Q1: can you point out an example of a gravity and fire collapse that left pools of molten steel behind?
Hmmm I thought we already covered this. My condition was for you to find a historical precedent taking place prior to 9/11 in order to validate that molten steel is typical of a controlled demolition.
I am not able to point out any precedents in which a 'natural' collapse results in the same. Without precedents for either this argument is at an impasse, as it fails to strengthen through historical precedence the argument for a CD
-- I'd like to establish that no collapse is necessarily 'natural'. It would serve you better to understand that a collapse is either controlled or it is 'uncontrolled'. Buildings are man-made structures, therefore, collapses are contingent upon design flaws, extraordinary conditions (IE structural damage that breached a building's integrity), or whether they were 'controlled'
Q2: which type of collapse would you suppose has a greater likelihood of producing pools of molten steel (a) a CD using thermite cutter charges? or (b) a gravity and fire collapse?
Condition (a) is impossible to determine based on the fact that there is a lack of historical precedence to validate it.
Condition (b) is problematic in the context of molten steel because it as well lacks historical precedence, in particular dealing with the size and amount of material involved. My only conjecture at this time is oxidation reactions, for the reasons I provided earlier
Q3: why do you think molten metal weeks after event supports the official story?
Until I read NIST in greater detail on this part I cannot offer an answer. I don;t feel like BS'ing for the sake of answering on something I do not have extensive background on at this time. I will offer an answer once I have reviewed it.
Q4: why do you think NIST pretends the molten metal does not even exist?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY
I have no answer regarding that representative's claims. I will be reviewing the NIST report, as well as any other NIST related sources before I make a determination as to whether it is representative of the NIST report as a whole.
no i dont think you can jump to that conclusion. i stated that thermite is the direct cause for producing the molten metal that remained long after the towers collapsed.
This is component of the debate is more related to the pre-collapse conditions. Which will be covered later.
you yourself accept that molten iron is a end product of a thermite reaction.
I agree that thermite can melt steel, however, in the post-collapse conditions the requirements for the molten metal found weeks after the fact do not support a direct result of thermite reactions.
Hence why I feel that the discussion should shift to pre-collapse.
under question 4 i posted a link to you tube where you can see the chief engineer at NIST denying the existence of molten metal
See my reply to the question...
do you agree that thermite created the "initial" molten metal?
I am not convinced that it was at this time. This is why I am shifting to pre-collapse, where we will be examining the design of WTC 7, the circumstances of damage to the building resulting from the collapse of towers one and two, logistical problems to planting such incendiary charges, and other issues that need to be covered.
While I am more convinced in structural damage and fire being a combined cause of the collapse, I will make considerations for both scenarios until we have a consensus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
i would dispute that the underground fire given the saturated conditions and lack of oxygen could have reached sufficient temperatures to produce molten steel.
As stated earlier fire is not always required to produced heat. Under such circumstances it's unlikely that there would initially be molten steel and oxidation, jump started or not, would require time to manifest enough heat to produce the end result.
I asked this because your basis in the argument up to this point was from the finding of molten steel several weeks after the fact.
not true there are numerous anomoly to be explained.
- spherical particles of iron and silicates (1450 - 1538 C)
- Volatilized lead (1740 C) - Mo rich sphericles (2623 C)
- swiss cheese evaporation (2760 C)
*Evidence of melted molybdenum (spherical formation) was studied in the USGS report. The findings however were not publicised with the rest of the information. it took a freedom of information act to get this information released. i wonder was it because Molybdenum is a refractory metal known for its extremely high melting point?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Seems like this would be more pre-collapse oriented as the requirement for thermite to survive the collapses would come into play. I'll leave my impression of this once we initiate the next phase of the debate.
i beg to differ. It eliminates the possibility of a conventional CD but not an unconventional CD.
moreover it eliminates a natural collapse from gravity and fire which in turn forces to discover unconventional explanations (being the longest structural fire in history).
Bolded:
The unconventional CD is contingent on other requirements and in the context of our current focus is speculation. Unconventional or not, the same characteristics should be expected if it is a controlled demolition. We will be covering these in the next phase.
you could save us both a lot of time if you could simply explain to me where the temperatures came from to melt steel and produce the various anomolies in the dust samples.
My current explanation for the melted steel post-collapse would be oxidation reactions. We will cover the anomalies in the next phase of the discussion. After all... if you are able to convince me of the validity of the samples coming from incendiaries, would it not still be a result of the same reactions immediately prior to the collapse?
it is regretable you still possess this opinion eventhough you PROVIDE NO REASONS upon which you base this OPINION
Oh dear aren't we past this already? The molten steel argument being used as a basis is weak and needs to either be debunked or proven in the pre-collapse conditions to be effectively covered.
because molten iron is an end product of a thermite reaction - it follows that - an unconventional controlled demolition using thermite cutter charges would produce molten iron every time
Again I feel the that the basis of molten metal found weeks after the fact is rather weak. If you intend to convince anyone including myself, I would focus on pre-collapse as it seems your basis for thermite is more deeply rooted in the collapse itself as opposed to the end result after the collapse.
so says just another debunker
D:<
the war in Iraq is mass murder and those who started this WAR OF AGGRESSION are guilty of mass murder.
Going into Iraq was a mistake, but seeing as we had to lie about WMD's i fail to see how 9/11 was a direct pre-text to the invasion. Let's continue to remain on the topic of the collapses at this time
911 was an inside job and the truth will out
As this is a debate would appreciate it if we simply cast any pre-determined conclusions aside until we finish here. You either agree 'more' to the CD, theory, or you agree 'more with the structural damage/fire combination until the debate is finished while we are debating in context.
I will initiate the debate for pre-collapse conditions tomorrow morning and begin by presenting the arguments from both sides and then explain initial complications with both. I'd appreciate it if we can start this part of the debate with a relatively clean slate....
.
