enough to generate steel in a molten state, and whether the condition within the debris pile was favorable for such a natural process to take shape and sustain itself

for the simple reason that the official story CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENA

Hmmm, I'll await the results of your search for precedents to explain away how the thermite lasted that long.

and neither can you!

Already provided a 'plausible' explanation, which is capable of such

follow this line of reasoning.
1. thermite reactions can cut through steel like butter

--Established

2. controlled demolitions essentially remove the vertical resistence of a building by cutting through the supporting columns

-- Impact and fire damage do the same...

3. thermite reactions produce molten iron

-- For several weeks?

4. thermite reactions produce temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel

-- Established
-- If there is an absence of evidence to support thermite being present however, this can be explained away by the oxidation process which breaks up the material composition of the metal

5. molten iron and evaporated steel etc where found at wtc 1 2 and 7

-- Have you completely eliminated the oxidation process as being a possibility?


-----------Griz

 

[stateofgrace]

yes thermite reactions can and do produce molten iron, as for maining the metal molten for months afterwards i cannot be sure.

maybe something else can produce molten iron, i would not rule out such possibilities, however the official story cannot explain the molten pools. that is the main point.



official "explanation" "story" - no nonsense there just you getting irritated and emotional



i have answered that question already. the molten pools suggest extremely hot temperatures and extremely hot temperatures suggest explosives or thermite reactions which can and do cut through steel core columns like butter

why dont you try answering mine and explain to me where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel etc came from.

and why does molten metal add to your theory that wtc 1,2 and 7 fell naturally?

You cannot be sure?

Molten metal adds to your theory that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition? Yes or no?

State, precisely, and exactly how molten metal found weeks after the collapse of these buildings would make me believe they were brought down by controlled demolition.

Please stop your nonsense, please stop giving us this "official story” rubbish. State, why I should give you anything other than a dismissive glance.

Why does molten metal add to the theory that these buildings were demolished?

You are promoting this rubbish, so explain fully why molten metal of any description found weeks after these buildings collapsed would make me want to believe they were brought down by a controlled demolition.

When you are ready

 

[thewholesoul]

evaporation is THEIR description not mine

Based on the conversation to date, I was assuming you were referring, in part, to the steel beams which were thinned, or, "evaporated" (which is a poor description).

My point was that the corrosive chemicals mentioned could eat away the steel, instead of it needing to reach evaporating temperatures.

You, it would seem, were not aware of that, which would be why you are insisting the fires were hot enough to melt and evaporate steel.

good. i am really pleased you accepted my point that fires are not hot enough to evaporate steel? some progress has been made.

now your point is that the steel samples discovered were not "evoprated" they were "corroded".

indeed "evaporated" is a poor desription in your opinion.

perhaps your semantical criticismwould be best drected at those who investigated the wtc samples. i'm just the messenger!

well in the RJ Lee report they say, not me, “swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation”
go to reference no.1 at the following http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf to find the RJ Lee report

Dr. Barnett (part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) says, not me;

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures).

New York Times, November 29, 2001 Engineers baffled as "STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED" http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

so given that those who actually investigated the samples at wtc say that they found evidence of "evaporation" - again i ask - where did the extremely high temperatures come from? you already accept that normal fires are unable to produce the temperatures so lets have it X - where did the extreme temps come from?

By the way, my offer to do your homework for you still stands

i think i will do my own homework thanks. perhaos you should even do your own every now and then.

if you will promise to actually read and make an effort to understand (feel free to ask for clarification on unclear points if you need to) the information provided.

you sound arrogant.

and before i take any lessons or homework from someone like you i suggest that you pull your head out of the sand and realize that "evaporation" was discovered by FEMA from wtc 7 steel samples

Do you agree to the promise, or do you not actually care about the truth?

of course i care about the truth. and because i do i never make promises that i cannot keep.

peace

 

[pomeroo]

well instead of sounding like an arrogant twat why dont YOU explain to everyone where the temperatures to melt and evaporate steel came from?
and remember all you have is jet fuel diesel fuel and office material feeds into the fire.

As no steel was either melted or "evaporated," your question is quite silly.

 

[thewholesoul]

You cannot be sure?

Molten metal adds to your theory that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition? Yes or no?

yes

State, precisely, and exactly how molten metal found weeks after the collapse of these buildings would make me believe they were brought down by controlled demolition.

firstly it should make you abandon the official hypohesis which is UNABLE to explain this phenomena.

there is nothing going to make you believe that towers collapsed by CD, so whats the point?

molten pools however make me beleive that explosives were used because explosives can produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel. and molten iron is produced from a thermite reaction.

Please stop your nonsense, please stop giving us this "official story” rubbish. State, why I should give you anything other than a dismissive glance.

what is your problem when i say the OFFICIAL STORY, EXPLANATION, HYPOTHESIS, THE OFFICIAL LIE...i mean what words would your highness prefer i use?

your not going to give me more than a dismissive glance because your an arrogant person and thats how arrogant people behave

Why does molten metal add to the theory that these buildings were demolished?

because molten metal is produced by explosive reactions and steel framed buildings are demolished by explosives

You are promoting this rubbish, so explain fully why molten metal of any description found weeks after these buildings collapsed would make me want to believe they were brought down by a controlled demolition.

