Molten Steel

[tsig]

If there were 'tons' of molten anything wouldn't clean-up have located it in either liquid or solid state and asked what in the world it was doing there?

If there was molten steel underneath the pile the whole pile would have subsided into it because of gravity.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If we were to pretend there actually was molten steel at the site, which wouldn't be impossible, then what? Continue the argument soul. What does this prove? Or did you forget to continue your research?

 

[Norseman]

The K-16 column was identified as coming from roughly the 52nd floor. So the probability of jet fuel being the source of the sulfur is pretty slim. NIST gives some sources that have a higher probability of being the source in a rubble pile -carpet, plastics, etc.....

Some good info though on the scale involved regarding the sulfur intrusion.

I asked Apollo20 a couple of days ago if it would be possible to determine the source of the sulfur. His reply indicated that it COULD in the dust sample (I think), but he's neglected to answer my question if it could be determined what was the specific source of the sulfur that mixed with the steel.

Would you have any idea about the technical feasibility of this?

In addition NIST determined that the column had been in a horizontal position when the corrosion occurred. So the corrosion must have occurred in the debris pile after the collapse.

 

[Kent1]

Thanks for the link TAM.

Butz,
I asked Jonathan Barnett, the source of the "PARTLY EVAPORATED" steel claim and member of FEMA.

He said that the extremely high probability sources are Heating fuel and Gyp wallboard.

 

[tsig]

lol, maybe the "molten steel" was caused by this...

Good for a laugh.

http://itukusimajinnjya.cool.ne.jp/GZero_Report.pdf

TAM

Of course if the steel melted that would explain why NIST has no samples. Then what was shipped to China?

The mind reels. Reality is so prosaic.

 

[pomeroo]

Unfortunately I cannot respond to all individually so I will focus only on the counter arguments directed at my three premises.

In premise one I state: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center. This evidence included (1) testimony (2) relics (3) thermal images.
In order to debunk my premise all the evidence had to be debunked because all the evidence proves independently that molten steel was present at GZ.

The most direct counter argument was the following: . But this can be easily dismissed since it does not actually address the evidence I posted, nor does pomeroo provide any reason supporting his head-in-the-sand conjecture.

Next we have

I recognise that no sampling and subsequent analysis was conducted indeed I am arguing that there should be. Anecdotal evidence is defined as evidence: “based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal but we do not need scientific analysis to know that steel melts at 1500c. Thermal images recorded temperatures in excess of 1500c.

Next we have the usual counter arguments against testimony. They were not qualified to distinguish between molten steel and molten metal. I specifically posted only the testimony where molten steel and not mloten metal is stated and some were qualified to recognizee the difference. In any case, thermal images prove that temperatures were sufficient to melt steel so whether some were unable to distinguish between molten steel and molten metal is a toothless argument that does not affect premise one.

In premise two I state: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel. The only logical counter argument would be to produce the official explanation of the molten steel. The only person to come anywhere near addressing this premise was the master poster boloboffin who posted a quote from NIST frequesntly asked questions that I had already included in my post #2 where I criticized the lack of ‘explanation’ in their cited explanation. It is perhaps my fault however, I should have stated more clearly in premise two that any official explanation must be proven. What NIST stated in the comment posted by boloboffin was a possible explanation and an empirical statement that has never been tested by NIST.

Next we have This line of argument of course implicitly concedes the premise I wish to establish i.e. that there is no proven official explanation of the molten steel. It also fails to appreciate the point made in premise three. Besides the presence of molten steel is not just another run of the mill anomoly it was a unique event never before seen following a building collapse and it deserves closer attention for this reason alone.

In premise three I state: Without determining what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed. Now the only logical counter argument to this premise is to argue that in fact they can rule out any connection between the causes of total collapse and the presence of molten steel eventhough, as established in premise two, there is no proven official explanation as to the causes behind the molten steel. Predictably nobody makes this argument:





This is an absurd line of argument. Assuming molten steel was produced prior to collapse it would have been produced during the collapse and would therefore not be sighted amid the massive dust clouds. We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source . Moreover we know that these dust samples were produced during the collapse and not before because the WTC Dust samples were compared with controls http://web.archive.org/web/20060114...ignature.Composition+and+Morphology.Final.pdf



Hotspots were seen from space just two hours after the collapse, the first sighting of molten steel was seen on the 12th of september which indicates temperatures of 1500c and such temperatures are confirmed by further thermal images recorded from a helicopter. Yes temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel but the question is how could a smoldering rubble pile generate such temperatures to melt the steel in the first place? Prior to and since 911, rubble piles following a fire induced collapse have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Morerover rubble piles following conventional demolitions have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. So how did the rubble pile generate these temperatures so hot and so soon? This explanation has not been provided by NIST, and like you, they assume that there is nothing unusual about a hydrocarbon fire generating sufficient temperatures to melt steel in the rubble pile but my point is that this assumption has never been tested or proven (see premise two). Until this assumption has been tested and proven it is impossible to rule out a connection between the presence of molten steel and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

So in conclusion neither premise one, two, or three were refuted. That means that my conclusion based on those premises remains hence a new and Independent investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed.



