Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

All of which are second-hand and/or unconfirmed.

Unconfirmed is denial double talk. You can accept what the witnesses said or you can call them liars.

Some here have tried to say it could have been aluminum but I have pointed out that the aluminum cladding was spread out over a large area so there were no concentrations of aluminum.

Given that there is no physical evidence or theory that would explain how molten steel would exist on the pile,

You are using the fact that the physical evidence was destroyed to defend those who destroyed it.

second-hand eyewitness accounts are the weakest form of evidence. They don't prove anything.

Not by themselves but they support the witnesses who said they saw molten metal dripping from the ends of beams as they were pulled from the pile and the demolitions removal specialist who said there was molten steel at the WTC on a History Channel special.

 

[Christopher7]

Why do you believe Mark when he says the buildings were not CD's but you don't believe him when he says there was molten steel?

Because he was an eyewitness to the collapse of WTC7.

Wrong. Mark Loizeaux was NOT at the WTC on 9/11.

No one has ever asked him what he thinks the videos.
That's because he will have to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

Because he wasn't an eyewitness to molten steel on the pile.

He said there were photos and videos of molten steel. Do you think he is lying?

 

[funk de fino]

Unconfirmed is denial double talk. You can accept what the witnesses said or you can call them liars.

Fallacy

Some here have tried to say it could have been aluminum but I have pointed out that the aluminum cladding was spread out over a large area so there were no concentrations of aluminum.

So was the steel and there was plenty aluminium in the towers

You are using the fact that the physical evidence was destroyed to defend those who destroyed it.

After it was inspected by forensics experts and none of them have claimed to see molten steel

Not by themselves but they support the witnesses who said they saw molten metal dripping from the ends of beams as they were pulled from the pile and the demolitions removal specialist who said there was molten steel at the WTC on a History Channel special.

Could have been molten alumium dripping off steel columns. Demolitions experts are not experts in molten steel.

 

[funk de fino]

No one has ever asked him what he thinks the videos.
That's because he will have to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

He said that it could not ever have been demolition at WTC7. Only in hollywood and he thinks you lot are nuts. Do you accept his experience in this case?

 

[Christopher7]

Unconfirmed is denial double talk. You can accept what the witnesses said or you can call them liars.

Fallacy

Hogwash
Either you believe them or not. Which is it?

there was plenty aluminium in the towers

Where? What for?

After it was inspected by forensics experts and none of them have claimed to see molten steel

The forensics tests were for DNA, not explosives or thermite. Abolhassan Astaneh said there were melted girders.

Could have been molten alumium dripping off steel columns. Demolitions experts are not experts in molten steel.

You are grasping at straws.

 

[Christopher7]

He said that it could not ever have been demolition at WTC7. Only in hollywood and he thinks you lot are nuts. Do you accept his experience in this case?

No.

You sidestepped the fact that no one has asked him about the videos of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/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.

Your point?

 

[funk de fino]

Hogwash
Either you believe them or not. Which is it?

False choice fallacy I believe. I believe Loizeaux when he says he cannot personally confirm it and when he says CD is a joke.

Where? What for?

Are you trying to claim that there was no aluminium in the building? The very desk I sit at now is an aluminium alloy desk with a laminate top. Its not steel.

The steel was spread out also eh?

The forensics tests were for DNA, not explosives or thermite. Abolhassan Astaneh said there were melted girders.

You are grasping at straws.

The steel was forensically inspected at the sorting site and this was witnessed and verified and documented. No-one says they saw any molten steel.

Source that the steel was forensically examined for DNA at this time? Source to say it was not any other type of forensic examination. There were demo contractors examining the steel also and none of them mention any molten steel. As you have claimed, it is not difficult to know what it is. No molten steel or strange solidified blobs were reported from the inspection process. Only the beams mentioned by Al Astaneh.

 

[funk de fino]

No.

You sidestepped the fact that no one has asked him about the videos of WTC 7.

I have sidestepped nothing of the sort, you have made the claim I expect you to back it up that he has never been asked about the collapse video.

I watched the BBC WTC7 program where he quite clearly ridiculed people like you. He says it was not a CD in any of the buildings, do you agree with his expert assessment in this case.

If not, why not.

 

[beachnut]

[FONT=&quot]NIST FAQ August 30, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow,

[/FONT]

There was Aluminum in the pan; with organic stuff, but you could care less since you have delusions to keep up and can't afford to melt Al with organics. But then you have wasted 7 years making up delusions, I have built speakers and reviews engineering, flying, and more. Refuting 911Truth is a chance to review many subjects, and I really don't care if you are learning a thing; I am. Your delusion may never pass; how sad.

 

[GStan]

Unconfirmed is denial double talk. You can accept what the witnesses said or you can call them liars.

Can people ever make a mistake in your world? Not accepting the claim of an eyewitness is not equivalent to calling someone a liar.

 

[Disbelief]

Round and round we go...

 

[BigAl]

Wrong. Mark Loizeaux was NOT at the WTC on 9/11.

A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP; Which demolition expert was it that was present at WTC when WTC7 collapsed?

 

[Toke]

It must have been the head of the demolition team, the one saying "pull it" right?

 

[roundhead]

C7...have you seen this before:



http://www.mazzocchiwrecking.com/wtc.htm


From their own web page........................



"The physical challenge was the sheer magnitude of the project and its components. A beam 30 feet long and 8 feet wide weighed between 60 and 80 tons—steel so heavy it broke grapples and twisted booms. With ground temperatures reaching in excess of 1,200°F, steel beams were pulled out of the wreckage glowing red."

 

[Dave Rogers]

"The physical challenge was the sheer magnitude of the project and its components. A beam 30 feet long and 8 feet wide weighed between 60 and 80 tons—steel so heavy it broke grapples and twisted booms. With ground temperatures reaching in excess of 1,200°F, steel beams were pulled out of the wreckage glowing red."

Let's see if I can pre-empt Chris's reply:

[c7]
That is not evidence that there was no molten steel at the site!

Many qualified people said there was molten steel. Red hot steel is not molten and 1,200ºF is not hot enough to melt steel.

You are claiming Mark Loiseaux is a liar when he said there was molten steel at the site.

Thermite is the only possible explanation for the molten steel.

Are you denying that there was molten steel?
[/c7]

How did I do?

Dave

 

[johnny karate]

C7...have you seen this before:



http://www.mazzocchiwrecking.com/wtc.htm


From their own web page........................



"The physical challenge was the sheer magnitude of the project and its components. A beam 30 feet long and 8 feet wide weighed between 60 and 80 tons—steel so heavy it broke grapples and twisted booms. With ground temperatures reaching in excess of 1,200°F, steel beams were pulled out of the wreckage glowing red."

And yet no one from that company is on record claiming the towers came down in manner that contradicts the official version of events.

Do you think their silence on this issue is a result of cowardice, in the same way you have characterized the FDNY as cowards?

 

[Sunstealer]

Maybe some of the people from mazzocchiwrecking have photos and videos of the claimed liquid steel. Maybe it was one of their operators who was using his digger to scoop up liquid steel at the site.

C7 - why don't you contact them to find out, I'm sure they will be more than happy to talk to you. You could ask if scooping up liquid steel with a digger is part of company practice. Here's their contact page http://www.mazzocchiwrecking.com/company.htm#company_04

Denial tactic in 3....2....1...

 

[Toke]

Many qualified people said there was molten steel. Red hot steel is not molten and 1,200ºF is not hot enough to melt steel.

Nice, particulary these two sentences together.

 

[roundhead]

Let's see if I can pre-empt Chris's reply:

[c7]
That is not evidence that there was no molten steel at the site!

Many qualified people said there was molten steel. Red hot steel is not molten and 1,200ºF is not hot enough to melt steel.

You are claiming Mark Loiseaux is a liar when he said there was molten steel at the site.

Thermite is the only possible explanation for the molten steel.

Are you denying that there was molten steel?
[/c7]

How did I do?

Dave

Find me anywhere in the NIST report where temps exceeding 250C were noted.

Since you wont find any such mention, 1200F is way, way, way hotter than anything NIST noted.

How do you account for such a discrepancy???

And with reports like this in the public domain, how do you account for NIST not being extremely interested in them(were they honest they certainly would have been).But we know they were not honest.

In short, there is a mountain of evidence which in no uncertain terms proves something other than hydrocarbon fire was at work in the towers, and NIST went to unreal lengths to ignore such evidence.