When you are ready

why should i answer YOUR questons when you do not answer mine? are your questions intrinsically more important than mine? but i will oblige. you just better have the courtesy to answer mine.

fact: Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g. jet fuel) fires generate temperature to 1100 C

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

The following is a table of the phenomena found at the WTC site and the corrosponding temperature required to form these phenomena

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with – 50 Mol% sulfur) in steel = 1000 C
To melt aluminosilicates (sphericle formation) = 1450 C
To melt iron (sphericule formation) = 1538 C
To vapourize lead = 1740 C
To melt molybdenum (spherical formation) = 2623 C
To vapourize aluminosilicate = 2760 C

*various explosive chemicals will produce sphericals as their end product.

as can clearly be seen normal office fires and hydrocarbons are unable to explain these phenomena

The data collected by USGS, FEMA, and steven jones provides strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly exothermic contributed to the destruction of the wtc buildings.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

ok. Q1 do you think that molten pools support your official theory? yes or no?
Q2 assuming that you accept the presence of molten steel and evaporated steel where did the extreme temperatures come from?
Q3 do you accept that explosives can generate extreme temperatures sufficient to melt and evaporate steel?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

As no steel was either melted or "evaporated," your question is quite silly.

hahahahaha so your right and FEMA are wrong

hey pomeroo, do us all a favor and stick your head back in the sand

 

[X]

As you will.

Go do your homework.
The answers to your questions, as I have said, are easily available.
And they do not evidence a vast complicated conspiracy.

Edit:
Don't bother replying. As you have rejected my offer (and called it "arrogant") I have no use for discussing with you further. You refuse to consider alternate thypothesis, and refuse to research your claims. Plainly, you are commited to your conspiracy theory.
The rest of us have examined it, and found it wanting.
Maybe one day you'll realize how stupid most of the theories are, too.
Until then, you are on my ignore list.

 

[Dog Town]

because molten metal is produced by explosive reactions and steel framed buildings are demolished by explosives

I have no fallacy fu, but this has gotta be one.

 

[Garb]

I have a few questions.

Does thermite cause steel to evaporate?

Can thermite be used to cut vertical columns?

Is there any evidence for thermite?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

Ix Nay on the Ig Pay Atin Lay


(Just keeping the code language and acronym language game)

 

[stateofgrace]

yes



firstly it should make you abandon the official hypohesis which is UNABLE to explain this phenomena.

there is nothing going to make you believe that towers collapsed by CD, so whats the point?

molten pools however make me beleive that explosives were used because explosives can produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel. and molten iron is produced from a thermite reaction.



what is your problem when i say the OFFICIAL STORY, EXPLANATION, HYPOTHESIS, THE OFFICIAL LIE...i mean what words would your highness prefer i use?

your not going to give me more than a dismissive glance because your an arrogant person and thats how arrogant people behave



because molten metal is produced by explosive reactions and steel framed buildings are demolished by explosives



why should i answer YOUR questons when you do not answer mine? are your questions intrinsically more important than mine? but i will oblige. you just better have the courtesy to answer mine.

fact: Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g. jet fuel) fires generate temperature to 1100 C

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

The following is a table of the phenomena found at the WTC site and the corrosponding temperature required to form these phenomena

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with – 50 Mol% sulfur) in steel = 1000 C
To melt aluminosilicates (sphericle formation) = 1450 C
To melt iron (sphericule formation) = 1538 C
To vapourize lead = 1740 C
To melt molybdenum (spherical formation) = 2623 C
To vapourize aluminosilicate = 2760 C

*various explosive chemicals will produce sphericals as their end product.

as can clearly be seen normal office fires and hydrocarbons are unable to explain these phenomena

The data collected by USGS, FEMA, and steven jones provides strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly exothermic contributed to the destruction of the wtc buildings.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

ok. Q1 do you think that molten pools support your official theory? yes or no?
Q2 assuming that you accept the presence of molten steel and evaporated steel where did the extreme temperatures come from?
Q3 do you accept that explosives can generate extreme temperatures sufficient to melt and evaporate steel?

peace

I have bolded your insults and temper tantrums.

Now again, explain fully why the presence of molten metal found weeks after these buildings collapsed contributes to your CD theory.

Do not make demands of me or any other member on this forum, stop throwing hissy fits because I or anybody questions you and please answer straight forward questions.

The reason my question are important is because they come from the real world and not the make believe world you live in, whereby secret death squads went into each building armed with goodness knows what and secretly planted goodness know what in front of everybody.

Now,for the final time of asking.

HOW DOES MOLTEN METAL OF ANY DECRIPTION FOUND WEEKS AFTER THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED STRENGHTEN YOUR CASE FOR A CD?

Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

They are a simple questions; they are real questions but you are avoiding them.Please explain fully.

Do not post further unless you intend to answer in a mature, adult fashion and explain exactly why pools of molten metal strengthen your case. Any further insults from you will result in me reporting you. This is a debating forum, not a place for you’re to vent off and throw hissy fits.

Answer the questions or do not post at all.

 

[applecorped]

I guess the decision was to not post anymore.