• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
No, that's very interesting. I have heard that there is a form of thermite that you can spray on like insulation but I haven't seen the data. My molten metal expertise is limited to the eroded beam from WTC 7, the witness accounts and the 2 photos.

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Bad quality images.
 
Christopher7 said:
No, that's very interesting. I have heard that there is a form of thermite that you can spray on like insulation but I haven't seen the data. My molten metal expertise is limited to the eroded beam from WTC 7, the witness accounts and the 2 photos.

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I'm certain I heard Jones say that on a video a couple of years ago. Maybe it's been purged from the net. As regards nano-thermite I recommend that you look for Kevin Ryan's paper. Nano-thermite can be painted on and is apparently much faster burning than regular thermite. Here's a short video on things nano that puts it in perspective nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews?page=1
 
bill smith said:
I'm certain I heard Jones say that on a video a couple of years ago. Maybe it's been purged from the net. As regards nano-thermite I recommend that you look for Kevin Ryan's paper. Nano-thermite can be painted on and is apparently much faster burning than regular thermite. Here's a short video on things nano that puts it in perspective nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews?page=1
Click to expand...
Excellent primer. This is fascinating. I'll look into Kevin's stuff.
Many good videos :) thank you.
 
Originally Posted by Christopher7 said:
From the FEMA and NIST reports?

NIST has not explained the molten metal or the erroded beam.
Click to expand...

C7

NIST has indeed mentioned one of the eroded beams. Have you not read it?

You also seem to have a lack of knowledge regarding eutectics. Do you require more info on this?
 
Christopher7 said:
Excellent primer. This is fascinating. I'll look into Kevin's stuff.
Many good videos :) thank you.
Click to expand...

Ask him to explain how sprayed on nano thermite could cut horizontally through columns of that size. Or any type of thermite for that matter.

I didn't think you were a common garden youtube truther.
 
funk de fino said:
Ask him to explain how sprayed on nano thermite could cut horizontally through columns of that size. Or any type of thermite for that matter.

I didn't think you were a common garden youtube truther.
Click to expand...

Youtube is just a carrier of independently mounted vdeos. The message- not the messenger is what's imprtant. Somebody should tell FOX.lol
 
bill smith said:
Youtube is just a carrier of independently mounted vdeos. The message- not the messenger is what's imprtant. Somebody should tell FOX.lol
Click to expand...

And the message in this case is junk. Yet another TM contortionist act.

Ryan is a proven liar.
 
bill smith said:
I'm certain I heard Jones say that on a video a couple of years ago. Maybe it's been purged from the net. As regards nano-thermite I recommend that you look for Kevin Ryan's paper. Nano-thermite can be painted on and is apparently much faster burning than regular thermite. Here's a short video on things nano that puts it in perspective nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews?page=1
Click to expand...

This little exchange conjured up a vision for me .. one where this forum was devoted to discussing alcoholism and offering advice to alcoholics. And here we have two serious drunks (Bill and Chris) exchanging notes on their favoured illegal backwoods distilleries, and just how powerful their moonshine is.
 
I heard there is a new chemical called Infernite, which you can paint on steel, and it does not even cause the metal to melt and glow, but rather instantly turns it into metal vapor. It is awesome.

TAM;)
 
GlennB said:
This little exchange conjured up a vision for me .. one where this forum was devoted to discussing alcoholism and offering advice to alcoholics. And here we have two serious drunks (Bill and Chris) exchanging notes on their favoured illegal backwoods distilleries, and just how powerful their moonshine is.
Click to expand...
Suppose you sprayed a 4'' concrete floor slab with nano-thermite ? Being nano, it might very ell impregnate even concrete quite well. Suppose further that it could be induced to ignite ? Would it instantly boil whatever water residue was in the concrete at nearly 5,000 degrees causing it to become gaseous and explode- even pulverise the concrete ?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Wrong again. This is what comes of putting your trust in utter incompetents and liars. You should read my site some time. You could keep from making gross errors in every post. From my Steven Jones section:

Jones is the same guy who announced that he'd discovered the "smoking gun" of 9/11: pink eggshell-like chips containing exploding nanothermite. Funny that he didn't reveal what the gray side was. He also neglected to test his samples against, you know, paint, which is what it is. He could have found the formula for the Tower primer paint in the NIST report, but why read the report when you can make a public ass of yourself instead? He's been mighty quiet about that "smoking gun" ever since.

Jones is the same guy who dropped a piece of concrete on another from 12 feet and claimed that as proof that the 4" concrete floors in the quarter-mile high Twin Towers could not pulverize in a collapse. Read my site for many more examples of his lying and incompetence. What a despicable fraud.

Yep, you hitched your wagon to a real intellectual star, thewholesoul.
Click to expand...
Anyone who links to Jones as some part of an argument automatically loses the argument, because Jones is an idiot who doesn't understand the limits of a SEM and it's analysis; he mistakes red paint for thermite for god's sake. It should become known as the Jones' Fallacy.

Unfortunately those with zero scientific knowledge are attracted to these sites like a moth to a flame and because they are naive and ignorant, they believe everything that Jones puts out. They latch onto words such as eutectic and nano, but do not understand what those words mean. When you try to explain it to them they just ignore everything that is written, because they do not have the patience or the technical background to be able to digest and understand what is written. They ignore the simplest of tasks because they are afraid to say "I'm sorry I don't know, please take me through it slowly". They argue round and round and round bringing up the same thing week in week out when those arguments were thoroughly debunked before.

