Molten Steel

[Arus808]

52 pages people. Its not 2006. Its 2009. C7 has been repeating the same lies since 2006

PLEASE just ignore this obvious troll.

 

[Christopher7]

The steel was still molten after six weeks if you believe the witness.

Yep, and if you believe the witness then you should be able to show how it's possible.

No, that is an absurd requirement, a diversion/denial technique.

Or are you saying that you believe anything that people claim to see without confirmation?

You are in denial so you can't figure this one out. You take each statement separately and think up a reason to deny it rather than look at them together and realize that they support each other. If there is only one witness saying something, you have to take it with a grain of salt but if there are numerous credible witnesses then you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Stupid questions that try to avoid the point by asking for speculation deleted.

 

[Christopher7]

52 pages people. Its not 2006. Its 2009. C7 has been repeating the same lies since 2006

PLEASE just ignore this obvious troll.

Hi Arus, how the hell are ya? So glad you stopped by to call me a liar. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[funk de fino]

I said "if" the top section moved to the side a little.

Oh really?

Wrong if the top section tilted and the columns were broken then they were not. The columns did not hit square on.

In that scenario, as many as half the exterior columns would be outside the perimeter and the weight they were carrying would not be applied to the floor below.

Incorrect, see my drawing. I never brought up a horizontal movement, that was you.

According to NIST the core columns buckled. If the top section came straight down, all the weight on the core columns would be applied to the core columns below[or next to them]. If the top section tipped or buckled to the side, most of the weight would still be on[or next to] the core columns below. It is not possible for all or even most of the weight on the core columns to be applied to the floor outside the core as is required in the NIST hypothesis.

We have aleady been talking about the top section tipping. Once it tipped enough columns would have snapped. Then the top section falls down, the columns are not nitting each other square on. You seem to be subtely changing your tune here. If the core columns did not break then how could a lot of them still be standing in the videos after the collapse front has passed?

Not straight on but in order for the columns on one side to impact the floor below inside the perimeter, the other side would have to be on the perimeter columns or outside the perimeter. There is no scenario in which the core or perimeter columns could apply most, much less all, of their weight to the floor below as is required in the NIST hypothesis.

See my drawing, did you not do maths at school? Have you ever tipped a piece of wood to one side to fit through a gap that is too small?

 

[Christopher7]

I never brought up a horizontal movement, that was you.

Correct

We have aleady been talking about the top section tipping. Once it tipped enough columns would have snapped. Then the top section falls down, the columns are not nitting each other square on.

Correct. They are hitting each other on an angle but they are not hitting the floor.

You seem to be subtely changing your tune here. If the core columns did not break then how could a lot of them still be standing in the videos after the collapse front has passed?

I was referring to the beginning of the collapse.

See my drawing, did you not do maths at school?

Algebra and geometry in high school and college. I also took drafting in college. I can draw and read plans.

Have you ever tipped a piece of wood to one side to fit through a gap that is too small?

The top section was a box, not a single piece that could be turned sideways. There's physically no way to get the top section to apply most of its weight to the intact floor below.

You are not accounting for the core columns which will apply most of their weight inside the core. The top sections of both towers were only tilting a few degrees when the collapses began. Almost all the weight carried by the core columns above was applied to the core area below.

ETA
The NIST FAQ hypothesis says the entire weight of the top section was suddenly applied the the first intact floor below and caused the floor connections to fail.
"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

That is NOT what happened because it is physically impossible for that to happen.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct

So yet again you made a false claim.

Correct. They are hitting each other on an angle but they are not hitting the floor.

Wrong. The perimeter columns on the side the tower tipped towards, would not have hit the columns below. Simple geometry

I was referring to the beginning of the collapse.

The collapse initiation?

Algebra and geometry in high school and college. I also took drafting in college. I can draw and read plans.

Look at my picture of the towers again then. The columns on the top section on the right are not directly above the columns on the piece below. It is impossible for this to be true in that drawing. If you knew geometry you would not have claimed it.

The top section was a box, not a single piece that could be turned sideways. There's physically no way to get the top section to apply most of its weight to the intact floor below.

Did you just dodge that question again? How do you get it through the hole?

You are not accounting for the core columns which will apply most of their weight inside the core. The top sections of both towers were only tilting a few degrees when the collapses began. Almost all the weight carried by the core columns above was applied to the core area below.

No, in a tipping scenario the columns break and do not carry anything.

ETA
The NIST FAQ hypothesis says the entire weight of the top section was suddenly applied the the first intact floor below and caused the floor connections to fail.
"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

That is NOT what happened because it is physically impossible for that to happen.

No, it is not. Repeat it all you like but you are incorrect. You have made a complete fool of yourself by claiming only the weight of one floor hit the first intact floor below. And you also made stupid claims about weight outside the perimeter. If the floor connections did not break then why was there huge portions of the core still standing after collapse had progressed almost to the bottom.

How much dynamic load could one floor handle?

 

[Christopher7]

So yet again you made a false claim.

No.
What part of "if" don't you understand?

Correct. They are hitting each other on an angle but they are not hitting the floor.

Wrong. The perimeter columns on the side the tower tipped towards, would not have hit the columns below. Simple geometry

The columns on the tilt side are outside the perimeter. Their weight, if not applied to the columns below, would be applied outside the building. The columns on the 2 sides would be applying their weight in line with the exterior wall. The columns on the high side would be applying their weight to the floor.

There is no scenario where all the weight of the top section can be applied to the intact floor below.

The NIST FAQ hypothesis is impossible.

 

[funk de fino]

No.
What part of "if" don't you understand?

The part where you do not type it in this post

In that scenario, as many as half the exterior columns would be outside the perimeter and the weight they were carrying would not be applied to the floor below.

You're gonna have to show me where it is in that post.

