Molten Steel

[beachnut]

what exactly are you suggesting? could you be more specific. thanks

That you answer this! Hello!

Second time, thewholesoul: please point out the details in this photo that enable you to identify it as "M2 glowing in the rubble pile." I again await your reply.

Additionally, you avoided the seven questions in my post 471. Please address them now.
[URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4455182&postcount=471"]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4455182&postcount=471[/URL]

When will you answer?

 

[Disbelief]

no fly ash.
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Concrete is composed of aggregate, sand, and Portland cement (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale. The sand is primarily quartz, but can contain feldspar, iron and titanium oxides, micas, and other rock-forming minerals.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading06

Now, just look up what makes up portland cement.

 

[thewholesoul]

Is this statement correct or not?[/QUOTE]

his statment was correct. steel cannot melt at 710c. but there is a conequence.

Mackey argues that the rubble pile did not generate temperatures greater than 710c. He bases this argument on the thermal data collected by the AVIRIS between the 16th and 23rd of September. It follows therefore that if temperatures in the rubble pile did not exceed 710c then this temperature rules out molten steel.

Sunstealer, who I believe is the authority on metallurgical matters here, argues that

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature.

It has been widely speculated that the Fe-S-O eutectic on wtc 7 steel occured in the rubble pile.

So, if Mackey is right and the rubble pile could not generate temperatures above 710c then the Fe-S-O eutectic on the wtc 7 steel sample must have occured prior to the collapse of wtc 7 during the office fire. but the wtc office fire did not generate temperatures of 940c.

If Mackey and the AVIRIS data is wrong then the rubble pile did generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel hence molten steel was present in the rubble pile.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

sorry i made a duplicate.

 

[stateofgrace]

yes of course it is BUT if it is, then, the Fe-S-O eutectic on wtc 7 steel must have occued prior to the collapse of building 7. are you prepared to argue that the evaporaton of steel occured in an office fire?

peace

There is no BUT; the temperatures at GZ were not hot enough to produce molten steel, correct?

 

[thewholesoul]

I am still waiting for proof that Mackey actually said "Temperatures at GZ COULD NOT HAVE reached 2800F".

I recall him saying that there is no PROOF of these temps (outside of the single quote from the article we discussed earlier), but that is not the same as saying they COULD NOT have occurred.

TAM

why dont you ask him?
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

There is no BUT; the temperatures at GZ were not hot enough to produce molten steel, correct?

there is a BUT. the AVIRIS recorded data from the 16th of september to the 23rd. so the question is could the rubble pile have generated temperatures sufficient to melt steel prior to the 16th? your thoughts...

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

there is a BUT. the AVIRIS recorded data from the 16th of september to the 23rd. so the question is could the rubble pile have generated temperatures sufficient to melt steel prior to the 16th? your thoughts...

peace

My thoughts?

If the rubble had insufficient heat to melt steel to a molten state, as you have stated,then why do you believe it could maintain steel in a molten state for an extended period of time?

To maintain steel in a molten state for long periods requires that the environment around it is actually higher than the molten steel,doesn't it?

So if, as you have stated,the temperatures at GZ were well below the required temperatures to actually produce molten steel, how did these low temperatures keep it molten for such a period of time ?

Your thoughts?

 

[thewholesoul]

My thoughts?

If the rubble had insufficient heat to melt steel then why do you believe it could maintain steel in a molten state for an extended period of time?

you dont seem to understand the implications of your position.

[position #1] if you arguing that the rubble pile couldnt generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel period.

then you are forced to argue that an office fire can melt steel.

you are forced to argue that an office fire can melt steel because

a certain steel sample recovered from wtc 7 exhibted Fe-S-O eutectic (it had holes in it) this requires temperatures of 940c - which you argue could not have existed in the rubble pile period.

do you believe that an office fire can melt holes in steel?

[positon #2] if on the other hand you want to argue that the Fe-S-O eutectic occured in the rubble pile then you must accept the claim that molten steel was in the rubble pile because

an Fe-S-O eutectic requires temperatures of 940c, and such temperatures can melt steel.

my point is something has to give. your thoughts?
peace

 

[R.Mackey]

Pretty funny to return to this thread and watch people fail to understand plain English.

First, the AVIRIS data is the only reliable temperature measurement done of the Pile. It does not rule out temperatures of 900+^oC prior to when it flew, obviously, but it does put paid to the idiotic argument, made earlier, that some measurements proved there were temperatures high enough to melt steel. It certainly rules out those temperatures at any time after it flew.

Second, as the paper clearly indicates, you do not do a temperature measurement by looking in the ultraviolet. The idea that it might have somehow missed Thermite blazing away at 7500 K or whatever, simply because it isn't that sensitive there, is so intensely stupid that I'll be shortly adding to my Ignore list.

That's all you guys have left: An inability to understand simple logic, and simple English.

 

[stateofgrace]

you dont seem to understand the implications of your position.

if you arguing that the rubble pile couldnt generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel period.

then you are forced to argue that an office fire can melt steel.

you are forced to argue that an office fire can melt steel because a certain steel sample recovered from wtc 7 exhibted Fe-S-O eutectic (it had holes in it) this requires temperatures of 940c - which you argue could not have existed in the rubble pile period.

do you believe that an office fire can melt holes in steel?

peace

No I am not arguing this at all. You have stated for the record that the temperature were insufficient to produce molten steel.

I have simply pointed out for this to be true then the temperature within the rubble were insufficient to maintain steel in a molten state.If you disagree with this, please state why.

It is a very simple concept; if the temperatures at GZ were not hot enough to produce molten steel then they were not hot enough to keep it molten for any length of time.

I have not even mentioned office fires and fail to say why you should to do so.

 

[thewholesoul]

First, the AVIRIS data is the only reliable temperature measurement done of the Pile.

agreed.

It does not rule out temperatures of 900+^oC prior to when it flew

so you accept then that temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel?

peace





That's all you guys have left: An inability to understand simple logic, and simple English.[/QUOTE]

 

[thewholesoul]

No I am not arguing this at all. You have stated for the record that the temperature were insufficient to produce molten steel.

correct between the 16th and 23rd of september

I have simply pointed out for this to be true then the temperature within the rubble were insufficient to maintain steel in a molten state.

correct

It is a very simple concept; if the temperatures at GZ were not hot enough to produce molten steel then they were not hot enough to keep it molten for any length of time.

correct.

but tell me what are you arguing? (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

the point i am making is, if you are aguing the former then you are forced to accept the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile. if the latter then you are forced to argue that an office fire can make holes in a steel beam. either way there is a concession.

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

correct between the 16th and 23rd of september
correct
correct.

but tell me what are you arguing? (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

the point i am making is, if you are aguing the former then you are forced to accept the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile. if the latter then you are forced to argue that an office fire can make holes in a steel beam. either way there is a concession.

peace

Just to be crystal clear on this, you have agreed that the rubble had insufficient heat to melt steel. You have also agreed that the rubble generated insufficient heat to maintain steel in a molten state for an extended period of time.

So does it not follow that any molten steel that may or may not have been produced during the collapse of the towers, irrespective of how it was produced, could not have possibly been the same molten steel that was reported days/weeks later?

 

[Gravy]

I know that that iron worker thought it takes thousands of degrees to bend that particular piece of steel because he said so. Logically without forensic analyses of the steel i can only believe that his statement might be true.

You're apparently familiar with a branch of logic that I've never heard of. I ask again: what science supports such an assertion about any steel used in the WTC?

I know pressure can bend steel, but you know there are more than one way to bend steel mark. To determine which way it actually was forensic examination is required. Would you support a forensic examination mark? Or would you prefer to endlessly speculate?

Why? There were tens of thousands of bent pieces of steel at the site. That piece could be from a parking garage, for all you know.

Perhaps you can cite the page number where they analysed the horseshoe I-beam that the iron worker claims it takes thousands of degrees to bend into that form. Can you do that for me mark? Find me the quote and page number where NIST claims that the I-beam the iron worker says was bent by thousands of degrees was bent by pressure during the collapse.

I made no such claim, and you've made no case that the steel should be tested for any reason. Do not misrepresent my words.

I dont have any and you know that so why make fruitless requests mark?

To remind you not to make claims for which you have no evidence, or demands for which you have no rational reason. Clear enough?

There doesnt appear to be. but what was of interest from the iron workers perspective was that an 8 ton steel beam could bend into a horseshoe without cracking or buckling according to him this would require thousands of degrees. But the wtc fire did not reach 2000 degrees fahrenheit mark.

Repeating false statements will never make them true.

Here's an analogy for you. I used to be a NYC tour guide, guide instructor, and tour company operator. I'm an expert on things NYC. If I say on video that the Empire State Building is 38 feet shorter than the published records say, someone should be obligated to re-measure it to test my assertion, right?

Sorry, i havent researched wtc5.

I suggest you read the FEMA report, which contains that photo. That column, and others, buckled due to fire. Numerous internal collapses were believed to have happened due to steel failing because of the fire.

Not likely. But whats with the redirection? The horseshoe I-beam i posted it at issue

It is only at issue to you. With whom are you going to consult to get your questions answered, thewholesoul?

There are many ways to bend steel, the application of extreme heat being one of them. but your argument that the horseshoe beam was bent by the pressure during collpase is weak.

I made no such argument. It is your strawman fallacy that is weak.

Posting photos of various examples of how steel can bend in no way removes or negates the possibility that the horseshoe beam i posted was formed with extreme temperature.

You have yet to explain how the beam can have been heated to "thousands of degrees" while retaining its cross-sectional shape. Have at it.

No-can-do – good job mark.

The bbc photo is ambiguous and the webpage i borrowed this assertion, that the glowing object in the photo was M2, is unreliable.

Thank you. I know that you understand, from reading this site, how rare it is for truthers to admit that they have no idea what they're talking about.

I am here to argue the case for a forensic examination of certain artifacts from the rubble not to discuss every photo you manage to dig up.

Why in the world are you arguing that case here? We cannot make your wish come true. Where will you present your case next, thewholesoul?

..

 

[T.A.M.]

I am hoping these will be my final comments on this:

1. The AVIRIS data conclusively proves that no such temperatures (high enough to create molten steel) were recorded for the dates that such data was taken (thanks Mackey).
2. There is no proof for or against, best I have seen, to prove such temperatures existed (or not) within the rubble, prior to the AVIRIS start date.
3. Fusion could have occurred as a result of heat generated by the friction of the collapses. No evidence has been presented here or elsewhere, that I have seen, to contradict this possibility.
4. Fused steel does not mean that the steel had to be melted (except perhaps at the touching points).

TAM

 

[bje]

i did no such thing. if i did you could quote me refusing to acknowledge that Jones refers to the meteorite. i merely wanted to make the point that two items were refered to as the meteorite not just one. thats it.

peace

Stop lying. Show us where YOU have stated that Jones is WRONG to refer to the meteorite as "apparently now solidified metal."

You haven't. Now is the time to state how Jones can claim that, how molten metal can solidy around steel rebar without melting the rebar, or admit that Jones cannot make any such claim and should have removed that claim 3 years ago when he was repeatedly asked to support his claim.

You and we know you are repeatedly evading answering this question. It is time for you to stop your iintellectual dishonesty and answer the question directly. Be a man instead of a coward.

 

[GlennB]

you dont seem to understand the implications of your position.
[positon #2] if on the other hand you want to argue that the Fe-S-O eutectic occured in the rubble pile then you must accept the claim that molten steel was in the rubble pile because

an Fe-S-O eutectic requires temperatures of 940c, and such temperatures can melt steel.

my point is something has to give. your thoughts?
peace

This is nonsense.

There are several hundred degrees between the 900°C required for the eutectic and the melting point of steel. That the temperature reached could be high enough for the former but not high enough for the latter is perfectly feasible.

 

[R.Mackey]

exaaaaaaactlyyy.

And 900^oC is also totally feasible in an ordinary office fire. 1500^oC is barely possible, but would be unusual.

This is why I'm finding it easier and easier to ignore the Truth Movement. Everyone else has no trouble figuring it out, so their illogic doesn't spread far at all. Not anymore.

 

[Christopher7]

Just to be crystal clear on this, you have agreed that the rubble had insufficient heat to melt steel. You have also agreed that the rubble generated insufficient heat to maintain steel in a molten state for an extended period of time.

I also agree with this.

So does it not follow that any molten steel that may or may not have been produced during the collapse of the towers, irrespective of how it was produced, could not have possibly been the same molten steel that was reported days/weeks later?

Thermite burns at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. Buried in the rubble pile, molten iron at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F would ignite the combustible material around itself. This would act as a heated thermal blanket and slow the cooling of the molten iron [steel reverts to iron when melted by thermite]
Iron melts at 2800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F [liquid] and is considered solid at about 2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. If sulfur is added to the thermite, the iron will stay molten at lower temperatures.

This is a possible explanation for the molten metal reported weeks and months later by credible witnesses.

No one here is qualified to say for sure one way or another.