10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[Christopher7]

I posted a couple of different charts
I see nothing substance here.
The only thing absurd here is that you're not really addressing or refuting anything I've posted in the slightest.

This whole conversation is a prime example of the abject denial of any evidence that refutes the Official Conspiracy Theory.

You "hand wave" the statements of numerous witnesses who say there was molten metal including these:

[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]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)

​

You desperately try to think of alternate explanations like aluminum or glass. Both of these are absurd because neither can explain the large amounts of molten metal under all three buildings.

Even when shown a photo of what could only be molten steel/iron because of the temperature [using either chart] you refuse to accept the obvious explanation.

 

[Kent1]

This whole conversation is a prime example of the abject denial of any evidence that refutes the Official Conspiracy Theory.

You "hand wave" the statements of numerous witnesses who say there was molten metal including these:

[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]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)

​

You desperately try to think of alternate explanations like aluminum or glass. Both of these are absurd because neither can explain the large amounts of molten metal under all three buildings.

Even when shown a photo of what could only be molten steel/iron because of the temperature [using either chart] you refuse to accept the obvious explanation.

Now you have even more shallow claims.
I spoke to Leslie Robertson, he said no such thing. I also have the notes from SEAU article from the author. He never said steel. The article was incorrect. http://www.911myths.com/NCSEA_oct_5_2001_Leslie_Robertson_s_lecture__notes_by_James_Williams.pdf

Claims of molten steel are not that uncommon in fires anyway. You can find them often in common house/building fire articles.

During the 1991 Oakland fires that burned 3000 homes, melted steel was reported in over 90% of the homes.

Wake me up when you post something new or even slightly remarkable. This is silly.

 

[Christopher7]

Now you have even more shallow claims.
I spoke to Leslie Robertson, he said no such thing. I also have the notes from SEAU article from the author. He never said steel. The article was incorrect. http://www.911myths.com/NCSEA_oct_5_2001_Leslie_Robertson_s_lecture__notes_by_James_Williams.pdf

You expect me to believe that? Where is your conformation?

Claims of molten steel are not that uncommon in fires anyway. You can find them often in common house/building fire articles.
During the 1991 Oakland fires that burned 3000 homes, melted steel was reported in over 90% of the homes.

Source? You seem to be arguing the point both ways.

There were numerous accounts of molten metal.

Are you trying to claim they are all wrong?

 

[stateofgrace]

There were numerous accounts of molten metal.

Are you trying to claim they are all wrong?

NO, he said

Claims of molten steel are not that uncommon in fires anyway. You can find them often in common house/building fire articles.

During the 1991 Oakland fires that burned 3000 homes, melted steel was reported in over 90% of the homes.

Wake me up when you post something new or even slightly remarkable. This is silly.

Are you saying this is wrong?

 

[GlennB]

Even when shown a photo of what could only be molten steel/iron because of the temperature [using either chart] you refuse to accept the obvious explanation.

"Affirming the consequent" I believe?
You are assuming the object is metal and that the colours are accurate, therefore the metal must be of a certain temperature.

 

[Christopher7]

"Affirming the consequent" I believe?
You are assuming the object is metal and that the colours are accurate, therefore the metal must be of a certain temperature.

You are assuming that it is not and they are not.

There are numerous witness statements to back up what we can plainly see.

 

[Christopher7]

Are you saying this is wrong?

[FONT=&quot]Are there any reports of molten steel?

NO!

In the intense heat of a fire storm, the thin sheet steel in appliances can be softened to the point of losing their shape but that by no stretch of the imagination explains the molten metal under all three buildings on 9/11.

But thanks for making my point. You will deny what we can see in the crab claw photo is molten steel and also argue that open carbon based fires can melt steel.

[/FONT]

 

[GlennB]

You are assuming that it is not and they are not.

Not at all. I'm saying you can't go to a hot steel colour chart and work backwards to prove that the object is steel of a certain temperature.

My car paintwork matches a point on your colour chart. It isn't hot at all.

See what I mean?

 

[Christopher7]

Not at all. I'm saying you can't go to a hot steel colour chart and work backwards to prove that the object is steel of a certain temperature.

My car paintwork matches a point on your colour chart. It isn't hot at all.

See what I mean?

Ya You will say anything in your attempt to deny that the glob in the crab claw was molten steel.

Mark Loizeaux said there were pictures and videos of the molten metal. This may not be the specific picture he was talking about but you cannot say there was no molten metal without calling Mark and all the others liars or idiots.

There was molten metal in large quantity under all three buildings. It could only have been steel/iron.

You-all ignored these two quotes but I'm sure you have a lame reason for denying them too.

[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]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)

 

[GlennB]

Ya You will say anything in your attempt to deny that the glob in the crab claw was molten steel.

I'm trying to introduce a note of logic to the discussion. Let's try a different tack, and you tell me where I've gone wrong --

The "glob" is being dug out of the debris pile well after WTC collapse. Most likely some weeks later.

If it is steel that's hot to the point of melting we can conclude that it used to be a good deal hotter than it is now as, no matter how good the insulation, the surrounding materials would absorb some of that heat.

If it used to be significantly hotter than it is now, why does it retain any recognisable form at all? That is, when hotter it would have flowed and be a totally amorphous mass by now. But it isn't. It has discernible shape.

To me this chain of reasoning destroys the argument that the lower edge of the "glob" is dripping molten steel. Perhaps you can point out the error in this logic?

 

[stateofgrace]

Are there any reports of molten steel?

NO!

In the intense heat of a fire storm, the thin sheet steel in appliances can be softened to the point of losing their shape but that by no stretch of the imagination explains the molten metal under all three buildings on 9/11.

But thanks for making my point. You will deny what we can see in the crab claw photo is molten steel and also argue that open carbon based fires can melt steel.

*Sigh.*

I am NOT disagreeing with you, for arguments sake lets say I fully agree with you, let’s say I agree that thermite melted the steel, let’s say there were pools and pools of molten steel produced by your thermite.

So, what sustained the molten metal for days? Where did the heat come from to keep the metal molten, once the thermite reaction had stopped? And more importantly why could the heat that kept the metal molten for days, if not weeks, not have melted the metal in the first place?

And there is no need to shout at me, I was being perfectly civil with you and expect the same courtesy from you, if you cannot do so, simply ignore me and move on. Be civil, debate and you may receive the same from me, if not so be it, I could not care less.

 

[Sunstealer]

I'm trying to introduce a note of logic to the discussion. Let's try a different tack, and you tell me where I've gone wrong --

The "glob" is being dug out of the debris pile well after WTC collapse. Most likely some weeks later.

If it is steel that's hot to the point of melting we can conclude that it used to be a good deal hotter than it is now as, no matter how good the insulation, the surrounding materials would absorb some of that heat.

If it used to be significantly hotter than it is now, why does it retain any recognisable form at all? That is, when hotter it would have flowed and be a totally amorphous mass by now. But it isn't. It has discernible shape.

To me this chain of reasoning destroys the argument that the lower edge of the "glob" is dripping molten steel. Perhaps you can point out the error in this logic?

Bingo. Very well put.

The problem is C7 automatically assumes that liquid metal (I refuse to use molten because it confuses him) has a) been present b) that metal is steel/iron.

Then he looks for a colour chart for mild steel and matches the colours which gives a temperature.

The problem with this method is it's back to front. Without knowing exactly what the material is then there is no way of discerning the temperature through a colour chart.

Also the problem with eyewitnesses is that unless they know specifically what they are looking at then they are prone to describing what they are seeing by analogy or simile. Someone pulling a steel rod and seeing something drip might describe it as "molten steel" but infact be seeing aluminium or glass.

However, lets assume that there was no other material in the WTC except concrete and steel. Assume that the fires in the rubble pile didn't produce anything else liquid except liquid iron. Lets also assume that there were enormous quantities of liquid iron and that this had been confirmed by some brave soul obtaining a sample whilst the metal was liquid.

Even if all of this were true it would not point to evidence of a controlled demolition or the use of thermite. All it would show is that the fires in the rubble pile were of sufficient heat to melt steel/iron.

If there had been significant melting and pooling of steel/iron there would be evidence of it in the form of great big, strange solid shapes that would look odd to anyone removing them. They would be seen and analysed.

C7 is never going to be persuaded no matter how much evidence is put infront of him. He has his theory and is sticking with it no matter what. What annoys me is his assumption that anyone else who shows evidence to the contrary is automatically closing off their minds to other possibilities. I can't work like that - the evidence is what is to be weighed and if I thought that there was foul play I'd come out and say so and show why with evidence. But the evidence doesn't point to that.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm trying to introduce a note of logic to the discussion. Let's try a different tack, and you tell me where I've gone wrong --

The "glob" is being dug out of the debris pile well after WTC collapse. Most likely some weeks later.

If it is steel that's hot to the point of melting we can conclude that it used to be a good deal hotter than it is now

Thermite burns at 4500°F

no matter how good the insulation, the surrounding materials would absorb some of that heat.

The molten metal was igniting the burnable material mixed in with the debris around it which slowed the cooling.


There is no other explanation.

Do you have one? No.

If it used to be significantly hotter than it is now, why does it retain any recognisable form at all? That is, when hotter it would have flowed and be a totally amorphous mass by now. But it isn't. It has discernible shape.

The glob is semi-solid. The orange part is about 2100°F. The steel/iron dripping off the bottom is off the chart - around 2700+°F.

 

[Christopher7]

The problem with this method is it's back to front. Without knowing exactly what the material is then there is no way of discerning the temperature through a colour chart.

You have it backwards. We can look at the chart and determine that the glob is steel/iron.

Also the problem with eyewitnesses is that unless they know specifically what they are looking at then they are prone to describing what they are seeing by analogy or simile.

You are saying all these people are idiots and you know better what they saw.

Someone pulling a steel rod and seeing something drip might describe it as "molten steel" but infact be seeing aluminium or glass.

They said "The ends of BEAMS were dripping molten steel."

Give it up! The aluminum cladding and glass were ejected up to 600 feet in all directions. There were NO concentrations of aluminum or glass.

There was molten steel/iron under all three buildings.

The Witness statements, the thermal images, the photographs and videos Mark Loiseaux spoke of that are still being withheld from the public, the photo that survived the purge, together prove the existence of molten steel/iron.

Even if all of this were true it would not point to evidence of a controlled demolition or the use of thermite. All it would show is that the fires in the rubble pile were of sufficient heat to melt steel/iron.

Wrong!
Open fires cannot melt steel. Smoldering debris pile fires cannot melt steel. You know that. Why do you keep making this ridiculous claim?

What annoys me is his assumption that anyone else who shows evidence to the contrary

No one has presented any evidence to the contrary, just a lot of denial and impossible alternative explanations like aluminum and glass.

You are the ones denying the evidence you don't want to believe. New people come along and make the same absurd statements about aluminum etc. and discount the statements of the people who were there.

This only makes the point that you-all will not accept any statement, photograph or expert opinion that refutes the Official Conspiracy Theory.

 

[GlennB]

Thermite burns at 4500°F

Let's keep on with the logic ...
You seem to be suggesting that the steel might have started it's journey at around 4500°F and - by the time of the photo - has cooled somewhat.
This also doesn't make sense, as such a temperature would have melted it way back then when the therm?te was applied.
If this is steel, it cannot ever have been beyond the melting point of steel, otherwise it would be amorphous. It isn't.

The molten metal was igniting the burnable material mixed in with the debris around it which slowed the cooling.

Yes, being surrounded by a hydrocarbon fire would slow the rate of cooling. We might have a temperature difference of 1500°C (near-molten steel) to 600°C (hydrocarbon fire), to use rough figures. This is still a 900°C difference, and the rate of cooling would be the same as putting a 900°C piece of steel in near-frozen rubble. Temperature gradient is all that matters here. *

But according to you the bottom of this "glob" is liquid metal while the top isn't. It cannot ever have cooled significantly at all, by your own definitions.

* I believe this is basically correct (from school physics) but am happy to be corrected.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite is the only explanation for the molten metal in the debris pile.

Provide another explanation or stop denying the only known possibility.

 

[JimBenArm]

I cannot understand why any of you are wasting any of your time with this.

You might as well argue with your dog. At least he'll listen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have it backwards. We can look at the chart and determine that the glob is steel/iron.

Again, this is an example of the sort of statement that makes me very concerned for your well-being. You seem to be suggesting that anything showing on a digital photograph as orange-yellow is necessarily near-molten steel. This is not, strictly speaking, compatible with a sane world view.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

If this is steel, it cannot ever have been beyond the melting point of steel

Wrong.
Why do you keep making ridiculous statements like this?

Yes, being surrounded by a hydrocarbon fire would slow the rate of cooling.

We agree on something.

We might have a temperature difference of 1500°C (near-molten steel) to 600°C (hydrocarbon fire)

No. When thermite burns at 2500°C it heats the steel to that temperature. The starting difference will be about 1900°C.

I know this will never end. You cannot accept the existence of thermite despite this and other evidence because at that point, the Official Conspiracy Theory disintegrates.


So let's move on.

WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet.

NIST finally admitted this in their Final Report after lying about it in the Final Draft.

Their computer model does NOT fall at free fall.

Furthermore, the computer collapse simulation does NOT look like the collapse in the videos. It starts deforming right away.

Therefore, their computer model is not a representation of the actual collapse.

 

[funk de fino]

Mike said that he was assisting in setting up a triage center on the loading dock. He was out on Vesey Street helping set this up when he was told to call Ed Campbell, the head of the building. He walked inside to call him and the tower fell.
[the loading dock opens under the Promenade on the south west corner of the first floor on Vesey Street]

Incorrect. The loading dock is inside the ramp area at the east side of the building. It is on the drawings and in the video of the lobby available on the net.

Please show your source for that fact the loading dock is at the west side of the building. There is no opening for this dock on the south west side. Look at the drawing on page 5.5 of the FEMA report and show me where this loading dock is.

I would link to the video but I cannot on this server.

ETA - If you can prove it and not just say it I will man up and retract.