10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

Christopher7 said:
A well insulated large amount of molten metal at 4500 degrees F would take a while to cool down.
Click to expand...

How long? Please demonstrate calculations showing how long such a high temperature could be sustained by insulation alone, thus disproving the assumption that a heat source must have been present in the rubble pile all this time.

Christopher7 said:
That is therefore, the most likely possibility.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. You haven't even demonstrated that it is a possibility, nor have you compared it with the observation that fires continued to burn for months afterwards.

Christopher7 said:
Please explain what else could keep metal molten for months.
Click to expand...

Well, if the metal in question were mercury, ambient temperature would do it nicely. For gallium, a warm day would suffice. For aluminium, or many other common metals expected to be found in the rubble pile, temperatures from a normal office contents fire would do fine. We don't need to consider what would have been required to keep iron or steel molten for months, as there is no evidence for molten iron or steel in the rubble pile.

But you know all this, so you're just playing dumb. I'll repeat the request, since you've chosen not to reply to it satisfactorily.

Please explain, in detail, how a thermite reaction can maintain high temperatures for months.

Dave
 
C7 said:
The molten metal and the corroded beam are evidence of thermite.
Click to expand...
DGM said:
The decomposing gypsum wall board combined with water and heat will do the same thing. Sorry, but even ancient blacksmiths knew this.
Click to expand...
They used a bellows.

PS I teach blacksmith art. I can melt (significantly soften) iron well below 1100c. Woo.... Woo black magic.
Click to expand...
Can you melt steel? If so, how?
 
Christopher7 said:
That has been demonstrated by the results.
There was molten metal many weeks later.
Click to expand...

Way to go, Chris! What a lovely circular argument! We know it was thermite because only thermite can keep metal molten for months, and we know thermite can keep metal molten for months because we know it was thermite. Did you really think you could fool anyone with that?

Christopher7 said:
Thermite is the only known explanation for the molten metal.
Click to expand...

Thermite isn't even a known explanation for the molten metal.

Christopher7 said:
Do you have another explanation?
Click to expand...

Apart from the one I just posted, for about the tenth time?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
How long? Please demonstrate calculations showing how long such a high temperature could be sustained by insulation alone, thus disproving the assumption that a heat source must have been present in the rubble pile all this time.
Click to expand...
You ask for something that cannot be provided because it would be impossible to estimate all the variables. This is just an excuse to deny the evidence we do have.


Well, if the metal in question were mercury, ambient temperature would do it nicely. For gallium, a warm day would suffice. For aluminium, or many other common metals expected to be found in the rubble pile
Click to expand...
No.
None of the metals of which you speak would be found in large amounts in WTC 7.

there is no evidence for molten iron or steel in the rubble pile.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Your statement arbitrarily denies the statements of eyewitnesses. That's just denial.
You in no position to say you know better than they do about what they saw.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Way to go, Chris! What a lovely circular argument! We know it was thermite because only thermite can keep metal molten for months,
Click to expand...
No.
We know it was thermite because only thermite can melt steel in the first place.

Thermite isn't even a known explanation for the molten metal.
Click to expand...
Thermite melts steel. Therefore, it is a possibility. You will keep asking for calculations because you know they cannot be provided. It would be impossible to estimate all the varriables. You are just looking for an excuse to deny the evidence we do have.

Thermite melts steel.

It is the only thing known to melt steel outside a foundary.
 
Christopher7 said:
None of the metals of which you speak would be found in large amounts in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Aluminium? Are you serious?

Christopher7 said:
Yes there is. Your statement arbitrarily denies the statements of eyewitnesses. That's just denial.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness statements are not evidence of chemical composition. Eyewitnesses are competent to state that they saw molten metal, but not to state that this metal was iron or steel. Since there is no evidence of chemical or physical analysis of previously molten metal to demonstrate that this metal was iron or steel, there is therefore no evidence of molten iron or steel. For about the 500th time. Tell me about denial.

Dave
 
Wow Chris this is amazing!!!!!!!!! When are you go to go to the insurance companies and get your millions by proving that the claim they payed out to the tune of nearly a billion dollars was fraudulent?!?!??!?!?!? And when are you going to go KSM's lawyers with your proof of inside jobby job? You do want to set an innocent man free and prove to the world that 9/11 was an inside jobby job, right?
 
Christopher7 said:
Thermite melts steel.

It is the only thing known to melt steel outside a foundary.
Click to expand...

