DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[NYCEMT86]

so you can give estimations after all. now all you have to do is explain how those temperatures can produce the various anomolies found in the wtc dust and rubble that require much greater temperatures

Maybe if you would re-read everything I wrote, you would understand that my numbers cant and never will be 100% accurate, BECAUSE I DONT KNOW WHAT FUELS WERE AVAILABLE NOR DO I KNOW WHAT TEMPERATURE THESE FUELS MAKE OUT AT....your excepting fact from little evidence.


Fuels we do know....

Plastic
Carpets
Paper
Chemicals (White out, Ink, Cleaning solvents)
Clothing
Human Remains
Drywall
Mops
Brooms
Buckets
Wood

But if I understand you correctly, what your really saying is that a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." A phenomenon that baffled engineers and other experts like Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the New York Times described as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

Prove it was Steel, prove it was melted

You, NYCEMT86 have solved.

it was a SMOLDERING FIRE that explains everythng!!! the longest ever structural fires in history, the first ever eutectic reactons observed in a building fire. anything else you want to peg onto that smoldering fire? what about the formation of molybdenum sphericules requiring 2623 C, the vapourization of lead requiring 1740 C, and the vapourization of aluminosilicates requiring 2760 C. How in gods name do you plan on explaining this when you admit that a smoldering fire can only reach around1500 C which is not even enough to melt steel or iron? How?

You know whats funny, is all of the leading Fire Investigators and lead research teams of this world don't disagree with the conclusion. Maybe you should ask them why they don't disagree. Why is that? Why is it only pseudo scientists disagree when you have the NFPA, who has done modeling way before 9/11. Did you even read the paper I posted about Smoldering fires?

YOU STILL NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT STEEL AND IRON WERE MELTED.

It would serve you a lot better if you could present some reasons why you think that this old truther statement is wrong, false, or inaccurate in relation to the production of molten pools, sphericules, and vaporizing metals. Otherwise, in the absence of such reasons, not only would the truth movement be right but I would also be better tap dancer than yours truly!

I provided several reasons, you just had to click the links.

What it really boils down to is that you and debunkers in general have no rational explanation for the extreme temperatures required to produce the numerous anomolies discovered in the wtc dust and rubble.

....again did you read that smoldering paper?

Nice strawman. Go re-read post 726 you will find that I was not claiming that an office fire cannot reach 1300 F; I claimed that it could not possibly generate temperatures of 1740 CELCIUS and above. A mountain of paper and synthetics wont produce those temperatures, period.

Well, excuse me for the strawman, I usually am better with my arguments. Yes but the convection and building of superheated gases that cant escape due to the thousands of tons of concrete buried on top of it will cause the temperature to raise, it creates an oven like condition.

i would love to shout in your abyss-like earhole WAKE THE BLEEP UP, 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!

peace

Really? Really?! When is the trial, when is all this evidence going to be presented so you can hang Bush and Chaney?

 

[thewholesoul]

You seem to be forgetting that they’re weren’t just building fires.

yes they were: (a) there was a building and (b) it was on fire ergo it was just a "building- fire"

they’re weren’t just building fires.The buildings also collapsed, and the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

they were just collapsed building fires that went on for weeks. however this can also be and was described as "the longest structural fire in history". but surely you have more than a semantical argument?

There’s no reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing.

ok, so why dont you provide some reasons in support of this claim?

USGS took dust samples.
these dust samples were not extracted from the rubble pile.
likewise Jones took dust samples not from the rubble pile.
so whatever they found must have been produced before or during the building collapsed.
now USGS found Molybdenum sphericules
but they only published their findings after a freedom of information act was issued
molybdenum is a metal with melting point of 2623 C, or 4753 F
max temperature of just a building fire precollapse was around 1000 C
so tell me what is your explanation pertaining to the origin of these extremely high temperatures? i bet you dont have one.

Here are some reasons why I think the eutectic reactions took place before the rubble pile:

1) first of all the rubble pile did not reach the temperatures required to give metal a swiss cheese appearance. evapouration of lead and aluminosilicates requires a temperature of 1740 C and 2760 C respectively. the rubble pile did not reach temperatures any higher than 1500 C.

2) because we know the rubble had not enough temperature to create eutectic reactions and because we know that the molybdenum sphericules were produced before and during the building collapse. it seems reasonable to assume that the evaporation of metals occured around the same time and by the same thing.

3) explosive chemical reactions can produce the temperatures required to melt steel, form sphericules, and evaporate metal.

peace

 

[Par]

yes [the World Trade Center was just a building fire]: (a) there was a building and (b) it was on fire. ergo it was just a "building- fire"

Consider the following:

“Yes a BLT is just a tomato sandwich: (a) it is a sandwich and (b) it contains tomatoes. ergo it is just a tomato sandwich.”

The problem here is that something having properties A and B does not mean that it only has properties A and B. A BLT might be a sandwich and contain tomatoes, but that doesn’t mean it’s just a tomato sandwich. Similarly, the World Trade Center might have been a building and been on fire, but that doesn’t mean it’s just a building fire.

The buildings also collapsed, and the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

 

[Par]

The buildings also collapsed, and the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

they were just collapsed building fires that went on for weeks. however this can also be and was described as "the longest structural fire in history".

I don’t know what you mean.

 

[Par]

There’s no reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing.

ok, so why dont you provide some reasons in support of this claim?

If you wish to claim that there is, in fact, good reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing, then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Par]

USGS took dust samples. these dust samples were not extracted from the rubble pile. likewise Jones took dust samples not from the rubble pile. so whatever they found must have been produced before or during the building collapsed. now USGS found Molybdenum sphericules but they only published their findings after a freedom of information act was issued molybdenum is a metal with melting point of 2623 C, or 4753 F max temperature of just a building fire precollapse was around 1000 Cso tell me what is your explanation pertaining to the origin of these extremely high temperatures? i bet you dont have one.

None of this has any bearing on the issue of the eutectic reaction, which is the matter with which I took issue.

 

[Par]

Here are some reasons why I think the eutectic reactions took place before the rubble pile: ...first of all the rubble pile did not reach the temperatures required to give metal a swiss cheese appearance... because we know the rubble had not enough temperature to create eutectic reactions... explosive chemical reactions can produce the temperatures required to melt steel, form sphericules, and evaporate metal.

The first two of these reasons are the same. In any event, all “three” are non sequiturs.

 

[DGM]

The first two of these reasons are the same. In any event, all “three” are non sequiturs.

The funny thing is his reasons why it had to take place before the piles show that he has no clue what a eutectic reaction even is. (I think he likes the sound of the words)

 

[thewholesoul]

Consider the following:

“Yes a BLT is just a tomato sandwich: (a) it is a sandwich and (b) it contains tomatoes. ergo it is just a tomato sandwich.”

a BLT is (a) BACON (b) lettuce (c) and tomotoe ergo it is not just a tomotoe sandwich. so you omit TWO INGREDIENTS

The problem here is that something having properties A and B does not mean that it only has properties A and B.

The buildings also collapsed, and the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

the problem here is you dont know what your talking about.

 

[applecorped]

a BLT is (a) BACON (b) lettuce (c) and tomotoe ergo it is not just a tomotoe sandwich. so you omit TWO INGREDIENTS




the problem here is you dont know what your talking about.

So this is a tacit admission that you really are here for no other reason than to engage other people in a psuedo-scientific masturbatory wank-fest?

 

[tsig]

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.

I have never seen any proof that there was any molten iron. All the photos I have seen have been "enhanced".

 

[tsig]

hey wheelz

1. testimony and photographic evidence

2. we only have estimations but there appears to be "quite a bit"

3. i dont know. however we do know that molten metal was still being extracted weeks after the demolition of the towers.

4. yes, because of the colour we can rule out aluminium. but for greater discussion on this very issue i suggest you have a quick read through http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

peace

No actual physical proof? A chunk of solidified steel would be great.

I've seen the photos and read the testimonies. Not convincing!!

If there really was molten metal under the debris the workers would have fried like bugs on a hot griddle.

