Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
Why would any recovery worker choose to remove molten steel from GZ with an excavator bucket? Why not wait for it to cool and solidify? It's so much safer and more convenient to remove it that way, especially when working in this kind of environment :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/GZrebaretc.jpg
Click to expand...
The government was in a big hurry to destroy the evidence as fast as possible. They told the workers the air was safe. It was not. They did not give a damn about the workers lungs and many are now dying. What makes you thing they cared about the safety of the workers at all?
What makes you think the government is telling the truth about anything?
 
BigAl said:
Who said that? Cite source, please.
Click to expand...
Child, go read it yourself!

ETA: And don't nitpick and babble in a stupid attempt to deny this statement or that statement. They work as a group. To deny all the statements is just denial.
 
Last edited:
The problem for C7 is he doesn't understand the following:

Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe + 851.5 kJ/mol

He doesn't understand that this reaction isn't one that occurs over hours or days or weeks but seconds.

Lets try to see if he can understand why thermite couldn't keep the steel liquid.

The thermite reaction is too fast - if we had 100kg of thermite and we had to set off the thermite reaction then all 100kg of the thermite would ignite thereby releasing ALL of it's energy in one go. It wouldn't take hours or days or weeks to release it's energy but minutes. Therefore thermite is not a viable source for the heat required to keep a quantity of steel liquid for any period of time. Thermite cannot be the material.

I'm sure C7 will scream and shout and jump up and down the thermite is the reason but he has to show how it can be the reason. The world awaits because we are going to need to rewrite text books when C7 shows us all how the thermite reaction is sustainable.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The government was in a big hurry to destroy the evidence as fast as possible. They told the workers the air was safe. It was not. They did not give a damn about the workers lungs and many are now dying. What makes you thing they cared about the safety of the workers at all?
What makes you think the government is telling the truth about anything?
Click to expand...

No "they" didn't. That's a lie (bold) and you know it.
 
Christopher7 said:
Stupid evasive question.

He said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

Deal with it!
Click to expand...
If someone said to you that they'd seen aliens, would you believe them? If someone said to you that they'd seen unicorns, would you believe them? If someone said to you that they'd seen a dodo, would you believe them? If someone said to you that they'd seen a live dinosaur, would you believe them?

Just because some one says something doesn't mean they are correct. They could well be mistaken or using the wrong terminology. Why can you not get this through your skull?
 
Christopher7 said:
Stupid evasive question.

He said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

Deal with it!
Click to expand...
For anyone at WTC, any of the estimated 40,000 people working on the pile, Thermite would have been obvious and worth commenting on.

Thermite on fire has very distinctive intense light and the whitest smoke. There are very few sources of similar fires.

No eyewitness uses the word, "thermite", or described it's characteristics, as far as we can tell.
 
BigAl said:
For anyone at WTC, any of the estimated 40,000 people working on the pile, Thermite would have been obvious and worth commenting on.

Thermite on fire has very distinctive intense light and the whitest smoke. There are very few sources of similar fires.

No eyewitness uses the word, "thermite", or described it's characteristics, as far as we can tell.
Click to expand...
More like no eyewitness described the thermite reaction or anything that would be unique to a thermite reaction.
 
Sunstealer said:
The problem for C7 is he doesn't understand the following:
Fe2O3 + 2Al  Al2O3 + 2Fe + 851.5 kJ/mol
He doesn't understand that this reaction isn't one that occurs over hours or days or weeks but seconds.
Click to expand...
I understand that. So what? The metal did in fact stay molten. I didn't say that, eyewitnesses said that. You can deny it if that makes you feel good but reasonable people will accept the numerous credible statements as valid.

Don't you ever get tired of chanting Gravy's mantra?

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.
 
lapman said:
More like no eyewitness described the thermite reaction or anything that would be unique to a thermite reaction.
Click to expand...
So what? You deny that there was molten metal at all.

You think all the highly qualified eyewitnesses are mistaken and you know better.

You are in denial.
 
lapman said:
I am dealing with it. If he saw melting of girders, where was the thermite reaction that caused the melting?
Click to expand...
You are not dealing with it, you are still refusing to accept that there was molten steel much less deal with the consequences.
 
Chris;
Considering at that time there was probably only a couple of dozen excavators on-site,with 3-4 operators (assuming 24 hour operation) each. Why don't you actually do some research and find the guy that "dipped the bucket"? You do want to know the truth don't you?
 
Christopher7 said:
No, I mean like there was molten metal in the debris pile.
Click to expand...

So, you only mean this:

Christopher7 said:
When there are numerous highly qualified people saying the same thing, reasonable people will accept it.
Click to expand...

if you think it supports you. Even though you have not demonstrated first hand accounts or proven the qualifications of the people making the claim. If you truly believed the statment that you made, you would agree with NIST, Purdue, Arups, etc. because they are qualified people (which can be verified) saying the same thing.
 
DGM said:
Chris;
Considering at that time there was probably only a couple of dozen excavators on-site,with 3-4 operators (assuming 24 hour operation) each. Why don't you actually do some research and find the guy that "dipped the bucket"? You do want to know the truth don't you?
Click to expand...
:D :D :D :cool:
 
Christopher7 said:
Stupid evasive question.

He said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

Deal with it!
Click to expand...

Then you must reconcile with the idea that his research has concluded that the design of the towers, not the use of external influence from demolition methods contributed to the collapse of the towers after they were critically damaged: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070912/ai_n19517019?tag=content;col1
Speaking on campus to memorialize the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Abolhassan Astaneh said his five-year study of the collapse of the Twin Towers revealed that a better design likely would have prevented many of the nearly 3,000 deaths that day.

Astaneh sharply criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers, which he said cared more about defending the industry than revealing the truth about the towers' design.

"It's just moral corruption," Astaneh said in response to a question from the audience. "I don't beat around the bushes."

Astaneh, who first researched the disaster in the days following Sept. 11, said he had access to well-guarded architectural drawings of the 110-story towers for his study. The schematics showed that the buildings were supported almost completely by thin steel beams around the outside.

Thicker beams on the exterior and more concrete surrounding the stairwells would have added at least $30 million to the cost of the buildings, he said, but could have saved hundreds or thousands of lives after airliners hit both towers. Instead, the resulting 1,000- degree fire easily destroyed the structure, he said. Most tall skyscrapers, including Chicago's Sears Tower, are sturdier and likely would survive such attacks, Astaneh said. Because of the industry's defensiveness, "the public is left with the notion that these buildings were like any other buildings, he said.

"These buildings had no other option but to pulverize."

An Engineering Association member who studied the World Trade Center collapse said that he believes most skyscrapers would collapse quickly after being hit by jetliners. The Trade Center performed better than could be expected, said Jim Harris, a Denver engineer. The industry has been cautious but not misleading, Harris said. "I think we're just trying to stick to the facts."
Click to expand...


Christopher7 said:
So what? You deny that there was molten metal at all.

You think all the highly qualified eyewitnesses are mistaken and you know better.

You are in denial.
Click to expand...
Key word Christopher7, METAL. You love using these words interchangeably with steel. I'm not at all surprised in the concept that there was likely molten metal. The fires were indeed hot enough to exceed the melting point for certain types -- lead and aluminum. Not for steel, and sustaining temperatures sufficient to keep steel liquid where not possible. This means that contrary to what you assume not everyone uses proper terminology. Context is not part of your vocabulary, you've made this perfectly clear the entire time you've argued for this delusional thermite theory.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom