Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

It amazes me how no one here can grasp this simple concept. Combustibles smoldering in the debris pile will slow the cooling of the molten steel.

The reason that nobody bothers to grasp this concept is that it's irrelevant.

Let's try framing your argument in logical terms.
P1: Molten steel was observed weeks after the collapse.
P2: No process other than the thermite reaction is capable of producing molten steel.[in the 3 towers]
C1: Therefore, a thermite reaction was present prior to the collapse.

We are disputing P2, so you need a line of argument that supports it. At present your line of argument is:

P3: Thermite is capable of producing molten steel.
P4: I know of no other process capable of producing molten steel.
C2: Therefore, no process other than the thermite reaction is capable of producing molten steel.
C2 is automatically invalid,

Name another possibility.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite is the only known possible explanation for the molten metal.
That is not speculation. It is a statement of fact.

We all know where you got your "fact" from. I'd get a coloscopy, you must be all fact up.

What part of "thermite melts steel" don't you understand?
It is possible that thermite melted the steel.

State another possibility or stop badmouthing people who believe thermite melted the steel.

Misplaced Zippo's? Sun shining on tin-foil?

BV

I'll take that to mean you don't have a compelling alternative offering.

 

[Christopher7]

Even the 9/11 "heroes" as are not exempt from your slanderous insults.

That is a lie. I challenge you to find a post anywhere on this thread where your adversaries are defaming or otherwise insulting the Ground Zero workers.

Qualifier " on this thread" noted and ignored. I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by [FONT=&quot]Christopher7[/FONT]
Mike McCormack is a 9/11 hero, who is speaking out against Bush and Christie Todd Whitman for hiding the dangers of the toxic dust at ground zero.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5960554325625810328

Here's what Gravy had to say about him:
McCormack's got some good points about air quality at Ground Zero. Those are not secrets. Otherwise he's a kook, speaking at an event hosted by Les Jamieson and attended by other kooks. "Manchurian Candidates?" Dude, get a grip.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2636073#post2636073

 

[funk de fino]

Source?

You have aleady been given it. Stop being dishonest.

NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

I am not talking about NIST. I am talking about before NIST were involved. All the steel was inspected.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Page 2 para 1,2,3 and 4.

Page 8 Assertion 6.

Do not ignore it this time and do not blather on about NIST.

That does not mean there were none.

They would have been put to one side like the corroided beams that FEMA looked at then NIST looked at. Remember why they were put to one side? Why would they not do this with blobs of previously molten metal?

The ones we see are the ones that survived the purge.

See page 2 para 2 and 3 above. Did the govt go around taking everyones snaps and videos? Or did they ask? Your claim is an impossibility.

They didn't, just 6,900 photos and 6,882 video clips.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004VisualDataCollectionandAnalysis.pdf

That was all? Then why do they say they do not need more? You are accusing NIST of the cover up then? Who asked them to do this?

Have you asked for access to this material? What was the outcome?

You are ignoring the insanity of the necessity to go thru the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of these photos and videos.

They do not belong to you.

The photos and videos should be given back to the owners so they can release them if they want to.

How do you know they have not been? How do you know it was not just copies they had?

I note you missed this?

The jokers at Gages group could pay for this instead of the silly architects convention where they will be laughed at.

Well?

Well, there you have it. An anonymous poster on a rather biased forum says the military doesn't have state of the art thermite technology.

I never said that, but they did not at the time have better thermite technology than civilian companies. They would have it now if they did. And I can prove what I was and have done in the past. You have to infer I am a liar to avoid the point I made.

 

[funk de fino]

Qualifier " on this thread" noted and ignored. I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by [FONT=&quot]Christopher7[/FONT]
Mike McCormack is a 9/11 hero, who is speaking out against Bush and Christie Todd Whitman for hiding the dangers of the toxic dust at ground zero.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5960554325625810328

Here's what Gravy had to say about him:
McCormack's got some good points about air quality at Ground Zero. Those are not secrets. Otherwise he's a kook, speaking at an event hosted by Les Jamieson and attended by other kooks. "Manchurian Candidates?" Dude, get a grip.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2636073#post2636073

He is a liar, that is a fact, and is not insulting. It only an insult if its not true.

Why do you believe the "Major"?

You had to go to another thread and a post from 2007? Good effort.

I particularly like this post of yours from back then.

The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.

Thats it in a nutshell. Thats all you need. You hatred and bias blinds you to anything else.

 

[bonavada]

I'll take that to mean you don't have a compelling alternative offering.

We'll leave the speculation to you, Mr Uninformed. I'd defer to Mr Riggs anytime. An expert who was, you know, there, at the scene, on the spot, in the thick of it....rather than take the mere speculation of someone who, by his own definition, is hopelessly uninformed:-

The fire was burning from the bottom, because we had so many million of square feet of office space that are in those towers. what kind of combustibles are in a million square feet of office space? The paper, furniture, carpets.

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.

Your own "evidence" debunks you! Hilarious.


BV

 

[Dave Rogers]

Name another possibility.

I've already claimed that the process (unknown to you) by which the steel was kept hot (if it existed) was another possibility. Would you like to explain why this process, whatever it was, could not possibly have melted steel?

Dave

 

[bonavada]

any speculation on what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

​

BV

 

[twinstead]

I think what C7 means by "any speculation on what thermite can do is grossly uninformed" is "any speculation on what thermite can do by anyone but me is grossly uninformed".

 

[GStan]

<snip>

The evidence for the existence of molten steel is the video of tons of molten steel falling from WTC 2, a photo of a glob of molten steel in the crab claw and the witness statements.

For many people, this is sufficient evidence to establish that there was molten steel in the debris piles. For others it is not. That is to be expected, but the fanatic desire to discount the video, the photograph and witness statements is just an attempt to protect the government from being exposed as lying about the existence of molten steel.

It's one thing to say you don't necessarily believe all the witnesses. It is quite another to try to disprove it and berate anyone who does believe the witnesses.

73 pages and the sum total of the argument has still not progressed beyond "the witnesses said there was liquid steel, therefore there was liquid steel."

There was no liquid steel. The video from WTC2 is not showing liquid steel. The photo of the claw is not dripping liquid steel. The witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel were mistaken about what they saw. Yes this is all pure denial. Pure denial which is backed by thousands upon thousands of man-hours of verifiable scientific research on the subject. You have presented zero scientific evidence to support your claim. Will you be soon? Do you have any evidence beyond your layman's analysis and your unrelenting irrational desire for your layman's analysis to be true?

 

[Christopher7]

I've already claimed that the process (unknown to you) by which the steel was kept hot (if it existed) was another possibility. Would you like to explain why this process, whatever it was, could not possibly have melted steel?

Dave

What kind of double dribble is that?

What is this process that could have melted the steel?

 

[GStan]

What kind of double dribble is that?

What is this process that could have melted the steel?

That's cute. Asking Dave to do your homework for you.

By your claim of thermite and your acknowledgement that thermite could not possibly have maintained the necessary heat for the period of time in question, this mystery process in implicit in your claim. It is your job to identify and explain this process to make your claim even possible, let alone plausible.

Simply asserting that the rubble pile was an electric blanket that slowed down the cooling process is completely insufficient. You've done no analysis to support this assertion other than repeatedly typing the words "slowed down the cooling process." We are all anxiously awaiting your calculations.

 

[BigAl]

Source?
NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

That does not mean there were none.

The NY bomb squad had it's bomb sniffing dogs at WTC. They didn't find anything.

Source: Bomb Squad by Esposito & Gerstein

The ones we see are the ones that survived the purge.


They didn't, just 6,900 photos and 6,882 video clips.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004VisualDataCollectionandAnalysis.pdf

You are ignoring the insanity of the necessity to go thru the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of these photos and videos.

Anyone can look at those pictures. If someone from the "Truth Movement" hasn't done so after all these years, maybe the movement really isn't interested in a real investigation.

FOIA is easy. I'm about to do one to the CIA but I don't think it's necessary for a NIST file.

 

[Christopher7]

73 pages and the sum total of the argument has still not progressed beyond "the witnesses said there was liquid steel, therefore there was liquid steel."

There was no liquid steel. The video from WTC2 is not showing liquid steel.

There is no basis for the NIST assertion that it was molten aluminum. They admit that aluminum would be expected to appear silvery.
There is no precedent or scientific basis for their assertion that organic materials "very likely mixed" with molten aluminum and caused it to glow orange.
Furthermore, the falling molten metal was glowing yellow.

That leaves steel as the only scientifically feasible possibility.

Some here have suggested that it was lead but NIST did not suggest that possibility and they have all the data on the contents of the area in question.

The photo of the claw is not dripping liquid steel.

IYO

The witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel were mistaken about what they saw.

And there you have it folks. Straight from an anonymous poster at a rather biased forum.

Denial is such a beautifully simple thing. You just say all the witnesses were wrong and you know better.
Oh ya, and claim that the falling molten metal was aluminum despite the fact that there is no basis for that claim.

 

[BigAl]

My molten steel?

They would use water to cool the pile but not directly on molten or red hot steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY​

The only known possible explanation for the intense fires 6 weeks
later is that molten steel was keeping those fires fires going.

If you have another explanation state what it is, otherwise stop badmouthing people for believing there was molten steel.

For your "6 weeks" claim, fire can burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen,
No thermite is necessary to support a blazing fire. The gentleman speaking in the video is just describing a big trash fire.

In that video, neither "steel" nor "molten" nor steel-melting temperatures are mentioned. It isn't evidence for molten steel. It's just a big trash fire.

 

[GStan]

There is no basis for the NIST assertion that it was molten aluminum. They admit that aluminum would be expected to appear silvery.
There is no precedent or scientific basis for their assertion that organic materials "very likely mixed" with molten aluminum and caused it to glow orange.
Furthermore, the falling molten metal was glowing yellow.

That leaves steel as the only scientifically feasible possibility.

Some here have suggested that it was lead but NIST did not suggest that possibility and they have all the data on the contents of the area in question.

IYO

And there you have it folks. Straight from an anonymous poster at a rather biased forum.

Denial is such a beautifully simple thing. You just say all the witnesses were wrong and you know better.
Oh ya, and claim that the falling molten metal was aluminum despite the fact that there is no basis for that claim.

That entire post, as well as nearly your entire argument, is nothing but IYO.

And, I see you deliberately left out this part:

You have presented zero scientific evidence to support your claim. Will you be soon? Do you have any evidence beyond your layman's analysis and your unrelenting irrational desire for your layman's analysis to be true?

Still waiting. Whenever you're ready.

 

[Christopher7]

That's cute. Asking Dave to do your homework for you.

Dave asked my to disprove something but he didn't tell me what it was. That does make the task rather difficult dontchathink?

I'm asking Dave to say what he thinks melted the steel.

By your claim of thermite and your acknowledgement that thermite could not possibly have maintained the necessary heat for the period of time in question, this mystery process in implicit in your claim. It is your job to identify and explain this process to make your claim even possible, let alone plausible.

My claim?

Did I mention that numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel?

Simply asserting that the rubble pile was an electric blanket that slowed down the cooling process is completely insufficient. You've done no analysis to support this assertion other than repeatedly typing the words "slowed down the cooling process." We are all anxiously awaiting your calculations.

That would require data that is not available and you know that. Your question is rhetorical.

 

[twinstead]

That's why it's a bad idea to declare as an absolute fact something that is just ones opinion, C7, especially if you have no relative expertise; if you can't back it up with solid proof, people just laugh at you.

 

[GStan]

<snip>
You just say all the witnesses were wrong and you know better.
<snip>

Nope. Not all the witnesses. Just the ones that claim they saw liquid steel or liquid girders in the debris pile. The ones that you refuse to contact and ask them to clarify their statements or quantify the degree to which they were certain that what they were commenting about was actually steel/a girder. Just those. How many is that by the way? Out of the thousands of workers who worked in the debris pile, who may or may not have given testimony about what they saw, how many claim to have seen liquid steel? How many have you found? 2? 5? 10? Out of thousands?

Somehow you find it unreasonable to deny the accuracy of ten out-of-context quotes over thousands of other witnesses who saw no such thing? And you refuse to contact these people to ask them to clarify their statements? And it is not because I know better. It is because thousands of workers and hundreds of scientists who have spent thousands of hours researching this very topic have found those ten out-of-context quotes that you are desparately clinging to, to be inconsistent with the evidence. (As one might expect from a pool of thousands of eyewitnesses.)

Still waiting on your evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm asking Dave to say what he thinks melted the steel.

The same thing that kept it molten. And I'm asking you: How do you know that whatever kept the steel molten for five months didn't melt it in the first place?

Dave