 

[thewholesoul]

This is all a little tricky to explain in terms of a thermite reaction, of course, which is limited to below 2519ºC by the boiling point of aluminium.

Dave

agreed.

but can you agree that 2519 C is a hell of a lot closer than 1000 C produced by a structural fire.

besides the truth movement is not hinged on thermite. It is not uncommon for explosives to be used in combination.

so i accept that it is tricky for the truth movement to explain the origin of these extreme temperatures - but will you accept that it is impossible for the official position to explain these extreme temperatures?

what is your explanation for the extreme temperatures?

 

[A W Smith]

I don't remember if i asked you this or not TWS, but can your provide us with documentation proving thermite was ever used to destroy a building?

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul

First you have to prove that steel was melted during the fire.

Is anyone denying that absolutely no physical evidence of any explosives have been found?

- floor 82 of south tower we can see what appears to be a eutectic reaction between thermite and steel.

- post 377 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099&page=10 outlines several phenomena (physical evidence) that cannot possibly be explained by a fuel deflagration

 

[thewholesoul]

First you need to prove that the spheres were not there already.

This is an interesting line of argument but your going to have to elaborate a little further: which spherules exactly were already there? where exactly were these spherules located in the building? and what process produced these sphericules?

It is an interesting line of argument because instead of denying that the spherules exist or that extreme temperature is required to produce these spherules, you are essentially arguing about the "when" these spherules were produced. basically what your saying is that they were produced long before the towers were even constructed. so i will be eager to hear what process produced these spherules and the temperatures involved.

But we do know that extreme temperatures were present at the wtc site otherwise steel could not have been evaporated. now assuming that you are not going to argue that the evaporated steel was already there you must accept that extreme temperatures sufficient to produce the spherules were also present since the temperature required to evaporate steel is greater than that required to produce spherules.

This brings us back to the "when" question. was the steel evaporated after the collapse in the rubble? or was it evaporated before and during the building collapse?
According to Dr Barnett and co it is possible that this phenomenon began prior to aswell as after the collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

PLEASE SHOW ME PROOF OF THESE POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON. NO "TRUTHER" EVER HAS.

[websites: proof of molten steel/iron]
www.georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
www.moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

DOES ANYONE NEED TO? REGULAR FIRES CAN DO THE SAME THING. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND LONG ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT CHEMICAL REACTIONS OCCUR IN FIRES

so you accept explosive chemical reactions can produce the extreme temperatures required to form various sphericules. good.

regular fires cannot do the same thing because it takes a lot of explosive force to blow the iron into tiny sphericules a few microns or so in size. but maybe i am wrong and you can cite me a paper or study that demonstrates how a regular fire can produce Mo and aluminosilicate sphericules.

 

[thewholesoul]

Thewholesoul:
Stop quoting Dr Barnett because you've obviously never read his work.

well given that you are obviously well rehearsed in his his work why dont you quote me where he concludes that a smoldering fire created the molten pools, various sphericules, and evaporated steel.

why would he suggest further investigation is needed in realtion to the anomolies found in the dust and rubble samples from wtc?

The funny thing is his reasons why it had to take place before the piles show that he (thewholesoul) has no clue what a eutectic reaction even is. (I think he likes the sound of the words)

Now next is the quote from Dr Barnett you sent me:

The observations of Barnett:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Here is the conclusion from Dr Barnetts study: (the part you forgot to mention)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

The severe corrosion and subsequent errosion of Samples 1 ad 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrossion is unknown. It is possible that this is a result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure

So maybe i dont know what a eutectic reaction is but Dr Barnett certainly does and according to his studies such a reaction is possible prior to collapse (just like i said). other points to note are they have no idea the speed of the oxidation and sulfidation or even when it began.

So maybe you should stop quote mining Barnett's work and before you make mocking comments about me YOU should read ALL of what Dr Barnett says.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Your supposed anomalies are generally based on anecdotal evidence, misrepresentation or poor sampling procedures.

so the studies and samples taken by USGS, FEMA, Society of Civil Engineers, and Steven Jones are all invalid because you say so. are you even qualified to criticize their sampling procedures Dave?

And the eutectic reactions are not a mystery
whatever a half-informed newspaper reporter may think - but the explanation of the mystery of how steel members were thinned in the rubble pile - something which can't be explained by melting but in fact proves that the steel wasn't raised above its melting point. Just because you refuse to accept that the mystery is solved, that doesn't mean that it isn't.

please correct me if i am wrong Dave but what you are saying is
(a) all evidence pointing to extreme temperatures should be thrwon out because you say so
(b) there is no mystery but you dont know what the explanation or solution is
(c) and whatever this mysterious explanation to the mystery actually is, it proves that there were no extreme temperatures and i will disagree with it.

if there is no mystery Dave why have you no explanation? why have the people in charge of investigating the anomolies not conclusively determined the cause for these anomolies and suggest that further investigaton is needed? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Meanwhile, what you have to do is come up with an explanation for those same imaginary anomalies

Dave these anomolies are actual things, they were photographed and tested.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf and i beleive that explosive chemical reactions are responsible because it is a fact that they can produce the extreme temperatures. are you denying that explosive chemical reactions are unable to produce such anomolies?

 

[thewholesoul]

This is all a little tricky to explain in terms of a thermite reaction, of course, which is limited to below 2519ºC by the boiling point of aluminium.

Dave

thought you might find this interesting

It has to do with the 2800c temperature produced by thermite and the reaction that temperature can have on another material common in the buildings.

 

[Dave Rogers]

besides the truth movement is not hinged on thermite. It is not uncommon for explosives to be used in combination.

It is not uncommon for truthers to claim that explosives were used together with thermite. Give me an example of a documented case of thermite and explosives being used in combination to initiate the collapse of a building. And explosives do not generate particularly high temperatures; they work by generating blast to fracture structural elements, not by melting them.

so i accept that it is tricky for the truth movement to explain the origin of these extreme temperatures - but will you accept that it is impossible for the official position to explain these extreme temperatures?

It is impossible for either to explain the high temperatures you want to invoke several weeks after collapse. The simple explanation is that the microspheres were created in one or more of the many completely innocuous processes already identified and conveniently ignored by Steven Jones, and that the molten steel never existed except in the hyperbole of journalists.

so the studies and samples taken by USGS, FEMA, Society of Civil Engineers, and Steven Jones are all invalid because you say so. are you even qualified to criticize their sampling procedures Dave?

Steven Jones's sampling procedures are well-known to be highly suspect. The remaining studies and samples aren't, to my knowledge, being used to support the idea that there was something suspect about the WTC collapses.

please correct me if i am wrong Dave but what you are saying is
(a) all evidence pointing to extreme temperatures should be thrwon out because you say so
(b) there is no mystery but you dont know what the explanation or solution is
(c) and whatever this mysterious explanation to the mystery actually is, it proves that there were no extreme temperatures and i will disagree with it.

Yes, you're wrong. (a) Evidence pointing to extreme temperatures has to be considered critically, as has any other evidence. (b) I've already said what the explanation is, you've just continued to refuse to acknowledge it. (c) There is a complete and reasonable scenario which doesn't require any unfeasibly high temperatures in the rubble pile, and then there's an incomplete scenario, which is absurd for many other extraneous reasons, which fails to explain the unfeasibly high temperatures claimed as evidence for it. Forgive me for being reasonable, but the former seems rather more useful to me.

Put very simply, your half-formed theory doesn't explain your alleged anomalies. There is a mountain of evidence in favour of fire and debris damage initiated collapse, and even the evidence you're putting forward as your strongest doesn't agree with your explosives + thermite conjecture.

Until you've produced your equivalent of what you're demanding from the rest of us - that is to say, a complete narrative of the processes and mechanisms leading to the high temperatures you claim to have existed in the rubble pile many weeks after the collapses, explained in terms of thermite and explosives and backed up by examples from other incidents - then you have no argument to answer, and I have nothing more to say to you. I may need to repost this last sentence a few times, but that's all.

Dave