This, Chris, is where I genuinely begin to feel sorry for you. Your pathological need for certainty that there is something suspicious about 9/11 drives you, it seems, to the point where you start making assertions so ridiculous that a child can see the flaws in them. For example, in the above statement you have denied the existence of the concept of welding. What worries me is that you simply cannot see the absurdity of your own position, and you feel forced to take ever more extreme and more ridiculous positions in order to preserve your own certainties. It's a little glib to say "you're delusional, get help", but I think you should at some point take a serious look at your beliefs, and try to work out at what point dogma became more important to you than reality.

Dave
 
Dave, there is no one who admires your appeal to logic more than me. It is an admirable undertaking to organise one's thoughts in such a way as to make them lucid to the ignorant. Unfortunately you're arguing with CrazyChris7. A flawless argument is but a riddle to him. In fact, the more sense you make the more his eyes cross and the more little pink and purple lights pop up in front of his nose.

Ignore the poor chap. He's not well.

Bananaman.
 
C7 said:
None of the metals of which you speak would be found in large amounts in WTC 7.
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
Aluminium? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Not in WTC 7



Eyewitness statements are not evidence of chemical composition. Eyewitnesses are competent to state that they saw molten metal, but not to state that this metal was iron or steel.
Click to expand...
"Steel beams dripping" is evidence of molten steel.
The metal in this photo is in the 2200 - 2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F range, far above the melting point of aluminum. It can only be iron or steel.

colorheatchartcrabclawevq3.jpg
 
C7 said:
Thermite melts steel.

It is the only thing known to melt steel outside a foundary.
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
. . . . you start making assertions so ridiculous that a child can see the flaws in them. For example, in the above statement you have denied the existence of the concept of welding.
Click to expand...
Child, a welding torch cannot create that much molten metal.
 
Christopher7 said:
Thermite melts steel.

It is the only thing known to melt steel outside a foundary.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I'm a metallurgist with over 10 years experience. This is the most laughable thing I have ever heard. Stundied. Christopher7 - you are not only a moron, but an ignorant moron.

I ask you to do some very simple calculations which you ignore. No surprise there. If you had even attempted the first I would give you kudos and help you to the answer, but you aren't even remotely interested.

The reason I asked you the questions is because if you had one microgram of understanding of Chemistry and Physics you would be able to work out that the amount of thermite needed to achieve what you are claiming is absolutely enormous. They'd have to bring in truck fulls of the stuff. It's physically impossible to use thermite to bring down any of the WTC buildings.

Welcome to ignore - my first. I suggest others do the same because his idiot just hasn't got the brains to even read or understand what others are saying.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
"Steel beams dripping" is evidence of molten steel.
The metal in this photo is in the 2200 - 2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F range, far above the melting point of aluminum. It can only be iron or steel.
Click to expand...

Your delusion gets worse. The metal in this photo, from your colour chart, is below the melting point of steel. It cannot therefore be molten steel. "Steel beams dripping" is also evidence against molten steel; the fact that the steel is still in the form of a beam is proof that it isn't molten. And the idea that the metal can't be molten aluminium because it's above the melting point of aluminium - well, I simply don't have words to describe the absurdity of it. It's your lack of self-awareness, though, that I find truly worrying. You make absolute statements, then when they're shown to be absurd you act as though they were qualified. You don't seem capable of understanding your own arguments. There seem to be no points of contact with reality here. I seriously worry that you are genuinely ill.

Dave
 
Dave:
I seriously worry that you are genuinely ill.
Click to expand...

You're not alone, Dave,

CrazyChis has a narrow escape:
mba0321l.jpg


One hopes for the best, obviously, but one does live in the real world. Mercifully Chris doesn't, so his tragic decline, a tale of harrowing sorrow to all those who knew him as an average imbecile, but now have to make excuses when he wants to relieve himself without taking off his trousers first, will remain unknown to himself. It is, indeed, a mercy.

Bananaman
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
The metal in this photo, from your colour chart, is below the melting point of steel. It cannot therefore be molten steel.
Click to expand...
The metal dripping of the bottom is a lighter yellow than the color for 2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. That puts it in the molten range for steel. The chart is a guide line, not exact.

The only metals that melt between 2400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F and 2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F are steel, nickel and cobalt.
http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcommetalsalt.html


"Steel beams dripping" is also evidence against molten steel; the fact that the steel is still in the form of a beam is proof that it isn't molten.
Click to expand...
The end of the the beam was molten.


And the idea that the metal can't be molten aluminium because it's above the melting point of aluminium - well, I simply don't have words to describe the absurdity of it.
Click to expand...
Really? Aluminum would be a liquid above 1220[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. The metal in the photo is way above that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom