10 story hole in WTC 7

[Jonnyclueless]

That sure was a long post of Chris's proving there was no actual confirmation or proof of molten steel. And let's recap what the evidence of a CD is:

"It looked like a CD to me".

 

[Christopher7]

His later statement is less specific than you implied:

At best his confirmation is anecdotal, based on second hand testimony. According to the email he did not see it personally, while interesting it only marginally lends to your claim.

He quoted contractors he had worked with. He was confident that they were not imbeciles and could recognize molten metal when they saw it.

I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

Marginally interesting, but not very specific on the molten steel claims. More than anything, the article describes that the collapse of the bridge, that is, the failure mode of the steel was similar to that of the trade centers:

Not very specific? What part of "melting" don't you understand?

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source)

Are there any non-conspiracy sources which corroborate this? The only sources I've found statements like this one is AFP, I try to find multiple sources, political, CT, and in between before making a decision. You should do some research on some of the sources you use before you decide on their credibility: AMP

You are looking for reasons to doubt.

[FONT=&quot]So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.[/FONT]

The quote you posted here says nothing about molten metal. To be more specific it does not specify whether it is referring to molten steel molten plastic, molten lead... the term used is ambiguous, and doesn't really add to your claim.

Each statement by itself is not conclusive but when you put them all together they spell "molten metal".

[FONT=&quot]As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]molten steel was still running.[/FONT]

Not much to criticize here other than it's not specific. The claims' there, but doesn't specify a location or details surrounding it. Simply mentions molten steel. While interesting it only marginally adds to your argument.

Not specific?

[FONT=&quot] I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.[/FONT]

Another account which isn't terribly specific,

Please

and reliant on second hand testimony.

"[FONT=&quot]I talked to many contractors" Dou think the contractors he talked to were [/FONT]imbeciles?

I don't doubt all of them... nothing I can do about firefighters who claim to have seen rivers of molten steel...

That's the point. There are enough credible witnesses, who's statements can be verified, that you cannot doubt or deny. These then, support the others.

Unless you can convince yourself that they are all wrong, you must accept the simple reality that they were all right.

But you've yet to prove that any genuine claims are a result of thermite reactions....

Correct.
I can only state that:
There was molten metal and Thermite is the only known possible cause.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Christopher, just because people thought what they saw was steel does not make it steel. if they said they saw peanut butter does that mean the building was made of peanut butter, or just that they thought it was?

Either show the metalurgy tests or accept that hearsay is not proof. There's going to be melted metal as there i in every fire, and it's even very plausible for there to be molten steel even in an office fire despite your attempts to claim otherwise. But you are using hearsay and assumptions and 2nd hand reports to make your claim.

And whats even more ironic is that it's to support a claim that is much more impossible than fires melting steel. At least that's plausible. Thermite keeping steel melted for months is completely impossible. Any way you add it up, your conclusions are impossible. It's bad enough that you use sources that intentionally lie.

So in the end, you have 0 proof of a controlled demolition. your only argument comes down to it looking to you like a CD. You have not one single piece of physical evidence and not one single person in the entire world has been able to write a paper proving your claims.

 

[phunk]

The fires could not and did not melt the metal.
Thermite burns at 2500°C.
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C*.
Steel melts at 1400-1500°C.
The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200°C.

*http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111


Thermite is one possible explanation for the molten metal.

Do you know of another explanation?

The metal in your picture is not molten.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Chris, I'm going to focus on this one sentence of your post, because (a) it is the foundation stone of this strand of your argument, and (b) it contains two unsupported assertions and one simple error.

The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

(1) You are inferring the plasticity of a piece of material from a single photograph. This is impossible. You have no way of knowing whether the piece of metal being lifted is rigid or pliable.

(2) There is nothing visible in the photograph that is clearly white-hot.

(3) The smaller objects falling from the bottom of the "glob" cannot be identified as solid or liquid.

Therefore, you are stating two opinions and a mistaken observation. This invalidates your following reasoning.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you don't want to use the word 'molten' to describe it, that's OK, but that doesn't change the fact that it was molten at one time and formed the glob after being cooled somewhat from all the water being applied.

That is completely unfounded speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing whether a single irregularly shaped piece of metal was previously molten and had then solidified. Your guesses have no value as evidence.

The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

You're cherry-picking your own arguments here. Your lowest estimate for the temperature of the piece of metal in the grab claw is 900ºC, not 1200ºC. In fact, you earlier gave the temperature range as 900-1100ºC. If you accept that the temperature could have been as low as 900ºC, then there seems less of a problem with the fires creating the required temperatures.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

The glob in the crab claw was 900-1200ºC.

Chris - you must study "black body radiation" a little deeper. Better scientists than me might come by here and confirm that you need to analyse the spectrum of the hot body with a refractometer or spectrometer or somesuch, but I believe you cannot use the apparent colour of some hot stuff in a photo to give even a reasonably accurate estimate of its temperature. Let me illustrate with two photos I took of fires in my hearth. Please estimate the temperatures of these two fires :

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The irony is here we have one thread with a twoofer arguing that the temperatures couldn't have been above 1200 degrees, and another thread with a twoofer arguing the temperatures wouldn't have been below 1200. We should pair some of these guys up.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher, just because people thought what they saw was steel does not make it steel. if they said they saw peanut butter does that mean the building was made of peanut butter, or just that they thought it was?

Many witnesses, including contractors that Mark Loizeaux had worked with, said there was molten metal in the debris pile.
Do you think they were all lying?
Do you think they were all imbeciles that didn't know molten metal from peanut butter?

