Molten Steel

[Jono]

I found the sport for Heiwa.

Not even a single rutabaga? Hmph!

 

[twinstead]

mmmmmmmm.......rutabaga......

 

[bje]

There was extremely little concrete left in the rubble on the ground. Even if the force of the collapse had broken it up there should have been millions of pieces of concrete strewn everywhere...

There's the "there-should-have-been" fallacy again.

Amazing how that's become the mantra of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

 

[JimBenArm]

There's the "there-should-have-been" fallacy again.

Amazing how that's become the mantra of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

Well, there is one "there-should-have-been" that's never a fallacy.

There should have been pie! And ponies! And candy!

That's always true.

 

[ellindsey]

See, here's my whole problem with this line of argument. Assume for the moment that bill smith is correct and that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is far less than what would be expected. Does that then imply a controlled demolition?

No. The vast majority of the concrete in the towers was not part of the primary load-bearing structure. It was mostly in the slab floors which supported the building contents. If you wanted to demolish the building, there would be no reason to specifically demolish any of the concrete; you'd simply put cutter charges on the steel columns making up the main load-bearing structure. Adding the vast amount of additional explosives required to destroy all the concrete would be completely superfluous, not to mention completely impossible to conceal. It doesn't fit the therm*te demolition theories either, unless you're claiming that there was enough therm*te to completely melt or vaporize all the concrete, and that would just be silly.

About the only theory I can think of that is supported by vanished concrete is Judy Wood's space-dustification-beam lunacy, and there's not much point in arguing with anyone who believes that one. Other than that claiming that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is less that expected is just a case of trying to find any apparent anomaly and claim it as evidence for a conspiracy, even if said anomaly would be just as unexplained under any controlled demolition theory.

 

[twinstead]

See, here's my whole problem with this line of argument. Assume for the moment that bill smith is correct and that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is far less than what would be expected. Does that then imply a controlled demolition?

No. The vast majority of the concrete in the towers was not part of the primary load-bearing structure. It was mostly in the slab floors which supported the building contents. If you wanted to demolish the building, there would be no reason to specifically demolish any of the concrete; you'd simply put cutter charges on the steel columns making up the main load-bearing structure. Adding the vast amount of additional explosives required to destroy all the concrete would be completely superfluous, not to mention completely impossible to conceal. It doesn't fit the therm*te demolition theories either, unless you're claiming that there was enough therm*te to completely melt or vaporize all the concrete, and that would just be silly.

About the only theory I can think of that is supported by vanished concrete is Judy Wood's space-dustification-beam lunacy, and there's not much point in arguing with anyone who believes that one. Other than that claiming that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is less that expected is just a case of trying to find any apparent anomaly and claim it as evidence for a conspiracy, even if said anomaly would be just as unexplained under any controlled demolition theory.

Yes. This also is my point. Unless an atomizing space beam is responsible, the debris pile would be very similar regardless of how the buildings were felled. His argument is crafted simply to cast doubt on the 'official story'--not make any rational sense on its own.

 

[Christopher7]

I have been. From looking at the photo I provided what do you think eroded that steel?

Do you think that whatever made it appear the way made it molten at anytime?

The discussion is about eroded beams and steel also. Dont try and sidestep it now.

I answered that a while back. I don't know what that is, much less what it means.

It's not a question of my verifying molten metal, there are numerous witnesses that establish the existence of molten steel in the debris pile. To deny them all is just denial.

This video clip is effectively government conformation of the existence of molten metal and extreme temperatures that fused the "meteorite" into a solid block.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWwsuoE9Z4&feature=related

0:08
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

0:48
"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted.

 

[bje]

Chris's "government scientist" is actually an architect (Voorsanger) who then turned into just a "narrator" who now (somehow) provides "government confirmations."

Just your all-purpose disinfo guy. Chris, that is.

 

[buka001]

Now that you mention it......

Suppose you sprayed the underside of a 4'' thick concrete floor slab with gelatinous 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 to explode- even to pulverise the concrete and vapourise the wire mesh ?

PS; Here's a short video that puts things nano in perspective nicely.
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/189?gclid=CKSqy9mqypgCFQZqswodF1Pb1Q nanotechnoology

Ok firstly I want to establish that this is your reason why the rebar/mesh visible post impact is less than you expect, i.e. the mesh was vapourised by impregnated nano-thermite?

Now seriously think in a logical manner, who, how and when could anyone have had any kind of oppurtunity to go around on every floor impregnating floors with nano-thermite? Can you give any possible explanation as to how this could have been carried out? Any explanation at all?

