Molten Steel

[kookbreaker]

Incidentally the last thing you are going to do with rivers or pools of liquid steel is pick the damn stuff up in a digger bucket. What are you going to do with it? Where are you going to transport it to? It would destroy the bucket in a short period so you couldn't take it very far. There is absolutely no point in trying to remove liquid steel from the pile, it makes no sense. Much better to let it solidify and then remove it.

C7 - why would anyone in their right mind try to move liquid steel in a digger bucket and where did they take it?

This was one of the first things people noticed when the nazi papers 'broke' the story. This was on USENET, to give you an idea of how long ago this was being laughed at.

 

[GlennB]

Incidentally the last thing you are going to do with rivers or pools of liquid steel is pick the damn stuff up in a digger bucket. What are you going to do with it? Where are you going to transport it to? It would destroy the bucket in a short period so you couldn't take it very far. There is absolutely no point in trying to remove liquid steel from the pile, it makes no sense. Much better to let it solidify and then remove it.

C7 - why would anyone in their right mind try to move liquid steel in a digger bucket and where did they take it?

Amen.

As a matter of interest, just how close could the average excavator get to a pool of iron, at 1500°C or more, without the driver becoming seriously uncomfortable? I ask because I've had some decent bonfires in my garden where I couldn't get within 3 or 4 paces - at best - and that's just burning wood.

 

[Christopher7]

As a matter of interest, just how close could the average excavator get to a pool of iron, at 1500°C or more, without the driver becoming seriously uncomfortable? I ask because I've had some decent bonfires in my garden where I couldn't get within 3 or 4 paces - at best - and that's just burning wood.

Ask Mark Loizeaux.

 

[BigAl]

Ask Mark Loizeaux.

When asked, he admits he didn't see anything first-hand. The video has never surfaced and it is all second-hand information. There is no known first-hand eyewitness to molten steel. There is no evidence for molten steel. There is no hypothesis supported by evidence that shows how molten steel in the pile would be possible.

Conclusion: Molten steel in the pile at WTC was an urban legend.

Mr. Bryan:

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.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
www.controlled-demolition.com

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...e?dmode=source

 

[bje]

Chris,

Since you won't provide any evidence of molten metal in the meteorite, don't you think you should now admit that you have no such evidence to everyone here?

It's just common courtesy to admit you're wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

My opinion is a professional one and I look at the paper's merits.

You are an anonymous poster and you trash anyone who questions the Official Collapse Theory.

Fires in a debris pile cannot get anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.

Then you must conclude that if any liquid metal were present then it couldn't have been steel.

Your refusal to acknowledge thermite as a possibility despite the evidence only proves your abject denial of anything that disproves the Official Collapse Theory.

You cannot prove that it was steel.

Correct. The evidence has been destroyed.

You can't prove that it wasn't aluminium

It is impossible to prove a negative. I can only point out the FACT that the NIST claim that it was aluminum is baseless speculation.

The molten steel falling from the tower was far above the temperatures attainable in office fires.

Again you have put the cart before the horse. You must get away from this idea that the only metal the flowing material could be is steel.

Steel is the only metal in abundance [tons] in that area. You sidestepped the fact that office fires don't get hot enough to heat any metal to 1300-1500°C.

I would say you haven't got a clue how much it would take. You don't know what devices may exist or the different kinds of thermite that were at the time.

We agree on something.

You make estimates based on your insufficient knowledge of where columns were cut or what mix of explosives and/or thermite were used.

Excuse me?
You made those claims.

Why don't you show that it's possible? Why do you always run and hide when anyone asks you for any detail or to show calculations.

Because it's worthless speculation.

All you have is one idea that you cannot show is even remotely feasible. Do some work and show how thermite could possibly be the source of heat to produce all this "molten steel" you are convinced existed. Can you do that or are you going to hand wave it away and just scream thermite at us, again.

You are looking for a reason to deny the obvious so you demand what you know cannot be provided.

It's really quite simple. Thermite is the only known explanation for the molten steel. There is plenty of evidence including thermite chips in the WTC dust.

You can call Jones and Loizeaux liars if you want to but you won't get much support outside your small circle of deniers.

 

[George 152]

When asked, he admits he didn't see anything first-hand. The video has never surfaced and it is all second-hand information. There is no known first-hand eyewitness to molten steel. There is no evidence for molten steel. There is no hypothesis supported by evidence that shows how molten steel in the pile would be possible.

Conclusion: Molten steel in the pile at WTC was an urban legend.

The claim that the 'molten steel' was being dug up is demonstrably wrong.
Go to any foundry and see what it takes to melt the steel and what it takes to keep it molten.
In a pour it is a very viscous material and 'goes off' in only a few minutes.
There was no heat source present to keep steel molten!
IMO it doesn't reach the level of an urban legend

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

Since you won't provide any evidence of molten metal in the meteorite, don't you think you should now admit that you have no such evidence to everyone here?

It's just common courtesy to admit you're wrong.

Mr. Voorsanger said there was molten steel in the meteorite. If you hand wave that off, you are in denial. There is no reason to doubt his word. The only reason you do so is because you can't deal with the consequences.

 

[Christopher7]

The claim that the 'molten steel' was being dug up is demonstrably wrong.
Go to any foundry and see what it takes to melt the steel and what it takes to keep it molten.
In a pour it is a very viscous material and 'goes off' in only a few minutes.
There was no heat source present to keep steel molten!
IMO it doesn't reach the level of an urban legend

To make that absurd claim you have concluded that Mark Loizeaux and all the other witnesses are idiots or liars.

Deniers chant the mantra:
"I can't figure out how the steel could have stayed molten, therefore it could not happen."

 

[Christopher7]

When asked, he admits he didn't see anything first-hand. The video has never surfaced and it is all second-hand information.

So what? This is not a court of law. Do you believe him or are you calling him a liar?

There is no known first-hand eyewitness to molten steel.

Where have you been? There are many qualified witnesses.

There is no evidence for molten steel.

Pure denial.

 

[BigAl]

So what? This is not a court of law. Do you believe him or are you calling him a liar?

Where have you been? There are many qualified witnesses.

Pure denial.

There is no witness that can be confirmed to have seen molten steel first hand. It was all second-hand. It was an urban legand.

 

[Mercutio]

It's really quite simple. Thermite is the only known explanation for the molten steel. There is plenty of evidence including thermite chips in the WTC dust.

You can call Jones and Loizeaux liars if you want to but you won't get much support outside your small circle of deniers.

There's that "the" again! It is still a lie, and you are still lying with other people's words, C7.

Thermite is not at all the only known explanation for claims of molten steel.

Is it?

For instance, your own claims of molten steel--which of these is a better explanation: thermite, or delusion? Some other claims are best explained by ignorance, or naivete, or by the mistaken reliance on poorly chosen words during the early portions of an extraordinarily stressful situation.

You see, C7, we do not have molten steel to explain. We have claims of molten steel to explain. And that makes all the difference in the world. You know how to treat claims--you do it with claims of molten aluminum.

It would be an extraordinary thing indeed if there were pools of molten steel at ground zero. But it is not at all extraordinary to have claims of such pools. If one were dishonest, one could latch on to one or two such claims, ignoring all claims and physical evidence to the contrary, and build up a delusional fantasy like your own.

And yes, we can call Jones and Loizeaux liars... but they are not here, and you are. And you are lying, so we can call you a liar without violating forum rules.

 

[Mercutio]

So what? This is not a court of law. Do you believe him or are you calling him a liar?

Where have you been? There are many qualified witnesses.

Pure denial.

Why would anyone call him a liar? He admits he did not see. You, C7, are the liar. You are using his words to tell falsehoods, and you know it.

Pure lies.

 

[DavidJames]

Christopher7 - Why continue to post? You lack the ability to think critically. You fail to comprehend complex information. You refuse to consider honest expert analysis and finally, you hand wave away anything that challenges your fantasy.

If you are serious about this, I strongly suggest you stop posting on Internet forums and spend the time trying to actually do something to bring justice. Like every other CTists on this forum, you seem to be content simply posting on forums while making no honest attempt to actually act on your "research".

That leads to the obvious question, why? I would argue it's because either you lack the confidence in your "evidence", you're simply trolling or suffer from some mental incapacity.

You might suggest a fourth option, lack of resources, or the like, but we're talking about potentially the biggest crime in U.S. history. I can't imagine a sane person doing nothing but posting on forums. Yet on this forum, there have been dozens. I can't imagine thinking what you do and doing nothing substantial about it.

 

[Mercutio]

Mr. Voorsanger said there was molten steel in the meteorite. If you hand wave that off, you are in denial. There is no reason to doubt his word. The only reason you do so is because you can't deal with the consequences.

Liar.

 

[Christopher7]

There is no witness that can be confirmed to have seen molten steel first hand. It was all second-hand. It was an urban legand.

Statements and videos have been posted on this thread confirming molten steel. You just refuse to accept them.

Mark Loizeaux says there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with and pictures and videos of molten steel being dipped out by the excavators.
You don't really doubt his word, you are just lying to yourself because you can't deal with the consequences.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To make that absurd claim you have concluded that Mark Loizeaux and all the other witnesses are idiots or liars.

The thing I don't understand is this: What criteria have you developed to determine their qualifications in identifying materials? Could it be that you assume every witness is somehow unusually well qualified in identifying a particular type of metal among many other types mixed in the rubble just by looking at it? Quite the unusual standard for considering the credibility of your sources when you cast doubt on the qualifications of "anonymous internet posters".

Deniers chant the mantra:
"I can't figure out how the steel could have stayed molten, therefore it could not happen."

A valid contention is it not? After all you seem quite comfortable with calling thermite a culprit of whatever molten material was observed days, weeks, or even months after the collapse. There are rather serious implications with making such a baseless claim, and such a naive one no less.

Mr. Voorsanger said there was molten steel in the meteorite. If you hand wave that off, you are in denial. There is no reason to doubt his word. The only reason you do so is because you can't deal with the consequences.

Have you bothered contacting him to get clarification on what he made of this object? There must be some reason he has not taken at issue such a ground breaking phenomenon. Why don't contact him and inquire as to why he has not stepped up to the plate to conclude what you have gotten from his words?

 

[kookbreaker]

Mark Loizeaux says there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with

Soooo....second hand account.

and pictures and videos of molten steel being dipped out by the excavators.

Which, as has been explained in this thread, is laughable. An excavator dipping molten steel is going to not have its bucket very quickly.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 - Why continue to post? You lack the ability to think critically. You fail to comprehend complex information. You refuse to consider honest expert analysis and finally, you hand wave away anything that challenges your fantasy.

You are describing yourself.

If you are serious about this, I strongly suggest you stop posting on Internet forums and spend the time trying to actually do something to bring justice.

I am also engaged in other activities to spread the truth about 9/11.

What are you doing here?

 

[Christopher7]

Soooo....second hand account.

Lame excuse for denial. Do you think Mark Loizeaux is lying? Do you think he is an idiot?

and pictures and videos of molten steel being dipped out by the excavators.

Which, as has been explained in this thread, is laughable. An excavator dipping molten steel is going to not have its bucket very quickly.

OK, you think he is a liar. There are no photos or videos of molten steel being scooped up because that just cant be. You know this because you are certain no one would risk destroying a bucket by scooping up molten steel.