How do you know? Your making an empircal claim that a smoldering hydrocarbon rubble pile can produce hotspots from space, molten and evaporated steel, I'm saying prove it. Show me just one example when a rubble pile from a fire induced collapse generated temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Besides my conclusión was based on three premises and you have failed to refute any.



Its a step in the right direction Dave. But I was under the impression that NIST were responsible for determining why and how the towers collapsed. Since they obviously deny premise one i.e. that there was molten steel present in the rubble pile we need a new and independent investigation not conducted by these shameless liars. But i do welcome any tests even if it came in the form of universities. And no ElMondo, John Gross was not only discussing pre-collapse state go watch the video again specifically the part when he address the issue of eyewitness testimony of molten steel in the rubble pile. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Extras:
the heavy equipment extracted material from the top of the rubble pile not from the center of the rubble pile where temperatures were much hotter. If you however buried the heavy equipment beneath the rubble pile with temperatures exceeding 1500c then I can ssure you that it would become molten.


It is a fact that steel melts at 1500c
it is a fact that temperatures of 1500c were recorded at GZ
it is a fact that lots of steel was present at GZ
it is a fact that there had to be molten steel present at GZ
and the fact that people saw this molten steel is not hearsay based on rumors without any basis in fact



are you going to bark all day or do you care to refute at least one of the three premises?



owned? not one debunker in this room has debunked a single premise. maybe you will have a stab at it. i am not sure what your defintion of owned is - but according to mine I am as free as a bird.

peace

You assert that there is undeniable EVIDENCE for the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile, but it remains a FACT, a stubborn one, that the evidence is NONEXISTENT.

NONE of the people who off-handedly referred to molten "steel" are capable of identifying molten metal as specifically "steel."

You can, in tried-and-true twoofer fashion, jam your fingers into your ears and keep screaming, but your first premise has been

REJECTED!

 

[T.A.M.]

The K-16 column was identified as coming from roughly the 52nd floor. So the probability of jet fuel being the source of the sulfur is pretty slim. NIST gives some sources that have a higher probability of being the source in a rubble pile -carpet, plastics, etc.....

Some good info though on the scale involved regarding the sulfur intrusion.

I asked Apollo20 a couple of days ago if it would be possible to determine the source of the sulfur. His reply indicated that it COULD in the dust sample (I think), but he's neglected to answer my question if it could be determined what was the specific source of the sulfur that mixed with the steel.

Would you have any idea about the technical feasibility of this?

Apollo20 has been banned from the forum (check forum management section), so this may be why he has not responded.

TAM

 

[thewholesoul]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

i posted a modest conclusion, merely that an investigation is warranted.

peace.

p.s. those that have posted in particular grizzly and almondo and TAM i will try and identify the parts of your post that are relevant to my premises and respond in kind.

 

[T.A.M.]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

i posted a modest conclusion, merely that an investigation is warranted.

peace.

p.s. those that have posted in particular grizzly and almondo and TAM i will try and identify the parts of your post that are relevant to my premises and respond in kind.

While I appreciate (perhaps, depends on what you have to say) you responding to my post, I would advise against trying to strong arm people.

Just because you authored this thread, does not entitle you to any set in stone rules. You can ask politely that people keep on topic, etc..., but if you think you some how have control over what people will say, and how they will say it, you have come to the wrong forum.

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

Boo-hoo. You posted as bunch of unfounded assumptions, tried to support them with incredibly weak evidence that was debunked in a heartbeat, and you then tried to claim things were proven when it was not even close. You got burned, now you whine about some kind of procedure that you do not have any right to demand.

Take of your daddy's shoes. They don't make you any taller.

 

[pomeroo]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

i posted a modest conclusion, merely that an investigation is warranted.

peace.

p.s. those that have posted in particular grizzly and almondo and TAM i will try and identify the parts of your post that are relevant to my premises and respond in kind.

Your first premise rests on a falsehood. Your second premise is therefore meaningless. Your third premise is disingenuous. As always, we wonder who you want to conduct your investigation, given that you must exclude all of the real scientists and engineers (or else you merely replicate the results of the original investigation).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

i posted a modest conclusion, merely that an investigation is warranted.

peace.

p.s. those that have posted in particular grizzly and almondo and TAM i will try and identify the parts of your post that are relevant to my premises and respond in kind.

In other words you're going to ignore the hole that is your argument in your undeniable non-existent evidence.

An investigation is then warranted to you because you can't prove your conspiracy theories. You're going to need more than textual slight of hand card tricks to get a new investigation.

