Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

T.A.M. already posted a link a few posts up... in post 367

In a gravity collapse, there would be tangles of wire. There were no tangles of wire in the trade towers because everything was pulverized.

Could you please stop making things up as you go? Your contentions get weirder with every goalpost... Just about every furnishing, pipe, computer, whatever... collectively office contents had a building crash down on them... Not much is going to survive intact, much less in any recognizable form.

Wire will survive a gravity collapse. It would be broken and snarled but not pulverized.

As far as any collapse is concerned... since the primary mechanism is gravity, I'm not sure I understand why you're attempting to distinguish the type of collapse base solely on a standard you came up with on the fly... It doesn't really demonstrate anything.

A gravity collapse would crush the contents, not pulverize them. Only explosives could pulverize virtually everything.

 

[beachnut]

...
A gravity collapse would crush the contents, not pulverize them. Only explosives could pulverize virtually everything.

That is wrong. Wallboard in a house collapse makes dust. The massive dust cloud was mainly insulation (friable fire insulation) and wall board; NOT CEMENT!!!!

You are basing your opinions on faulty information!!!

You are not trying to get the facts, you are not trying to be the best you can be, you are settling for mediocrity, the likes of 911Truth. You will be what you will be.

Physics tells us the WTC towers falling were the equal to 130 TONS of TNT energy.

Not some dolts at 911Truth, but physics; pure knowledge can save you if you want to see the light; good luck.

You are not even trying. You missed the fact gravity is the main source, the largest, the main source of energy for controlled demolition. You have taken 7 years to remain in ignorance on 911. Good luck again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

to give an example, the meteorite i posted a video link to in my initial post, to determine whether or not its composition does contain molten steel would you agree to it being analysed for confirmation?

I would agree, had I the authority, to you going and looking at it in order to see for yourself the fact, painfully obvious from the photographs, that it's not a lump of steel but a lump of concrete with unmelted steel rebar sticking out of it. I would insist on you paying your own bus fare.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

In a gravity collapse, there would be tangles of wire. There were no tangles of wire in the trade towers because everything was pulverized.

There is no inconsistency. By volume, wires make up a very small percentage of any office building.

yet it took me five minutes to find wire in a low resolution photo of the wreckage

 

[GStan]

Wire will survive a gravity collapse. It would be broken and snarled but not pulverized.

A gravity collapse would crush the contents, not pulverize them. Only explosives could pulverize virtually everything.

And the failure just keeps on growing and growing.

(I realize that from the distance these are taken, it is difficult to tell the difference between a wire and a pipe. However, its so painfully apparent (with or without these photos) that not "virtually everything" was pulverized that I feel embarrassment for you.)

 

[thewholesoul]

Yes, sure.

Good we are in agreement then.

In respect to Big Al and G Stan’s comments the meteorite featured in the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related does not appear to entail pieces of paper and the individual archetect, Bart voorsanger, claims that it was a fused element of molten steel and concrete from heat not compression.

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the fires and heat generated by the rubble could not have been hot enough to melt steel. Since we know there were smoldering fires, and if accepting the premise, we assume there was molten steel, then you must prove that those particular fires, could not have produced the molten steel.

assuming there was molten steel then its a matter of protocol. NFPA 921 states that molten steel, sulphur residue on steel, etc are indications of exotic accelerants therefore NIST did not follow standard procedure when it admits it did not test for exotic accelerants.

the fact we are still have unresolved issues that remain to be proven is further evidence that a new investigation is needed. the molten metals in the rubble pile are an effect of the building collapse therefore NIST's account is incomplete and fails to satisfy a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence, which states scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

You see you are simplifying (strawman really) the argument by labeling the fires smoldering hydrocarbon fires. You do not know what mix of chemicals were melting and then adding to the generated heat underneath the pile. You do not know what insulators might have been contributing to the smoldering.

either do you. but what i do know is that no explanation put forth for the presence of molten steel at GZ has ever undergone testing or simulations. your argument that "i dont know" only strengthens my conclusion that a new investigation is needed.

So you prove to me that with all that could have been in that pile, that the fires could not have reached 2800F in that pile.

you prove to me that it could? cite me a paper or something because the ones i have cited dont reach 2800 F

exactly, which should make you put this evidence aside as while relevant, not really strong, at this point.

whether strong or weak it is evidence none the less.

There is no proof of Thermite. We have all read Jones so called evidence, and it is not proof. He found, through spectral analysis, chemicals that would be found within the pile anyway. He is speculating, based on his bias towards "inside job" conspiracy, that his analysis is proof of thermite, but it is not.

jones found microspehericles in the wtc with the same chemical composition as microsphericles produced from commercial thermite. the question therefore whether thermite was in the wtc rubble pile has been answered. whether iron sphericles with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite would be found in the pile anyway is a strong argument but it cannot eliminate the possibility of commercial thermite being there.

given that the molten metal flowing from the south tower has been proven through experimentation that it cannot possibly be aluminium mixed with organics means that molten iron is the leading (though not conclusive) explanation.

They likely made no comment, because it was either expected, or NOT SURPRISING that such temperatures would be seen at the pile.

its better if we both avoid speculation
Peace

 

[twinstead]

jones found microspehericles in the wtc with the same chemical composition as microsphericles produced from commercial thermite. the question therefore whether thermite was in the wtc rubble pile has been answered. whether iron sphericles with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite would be found in the pile anyway is a strong argument but it cannot eliminate the possibility of commercial thermite being there.

"iron sphericles with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite would be found in the pile anyway" is more than a strong argument; it's a devestating argument.

given that the molten metal flowing from the south tower has been proven through experimentation that it cannot possibly be aluminium mixed with organics means that molten iron is the leading (though not conclusive) explanation.

You can't just SAY this and make it true, then declare it is the "leading explanation".

 

[thewholesoul]

sorry for delay in reply its just that i keep getting blocked by some problem with the database or something?

 

[thewholesoul]

"iron sphericles with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite would be found in the pile anyway" is more than a strong argument; it's a devestating argument.

tell me how it removes the "possibility" that some of the iron spheres were not produced by thermite?

answer: it doesnt.

couple that with the molten metal flowing from south tower prior to collapse. to repeat it has been proven through experiment that it cannot be aluminium mixed with organics.

 

[GStan]

Good we are in agreement then.

In respect to Big Al and G Stan’s comments the meteorite featured in the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related does not appear to entail pieces of paper and the individual archetect, Bart voorsanger, claims that it was a fused element of molten steel and concrete from heat not compression.

That is not the same meteorite I saw. Check out slides 32 through 40 on this page to see the one I'm talking about. In the photos, you can clearly see the scraps of paper that would not still be there if the meteorite was created by some kind of fusion with molten steel. Don't know about your youtube vid. Can't see close enough with clear enough resolution to say anything about it.

assuming there was molten steel then its a matter of protocol. NFPA 921 states that molten steel, sulphur residue on steel, etc are indications of exotic accelerants therefore NIST did not follow standard procedure when it admits it did not test for exotic accelerants.

the fact we are still have unresolved issues that remain to be proven is further evidence that a new investigation is needed. the molten metals in the rubble pile are an effect of the building collapse therefore NIST's account is incomplete and fails to satisfy a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence, which states scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

There is pretty good eyewitness evidence to suggest that there was molten metal at ground zero. There is no plausible scenario by which that metal could possibly be steel. There is no reason to waste money investigating it. Several posters have put forth a not so difficult challenge, directed specifically at C7, to mathematically show how this was possible. Not surprisingly, no one has attempted to do it.


<snip>

 

[funk de fino]

assuming there was molten steel then its a matter of protocol. NFPA 921 states that molten steel, sulphur residue on steel, etc are indications of exotic accelerants therefore NIST did not follow standard procedure when it admits it did not test for exotic accelerants.


Peace

Except the NFPA 921 is advisory recommendations for Fire Investigators. It is not a standard procedure or protocol and NIST did not have to follow it.

However the guys mentioned on page 8 assertion 6 of this paper may have followd it. I guess you could take it up with them if you disagree.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Stop parroting junk from other websites.

 

[twinstead]

tell me how it removes the "possibility" that some of the iron spheres were not produced by thermite?

answer: it doesnt.

if you are using it as your ONLY evidence of thermite, then yes, it indeed destroys the argument. In order to prove thermite, you'll need some corroborating evidence. There is none.

couple that with the molten metal flowing from south tower prior to collapse. to repeat it has been proven through experiment that it cannot be aluminium mixed with organics.

speaking of corroborating evidence, nothing I've seen proves what that substance was. Maybe you could refer me to the 'experiment' you are talking about.

You see, you keep claiming things as proven when they aren't. As a layman, I rely on experts. You don't have any real ones on your side. That speaks volumns to me. You declare 911 was an insdide job. Pardon me if I wish a second opnion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Good we are in agreement then.

In respect to Big Al and G Stan’s comments the meteorite featured in the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related does not appear to entail pieces of paper and the individual archetect, Bart voorsanger, claims that it was a fused element of molten steel and concrete from heat not compression.

fusion of the meteorite, I would guess, regardless of from fire or compression, was ultimately due to heat.

assuming there was molten steel then its a matter of protocol. NFPA 921 states that molten steel, sulphur residue on steel, etc are indications of exotic accelerants therefore NIST did not follow standard procedure when it admits it did not test for exotic accelerants.

I am not familiar with what NFPA is, or its relevance to this, but sulfur residue is likely due to the tonnes of sulfur found within the wallboard. The WTC was full of it. Can you prove the sulfidation was not due to the combination of heat, sulfur from the wallboard or other components of the debris pile, and the iron/steel?

the fact we are still have unresolved issues that remain to be proven is further evidence that a new investigation is needed. the molten metals in the rubble pile are an effect of the building collapse therefore NIST's account is incomplete and fails to satisfy a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence, which states scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence.

No, if we were having unresolved issues that would lead to another cause of the collapse initiation, then we would need a new investigation. As I said above, molten metal, and presence of sulfur residue are to be expected.

either do you. but what i do know is that no explanation put forth for the presence of molten steel at GZ has ever undergone testing or simulations. your argument that "i dont know" only strengthens my conclusion that a new investigation is needed.

No, I you prove to me that molten steel should not have been found in the debris pile of the collapse of those buildings. None of the experts that were involved in recovery or clean up made any mention of it, or of it being odd, or something that should not be there. As a result, I see no need to investigate it.

you prove to me that it could? cite me a paper or something because the ones i have cited dont reach 2800 F

Sorry. Once again, the burden of proof is on the person claiming a theory contrary to the accepted one.

whether strong or weak it is evidence none the less.

Agreed.

jones found microspehericles in the wtc with the same chemical composition as microsphericles produced from commercial thermite. the question therefore whether thermite was in the wtc rubble pile has been answered. whether iron sphericles with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite would be found in the pile anyway is a strong argument but it cannot eliminate the possibility of commercial thermite being there.

1. The presence of the microspheres does not confirm thermite. There are many threads on this issue, with the likes of Dr. Greening contributing. The conclusion, certainly was not that ONLY thermite could produce those spheres...sorry.

2. The conclusion of much discussion was that any organic material of sufficient quantity, along with heat and iron, could produce such spheres.

given that the molten metal flowing from the south tower has been proven through experimentation that it cannot possibly be aluminium mixed with organics means that molten iron is the leading (though not conclusive) explanation.

You mean those ridiculous experiments that Jones carried out. Give me a break. He added a few wood chips to the aluminum, and then when it didnt go orange, he claimed success. Hardly proof, hardly scientific.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

Good we are in agreement then.

In respect to Big Al and G Stan’s comments the meteorite featured in the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related does not appear to entail pieces of paper and the individual archetect, Bart voorsanger, claims that it was a fused element of molten steel and concrete from heat not compression.

assuming there was molten steel ...

[/B]
....

its better if we both avoid speculation

Peace

Well, you've contradicted yourself there with the assumptions.

As for your video, it's purpose-edited to assert molten steel. Based on my checking of countless sources and "citations" provided by people that use the word, "truth", much too much, I bet the report of unburned paper has been edited out and if the video said sky was blue, I'd want a second source for confirmation.

 

[thewholesoul]

Some of the above posters echo my beef with the stupidity posted about "molten" liquid metal,

- Molten metal is seen flowing from south tower prior to collapse
- Iron spehericules in the dust are proof that iron melted during the wtc event
- Aluminosilcate particles and metal samples exhibited evaporation
- Solidified iron was found at ground zero
- Firefighter(s) claimed they saw molten steel “flowing”
- Bart voorsanger standing right beside the meteorite stated that it was a fused element of steel and concrete

Metals were melted (and molten) at some point during the wtc event – this fact is undeniable. The question is what caused it. To anwer this question definitively all leading hypothesis need to be either verified or falsified.

but above all my main beef is that thermite cannot possibly explain the presence of liquid steel 1 day, 10 days, let alone 100 days, after collapse. It is just not physically possible. It is up to those people who claim that it is to show through calculation that this is even remotely possible. No-one has done this.

I agree, i am not entirely convinced that thermite was the cause behind the molten metals in the rubble pile. The 911 truth movement need to do more experiments with thermite, sol-gel, or whatever energetic chemicals they can concieve of. But lets get real, the 911 truth movement is a civilian movement hence not well funded and the likes of jones etc are doing the work that should have been done by NIST if they followed normal investigative procedures. On top of that NIST alo need to prove their hypothesis likewise through experimentation and simulations. computer models just dont cut it for me im afraid.

I can well entertain that heat from the rubble pile, caused by the burning of all sorts of combustible material within the rubble pile, could produce temperatures high enough to, not only melt localised quantities of steel ~1500°C/2800°F, but maintain liquid steel for a period of time, even weeks, however, there is no direct evidence to show that any significant quantity of steel was indeed liquid at any time. There would be physical evidence in the form of solidified steel, photographs of such and documentation of how this material was removed from the site. None is forthcoming and therefore I have to remain skeptical.

There was solidified iron at GZ, guess who tested? thats right steven jones go to p 32-37 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf
and guess what the solified slag chemically resembled? Thats right...the slag produced from a brand of military grade thermite.

As for the lack of photographic evidence, material etc

Mayor Guiliani banned photos at ground zero and the evidence was rapidly removed and scrapped.

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.

In a taped interview Worcester Polytechnic Institute Fire Engineering professor Dr. Jonathan Barnett, one of the authors of the 13 page report in Appendix C, made the comment that normal investigative protocol was not followed in the case of the WTC 7 collapse. He says that the steel from WTC 7 was not photographed, examined, and cataloged before being removed. The comments he makes are at the 3:00 minute mark in the below linked video.http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=180&…

Unlike you i reserve my skepticism for the unprecendented removal, and destruction of the evidence.

As for the "meteor", this is the biggest joke I've seen in a long while. It's so obviously the compaction of material such as concrete and steel rebar from several floors. Any suggestion of melting or molten metal connected with this object is just astoundingly laughable. It really does make me cry. There is no way in hell that I'd expect for people outside of the field of metallurgy to understand some of the more complex explanations for phenomenon occurring during and after 9/11, just as I cannot understand the complexities of structural engineering, however, the main points can be explained in laymen's terms. It does not take a layman to observe, with his/her own two/one eye(s) that the meteorite is NOT composed of any steel that has previously been liquid. This "meteorite", which is a stupid name for the object anyway, should just be dropped with regard to the "argument of liquid metal", it clearly shows sandwiched floors and has no evidence of liquid metal.

You are thinking of the wrong meteorite sunstealer, there are more than one.

peace

 

[beachnut]

-- Iron spehericules in the dust are proof that iron melted during the wtc event

peace

false!

The rest is pathetic. 911Truth has failed for 7 years.

 

[thewholesoul]

Except the NFPA 921 is advisory recommendations for Fire Investigators. It is not a standard procedure or protocol and NIST did not have to follow it.

so you agree then that NIST did not follow the NFPA guidelines?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Well, you've contradicted yourself there with the assumptions.

how?

As for your video, it's purpose-edited to assert molten steel. Based on my checking of countless sources and "citations" provided by people that use the word, "truth", much too much, I bet the report of unburned paper has been edited out and if the video said sky was blue, I'd want a second source for confirmation.

your thinking of a different relic my friend, i know the one your talking about. it is not the same one i linked for you.

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

your thinking of a different relic my friend, i know the one your talking about. it is not the same one i linked for you.

peace

Is there a higher resolution available of the "meteorite" you were pointing out earlier? The video itself is nothing new to me, however I am not able to judge the contents of the material without something of sufficient quality. The low resolution video appears to be the only one I am able to locate. I'm more interested if there is a better quality video than anything else. As of this point I'm inclined to conclude it as being something very similar to the other artifact discussed previously which was the compressed concrete floor slabs which don't strike me as unusual.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And yet not a single person is able to publish a paper proving this conspiracy claim....