Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Fires in a debris pile cannot heat any metal to orange hot, much less yellow hot.
Click to expand...
So if the fires couldn't cause this heat then how did the liquid steel remain liquid for 6 weeks?

You previously said:

Christopher7 said:
What kept the molten steel molten is debateable.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4527244&postcount=1988

So lets debate it.

If fires weren't hot enough what could possibly be the cause? You have to answer this, because if there was no source that could do it, then the logical conclusion is that no liquid steel could possibly remain after 6 weeks.
 
Christopher7 said:
The melting point of copper is 1083 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. This is hotter than a well ventilated fire [1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C*].
Click to expand...
We've gone over this several times. Most things you call metal are actually alloys. Pure copper has a solidus of 1066°C and a liquidus of 1083°C.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&oi=book_result&resnum=24&ct=result#PPA172,M1

Now C7 - what does an impurity do to the temperature at which a metal melts? That's right, you remembered some chemistry that you were taught at the age of 13 (you did do chemistry didn't you?) and know that it lowers the melting point.

So if you care to look at the tables 1-3 supplied above, you will note that alloys containing mostly copper have a liquidus (that's when the material is completely liquid) below 1000°C (and solidus far below 1000°C).

Alloys melt at a lower temperature than the pure element (that has the higher melting point of the two - as seen in any binary phase diagram).

Aluminium (alloys) aren'tn't just used for the cladding, but there will be large quantities in the building including that of the aircraft.

One of the dozens of problems you have is you don't know how much liquid steel these people claim was present - could have been a teaspoon full, could have been hundreds of tons so which is it?
 
Sunstealer said:
So if the fires couldn't cause this heat then how did the liquid steel remain liquid for 6 weeks?

You previously said:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4527244&postcount=1988

So lets debate it.

If fires weren't hot enough what could possibly be the cause? You have to answer this, because if there was no source that could do it, then the logical conclusion is that no liquid steel could possibly remain after 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

umm no...

Try again
 
That's because you can't give an answer.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
Click to expand...
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Yep - I see HI is behaving exactly as we would expect - haha, it's so funny.

It shows exactly why anyone claiming liquid steel was present 6 weeks later is wrong and it blows the whole molten metal/thermite nonsense out of the water.
 
Give it up Sunstealer I have yet, after many proddings, to get a Truther to divulge what is so relevant about the presence of liquid metals at Ground Zero.
 
Sunstealer said:
So if the fires couldn't cause this heat then how did the liquid steel remain liquid for 6 weeks?

You previously said:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4527244&postcount=1988

So lets debate it.
Click to expand...
You seek to avoid the statements by numerous credible witnesses that establish the existence of molten steel by asking questions that require speculation. I offered a possible explanation a few pages back and the response was less than enthusiastic. You will reject any explanation so why do you ask? . . . . To avoid that which you cannot deny without looking stupid.

If fires weren't hot enough what could possibly be the cause? You have to answer this, because if there was no source that could do it, then the logical conclusion is that no liquid steel could possibly remain after 6 weeks.
Click to expand...
No.
That's a denial tactic. "I can't figure out how it happened so it did not happen."

This is an insult to the all the people who reported molten steel.
 
Sunstealer said:
We've gone over this several times. Most things you call metal are actually alloys. Pure copper has a solidus of 1066°C and a liquidus of 1083°C.
Click to expand...
Copper wire is not an alloy, it's pure copper. Your 'research' is disingenuous.

Copper It is a ductile metal with very high thermal and electrical conductivity. It is used as an electrical conductor,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper


Aluminium (alloys) aren'tn't just used for the cladding, but there will be large quantities in the building
Click to expand...
Really? What for? Where?
Aluminum is more expensive than steel and most metal things in a building are made of steel unless weight is a critical factor.

including that of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
130 tons mixed in with a million (?) tons of other stuff.