There's going to be melted metal as there i in every fire, and it's even very plausible for there to be molten steel even in an office fire despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

Source?

And whats even more ironic is that it's to support a claim that is much more impossible than fires melting steel. At least that's plausible.

Please site a case where this has happened.

Thermite keeping steel melted for months is completely impossible.

Building contents burning in a debris pile could not keep metal molten for months.
Thermite burns at 2500°C [4500°F]. There were several stories of debris insulating the molten metal. This would keep the temperature above the melting point of steel for quite a while.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, I'm going to focus on this one sentence of your post,

and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

 

[Christopher7]

That is completely unfounded speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing whether a single irregularly shaped piece of metal was previously molten and had then solidified.

This is difficult for someone devoid of common sense to figure out.

Maybe this will help you:
The metal was in the form of a glob.
It had to melt before it could become a glob.

Your lowest estimate for the temperature of the piece of metal in the grab claw is 900ºC, not 1200ºC. In fact, you earlier gave the temperature range as 900-1100ºC.

I corrected myself, something you are incapable of doing.

If you accept that the temperature could have been as low as 900ºC, then there seems less of a problem with the fires creating the required temperatures.

orange is about 900ºC, yellow about 1100ºC and white 1200ºC and above

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Building contents burning in a debris pile could not keep metal molten for months.
Thermite burns at 2500°C [4500°F]. Several stories of debris insulated the molten metal. This would keep the temperature above the melting point of steel for quite a while.

Thermite definitely burns at 4000+ oF but then again you are forcibly attempting to validate it's ability to survive, a collapse, have a sufficient ignition source, and MAINTAIN an extremely long reaction time.... with nothing to support it! Holy crap, do you even care how all of this would be possible for thermite?


Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lying, but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'moplten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.

Take these quotes for example:
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source)"


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
"The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source)

If you define molten metal as being in a liquid or semi-liquid state, it would require a temperature pretty damn near 2000 oF. Not something I you'd find me trying to skip my feet on.... Do you know what their definition of 'molten' is? I don't. Remember many of these people are'nt experts in metallurgy, they won't necessarily adhere to scientific terminology...

 

[GlennB]

and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

I don't think any of us has a problem with molten metal at GZ. Aluminium melts well inside the temperature range for normal building fires.

If it's merely molten metal you claim then it's point conceded,at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Dave Rogers]

and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

You're editorialising all those statements, and taking a report of molten metal to be incontravertible evidence of molten steel. Without any chemical analysis having been done on a sample of molten metal, I think it perfectly reasonable that all those witnesses may either have been mistaken in their identification of the molten metal as iron, or never attempted to identify it as molten steel in the first place.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is difficult for someone devoid of common sense to figure out.

Clearly.

Maybe this will help you:
The metal was in the form of a glob.
It had to melt before it could become a glob.

Again, this is simply your opinion. The metal in the photograph is of an indeterminate shape, and there is nothing about its shape to suggest that it must have been melted and re-solidified. You are simply seeing something you want to see.

I corrected myself, something you are incapable of doing.

Chris, you are giving the temperature as 900-1200ºC, then in the next line of the same post implying that the temperature is 1200ºC rather than 900ºC. You may not be able to see your own inconsistencies, but they're painfully obvious to the rest of us.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Better scientists than me might come by here and confirm that you need to analyse the spectrum of the hot body with a refractometer or spectrometer or somesuch[/

Might come by?
The color chart is the standard for approximating the temperature of metals.
It reflects the known color/temp relationship.
http://www.cowtown.net/mikefirth/techspec.htm

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite definitely burns at 4000+ oF but then again you are forcibly attempting to validate it's ability to survive, a collapse

Wrong, I have said the Thermite would have been activated before the collapse.

have a sufficient ignition source, and MAINTAIN an extremely long reaction time....

Wrong again, I said the several stories of debris would have insulated the molten metal.

Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lying

Then you believe some of them.
Were the contractors who told Mark Loizeaux there was molten metal lying?

but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'moplten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.

'moplten' ?

Do you believe that there was molten metal in the debris pile or not?

 

[Christopher7]

I don't think any of us has a problem with molten metal at GZ. Aluminium melts well inside the temperature range for normal building fires.

Some people here are dodging the question, including you. "not having a problem with" is not-quite "there was molten metal".

Do you believe the witnesses were correct and there was molten metal ?

If it's merely molten metal you claim then it's point conceded,at least as far as I'm concerned.

One step at a time.

 

[Christopher7]

You're editorialising all those statements, and taking a report of molten metal to be incontravertible evidence of molten steel.

Wrong. I am taking the sum of those reports as confirmation that there was molten metal in the debris pile.

Without any chemical analysis having been done on a sample of molten metal, I think it perfectly reasonable that all those witnesses may either have been mistaken in their identification of the molten metal as iron, or never attempted to identify it as molten steel in the first place.

Dave

Clever double talk.
They could not say for sure weather or not the molten metal was iron, but THEY WERE NOT MISTAKEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS MOLTEN !


Do you think there was molten metal in the debris pile or not ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think there was molten metal in the debris pile or not ?

There was aluminium in the debris, and temperatures above the melting point of aluminium were measured in the debris pile. I strongly suspect that there was molten aluminium present in the debris pile.

Meanwhile, is there anything in the shape of your "glob" of metal that shows, or even suggests, that it was previously molten?

Dave