Molten Steel

[gumboot]

Ah but you first said core. There was no distinction between inner and outer until a later post.

I should have been clearer. I thought everyone knew the earth had a solid inner core and liquid outer core.

In either case, have you ever heard the term rheid?

Yes I have. It's a geological term for a solid that deforms under viscous flow. Such as the earth's mantle.

Ok...maybe that is the case in New Zealand but you forget here in the other half of the globe we do things backwards...or is it you guys do things backwards?Hmm...good description of a composite volcano

I guess the USGS does things backwards too then...

As does the American Heritage Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica.

Nope. What you said earlier is the preferential way magma is formed but that is different from being the only way it is formed.

Please provide evidence of magma occurring anywhere except in the low pressure areas of the mantle near the core.

The mantle undergoes convection and is a rheid. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term?

I'm not but you might be?

A rheid is a solid that deforms by viscous flow. It's defined as a solid because it supports shear stress and fluids (gas and liquid) do not support shear stress.

Then you are wrong as wrong can be.

I guess the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is wrong too.

As is the journal of physical chemistry.

Not to mention this contributor to Nature Magazine.

 

[~enigma~]

I should have been clearer. I thought everyone knew the earth had a solid inner core and liquid outer core.

Why is it that something starts off nicely and then you start showing a cocky and condescending tone?{quote]
Yes I have. It's a geological term for a solid that deforms under viscous flow. Such as the earth's mantle.[/quote]Which you claimed does not form magma because it is a solid.

I guess the USGS does things backwards too then...

Guess you neither saw the link I gave or you just enjoy using a condecending tone.

As does the American Heritage Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica.

Also called?!? Did you miss that part or are you being blinded by your condescending attitude?

Please provide evidence of magma occurring anywhere except in the low pressure areas of the mantle near the core.

I never said it occured anywhere near the core so I refuse to answer your idiotic strawman plea.

I'm not but you might be?

A rheid is a solid that deforms by viscous flow. It's defined as a solid because it supports shear stress and fluids (gas and liquid) do not support shear stress.

Do you really find a need to be so condescending that a term i used is one you assume I don't know...I am beginning to wonder if I should have left you on ignore.

I guess the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is wrong too.

As is the journal of physical chemistry.

Not to mention this contributor to Nature Magazine.

Besides a "make believe" show of knowledge, maybe you would like to point out what exactly in those links says magma can't form in the mantle.

 

[gumboot]

Why is it that something starts off nicely and then you start showing a cocky and condescending tone?

It started with you slagging off my nationality. But for what it's worth the comment wasn't intended to be cocky or condescending. I honestly did think everyone would fill that in about the two cores automatically. And I fully agree with you that I should have specified. Sorry.

Which you claimed does not form magma because it is a solid.

No I didn't. In fact I have twice now claimed that magma is formed within the mantle.

Guess you neither saw the link I gave or you just enjoy using a condecending tone.Also called?!? Did you miss that part or are you being blinded by your condescending attitude?

All I did was use an alternative term. You're the one who felt a need to make an issue of it. I'm not sure why. I was merely pointing out that it's not just us "backward" New Zealanders that use the term, and more specifically that the very website you used to demonstrate that it was not the correct term actually uses the term I used as well.

I never said it occured anywhere near the core so I refuse to answer your idiotic strawman plea.

Sorry that was a dumb typo. That should read "near the crust", not "near the core".

Do you really find a need to be so condescending that a term i used is one you assume I don't know...

You seemed to be claiming that the mantle is a liquid due to pressure. This is untrue, as I've pointed out. The mantle is made up primarily of solid material - rheid. The liquid components - magma - form in the upper areas of the mantle which is near the crust and at lower pressure.

Besides a "make believe" show of knowledge, maybe you would like to point out what exactly in those links says magma can't form in the mantle.

None of those links claim that because that's untrue. I claimed the precise opposite. Those links provide evidence that higher pressures result in increased viscosity. Which is the entire point. This debate is not about the earth's structure - I simply raised that as an example. The debate is over whether pressure alone can cause steel to melt. It cannot, at least not on earth.

 

[~enigma~]

No I didn't. In fact I have twice now claimed that magma is formed within the mantle.

So you didn't say this " magma (liquid rock) only forms in high-temperature and low-pressure areas near the earth's crust"? That is the preferential way magma forms but it in no way is the only way magma forms.

Sorry that was a dumb typo. That should read "near the crust", not "near the core".

What type of evidence do you want? Geologists have said that magma is formed deep within the earth. Apparently you have taken deep within to mean near the surface (objectively).

You seemed to be claiming that the mantle is a liquid due to pressure.[/quote}I never claimed that the mantle was liquid. Please try to refrain from building strawmen. I did say the mantle acts like a liquid and I even used the word rheid. Maybe you would be better serverd by reading something about rheology instead of attributing arguments to me that I never made.

This is untrue, as I've pointed out. The mantle is made up primarily of solid material - rheid. The liquid components - magma - form in the upper areas of the mantle which is near the crust and at lower pressure.

I would like you to show me evidence of pure liquid rock. All rock only melts partially so it is a combination of liquid and solid components A quick reason for this is that eventually you get a crystalline mixture that is called a diapir.

None of those links claim that because that's untrue. I claimed the precise opposite. Those links provide evidence that higher pressures result in increased viscosity.

Where did I deny that? Did you know a lava dome volcanoe is formed by lava (magma underneath the surface - lava above) that is to viscous to flow far?

The debate is over whether pressure alone can cause steel to melt. It cannot, at least not on earth.

Firstly, where did I say pressure alone melted steel? That again is something being attributed to me that I didn't say. I did however say under the intense pressure (and fires) at ground zero I have no reason to doubt that there was any molten metal. Now could you please show me where I said steel could be melted by pressure alone? The only time I mentioned steel and pressure was to a terse reply to tsig and that was asking what is the pressure since claiming it is impossible (once again consider the fires at GZ) is claiming to know the value.

 

[thewholesoul]

Various incorrect elements in that statement. First of all, no, the microspherules do not prove molten steel inside the WTC prior to collapse.

They most certainly prove the possibility that temepratures were suffcient to melt steel because it is a fact that microsphericules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc can be produced under extreme temperatures. So let us get this straight: you are not arguing against this fact, instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for the presence of microspherules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc which compose the “unique WTC Dust signature”.

Those microspheres could not be traced back to 9/11-specific events inside the WTC. You must consider the history of the World Trade Center to consider the microsphere findings. Iron rich microspheres can come from a variety of sources, including welding, diesel engines, brakes and other friction-based mechanisms where steel is involved, etc.,

So you are making an argument from contamination which I will address below

and Steven Jones does not care to mention any of these other sources.

He did better than that he ruled out to my mind what was the main source of possible contamination of the WTC dust namely, the thousands of tons of pulverised concrete.

some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.

Given the many years the towers were standing exposed to diesel emissions and brake dust, not to mention the welding that took place during construction, it is a stretch to say that the spherules definitively came from the fires on 9/11. Bottom line is that the spheres are not proof of any steel melting events during 9/11, especially in the light of the lack of any such evidence of melting in the recovered steel components themselves.

As previously mentioned the presence of microspheres certainly establish the possibility that temperatures were sufficient during the collapse to melt steel. All you are doing is trying to establish other possible explanations for there presence. And as for the lack of any evidence of melting in the recovered steel components perhaps it is best to quote from the bible of NIST:

“NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf p285

As for core box columns documented in the following link every single one of them appears to have received at least one forceful blow from one of it’s sides consistent with a prepositioned explosive. No melting per se but explosives generate enough heat to explain all the spheres produced.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=17&MMN_position=22:22
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3&MMN_position=105:105

And while it's true that the WTC dust samples were compared with controls taken prior to collapse, it isn't right to say that this definitively limits the creation period of the microspheres to 9/11. Such a sampling doesn't take into account any of what I've mentioned; the buildup of emissions and other particles on the WTC would have taken place over years, and in the case of any spheres produced by welding, those particles would have been contained within the tower itself.

•The build-up of emissions and other particles on the exterior fascade would have been routinely washed away by rainfall.

•The welding of core and outer columns occured in an open-air environment , not in a closed environment. Hence it is very likely that any “micro”-sphericules produced would have been blown away by the wind. SKyscrapers are vey windy places you know.

•I dont know eactly what you mean by spheres produced by welding would have been “contained within the tower”. Where exactly were they contained and how? Would not rountine cleaning remove any accumulation of indoor dust particles?

•Let us be honest Almondo, you are assuming that the WTC Dust was contaminated by microsphericules produced prior to 911 and you have no study supporting this assumption. In fact, the only study we do possess, conducted by the RJ Lee analysis, runs contrary to your assumption because the indoor and exterior samples did not contain the iron-rich sphericules etc that made up the unique WTC Dust signature. So from the only available evidence we can conclude that these iron-rich spherules etc were produced during the collapse and not before.

So of course none of those sphere sources would matter in samples taken prior to 9/11; none of those microspheres would be released until the towers fell. The fact that the dust samples were contrasted with other samples taken prior to collapse does not tie the findings to events on 9/11 alone.

I think we can safely rule out contamination – prior to 911 - of the WTC Dust by the sources you provided. To my mind therer are two options remaining.

•friction during the actual collapse

I can of course imagine tons of steel colliding off each other creating iron-rich sphericules. But what i can’t imagine is how such a process could evaporate aluminosilicates?

•the office fire in the WTC

The best way to settle this is by comparing dust samples obtained from previous office fires and arson attacks with the WTC Dust. If the WTC Dust is still unique then we should be able to rule out the WTC office fire as a possible cause. The main claim implied by the presence of the microspherules is that they require extreme temperatures and of course extreme temperatures in excess of 1500c cannot be explained by the official account. Crazy Chainsaw has stated on numerous occassions that he can produce microspherules below such temperatures. I am still awaiting a response to some of my questions on this matter here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3767811#post3767811 post #48.

But let us assume Almondo that your contamination argument succeeds and I am unable to rule out any of the sources you mention. The next question i have for you is whether these sources can account for the (a) variety of microsphericules, (b) the quantity of microspherules, (c) the same chemical signature. The last point is very important because Fe-O-(K)-Al-Si was the chemical signature of iron-rich spheres steven jones found. And this signature matched the iron-rich spheres from a commercial thermite reaction. In other words even if you manage to contaminate the WTC Dust there is a certain and specific kind of contamination required in order to debunk steven jones.

Finally, you must ask yourself do any of the sources you mention such as braking, diesel combustion, welding, office fires, gravity collapse etc produce “red chips” – that have been determined by Jones and others to be unreacted thermite which contain the same chemical signature as the iron-rich spheres and the commerical thermite discussed above http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

peace and i will get to your next post when i get a chance

 

[fkwebinash]

I always had this jealousy against firefighters, they see something burning and can recognize it as steel.

 

[tsig]

No...I am asking you a question that must be trivially simple for you to answer since you can say with assurance that the pressure is impossible in a building collapse. Now take your strawman about an open hearth furnace....and file it somewhere until you give an answer to my question. What is the pressure and why is it impossible to achieve in a building collapse?

At first I thought you were just mistaken now I see you are just stupid take a piece of steel and drop it you will see it does not melt.

If you want to melt steel you need something like an open hearth furnace why else do you think they use them?

Maybe you have invented the drop furnace all you have to do is drop the ore 1000 feet and it will combust.

 

[tsig]

So you didn't say this " magma (liquid rock) only forms in high-temperature and low-pressure areas near the earth's crust"? That is the preferential way magma forms but it in no way is the only way magma forms.
What type of evidence do you want? Geologists have said that magma is formed deep within the earth. Apparently you have taken deep within to mean near the surface (objectively).

You seemed to be claiming that the mantle is a liquid due to pressure.[/quote}I never claimed that the mantle was liquid. Please try to refrain from building strawmen. I did say the mantle acts like a liquid and I even used the word rheid. Maybe you would be better serverd by reading something about rheology instead of attributing arguments to me that I never made.I would like you to show me evidence of pure liquid rock. All rock only melts partially so it is a combination of liquid and solid components A quick reason for this is that eventually you get a crystalline mixture that is called a diapir.Where did I deny that? Did you know a lava dome volcanoe is formed by lava (magma underneath the surface - lava above) that is to viscous to flow far?Firstly, where did I say pressure alone melted steel? That again is something being attributed to me that I didn't say. I did however say under the intense pressure (and fires) at ground zero I have no reason to doubt that there was any molten metal. Now could you please show me where I said steel could be melted by pressure alone? The only time I mentioned steel and pressure was to a terse reply to tsig and that was asking what is the pressure since claiming it is impossible (once again consider the fires at GZ) is claiming to know the value.

You might want to reconsider before making those "terse" replys because I read it the same way. How odd

 

[Jonnyclueless]

They most certainly prove the possibility that temepratures were suffcient to melt steel because it is a fact that microsphericules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc can be produced under extreme temperatures. So let us get this straight: you are not arguing against this fact, instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for the presence of microspherules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc which compose the “unique WTC Dust signature”.

WRONG. It has been shown in thread after thread that this is absolutely no true. Please stop claiming something is true when it has proven scientifically not to be true. That is what makes you a liar. This ia absolutely not a fact in any way shape or form and being a fact that you have been shown this numerous times makes you very very dishonest.

Jones has the ability to show what the causes was, but for some funny reason he chooses not to. Do you not find that interesting? And let's also remember that it is NOT unique.

He did better than that he ruled out to my mind what was the main source of possible contamination of the WTC dust namely, the thousands of tons of pulverised concrete.

being that your mind already determined there was a conspiracy long before studying any data, that statement is pretty meaningless. The guy could pass gas and that would be enough convincing for you. Unfortunately this kind of fraud does not work in the scientific community and hence him not being able to prove his claims.

And please stop lying about pulverized concrete. You have been shown numerous times that that claim is absolutely false. Please stop being dishonest.

As previously mentioned the presence of microspheres certainly establish the possibility that temperatures were sufficient during the collapse to melt steel. All you are doing is trying to establish other possible explanations for there presence. And as for the lack of any evidence of melting in the recovered steel components perhaps it is best to quote from the bible of NIST: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf p285

No they do not. It's like you going into a glass window factory and saying it shows there is evidence that it was once a desert. It's your responsibility to prove the claim, not simply say that because something is possible (anything is possible depending on how far you stretch your imagination) then it is true. It's possible aliens used magical space beams as well. How far do you want to go kiddo?

As for core box columns documented in the following link every single one of them appears to have received at least one forceful blow from one of it’s sides consistent with a prepositioned explosive. No melting per se but explosives generate enough heat to explain all the spheres produced.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=17&MMN_position=22:22
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3&MMN_position=105:105

Once again, this is another logical fallacy you are using. It may seem convincing to those who are not very bright (hint hint), but it simply does not work.

•The build-up of emissions and other particles on the exterior fascade would have been routinely washed away by rainfall.

•The welding of core and outer columns occured in an open-air environment , not in a closed environment. Hence it is very likely that any “micro”-sphericules produced would have been blown away by the wind. SKyscrapers are vey windy places you know.

•I dont know eactly what you mean by spheres produced by welding would have been “contained within the tower”. Where exactly were they contained and how? Would not rountine cleaning remove any accumulation of indoor dust particles?

•Let us be honest Almondo, you are assuming that the WTC Dust was contaminated by microsphericules produced prior to 911 and you have no study supporting this assumption. In fact, the only study we do possess, conducted by the RJ Lee analysis, runs contrary to your assumption because the indoor and exterior samples did not contain the iron-rich sphericules etc that made up the unique WTC Dust signature. So from the only available evidence we can conclude that these iron-rich spherules etc were produced during the collapse and not before.

Now you are simply making **** up. Please stop talking out of your you know what. Thank you for that list of utter nonsense to waste everyones time.

I think we can safely rule out contamination – prior to 911 - of the WTC Dust by the sources you provided. To my mind therer are two options remaining.

That's not thinking, that's a complete lack of thinking.

•friction during the actual collapse

I can of course imagine tons of steel colliding off each other creating iron-rich sphericules. But what i can’t imagine is how such a process could evaporate aluminosilicates?

•the office fire in the WTC

After you wrongfully dismissed many of the other causes using complete idiotic reasoning that is in no way shape or for plausible.

peace and i will get to your next post when i get a chance

Please stop wasting everyone's time with this crap you simply make up because you have already determined what you want to believe and simply want to make up anything you can to pretend it's true. Because even if for the sake of argument were to assume the premise were true, you still have 1000 other problems after that. And this is why people laugh at you.

 

[gumboot]

So you didn't say this " magma (liquid rock) only forms in high-temperature and low-pressure areas near the earth's crust"?

I did say that. The earth's crust is immediately on top of the mantle, ergo anything "near the earth's crust" must be in the mantle.

That is the preferential way magma forms but it in no way is the only way magma forms.
What type of evidence do you want? Geologists have said that magma is formed deep within the earth. Apparently you have taken deep within to mean near the surface (objectively).

Care to cite some evidence for this claim?

Where did I deny that?

Right here:

So you deny pressure makes solids act as liquid?

Of course I deny it. Increasing pressure increases viscosity, it doesn't decrease it.

Then you are wrong as wrong can be.

Unless by "acts as a liquid" you mean something other than viscosity, in which case I'm mystified as to what you're talking about.

Did you know a lava dome volcanoe is formed by lava (magma underneath the surface - lava above) that is to viscous to flow far?

Yes.

Firstly, where did I say pressure alone melted steel?

I don't friggen know! I'm still trying to work out WTF you and tsig are talking about!

Hang on, are we talking about molten steel during and/or before collapse, or molten steel in the debris pile?

All I got back from that was:

Who said before collapse?

To which I explained:

I'm trying to clarify what is actually being discussed, because I'm not sure.

You never actually answered my question, by near as I can follow the conversation it seems you're claiming that the collapse event exerted pressure on the steel, that this pressure made the steel behaved like liquid, and somehow we get from there to molten steel.

The only clear comment I've pulled from your posts is this:

Under the pressure of 3 to 9 tons PSI metal acts more or less like a liquid anyway so is it really hard to believe that there was molten metal at ground zero?

Firstly, there's no mention of fires here, so I don't know how anyone is to assume you're meaning pressure and fires. Secondly, I don't understand how you got from "acts more or less like a liquid" to "molten metal" since "acts more or less like a liquid" and "molten" are not even remotely the same thing. And thirdly, given that "3 to 9 tons PSI" is (presumably) 6700psi to 20,000psi (46,100kPa to 137,800kPa) - less than a third of the pressure in a Browning .50cal machine gun barrel (made of steel) during firing - I'm highly skeptical of your claim that steel under that pressure "acts more or less like a liquid" (I've personally worked with both aluminium and steel at around 7,000psi and it certainly wasn't even remotely liquid-like, and there are steel ultra-high pressure valves rated to 40,000psi and higher that wouldn't be too effective if these pressures made them behave like liquid)..

Finally, your base contention underneath this is that metals at higher pressures behave "more like liquids". Now for most people that would suggest that they begin to "flow" and that's a measure of viscosity, and as I've stated, and you now seem to agree, viscosity increases at pressure, so in fact metals under pressure behave less like liquids.

Perhaps you could explain this post by you:

Agreed but can you assure me that under 3-9 PSI pressures metal does not act as a liquid or there is no way any metal could have been molten.

ETA - I will say that if pressure had nothing whatsoever to do with it, then there is no explanation for the "U" shapes we see in some of the steel columns.

Because frankly it doesn't make sense.

I'm very confident saying that steel under 6700psi to 20,000psi doesn't behaved like a liquid, although I won't go as far as to make the same claim for all metals. However what this has to do with metal being molten I don't know because any metal can be molten at any pressure as long as sufficient heat is applied to it to achieve melting point.

And as for "pressure having nothing to do with it" I think most people would agree that high levels of sudden pressure exerted on steel will cause it to bend or fracture without causing it to "behave more or less like liquid", so I don't understand what point you're raising there.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Is the implication that if those items weren't removed, that such events would be common in CDs?

Dontcha think so?

If in a conventional cd, with generator diesel, cars, carpeting, wooden office furniture, plastics...... wouldn't a fire be at least somewhat expected?

And wouldn't it be more expected the larger the buildings were?

 

[phunk]

No conventional demolition is ever undertaken whilst a structure is burning,

Not only is the structure not burning in a conventional demolition, the contents of the building are removed first. There's nothing left but steel and concrete in a conventional explosive CD.

 

[thewholesoul]

First, a nitpick: Rubble piles following conventional demolitions are normally not aflame to begin with. So it's a red herring to compare that to the events of 9/11.

It’s a perfectly valid nitpick in my view, assuming it was the fire survived the collapse. No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire so we have no comparisons there. Explosives disperse more energy than a fire but explosives usually dont generate fires. But at the end of the day it is an empirical matter. We know what the contents and conditions of the rubble pile were. I would bet a shiney penny that with such ingredients, under such conditions, temperatures sufficient to generate molten steel are unattainable unless there is an injection of hotair as seen in a blast furnace.

Second, a correction: Helicopter measurements of the fire did indeed show areas reaching 2800 degrees F. But I don't recall any such measurements showing such temps on the 12th. The Bechtel SH&E team didn't arrive until the 13th, and while they do not provide dates and times of when they took such measurements, they obviously could not have done them until they arrived. So it is incorrect to combine the helicopter measurements of hot spots with the date of Sept. 12th.

I am not sure I was doing that but I do acknowledge that I could have been percieved as doing so. The satellite images, first sighting of molten steel, and the helicopter thermal images were all three separate and mutually confirming incidents. But I want to know, is how can you rule out with all certainty that temperatures of 1500c+ did not exist in the rubble pile on the 11th and 12th just because the helicopter wasnt there? I suppose when a tree falls in the forrest and no one it there to see it, it never falls eh Almondo? In any case given that hotspots were seen from space and there was a sighting of molten steel on the 12th I feel there is a good chance that if the Bechtel SH&E team arrived on September 11th they would have recorded temperatures of 1500c.

As far as others measuring such temperatures: If you could provide sources for that claim, I'd appreciate it. But regardless, that still says nothing about the state of affairs inside the towers prior to collapse.

Others? When did i say that? I’d appreciate if you could provide a quotation of me saying that. To my knowledge the helicopter thermal images are the only ones that recorded such temperatures at GZ. Again I want to know how you can rule out any possible connection or relation between the presence of molten steel and why the towers fell the way they did without establishing exactly what caused the molten steel (premise 3)?

•Sightings of molten steel on the 12th if true prove that temperatures in rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel. This argument is open to many objections which I dont think I can surmount.

•Hotspots seen from space 2 hours after collapse is quite a different matter. I contend that they prove that temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel because it is a fact that molten steel was located under hotspots weeks later. So if p then q. Admittedly in such a line of argument I am linking the observance of hotspots with the presence of molten steel. But this connection is not always the case since molten steel was found in the rubble pile even after the hotspots had subsided. So if p then always q; if no p then sometimes q.

•My argument is testable. Unfortunately we do not have all the information from the Bechtel SH&E team regarding the dates and times they took their measurements. But I would predict that temperatures were likely highest in the first few days and then subsided over time. Such a finding would run counter to a slow form of combustion gradually increasing in temperature over time. There is already some evidence of this (a) the observance of hotspots just 2 hours after the collapse is inconsistent with a slow form of combustion (b) the sightng of molten steel on the 12th of September (c) USGS thermal images show more hotspots on the 16th and far less on the 23rd

Anyway, to begin... It doesn't matter whether the exact mechanism for the temperatures in the rubble piles is unknown or not. What matters is that they were measured, and they were definitely capable of melting metals, including steel. And also, that such measurements were taken after the collapse. What matters is that they were measured, and they were definitely capable of melting metals, including steel. And also, that such measurements were taken after the collapse.

I couldn’t disagree more. What matters is explaining how and why the towers fell the way they did. That is what matters. Now if you have the first time in history steel frame buildings being totally destroyed from an office fire and the first time in history when molten steel was found within the rubble pile – no objective minded person could rule out a possible connection between these two unique and unprecedented events – especially when the mechanism for the production of the molten steel remains univestigated, unknown, and unproven. The fact that temperatures after the collapse were measured reaching 1500c hardly tells us what this mechanism was, indeed such temperatures only raise more questions than they answer.

None of what you say in this paragraph proves anything about the state inside the towers was prior to collapse. None of it.

Perhaps not, but I think in a previous post I argued that the unique WTC Dust signature does tell us something about the state of towers during the collapse.

Whether a "hydrocarbon fire" is capable of producing such temps underneath rubble is irrelevant, and not merely because office contents contain more than just "hydrocarbons" (you must be referring to the jet fuel when you say that, which burned off well before the collapse), but but also because the particular fuel doesn't matter. The temperatures were measured, and they were measured after the towers fell. Which proves nothing about what was happening in the towers before they fell. It doesn't matter that there have never been rubble pile fires prior to 9/11 that produced these temperatures. Nor does it matter that that these assumptions are "untested". The temperature was measured, and the heat generated by the rubble piles was sufficient to melt metals regardless of the exact mechanism of the fires, and the fact of the matter is, those temps had occurred in the piles themselves. And there's not a thing about that which proves anything about what happened in the towers before the collapse.

What a nihilistic argument. Let us just line all – IT DOESN’T MATTERS - up

(i)Whether hydrocarbon fire is capable of melting steel (and by the way, i was refering to the hydrocarbon fuel in the cars in the underground carpark)
(ii)Type of fuel
(iii)The unprecedented nature of the rubble pile
(iv)If assumptions remain unproven
(v)The mechanism that generated temperatures sufficient to melt steel

Why none of the above matters is because (a) temperatures sufficient to melt steel were recorded (b) after the collapse (c) that occured within the rubble pile themselves. It appears that Almondo has conceded. He is unable to refute the logic in premise three [i.e. that without determining what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed] so instead he has opted for the argument from nihilism. The how and why the molten steel was present in the rubble pile is not relevant to Almondo. But one thing I know that does matter to Almondo is how and why the towers collapsed – and without knowing the how and why the molten steel was produced – it is not possible to rule out any connection between the two events, between the before and after.

Almondo’s argument from nihilism is equivalent to a police officer standing infront of an exploding fireworks factory telling onlookers to “move on folks...there’s nothing to see here”!! Or telling forensic investigators to “buzz off, your job is absolutely pointless”!! Or telling logicians that “hey dummy you WRONG, an effect bares no relation to its cause”!! In other words Almondo, you’re telling me that the only thing that matters is observing the effects of a cause and not knowing the cause itself. I’m afriad that I just cannot accept this anti-scientific attitude from the dark ages especially when what caused the presence of molten steel could very well be connected to why and how the towers fell in the way they did. And because you too also want to know the how and why the towers fell you should abandon this nihilistic attitude and embrace a new investigation that includes, rather than avoids or ignores, explaining the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile.

The point is this: You cannot use the state of the rubble pile and any molten metals sighted there to prove there was molten metal in the towers prior to collapse. Metal was obviously rendered molten after the collapse. You have to provide proof of molten steel prior to collapse to prove that it had anything to do with the collapse.

The point is this: you cannot rule out a connection between the molten steel and why the towers fell as irrelevant until you determine the mechanism that caused the molten steel to arise in the first place. The unique WTC Dust signature and the unignited thermite are evidence that temperatures sufficient to melt steel were present during the collapse.

As has been noted over and over, molten metals post collapse are to be expected given the rubble pile temperatures

As has been noted over and over, the temperatures in the rubble piles were not to be expected

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul:

1. I would not be suprised that there was molten steel in the pile. It proves nothing, accept that the piles were very very hot, and there is evidence to prove this. Still, you have not provided any direct evidence of molten steel.

2. Please name which witnesses you feel were qualified enough to distinguish based on visual inspection ONLY, the difference between molten steel and molten copper, tin, aluminum, or glass. Please see the pictures I linked for you, and see if you can tell...I can't.

3. The only way to prove their was molten steel, is to provide a sample of steel from GZ, that had melted (and of course now recooled). If you have such, please share.

TAM

TAM the meteorite is a fused element of steel and concrete. there is your hard evidence. the thermal images of temperatures in excess of 1500c is further hard evidence. the testimony is to b expected in light of this evidence. if you wish to refute premise one you must refute all three points.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Dontcha think so?

If in a conventional cd, with generator diesel, cars, carpeting, wooden office furniture, plastics...... wouldn't a fire be at least somewhat expected?

And wouldn't it be more expected the larger the buildings were?

Not nesc.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

and how did they determine it was in a horizontal position?

 

[phunk]

Explosives disperse more energy than a fire

This is not true. Pound for pound, wood burning releases similar amounts of energy to tnt exploding, it just releases it slower. And the amount of explosives needed to demolish a building is much much less than the mass of the flamible contents of the same building. So a typical fire will release much much more energy than the explosives that would be used to demolish the same building. The energy is just spread out more (in both time and space) by a fire.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

TAM the meteorite is a fused element of steel and concrete. there is your hard evidence. the thermal images of temperatures in excess of 1500c is further hard evidence. the testimony is to b expected in light of this evidence. if you wish to refute premise one you must refute all three points.

peace

So in other words you have no hard evidence. As expected.

 

[funk de fino]

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire so we have no comparisons there.

Yet again this nasty liar repeats a lie after it being pointed out to him with pictorial evidence he was indeed lying.

How low can the TM go?

Here it is again TWS



You missed a few posts, I wonder why?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It's 2008 and these braniacs are still making the claim that no steel framed buildings have ever collapsed from fire. Even after many have since 9/11. It's not like they can just be ignorant of the ones that collapsed from before 9/11, but to sit here in 2008 as many steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire alone and still make the same claims? Despite 7 years of being shown wrong on this account?

What' next is someone gonna come on screaming "Frree Nelson Mandella!!!" "Hey guess what guys, I think Liberachi is straight!".