Anyway water residue in the concrete? The concrete was cast 25 or so years prior to the collapse. I am pretty certain that it had cured substantialy by that time. I could be very wrong here, need to consult some of my Concrete Technology textbooks, but I am pretty sure all water would have been used up by now in the chemical reaction to form HCP (Hardened Cement Paste). You do know that concrete gets hard, not by drying, but through an exothermic chemical reaction where cement reacts with water to form HCP. The HCP, consists of small microstructures of C-S-H needles. The needles grow as the silicates in the cement reacts with water. The increase in the length of the needles bridges the gaps between the microstructures, hence density of the structure increases and subsequently a gain in strength occurs. This reaction can only occur if water is present. It stops after all the water has been used up.

Concrete reaches optimum strength after 28days. Concrete will continue to harden and gain strength after this time, but at a very stagnant rate.The possibilty that their is residual water in a slab after 25+ years is very slim. If there is any water left after 25+ years, the volume of that water would be small, I doubt there would be much available to react with the nano-thermite, since the obvious question would be, why hasn't it reacted with the silicates in the concrete after 25 odd years?

Why would anyone propose using this method of destruction, in the hope that there might be some water left in the concrete? Seems a bit risky don't you think? What would happen if there was no water? Epic fail?

Your post demonstrates a CLASSIC truther post, where a theory has been postulated with ZERO consideration of logic, ZERO consideration of science and ZERO consideration of engineering. One does not need to understand engineering to be able to understand 911, just a concept of logic will suffice.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This raises an important point, though, which is that it is irrational to keep demanding evidence from people like our newcomers who have clearly demonstrated that they consider the products of their imaginations to be sufficient.

Gravy, never was a comment more apt. In the very next post, we see from the thread's resident fantasist:

Well now that it is established that there is masses of wire mesh (for convenience let's call it wire mesh) missing,

There is simply no reasoning with this sort of person.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

See, here's my whole problem with this line of argument. Assume for the moment that bill smith is correct and that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is far less than what would be expected. Does that then imply a controlled demolition?

No. The vast majority of the concrete in the towers was not part of the primary load-bearing structure. It was mostly in the slab floors which supported the building contents. If you wanted to demolish the building, there would be no reason to specifically demolish any of the concrete; you'd simply put cutter charges on the steel columns making up the main load-bearing structure. Adding the vast amount of additional explosives required to destroy all the concrete would be completely superfluous, not to mention completely impossible to conceal. It doesn't fit the therm*te demolition theories either, unless you're claiming that there was enough therm*te to completely melt or vaporize all the concrete, and that would just be silly.

About the only theory I can think of that is supported by vanished concrete is Judy Wood's space-dustification-beam lunacy, and there's not much point in arguing with anyone who believes that one. Other than that claiming that the amount of concrete in the rubble pile is less that expected is just a case of trying to find any apparent anomaly and claim it as evidence for a conspiracy, even if said anomaly would be just as unexplained under any controlled demolition theory.

Leaving politics and mechanisms aside for the moment it would seem practical to establish that the concrete and other rubble on the ground does not add up to two giant Towers.That appers self evident from the animated gif I posted and other aeriel and panoramic photos that I have seen. A gravity driven collapse does not explain the missing material either. Even the structural steel in the buildings amounted each to some 100,000 tons. Allowing ever-greater margins of error still does not satisfy the missing rubble conundrum and it becomes a gross anomaly.

In the aeriel photograph I attach, apparently taken on the 12th september 2001 you can plainly see that there is nothing like 100,000 tons of steel on the ground. One doesn't have to be an expert to see that. The missing concrete and associated wire mesh is also conspicuously absent or at least extremely sparse. This begs the question 'where is all the steel that was supposedly shipped to China' ?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Images/HTRTitleAnim.gif animated gif
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, never was a comment more apt. In the very next post, we see from the thread's resident fantasist:

There is simply no reasoning with this sort of person.

Dave

Dave, it's not like you to deny credit where credit is due!

Posts in this thread:

thewholesoul: 132
Christopher7: 85
Bill Smith: 76
Senenmut: 35

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the aeriel photograph I attach, apparently taken on the 12th september 2001 you can plainly see that there is nothing like 100,000 tons of steel on the ground. One doesn't have to be an expert to see that.

