Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Why is it absurd to question someone's credentials? Don't you want to know if the person, who you claim is an expert in determining that the melted metal is in fact steel, can professionally make that assessment?

It is not difficult to see that it was molten steel as you seem to think. When people see partially melted beams and molten metal it's a no-brainer. Your inability to figure this out means you have no brain.[or you left it in your other pants]

As I said before, he is a professional and you are not in a position to second guess him.

You look at each statement and try to find a reason to doubt rather than looking at all the statements as a whole.

To dismiss what he and so many others have said is just denial.

 

[Sunstealer]

I

As I said before, he is a professional and you are not in a position to second guess him.


To dismiss what he and so many others have said is just denial.

So when the same person says they saw molten steel but also says that the WTC collapsed due to fire, why do you accept one part of their statement but not the other part? Why do you cherry pick to suit your arguments?

 

[George 152]

You deny it's existence and and ponder what kept it molten for weeks.

It is impossible for steel to remain molten outside the furnace for more than minutes.

The thermite claim is from a defrocked university lecturer who has no expertise in any related fields.
Any-one remember the 'room temperature fusion' /
Same 'expert'

 

[Christopher7]

This thread has a fork in it. Its done. All C7 has is third party witness hyperbole and simile. There was a glob of molten aluminum. Mark Roberts held it in his hands while visiting the curator of the hangar at Kennedy.

There was a small glob of molten aluminum that he could hold in his hands. Were there any large globs that would account for the molten metal that was dipped out in the buckets of the excavators?

Yet not one photograph of a solidified glob of molten steel. You would think such a find would be extraordinary.That it would be set aside and examined as the result of a phenomena unseen in the annals of history

What makes you think it does not exist? You are ignoring the nearly 7,000 photos and over 7,000 video clips the government is hiding from the public. This is the "Nixon defense" and it does not wash.

The photos and videos Mark Loizeaux spoke of are among those thousands of photos and videos.

You would think out of the tens of thousands of cleanup workers quite a few would have been witness to it.

There are numerous witnesses who said there was molten steel in the debris pile. Unless and until all the workers have been asked, you cannot justifiably say how many saw the molten steel.

Never mind that the excavator grapple tines would have not only been unable to pick up a liquid, But the tines would have fused together upon dipping into anything molten.

Wrong. Thick, heavy steel does not melt instantly.

 

[Christopher7]

It is impossible for steel to remain molten outside the furnace for more than minutes.

Thermite burns at 4500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. The melting point steel is around 2750[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F.

 

[Christopher7]

So when the same person says they saw molten steel but also says that the WTC collapsed due to fire, why do you accept one part of their statement but not the other part? Why do you cherry pick to suit your arguments?

Please read thread and stop asking questions that have already answered.

 

[nicepants]

Thermite burns at 4500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. The melting point steel is around 2750[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F.

Thermite burns for seconds/minutes...yet this "steel" was allegedly molten MONTHS after the collapse. This creates a significant problem for your thermite theory.

 

[lapman]

Thermite burns at 4500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. The melting point steel is around 2750[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F.

So what? The mean surface temperature of the Sun is 9944 °F. By your standard of evidence, the Sun created the molten metal because it was out every day.

Thermite only burns for a minute or two, not weeks. Therefore, thermite cannot be the source of the molten steel/metal. Why do you run away from this fact?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So when the same person says they saw molten steel but also says that the WTC collapsed due to fire, why do you accept one part of their statement but not the other part? Why do you cherry pick to suit your arguments?

Simple, when they say something he thinks supports his argument how dare you question their professional opinions... how dare you question their authority, but when they perform a six year case study on the same event and conclude that fire or design influenced the collapse dynamics, he could care less about their professional opinions, in fact quite the contrary, they are incompetents who use "reverse logic" to make their conclusions. This is standard C7 tactics, the hypocrisy is stifling even if it involves a jacked up appeal to authority.

 

[Wolrab]

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering,
781 Davis Hall, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710. USA
E-mail: Astaneh@ ce.berkeley. edu (remove space after @ and before edu)
http://www.astaneh.net/

Here C7, I'll throw you a bone. Be nice. Be concise. Say "Thank You".

 

[Christopher7]

How can you tell by looking at a pool of liquid steel which part was melted by thermite and which part was melted by the heat in the rubble pile?

You cannot determine what melted steel by looking at it. Your question is silly.

If you believe that liquid steel was present weeks after then you have to acknowledge that the fact that the temperature in the pile must have been high enough to keep steel liquid. Please acknoledge this.

Since the steel was in fact molten after many weeks, that must be the case.

If you don't believe the metal was molten after many weeks then your question is moot.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite only burns for a minute or two, not weeks. Therefore, thermite cannot be the source of the molten steel/metal.

Wrong. Thermite is the only possible source of the molten steel. How it stayed molten for weeks is a matter of speculation.

 

[Christopher7]

Simple, when they say something he thinks supports his argument how dare you question their professional opinions...

Wrong!
People describing what they saw is quite different from someone offering an opinion.

how dare you question their authority, but when they perform a six year case study on the same event and conclude that fire or design influenced the collapse dynamics,

NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers. Evidently, he did not read the 10,000 page whitewash.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong!
People describing what they saw is quite different from someone offering an opinion.

Opinion, what they saw, whatever the case. You're claiming that nobody here is in a position to question them because they're professionals. And yet you accuse some of the same professionals you use as sources of "reverse logic" when they came to a conclusion other than what you got to. Are they qualified all then time, some of the time, or not at all? Seriously, you're criteria is odd...

NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers. Evidently, he did not read the 10,000 page whitewash.

Oh but I'm not talking about NIST. Astaneh, one of the professional you cite as witnessing melted girders did more than just a quick statement of his observations. He spent 5-6 years researching the collapse, yet he blames it on the design, not thermite. NIST isn't the only investigative body to have researched the collapse, it may have been the biggest investigative body that went into it, but it was far from the only one. How do you reconcile with all of the professionals in their relevant fields who have concluded either fire, design, or both were to blame as contributes to the collapses, be they American or otherwise?

 

[bje]

Thermite is the only possible source of the molten steel.

You need to provide sources for your claim.

 

[bje]

Wrong!

NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers.

They did. They didn't have to do more that show the initiation of collapse and demonstrated why the towers collapsed after collapse initiation.

That you engage in a nonsensical, debunked red herring only indicates your ignorance and desperation.

Perhaps you can explain why the NTSB doesn't model a plane's fall to earth once the cause of the crash has been determined.

 

[Christopher7]

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering,
781 Davis Hall, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710. USA
E-mail: Astaneh@ ce.berkeley. edu (remove space after @ and before edu)
http://www.astaneh.net/

Here C7, I'll throw you a bone. Be nice. Be concise. Say "Thank You".

You can put your bone where the sun don't shine . . . . Thank you.


"I have led a team of more than 11 highly qualified volunteer researchers and engineers and have completed the analyses of the impact of various airplanes on the World Trade Center

Our 5-year analysis primarily focused on finding an answer to the question of:
“What would have happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearing wall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a more traditional system of structural framing used in almost any other structure, was used?"

Abolhassan Astaneh did NOT analyze the collapse of the trade towers nor did he conclude how or why they collapsed.

 

[Christopher7]

Opinion, what they saw, whatever the case. You're claiming that nobody here is in a position to question them because they're professionals.

You are not in a position to question their honesty.

Oh but I'm not talking about NIST. Astaneh, one of the professional you cite as witnessing melted girders did more than just a quick statement of his observations.

You try to hand wave Mr. Astaneh's statement by referring to it as "just a quick statement of his observations"
It was a statement of fact [unless you want to call him a liar or an idiot].

He spent 5-6 years researching the collapse, yet he blames it on the design

Wrong! [see my last post]

NIST isn't the only investigative body to have researched the collapse, it may have been the biggest investigative body that went into it, but it was far from the only one. How do you reconcile with all of the professionals in their relevant fields who have concluded either fire, design, or both were to blame as contributes to the collapses, be they American or otherwise?

No one has explained the total collapse.
Everything past "global instability" is speculation.

 

[beachnut]

OP used HEARSAY for support

TESTIMONY of MOLTEN STEEL[/quote

4. According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/

Why post hearsay?

No piles of thermite products found. Where is Dr Jones when you need him?

OP scorecard: Lie, hearsay, closed eyes, hearsay and only on #4; what is next from the OP C7 ignores?





For C7 Dr A can't be trusted that fire caused the failure of the WTC, then Dr A can't be trusted that steel melted. If he cherry picks his expert why does he fail to see this discredits his expert; he impeaches his own expert on cross.
Logic; not a strong suit for 911Truth who argue for pages about melted steel and present the nut case scenario thermite did it.

Poor Dr A is used if he supports C7 delusions but Dr A is tossed under the train when Dr A contradicts C7 delusion.

Not only does melted steel have nothing to do with 911, there is no rational/coherent scenario to tie melted steel to C7’s known and unknown delusions on 911.

All this junk C7 posts is to prove his thermite conclusion; but only proves what complete ignorance on 911 is.

C7 could call Dr A and discover what melted steel statement mean and learn thermite is a delusion. What does Dr A say?

 

[Christopher7]

NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers.

They did. They didn't have to do more that show the initiation of collapse and demonstrated why the towers collapsed after collapse initiation.

NIST did NOT demonstrate how the towers collapsed after collapse initiation.