What's the point? They can't even stick to a coherent narrative for their fantasies.

It goes like this.

Explosives! - no because that would have been recorded as sound and all the windows around would have been blown out and shrapnel would cause injuries.
But they were heard by people - yes similie and explosions do occur in fires, but that doesn't mean evidence of explosives.
Well thermite then! - no there is no evidence.
But Jones says! - debunk Jones' nonsense.
Yes, there is MOLTEN METAL!! - no, there's no evidence of molten metal.
Grab photo and witnesses - no the photo is inconclusive and people use molten and don't mean liquid. There's no evidence of solidified rivers of steel etc.
Thermate/sol gel nano-thermite - sigh, no thermate is thermite with additions to ignite the thermite at a lower temp, sol gel is a process and nano just means small and would therefore react faster which means it would be less likely to cause molten metal weeks after.
Thermite paint! - sheesh, no not enough quantity, do the maths.
Explosive thermite! - oh god help me. - no if thermite explodes it can't cut steel.
Well shaped thermite charges - oh brother - no shaped charges do no use thermite, thermite is not an explosive.
Shaped cutter charges - OK, so how much would be needed to do the job?
Blank look - so you dodged the question.
But 4 ton steel girders were flung 400 feet - yes but if you learn about gravity and vectors and how high the towers were it's not surprising.
Only explosives can do that! - head hits keyboard and round and round we go.

This is why I've now got C7 on ignore. I'm sure I've missed out pulverised concrete and pizza boxes but there you go.
 
Sunstealer said:
Fixed.
Click to expand...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
 
bill smith said:
Suppose you sprayed a 4'' concrete floor slab with nano-thermite ? Being nano, it might very ell impregnate even concrete quite well. Suppose further that it could be induced to ignite ? Would it instantly boil whatever water residue was in the concrete at nearly 5,000 degrees causing it to become gaseous and explode- even pulverise the concrete ?
Click to expand...

And what would induce you to try this? Given that the concrete floor slabs were not supporting structures and that your efforts would be utterly pointless, that is. In fact worse than pointless as it would be yet another operation that could go wrong.

At this point Truthers normally have to resort to "shock and awe!" as the only way out, as if the mere collapse of two vast buildings were not shocking enough. Surprise us with something different.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
What's the point? They can't even stick to a coherent narrative for their fantasies.

It goes like this.

Explosives! - no because that would have been recorded as sound and all the windows around would have been blown out and shrapnel would cause injuries.
But they were heard by people - yes similie and explosions do occur in fires, but that doesn't mean evidence of explosives.
Well thermite then! - no there is no evidence.
But Jones says! - debunk Jones' nonsense.
Yes, there is MOLTEN METAL!! - no, there's no evidence of molten metal.
Grab photo and witnesses - no the photo is inconclusive and people use molten and don't mean liquid. There's no evidence of solidified rivers of steel etc.
Thermate/sol gel nano-thermite - sigh, no thermate is thermite with additions to ignite the thermite at a lower temp, sol gel is a process and nano just means small and would therefore react faster which means it would be less likely to cause molten metal weeks after.
Thermite paint! - sheesh, no not enough quantity, do the maths.
Explosive thermite! - oh god help me. - no if thermite explodes it can't cut steel.
Well shaped thermite charges - oh brother - no shaped charges do no use thermite, thermite is not an explosive.
Shaped cutter charges - OK, so how much would be needed to do the job?
Blank look - so you dodged the question.
But 4 ton steel girders were flung 400 feet - yes but if you learn about gravity and vectors and how high the towers were it's not surprising.
Only explosives can do that! - head hits keyboard and round and round we go.

This is why I've now got C7 on ignore. I'm sure I've missed out pulverised concrete and pizza boxes but there you go.
Click to expand...

The best part is when you get two in the same room arguing explosives and thermite at the same time, all the while patting each other on the back. They never really catch on to the fact that one negates the other and vice versa. Nor do they care, as long as it isn't the OCT anything is believable.
 
bill smith said:
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Click to expand...
This paper answers most of those questions. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11542599/911-Sulfur-and-World-Trade-Center

Similarly I have gone over it time and time again with regard to the mechanism. Heavy oxidation (and burning of the steel) and sulphidation are the mechanisms. No corrosion rate is yet to be determined, but oxidation and sulphidation rates are determined by a parabolic rate constant as derived from experimental data and support f-i-c-k's laws of diffusion. It takes time for sulphidation to occur and it's very unlikely that the rates of corrosion were high enough to cause any structural problem with the steel in the WTC and in any case, because a reduction in strength caused by excessive heat would massively overide this phenomenon anyway. 600°C and steel loses over half to two thirds of it's strength.
 
Christopher 7 said:
Gravy is a lot of hot air.
Click to expand...
Christopher has yet to point out what I get wrong. Who is full of hot air?

I have read his so called debunking site. The first 40 or 50 pages are personal attacks on members of the truth movement.
Click to expand...
Here are the first content links on my site:



I wonder what benefit people like Chris Sarns derive from lying about things that are so easily checked? They must get something out of it. Is it just attention they need, no matter the cost to their credibility? I wish I knew, so I could know how better to deal with adults who make claims that children would be ashamed to make.


I have watched his videos. He misstates positions of the truth movement and rails on about them.
Click to expand...
And yet Chris has never pointed out anything I get wrong. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom