10 story hole in WTC 7

[Jonnyclueless]

Your inability to acknowledge the FACT that the only explanation for the molten metal is thermate, lays bare your mindset.

Blind faith is a beautiful thing. It allows you to believe the Bush administration lies and ignore any evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

They have finally admitted to the existence of molten metal [liquid slag] that bears the fingerprint of thermate.

Office fires cannot melt steel. smoldering fires cannot melt steel.

Thermate is the only known thing that can melt steel outside a foundry.

Stop! you're killing me here!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I guess desperate times call for desperate claims. LOL!

 

[Christopher7]

Stop! you're killing me here!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I guess desperate times call for desperate claims. LOL!

Dear laughing dog

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

 

[funk de fino]

Dear laughing dog

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

All three? Possibly

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

They are not even sure the beam was from WTC7. Indications of Sample 2 state it was attacked in the pile. I assume Sample 1 would be the same.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

This is a speculation or a lie. You missed two of my posts earlier C7

 

[bio]

Dr. Steven E Jones:
"Nevertheless, we will provisionally accept their analysis that a steel (not air) temperature of about 1,000 C was reached, pending understanding of the source of the observed sulfur. (The XEDS plots by the authors show sulfur without concomitant calcium, which would be present for a calcium-sulfate (gypsum) contamination."

Can you prove an alternative, science based reason, why there was no calcium in the XEDS plots?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

INCORRECT.

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

INCORRECT. It was explained how the steel got in that condition, but being the absolutely dishonest con artist you are, you are making sure to leave that part out.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

INCORRECT.

Please stop lying Chris. Many of your previous lies are bad enough. but now you are not even trying. You are simply making completely incorrect statements and using your own claim of them as proof they are true. Not even the general public will fall for these kind of con artist antics. They are completely laughable. And like a true con artist, you and the many others conveniently happen to skip all the really important questions that are asked of you. It's like you are here 24/7 answering every post, and somehow you ACCIDENTALLY skip over all the really important ones. OOOPS!!

So mr Con, please again show us some examples where thermate has kept steel melted for months. I mean since it's the ONLY thing that can do it, let's see it doing it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't. And, as usual, you're evading a question you can't answer: how does thermate explain the thinning of metal edges to razor sharpness?

Dave

 

[bio]

Why do you blame Christopher, he would be lying? No, in contrast he could be right. His claiming has scientific proof.

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown."
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

I am irritated, why Prof. Sisson said in the BBC-"hit"-piece about WTC7, there was nothing unusual.

Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
"It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed, and so... uhm... we took it for analysis in the lab." "All it was attacked by, what we determined, was a liquid's like. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries, and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

 

[Christopher7]

They are not even sure the beam was from WTC7. Indications of Sample 2 state it was attacked in the pile. I assume Sample 1 would be the same.

[FONT=&quot][Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]steel in Towers 1 or Towers 2. So that's why we know its pedigree.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.[/FONT]

Originally Posted by C7
Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

This is a speculation or a lie. You missed two of my posts earlier C7

The by product of thermate is liquid iron with sulphur and oxygen.

Can you name another demonstrable possibility for the liquid slag?


Originally Posted by C7
There was insufficient heat to liquefy steel.

This is speculation, you have no proof.

see post #4854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3943403#post3943403

Also:
NISTIR 7213

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.

Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800°C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

Air flow in a debris pile is restricted, therefore the temperatures would be below 800°C. Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No Bio, he IS lying and he does NOT have scientific proof. It only seems like it to you, because you, like him, decided long ago what you wanted to believe and thus you, like true twoofers only see what you want to see.

What you are doing is taking ONLY the stuff that tells you what you want to hear, and you are discarding all the info that tells you otherwise. That is what makes someone (like you) dishonest. And when the purpose is to intentionally mislead people, such as Chris is trying to do, that is no different than lying.

It's like saying the cigarette companies weren't lying just because they neglected to mention that they did testing that found smoking to cause cancer. Hey, they didn't "lie" right? They were busy stating lots of proven things, they just let some o them out that the public may have needed to make a properly informed decision.

It's LYING any way you slice it kiddo.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am irritated, why Prof. Sisson said in the BBC-"hit"-piece about WTC7, there was nothing unusual.

He didn't say there was nothing unusual, he said there was no mystery. Since his job is to understand what happened, and hence to dispel any mysteries, you're simply irritated that he's good at his job. That's not what I'd expect from someone who's genuinely trying to understand what happened.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag,

Source?

how does thermate explain the thinning of metal edges to razor sharpness?
Dave

I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
[FONT=&quot]"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack." [/FONT]

You can also read FEMA 403 Appendix C; C.4 pg C-5.

This is a diversion from the FACT that:
There was molten metal in the debris pile of WTC 7

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And it's also a FACT that its very common to see these kinds of chemical reactions in regular fires.

It's also a FACT that it is in no way shape or form indicative of thermate let along Chris's LIE that it can only be caused by thermate.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and while I am at it, jsut to drive home the point I made about how certain "people" tend to conveniently skip over repeated questions that stand to expose their fraud, I will ask again.

Please show us an example of thermate causing steel to melt and remain molten for weeks.

PS - No one questions there being molten metal, it's the issue of it being steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

INCORRECT.

[FONT=&quot]AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.[/FONT]
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm


Mr. Bryan:
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926


[FONT=&quot]Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels[/FONT][FONT=&quot], stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] was still running[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source_SEAU.org)

[FONT=&quot]“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot],” Fuchek said. [/FONT](source)

[FONT=&quot]"I saw [/FONT]melting of girders[FONT=&quot] in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. [/FONT](source)(audio)

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

[FONT=&quot]A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] beams[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to human remains...." [/FONT](source)

[FONT=&quot]As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source)


Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

INCORRECT. It was explained how the steel got in that condition

They explain how the beam eroded.
They do not explain what melted the liquid slag.


Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

INCORRECT.

You offer insults instead of information in rebuttal.
If you know of another explanation for the liquid slag [molten metal], please post it.

 

[Christopher7]

Please show us an example of thermate causing steel to melt and remain molten for weeks.

To my knowledge, there are no such examples.
Please explain how office fires melted the steel in the first place, given that this has never happened.
Then explain how fires smoldering at about 500-600°C kept the steel molten for months.

PS - No one questions there being molten metal, it's the issue of it being steel.

" [FONT=&quot]we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen."[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

And it's also a FACT that its very common to see these kinds of chemical reactions in regular fires.

Source?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Chris, you and I know very well that all those quotes you are using have been discussed to death. please stop being dishonest. Do we really need to reastart the same conspiracy theories that have been throughly debunked in this very thread already? Do we really need to go back and once again point out how all that 2nd hand information was shown to be incorrect? Do we really need to go back and show quotes from those same people where they correct the misquotes that were dishonestly taken out of context and used misleadingly by con artists such as yourself?

And let's get this right. you claim thermate is the only thing that can cause melted steel, yet you can provide not a single exmple of this ever happening? And yet we can find plenty of examples of where it has happened from fire alone. And you are going to sit here and continue to claim that it's not possible form fire, but only possible from thermate. YOU ARE A FLAT OUT LIAR. Please stop LYING.

And this wasn't simply an office fire. You cannot quantiy every variable and every material and every combination of mixtures of materials in the building. What you are doing is dishonestly taking the common notion of what TYPICAL office fire temperatures reach. And you are DISHONESTLY trying to mislead people into believing that it's an absolute fact, when it is anything but. Even the sources you try to quote from also state that it is absolutely possible for the fire alone to have melted steel even though they don't think it happened. But yet you don't bother to quote that do you Chris? Why is that Chris? It's because you are a con artist. You have no interest in being honest for presenting truth. You are simply cherry picking the information you want and hoping no one notices all the stuff you are intentionally leaving out. This is what makes you a liar Chris.

just like you leave out the part about the chmical reactions being the cause of the slag and how this can be caused by mid temperatures and does not even require the temperatures that steel melts at to happen. mackie has even pointed out links to books that explain in great detail how this works. So have some of the scientists you have quoted. But yet for some odd reason Chris, you leave that part out. And you do so intentionally because you are a dishonest con artist intent on misleading people.

And as for fires smoldering for months, there are cases of fires smoldering for centuries. It's not uncommon. But it is noted how you again dishonestly claim that steel was molten for months, which again you have no evidence of. Your only evidence is by your dishonest cherry picked quotes which have been proven wrong many times on these forums and have been pointed out by many of the people who the quotes were taken from themselves to be untrue.

I can only hope there aren't too many people who are mislead by your outright lying Chris. It's a shame the world has to deal with people like you who pretend to be looking for "truth" but make up these lies such as you continue to do so here.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Source?

You're kidding right? You already provided the source. Go read the studies you left out on your search to find only information that helps back your conspiracy theory. you expect us to believe that you did this research and quoted people and just coincidentally happened to miss out everything that doesn't paint a conspiracy theory? I call BS on you.

But aside form the fact that your own sources that you cherry picked form explain it, here's another: LINK

And once again, you calling something a fact such as thermate being the only cause for something, and not backing it up with any actual scientific evidence of such claim means it's not a fact. And when someone calls you on your fraud such as this, it's not lobbing insults, it's pointing out your fraud. I don't need to back it up with a source, YOU do. You claim thermate is the only possible cause, I call bullsh*t. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. I don't need to prove something as Bullsh*t as that claim is untrue, you need to prove it's true. But you can't do that and you know you can't do that. So you continue to put on a show in hopes that people you are trying to mislead won't doubt you.


That's it Chris, just keep shouting that it's a fact and see how many suckers you can convince.

 

[Christopher7]

you claim thermate is the only thing* that can cause melted steel, yet you can provide not a single exmple of this ever happening?

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry

And yet we can find plenty of examples of where it has happened from fire alone.

Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

And you are going to sit here and continue to claim that it's not possible form fire, but only possible from thermate.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

And this wasn't simply an office fire.

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Even the sources you try to quote from also state that it is absolutely possible for the fire alone to have melted steel

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

you leave out the part about the chmical reactions being the cause of the slag and how this can be caused by mid temperatures and does not even require the temperatures that steel melts at to happen.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

mackie has even pointed out links to books that explain in great detail how this works. So have some of the scientists you have quoted.

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

But it is noted how you again dishonestly claim that steel was molten for months, which again you have no evidence of.

[FONT=&quot]A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] beams[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to human remains...." [/FONT](source)

[FONT=&quot]As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source)

 

[Norseman]

Air flow in a debris pile is restricted, therefore the temperatures would be below 800[/COLOR]°C. Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

In Australia there is coal fire that has been burning for 5500 years:

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The seam was once exposed to the surface, so it is possible a bushfire may have ignited it, scientists say. Sulphurous smoke comes from fissures in the ground, and sulphur is known to be capable of spontaneous combustion if it is heated.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. But the land above is also heated, and at the firefront reaches 350°C.

Source: Underground coal fires a looming catastrophe

From a paper on the above fire:

The temperatures attained in this zone were well in excess of l000^oC and, since some of the altered clayrocks in close proximity to the burnt seam have apparently suffered plastic deformation, conceivably in places they reached 1750^oC, the softning point of the material

Source: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM66/AM66_997.pdf

The WTC 7 pile would contain tons and tons of hydrocarbon fuel in layers consisting of paper, computers, furniture, etc.....

So if a underground oxygen restricted coal fire can reach temperatures in excess of 1000^oC, why shouldn't the fires in the WTC 7 pile be able to do the same?