 

[thewholesoul]

pomero

the reason i dont bother responding to you is because you have no idea how an argument works my friend. i will demonstrate this by just watching how you respond, if at all, to this post

Your first premise rests on a falsehood.

what falsehood. please explain

Your second premise is therefore meaningless.

because of a falsehood you fail to provide?

Your third premise is disingenuous.

why? please provide those things called reasons you do have some? one?

As always, we wonder who you want to conduct your investigation, given that you must exclude all of the real scientists and engineers (or else you merely replicate the results of the original investigation).

irrelevant to the topic of this thread. i specifically gave three premises in order to avoid the arguments spilling over into a verbal heap of dung. that is the aim of your posts, not mine. so lets keep sonme focus...if you can?

of course the results will not be replicated since the evidence will be different. for example we could investigate the cause of the molten steel.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

While I appreciate (perhaps, depends on what you have to say) you responding to my post, I would advise against trying to strong arm people. Just because you authored this thread, does not entitle you to any set in stone rules. You can ask politely that people keep on topic, etc..., but if you think you some how have control over what people will say, and how they will say it, you have come to the wrong forum.

TAM

why would i think that?

but essentially i agree with what your saying TAM. people can respond however they like but i am only going to respond to those who directly address the premises upon which my conclusion is based. i am sure you can appreciate this. otherwise the arguments degenerate into unstructured nonesense and no CONCLUSION is ever reached.

so i am asking politely for people to respond directly to my three premises. thanks.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Because those are assumptions you made, not premises and you have not proven those assumptions in any way shape or form. You simply call them premises in hopes that people who aren't too bright will assume that the word somehow makes them true. They are to begin with, a verbal heap of dung, so avoiding that is impossible.

 

[kookbreaker]

pomero

what falsehood. please explain

Multiple posts on this thread have already shown how your list of quotes is far from what you claim, and in several cases are outright deceptive.

In the remaining matters, you information is well out of date or long since debunked. This is shown in several posts in this thread as well.

If you wish to be considered anything but intellectually dishonest, I would advise addressing those posts and explaining why your assertions were so error prone.

 

[pomeroo]

pomero

the reason i dont bother responding to you is because you have no idea how an argument works my friend. i will demonstrate this by just watching how you respond, if at all, to this post



what falsehood. please explain

I know a bit more about formal argument than you do.


You dishonestly and falsely claimed that the "evidence" for molten steel is "undeniable." No evidence exists and all of us rationalists deny that anyone has established that the molten metal in the rubble pile was definitively identified as steel. That which has been denied cannot, by definition, be undeniable.

because of a falsehood you fail to provide?


why? please provide those things called reasons you do have some? one?

Twaddle. You have been exposed. Offhand comments from people unable to distinguish molten steel from other molten metals or mixtures of metals are not evidence. Your first premise is invalid. You got caught trying to steal a base. Your dishonest attempt to reason from a demonstrably invalid premise is worthless.

irrelevant to the topic of this thread. i specifically gave three premises in order to avoid the arguments spilling over into a verbal heap of dung. that is the aim of your posts, not mine. so lets keep sonme focus...if you can?

I'll keep repeating that your first premise rests on a falsehood. The molten metal has not been identified as steel and no evidence exists to suggest that it was, in fact, steel.

of course the results will not be replicated since the evidence will be different. for example we could investigate the cause of the molten steel.

peace

Your weakness in logic manifests itself again. It is impossible to determine the cause of something that didn't happen. You are guilty of begging the question. You want, for obscure reasons, to pretend that the molten metal pooled under the rubble pile was steel. No evidence exists to suggest that it was. Your thermite fantasy, inexplicably, requires it to be steel, although you know nothing whatever about the uses of thermite and there is no conceivable application of the the substance that would cause metal to "cook" for months.

 

[thewholesoul]

As a metallurgist who has experience of high temperature corrosion (RR jet engines) and who's final degree thesis was "High Temperature Corrosion of Engineering Ceramics" primarily to see the effects of oxidation,

Its always nice to get the perspective from an expert

I see no evidence in those two reports of melted steel in either the macro or micro-photographs.

there was holes in the steel. it was dubbed "the swiss cheese effect". it was the result of evaporation they claim

There is nothing unusual about this imho. It's exactly what I would expect a steel to exhibit after undergoing high temperatures in a non-ambient specifically high Sulphur environment. The source of the Sulphur is clear and unequivocal - Jet Fuel, approximately 350ppm..... I would agree that this started prior to collapse and helped weaken the structure by reduction in section thickness of the material involved.

sunstealer you are aware that the sample you saw in FEMA and the NIST report was found in the rubble pile of building 7 i.e. no plane hit that tower and therefore no jet fuel.

peace

 

[pomeroo]

Its always nice to get the perspective from an expert

How nice is it when the expert's perspective is, inevitably, inconvenient to your fantasy?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Apollo20 has been banned from the forum (check forum management section), so this may be why he has not responded.

TAM

Ha ha, that's a pretty good reason then I guess.