One of the dozens of problems you have is you don't know how much liquid steel these people claim was present - could have been a teaspoon full, could have been hundreds of tons so which is it?
Click to expand...
Mark Loizeaux said the buckets of the excavators were dipping out molten steel.
Each bucket load would be a ton[4 cu. ft.] or two. There were tons of molten steel. How many is anybodies guess.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The diagram assumes a static load if you bothered to read, which described the tower's pre-collapse condition, not the collapse progression once columns in the impact floors failed allowing for the downward acceleration of the upper section. The columns are still working as a system to support the overall load well below the collapse wave, but those immediately experiencing the impact loads are another story.
Click to expand...
This does not address the point which is:

It is physically impossible for all the weight of the top section to be applied to the intact floor below suddenly.
 
Christopher7 said:
This does not address the point which is:

It is physically impossible for all the weight of the top section to be applied to the intact floor below suddenly.
Click to expand...
Whatever... Keep drinking that kool-aid kid. I gave you the material to read, if you can't understand it, I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Whatever... Keep drinking that kool-aid kid. I gave you the material to read, if you can't understand it, I can't help you.
Click to expand...
I read the irrelevant material.

You cannot accept that the core columns were applying most if not all their weight to the core area and the NIST hypothesis says all the weight of the top section was applied to the floor outside the core area.

The NIST FAQ hypothesis is a joke and you refuse to see that. Either you are dumber than a brick or you are getting paid to deny anything that disproves the OCT.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Whatever... Keep drinking that kool-aid kid. I gave you the material to read, if you can't understand it, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

IMO, somebody in a tiny minority impotently whining on a relatively obscure internet forum almost 8 years after the event arguing with gusto people who actually know what they are talking about certainly can't be helped.
 
Christopher7 said:
The NIST FAQ hypothesis is a joke and you refuse to see that. Either you are dumber than a brick or you are getting paid to deny anything that disproves the OCT.
Click to expand...

This is a put up or shut up deal here. Get a respected scientific organization to NOT laugh at you. I dare you, because there is NOTHING on this Earth more pathetic than an irrational crackpot decaring that anybody who dares disagree with him is an idiot or a criminal.
 
Christopher7 said:
I read the irrelevant material.You cannot accept that the core columns were applying most if not all their weight to the core area and the NIST hypothesis says all the weight of the top section was applied to the floor outside the core area.
Click to expand...
Christopher, I can care less what a conspiracy theorist with no experience in the relevant field thinks of me. You've essentially negated structural failure altogether, I don't have the time to teach trolls at this level the material mark by mark.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
...

Mark Loizeaux said the buckets of the excavators were dipping out molten steel.
Each bucket load would be a ton[4 cu. ft.] or two. There were tons of molten steel. How many is anybodies guess.
Click to expand...

Mark is on record as not seeing melted steel.
"Mark Loizeaux, told me that he did NOT see any molten steel and wouldn’t be able to distinguish it from other molten metals in any case"
Click to expand...
Call Mark and ask him and stop telling lies.
 
funk de fino said:
Once one floor gave way then the rest could not stop it, as the mass became greater as each failed. Again this is seen in video. You seem to be saying that unless resistance was removed at every level then the building would have arrested collapse?

I note you dishonestly left this out.

Explanation

–noun
1. the act or process of explaining.
2. something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3. a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4. a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.

NIST gave an explanation for the collapse and you claimed they did not. Retract the claim or you are a liar.
Click to expand...

Yes! You are correct. The CTs keep ignoring that there have been at least two pancake collapses in the US prior to 9/11.
 
Travis said:
Give it up Sunstealer I have yet, after many proddings, to get a Truther to divulge what is so relevant about the presence of liquid metals at Ground Zero.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not taking it seriously - it takes me 5 minutes to post - I just love poking the crazy. I like to see the stundies they generate.
 
steel1200f.jpg


Taken minutes ago at 1200 degrees F; steel the red part, that the chart says 1800 degree; bad chart? The other stuff is organic stuff, just like seen by people who mistakenly said molten steel.

If I take this pan and drop the organics, it looks just like the false evidence spewed by 911Truth for melting steel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom