10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[Kent1]

I've seen enough here to stop me from wasting anymore time. He's simply not capable of reading anything other than what he wants to believe. He makes any bold claim he wants.

 

[GlennB]

At those temperatures, it could only be steel/iron.

But you require it to be steel to justify your assessment of the temperature, even if the colours are true.

This is perfect circular reasoning.

Do you understand this?

I'll bid you farewell. I seriously thought there was somebody home, but it's just the lights that have been left on.

 

[lapman]

It can't be because . . . .

The thermite incendiaries were small amounts spread out over a wide area, there is no comparison, but you know that, you are grasping at straws.

4000 tons in one raid on Japan is small? How many tons were in WTC 7?

What melted the metal if not thermite?

A really hot fire similar to the underground coal fires.

If you don't have a valid alternative answer, then you have to accept the only known possibility.

However, thermite is not a "known possibility" since you have yet to demonstrate through examples that thermite could create the "pools of molten metal." Just because you desperately hold on you your baseless belief that it was thermite does not make it a possibility.

 

[Christopher7]

Probably because your claim is based on nothing... I cannot give an alternate explanation for a theory that has nothing but assertions behind it -- end of story.

Are you denying the existence of the molten metal?

 

[Christopher7]

I've seen enough here to stop me from wasting anymore time. He's simply not capable of reading anything other than what he wants to believe. He makes any bold claim he wants.

Talk to yourself much?

 

[Christopher7]

4000 tons in one raid on Japan is small?

Spread out over many square miles.

A really hot fire similar to the underground coal fires.

Smoldering fires are not hot enough to melt steel.

Edited by Tricky: 

Rule 12 violation removed.

However, thermite is not a "known possibility" since you have yet to demonstrate through examples that thermite could create the "pools of molten metal."

That's what thermite does, it melts steel. If you don't know that . . . . . .

Please do not make personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[funk de fino]

Talk to yourself much?

Please link me to something that shows or describes this loading dock at the west side.

The ramp is on page 5.5 of the FEMA report. I cannot see a loading dock marked anywhere. Logic dictates the loading dock would be in the loading ramp.

 

[lapman]

Spread out over many square miles.

9 is not many. How much thermite was in WTC 7?

Smoldering fires are not hot enough to melt steel.

source?

That's what thermite does, it melts steel. If you don't know that . . . .

On a very local level and does not stay "melted" for long. Where is your evidence that it produces "pools of molten steel?" That would be the requirement for for thermite to be a possibility. The surface of the Sun can melt metal as well. Yet the Sun is not a possibility. Lasers and plasma cutters melt steel as well. Shall we add them to the list? What about welding torches? They create quite a bit of molten metal.

As we see, your "thermite is the only possibility" contention is completely false.

 

[GStan]

I can keep this up as long as you can.

At those temperatures, it could only be steel/iron.

You are in denial.

You're knowledge of what metal/substance it is requires that you already know the temperature. Yet your knowledge of the temperature requires that you already know what metal/substance it is.

I'm not the best spotter of logical fallicies 'round these parts, but I'm pretty sure that is one.

ETA: uhm...what glennb said

 

[Sunstealer]

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

No I can professionally assure you that it is indeed you that has it wrong. You have to assume that the material is steel. A colour chart tells you absolutely nothing unless you know the colour chart is for a material that matches the material you are looking at.

You have already been shown other colour charts and other materials that conform to those colours.

Metallurgists do not work like that. We can only ascertain a temperature of a metal if a) we know what metal we are looking at b) we have the materials corresponding colour chart or c) good experience of working with a metal and thereby estimating temperature by eye like a blacksmith or d) a thermocouple/direct measurement

C7 - What are your professional qualifications? How long have you been working with iron and in what capacity?

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

If fires in a rubble pile are not hot enough to melt steel then it is impossible for those fires to maintain steel in a liquid state. The steel must cool below the temperature of the fire. Since that temperature is below the liquidus temperature the steel must solidify. ergo no liquid steel.

If I have 1 kg of steel 1500°C and I then hold that material in a furnace at 800°C, how long will it take for that steel to solidify? Assume it's not liquid for the sake of ease of calculation.

You may use whatever method you wish and you can get as much help as you wish and you can use as many assumptions (such as shape of the iron) to make the calculation simple, but until you can answer this question then you have no idea about how long it will take to cool to this temperature. If it takes months then you will have a case. I'll have to go look up some heat transfer calcs in the old text books to see if I can answer this one!

Until you can answer this question then it is absolutely pointless anyone talking to you.

I'm done with C7 because no matter how much I explain it to him, no matter how long I take to show how his statements contradict themselves, no matter how much knowledge I impart to him it won't make a blind bit of difference. He's just not interested and just spouts good luck all.

 

[stateofgrace]

See post 179

Post 179 does not in anyway,shape or form address my questions. These questions you have failed to answer, you have dodged and weaselled away from them because you know they destroy your fantasy. You will continue to scream "molten steel", "inside job" etc etc. Please do so, your audience is dwindling, people really no longer care about your silly theories. Your bogey man as gone, it is all over.

I feel sorry for you, it must be so painful to cling to such ridiculous beliefs in the face of such over whelming logic and critical analysis that takes place all around you. Your ability to simply shut it all out and be so single minded in continuing to spew what you do begs pity rather than anything else.

I'm out of this; it really, really is not worth the effort.

 

[twinstead]

I want to know who is responsible for 10 story hole in wtc 7 part deux anyway...

 

[Christopher7]

What about welding torches? They create quite a bit of molten metal.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/R1LscLWcw9I/AAAAAAAABGA/weeCtjDkFJk/s1600-R/x_Dsc03647_z.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/R1Lr0bWcw3I/AAAAAAAABFQ/8650xOvtx_c/s1600-R/x_Dsc03650_z.jpg

As we see, your "thermite is the only possibility" contention is completely false.

Congratulations. You found a picture of a cutting torch creating a small amount of liquid steel.

Why are you grasping at anything, no matter how irrelevant, to support your denial?

That could not explain the molten metal on Sept. 16th.

 

[Christopher7]

No I can professionally assure you that it is indeed you that has it wrong. Metallurgists do not work like that. We can only ascertain a temperature of a metal if a) we know what metal we are looking at

Your arrogance exceeds you honesty.

All metals glow at the same colors. You are not the professional you profess to be or you would know that.

If fires in a rubble pile are not hot enough to melt steel then it is impossible for those fires to maintain steel in a liquid state.

Then how do you explain the molten metal months later?

The steel must cool below the temperature of the fire. Since that temperature is below the liquidus temperature the steel must solidify. ergo no liquid steel.

You are calling these people liars.

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mark Loizeaux[/FONT]

[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)​

 

[beachnut]

As we see, your "thermite is the only possibility" contention is completely false.

Thermite, the nut case idea to solve 911 for those who are challenged and can’t read or something.

Jones has nut case ideas on 911. That is more melted metal than I have seen from 911. No one has produced melted steel from the WTC.

Jones made up thermite 4 years after 911 just because he could. And a few, very few people believe his delusion. Maybe two or three.

Jones delusion proves people are not skeptical of old men who are kind looking and talk nice. Crazy like.

 

[stateofgrace]

Are you denying the existence of the molten metal?

Oh, one more question before I leave you to it C7.

Did they use thermite in building 6, also ?

Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

 

[Christopher7]

Are you denying the existence of the molten metal?

Oh, one more question before I leave you to it C7.
Did they use thermite in building 6, also ?

Thank you for another conformation of molten metal.

You cannot deny that the only known explanation is thermite.

Your fanatic belief in what your government tells you blocks out any evidence to the contrary.

 

[stateofgrace]

Thank you for another conformation of molten metal.

You cannot deny that the only known explanation is thermite.

Your fanatic belief in what your government tells you blocks out any evidence to the contrary.

So, you are saying the only way molten metal got under building 6 was because thermite was used in building 6, right?

Why did they use thermite in building 6, Chris? Why did they wish to demolish building 6?

Oh, my Gov didn't tell me anything, The Scottish Gov is not that bothered.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your arrogance exceeds you honesty.

All metals glow at the same colors. You are not the professional you profess to be or you would know that.

I'll echo sunstealer's question:

C7 - What are your professional qualifications? How long have you been working with iron and in what capacity?

Then how do you explain the molten metal months later?

That's a good question for you to inquire about. What kind of thermite can maintain a reaction long enough to sustain temperatures for that long? What kind of thermite stays in a coherent state after being crushed by a building? Once the thermite expires, what sustains the heat at sufficient levels to maintain steel in a liquid state?

Better yet, what kinds of demolitions have thermite been used in? Do any examples you provide (if any) effectively apply to building demolition?

You are calling these people liars.

A bold accusation... particularly given the dubiousness of your use of their statements. Let's find out...

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mark Loizeaux[/FONT]

Of course let us take the material which you conveniently left out

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.

Was Loizeaux lying? Most likely not, but his statement is based on second hand accounts, and there's no information as to how the contractors he was in contact with identified the material specifically as steel. Neither was there any information available on anyone assigned to perform such an analysis.

[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)

Of course you do realize this is a second hand interpretation correct? The author(s) who put together 911myths, took the time time ask him via email and received the following:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

Source Link

[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)

His testimony certainly indicates he was in the area during cleanup. As per the steel reference, Mackey I believe talks about this in his paper. Why don't you have a read. Search for Fucheks name in the document and you'll arrive at the relevant source material.

[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)​

And if this is earth shattering evidence of a thermite controlled demolition, in your opinion why doesn't this structural engineer appear to support the same contention you hold? From where I stand, his statement seems to follow a more vernacular reference to the effects of the fire on the steel samples he's seen. Considering how fire affects steel, while to word choice is in my humble opinion rather odd, I don't doubt that what he is referring to isn't particularly unusual in the least.

Your refusal to answer the question is an admission that you cannot deny the existence of molten metal under all three buildings and you cannot deny that the only known explanation is thermite.

Clarify something for me christopher. What are you arguing for? Is it metal by the general term -- encompassing various types such as aluminum, steel, lead, etc? Or are you arguing specifically for steel? Your constant swapping of the terms is rather confusing, I'd appreciate it if you could decide which way you were going with this...

Also I'm just curious as to what other images you normally use to substantiate that there was molten steel in the piles. Please feel free to share and I'll offer my critique.​

 

[Christopher7]

So, you are saying the only way molten metal got under building 6 was because thermite was used in building 6, right?

That is the only known possibility.

Why did they use thermite in building 6, Chris? Why did they wish to demolish building 6?

Rhetorical question.

Oh, my Gov didn't tell me anything, The Scottish Gov is not that bothered.

Why do you believe the U.S. government?