Again, for the lurkers, bill smith is indulging in his usual practice of making something up, assuming it to be incontestable fact, then claiming that his fantasy is grounds for suspicion. You'll note that he makes no attempt to analyse the photos, quantify the amount of steel visible, or determine how much steel would not be visible because of being buried in the rubble pile. In fact, records of debris removed from the site agree very closely with the expected tonnage of debris. For those wishing to learn more about the mass of the WTC towers and the recovered debris, I would recommend "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1", by Gregory H. Urich, which can be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf - a rare example in that journal of a thorough and rigorous piece of analysis.

I note also that bill smith is referring to the work of Ace Baker, one of the most deluded fantasists ever to have been multiply banned at this site. Baker claims that no planes struck the WTC towers, that energy beam weapons from space were used to dustify the steel of the towers, and that the damage to surrounding buildings was caused not by falling debris but by other shots from the energy beam weapon. To the family members of anyone who even begins to place credence on Baker's ramblings, I offer my sincerest sympathy.

Dave

 

[stateofgrace]

Leaving politics and mechanisms aside for the moment it would seem practical to establish that the concrete and other rubble on the ground does not add up to two giant Towers.That appers self evident from the animated gif I posted and other aeriel and panoramic photos that I have seen. A gravity driven collapse does not explain the missing material either. Even the structural steel in the buildings amounted each to some 100,000 tons. Allowing ever-greater margins of error still does not satisfy the missing rubble conundrum and it becomes a gross anomaly.

In the aeriel photograph I attach, apparently taken on the 12th september 2001 you can plainly see that there is nothing like 100,000 tons of steel on the ground. One doesn't have to be an expert to see that. The missing concrete and associated wire mesh is also conspicuously absent or at least extremely sparse. This begs the question 'where is all the steel that was supposedly shipped to China' ?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Images/HTRTitleAnim.gif animated gif
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

Let me get this straight. You as a "non expert" can look at an Arial photograph of GZ and tell the weight of the steel in the rubble, right?

You, are trying sell the story that thermite not only melted the towers support structure but it also produces pools of molten steel week afterwards, it pulverised all the concrete, it produced so much heat it could fuse concrete and steel together into a "meteorite" and now it can actually vaporise a large section of the buildings.

This makes complete sense to you? You have absolutely no issues with this, right?

 

[bill smith]

Again, for the lurkers, bill smith is indulging in his usual practice of making something up, assuming it to be incontestable fact, then claiming that his fantasy is grounds for suspicion. You'll note that he makes no attempt to analyse the photos, quantify the amount of steel visible, or determine how much steel would not be visible because of being buried in the rubble pile. In fact, records of debris removed from the site agree very closely with the expected tonnage of debris. For those wishing to learn more about the mass of the WTC towers and the recovered debris, I would recommend "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1", by Gregory H. Urich, which can be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf - a rare example in that journal of a thorough and rigorous piece of analysis.

I note also that bill smith is referring to the work of Ace Baker, one of the most deluded fantasists ever to have been multiply banned at this site. Baker claims that no planes struck the WTC towers, that energy beam weapons from space were used to dustify the steel of the towers, and that the damage to surrounding buildings was caused not by falling debris but by other shots from the energy beam weapon. To the family members of anyone who even begins to place credence on Baker's ramblings, I offer my sincerest sympathy.

Dave

I only ask people to use their eyes and their common sense Dave. You can discredit me personally as much as you like- that has no importance. But getting this right IS VITALLY inportant and threfore I still say to people 'please use your eyes and your common sense'.

 

[funk de fino]

I answered that a while back. I don't know what that is, much less what it means.

It's not a question of my verifying molten metal, there are numerous witnesses that establish the existence of molten steel in the debris pile. To deny them all is just denial.

This video clip is effectively government conformation of the existence of molten metal and extreme temperatures that fused the "meteorite" into a solid block.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWwsuoE9Z4&feature=related

0:08
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

0:48
"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted.

I have shown you a piece of steel from a picture I have taken. I just want you to try and guess what led it to look like it does. It was a smooth surface previously

Does it look to you that it was molten at anytime that may have caused this affect?

You are dodging and not answering except with a smartmouth comment and a repeat of claims I am not even disputing.

Anyone who watchs that video may indeed get the impression it was a molten metal meteorite. Even after looking at some crappy youtube videos they may still think that. However anyone who thinks this after seeing the high res photos is clearly blind or delusional.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I only ask people to use their eyes and their common sense Dave.

No you don't. You ask people to accept your own conclusions without question, by claiming them to be the product of common sense and observation. In fact, they are the product of preformed conclusions undisturbed by contradictory calculations. You're a classic no-claimer, pretending to find suspicious circumstances by simply making them up, but refusing to commit to any actual allegations as to what these circumstances suggest as a sequence of events. Your aim is one of simply wasting people's time and, ultimately, the government's money, in trying to force it to undertake an investigation that will return the same results as the enormous and expensive investigations that have already been undertaken. If you were to succeed in that aim, you would then compound it by rejecting the conclusions, possibly even denying that it took place, and demanding another investigation. You are, quite simply, a time-waster.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Ok firstly I want to establish that this is your reason why the rebar/mesh visible post impact is less than you expect, i.e. the mesh was vapourised by impregnated nano-thermite?

Now seriously think in a logical manner, who, how and when could anyone have had any kind of oppurtunity to go around on every floor impregnating floors with nano-thermite? Can you give any possible explanation as to how this could have been carried out? Any explanation at all?

Anyway water residue in the concrete? The concrete was cast 25 or so years prior to the collapse. I am pretty certain that it had cured substantialy by that time. I could be very wrong here, need to consult some of my Concrete Technology textbooks, but I am pretty sure all water would have been used up by now in the chemical reaction to form HCP (Hardened Cement Paste). You do know that concrete gets hard, not by drying, but through an exothermic chemical reaction where cement reacts with water to form HCP. The HCP, consists of small microstructures of C-S-H needles. The needles grow as the silicates in the cement reacts with water. The increase in the length of the needles bridges the gaps between the microstructures, hence density of the structure increases and subsequently a gain in strength occurs. This reaction can only occur if water is present. It stops after all the water has been used up.

Concrete reaches optimum strength after 28days. Concrete will continue to harden and gain strength after this time, but at a very stagnant rate.The possibilty that their is residual water in a slab after 25+ years is very slim. If there is any water left after 25+ years, the volume of that water would be small, I doubt there would be much available to react with the nano-thermite, since the obvious question would be, why hasn't it reacted with the silicates in the concrete after 25 odd years?

Why would anyone propose using this method of destruction, in the hope that there might be some water left in the concrete? Seems a bit risky don't you think? What would happen if there was no water? Epic fail?

Your post demonstrates a CLASSIC truther post, where a theory has been postulated with ZERO consideration of logic, ZERO consideration of science and ZERO consideration of engineering. One does not need to understand engineering to be able to understand 911, just a concept of logic will suffice.

Originally I speculated that the underside of the concrete floors might have been sprayed with nanothermite. Then it was pointed out to me that the concrete was poured into floor pans which would tend to rule out the underside. I am reluctant to let go of the notion entirely though bcause there are few situations I can think of that might conspire to both pulverise the concrete AND evaporate the 110 ACRES of wire mesh they contained.

As I understand it concrete never fully cures and so will probably retain a residual amount of water. Perhaps the surface of the floors could have been sprayed at night with nanothermite in solution.Being nano it might be drawn down nto the microstructure of the concrete by gravity and capilliiary action. Nano materials can even enter the human cellular structure.

 

[bill smith]

No you don't. You ask people to accept your own conclusions without question, by claiming them to be the product of common sense and observation. In fact, they are the product of preformed conclusions undisturbed by contradictory calculations. You're a classic no-claimer, pretending to find suspicious circumstances by simply making them up, but refusing to commit to any actual allegations as to what these circumstances suggest as a sequence of events. Your aim is one of simply wasting people's time and, ultimately, the government's money, in trying to force it to undertake an investigation that will return the same results as the enormous and expensive investigations that have already been undertaken. If you were to succeed in that aim, you would then compound it by rejecting the conclusions, possibly even denying that it took place, and demanding another investigation. You are, quite simply, a time-waster.

Dave

You're getting a bit waspish again Dave I see You should work on that. Maybe you could even think about going into the psychology business yourself ? You seem to have an interest in the subject. I woudn't give up your day job just yet though if I was you. There's no need to sound so panicky about our ongoing 9/11 investigation just yet either.

 

[funk de fino]

Originally I speculated that the underside of the concrete floors might have been sprayed with nanothermite. Then it was pointed out to me that the concrete was poured into floor pans which would tend to rule out the underside. I am reluctant to let go of the notion entirely though bcause there are few situations I can think of that might conspire to both pulverise the concrete AND evaporate the 110 ACRES of wire mesh they contained.

As I understand it concrete never fully cures and so will probably retain a residual amount of water. Perhaps the surface of the floors could have been sprayed at night with nanothermite in solution.Being nano it might be drawn down nto the microstructure of the concrete by gravity and capilliiary action. Nano materials can even enter the human cellular structure.

Do you think the buildings were closed at night?