The columns on the tilt side are outside the perimeter. Their weight, if not applied to the columns below, would be applied outside the building. The columns on the 2 sides would be applying their weight in line with the exterior wall. The columns on the high side would be applying their weight to the floor.

I thought you knew geometry? You have just proved you do not. There is no horizontal movement. Its a arc/pendulum movement. The tipping of the top section pulls the columns that are dropping inside the tower it does not move them outside. Please look at the picture I gave you and show me where the columns are outside. The bottom of the columns are inside the perimeter of the tower.

And how can weight be outside the perimeter, that is a ridiculous statement. the top section is one structure, whatever it hits, bears the brunt of all the load. In this case it was the floor below and the floor gave way.

What was the dynamic load limit for that floor C7?

There is no scenario where all the weight of the top section can be applied to the intact floor below.

The NIST FAQ hypothesis is impossible.

Except we see it all on the many videos.

 

[Disbelief]

Your absurd contention that only someone with a metallurgy degree can recognize molten steel ignores the fact that when someone sees partially melted steel beams and pools of molten metal it's bloody obvious that the molten metal is steel. Several witnesses said they saw beams dripping molten steel. Abolhassan Astansh saw melted girders. We don't know exactly what Richard Riggs saw but his statement is perfectly clear. You refuse to accept that and grope around for reasons to deny it. Your denial is also perfectly clear.

So, you can not prove he would know that the molten metal was actually steel. Any luck on proving the red paint chips were nano thermite? Any luck on proving thermite can cut horizontally? Any luck on proving any of the molten metal was steel? No, the only thing you have proven is that you are the one looking at this with a political perspective and not scientifically.

 

[Sunstealer]

52 pages people. Its not 2006. Its 2009. C7 has been repeating the same lies since 2006

PLEASE just ignore this obvious troll.

Yep, he's gone onto my ignore list - there's no point in even trying to put across a point he doesn't understand or blatantly ignores. 52 pages is enough for any lurker to read.

 

[GStan]

52 pages people. Its not 2006. Its 2009. C7 has been repeating the same lies since 2006

PLEASE just ignore this obvious troll.

It makes me sad to think that instead of spending the past two and a half years posting here, displaying an irrefutable ignorance of structural engineering and physics, that time could have been spent getting a degree in engineering or physics.

 

[lapman]

Wrong!
The molten metal was 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F to begin with, insulation and burning debris in the pile slowed the cooling.

Please provide proof that thermite would remain at 4500°F long enough to heat the thick metal columns to the same temperature.

 

[Christopher7]

I thought you knew geometry? You have just proved you do not.

Quite the contrary. You have again demonstrated that you don't understand the geometry of the drawing you posted.

There is no horizontal movement.

Actually, when the top section tilts, the top of the building is moving horizontally and the columns above the break on the tilt side are then outside the perimeter.

Its a arc/pendulum movement. The tipping of the top section pulls the columns that are dropping inside the tower it does not move them outside.

The broken end of the columns may protrude inside the building but the weight on those columns is outside the building and would be applied to the exterior columns as well as the floor.

Please look at the picture I gave you and show me where the columns are outside.

Draw a line straight up from the exterior columns on the tilt side. The exterior wall above the break is outside the building perimeter.

The The bottom of the columns are inside the perimeter of the tower.

But the weight on those columns is outside the building. The exterior columns could support 20 times their designated load and would bend or break the broken ends of the columns protruding into the building. Some of the weight might be applied to the floor but not all of it.

Furthermore, most of the weight of the core columns would be applied to the core area and the weight of the side exterior wall columns would be walls would be applied to the exterior walls below the break.

The NIST hypothesis says ALL the weight was applied to the floors suddenly. That did not happen.

"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

 

[Christopher7]

So, you can not prove he would know that the molten metal was actually steel.

That is not necessary. Either you believe he knows what he is talking about or you don't.

Mark Loizeaux was confident the contractors he had worked with knew what they were talking about. He reiterated that there was molten steel and said there were photos and videos of the molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind that there was molten steel.

There was no doubt in Abolhassan Astaneh's mind when he said "[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

A reasonable person would accept the statements of the numerous credible witnesses.

You cannot accept what these the witnesses say because you are in denial.

 

[stateofgrace]

The steel was still molten after six weeks if you believe the witness.
If you don't believe the witness then your question is rhetorical.

Really?

So how did molten steel produced on Sept 11th remain molten for six weeks ?

 

[Mercutio]

A reasonable person would accept the statements of the numerous credible witnesses.

Oh, but we do. One wonders, though, why you feel the need to lie through the words of credible witnesses. Do you really have that little respect for them? What did they ever do to you?

 

[Wolrab]

There was no doubt in Abolhassan Astaneh's mind when he said "[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

Have you received a reply from him yet clarifying his statement?

 

[Christopher7]

Have you received a reply from him yet clarifying his statement?

He could not have been more clear.

You cannot accept that because you are in denial.

 

[Christopher7]

A reasonable person would accept the statements of the numerous credible witnesses.

Oh, but we do.

Speak for yourself. No one here has yet said they believe the numerous credible witnesses who said there was molten steel at the WTC.



Asinine accusation deleted.

ETA: stateofgrace Asked and answered several times.
That is rhetorical question and a diversion/denial tactic.

 

[stateofgrace]

Speak for yourself. No one here has yet said they believe the numerous credible witnesses who said there was molten steel at the WTC.



Asinine accusation deleted.

ETA: stateofgrace Asked and answered several times.
That is rhetorical question and a diversion/denial tactic.

Chris, avoiding the question is not answering the question. Maybe you could actually answer the question.

How does molten steel that was produced on Sept 11th remain molten for six weeks?

Ps, Why was molten metal also reported under WTC 6? Another question you avoid.