Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Explosions are off topic. (Thermite does not explode anyway.)

This thread is about tons of imaginary liquid steel and the lack of evidence thereof.

I was responding to funk's assertion that NIST had tested for explosives. Part of that answer was the unbearably lame excuse NIST gave for not testing for explosives.

There is evidence that both thermite and explosives were used.

 

[Christopher7]

That's not an answer. Do you know of anything other than thermite which could have melted steel in the WTC debris piles?

I know the answer may seem obvious, but there's a point here.

Dave

The steel was probably not melted in the debris piles. It was probably melted in the process of the collapse.

 

[GStan]

I was responding to funk's assertion that NIST had tested for explosives. Part of that answer was the unbearably lame excuse NIST gave for not testing for explosives.

There is evidence that both thermite and explosives were used.

Of course there is. It's a wonder they still had enough room to have human occupants in the towers alongside all the explosives and incendiaries that were brought in.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The steel was probably not melted in the debris piles. It was probably melted in the process of the collapse.

I give up. There is no point arguing with someone so devious and evasive, and so apparently incapable of understanding a simple line of reasoning. Chris, keep on believing anything you want to, and the sane members of the human race will keep on finding you mildly amusing for believing it.

Dave

 

[GStan]

The steel was probably not melted in the debris piles. It was probably melted in the process of the collapse.

Or the melted metal wasn't steel.

 

[Christopher7]

What is missing is the SOUND of EXPLOSIONS. There are no silent demolition explosions. None of the of thousands of people that were close to the towers report explosions loud enough and timed to be reports of man-made demolition.

Dude! Over 100 witnesses heard explosions.

Besides, explosions do nothing to support your claim of liquid steel in the pile.

Absolutely brilliant!
You guys are simply amazing.

 

[Christopher7]

I give up.
Dave

If you have a point to make, make it. Don't play games by asking the same question 6 different ways.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you have a point to make, make it. Don't play games by asking the same question 6 different ways.

I've made the point so many times that anyone with a shred of intelligence has already got it. As for asking the same question six different ways, what's the point? You still answer a different question.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Or the melted metal wasn't steel.

There were no concentrations of aluminum. Aluminum is silver in daylight. There were witnesses who would definitely know the difference. No one reported molten aluminum. Many reported molten steel. Many witnesses reported red hot molten metal.

It was NOT molten aluminum.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

 

[BigAl]

Dude! Over 100 witnesses heard explosions.

Nobody heard explosions immediately *before* a building collapse. That's how demolition works.

Nobody

Nobody heard an explosion that was loud enough to be a man-made demolition. The 1993 bombing, not large enough to do immediate structural damage to a tower, was 6 floors below ground level and yet it was heard for blocks around.

Nobody heard any such explosion on 9/11. We know this now, because something like the 1993 bombing would have been recorded on the sound track on every video camera in use, no matter where it was pointed. There were lots of video cameras at WTC on 9/11.

In any case, explosions don't make a case for liquid steel on the pile and until we can examine samples of ex-liquid steel we can't say how it melted and how long it stayed melted.

 

[Disbelief]

There were no concentrations of aluminum. Aluminum is silver in daylight. There were witnesses who would definitely know the difference. No one reported molten aluminum. Many reported molten steel. Many witnesses reported red hot molten metal.

It was NOT molten aluminum.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

When asked to provide proof of the bolded above, you failed. Care to prove it now?

 

[Christopher7]

I've made the point so many times that anyone with a shred of intelligence has already got it. As for asking the same question six different ways, what's the point? You still answer a different question.

Dave

That's because your questions contain assumptions. They're just a bunch of "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.


Stop playing games and just state your point.

 

[SteveAustin]

What is missing is the SOUND of EXPLOSIONS. There are no silent demolition explosions. None of the of thousands of people that were close to the towers report explosions loud enough and timed to be reports of man-made demolition.

.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/012267.pdf

That's www before the .prod If the mods allow that link through for someone without enough posts yet great, otherwise simply do a google search for "SAND2001-2267" which is the report number

SANDIA REPORT
SAND2001-2267

Demolition Noise Abatement
Technique Demonstration

Dated August 2001 (Experiements conducted in 2000).

"Public concern regarding the effects of noise generated by the detonation of excess and obsolete explosive munitions at U.S. Army demolition ranges is a continuing
issue for the Army's demilitarization and disposal groups. Recent concerns of citizens living near the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) in Oklahoma have lead the U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center
(DAC) to conduct a demonstration and evaluation of noise abatement techniques
that could be applied to the MCAAP demolition range.

With the support of the DAC, MCAAP, and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL),
three types of noise abatement techniques were applied: aqueous foams, overburden
(using combinations of sand beds and dirt coverings), and rubber or steel blast
mats.

Eight test configurations were studied and twenty-four experiments were conducted
on the MCAAP demolition range in July of 2000. Instrumentation and data acquisition systems were fielded for the collection of near-field blast pressures, far-field acoustic pressures, plant boundary seismic signals, and demolition range meteorological conditions. The resulting data has been analyzed and reported, and a ranking of each technique?s effects has been provided to the DAC."

Conclusion

"Note that the 'standard' practice provides an almost two-thirds reduction in
peak acoustic pressure.
...
A comparison of the alternative noise abatement techniques and the uncovered TNT data is provided in Figure 34. This figure shows a ranking of average acoustic peak pressures of the alternative
techniques viewed relative to the standard. While the combination blast mat configuration showed favorable acoustic pressure reductions, they were destroyed in one shot and therefore would be a disposable item." (Blast Mats cost $5K)

Therefore we can see while an unexposed explosion could be a (literally) ear splitting 140db - standard industry practise would be expected to reduce noise by two-thirds. And the US had also conducted tests on blast mats in 2000 and reported this information in August 2001, saying that $5000 blast mats "showed favorable acoustic pressure reductions". Therefore, if there was a determined attempt to perform and disguise a Controlled Demolition on WTC buildings then noise levels could be reduced to the levels which were reported on the day.

It is also standard practise to produce a noise abatement report for any controlled demolition in an urban environment.

So please everyone stop trying to argue no explosives because no one heard any explosives (which also ignores everyone who actually did hear them)

 

[Christopher7]

When asked to provide proof of the bolded above, you failed. Care to prove it now?

You know the list. I'm not going to argue the point.

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight. If you think all the witness saw molten aluminum there's nothing I could say to change your mind.

 

[twinstead]

Ah, so in addition to rigging BOTH of the towers for demolition without being noticed, those clever culprits also installed blast mats to muffle the sound.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Stop playing games and just state your point.

I've made the point enough times. This, I hope, will be the last; I can't see the point of keeping on trying.

When you say, "only thermite could have melted the steel", you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know everything, so the only statement you can honestly make is "I don't know of anything other than thermite that could have melted the steel." To conclude from this statement that thermite melted the steel is a logical fallacy.

When you say, "I don't know what kept the steel molten", you're conceding that there was a heat source in the rubble pile, and that you don't know what it was. When you go on to say that this unknown heat source couldn't have melted steel, you're simply making uninformed speculation.

When a group of people say "There was molten steel in the rubble pile," in the absence of metallurgical analysis we can only conclude that they saw things in the rubble pile that they thought were molten steel. Eyewitness reports can be mistaken.

Your supposed proof is therefore part ignorance, part speculation and part anecdote. None of that is proof of anything. Everyone can see that except a few who choose not to see anything that they don't want to see.

There was never anything else but that to be said in this thread. It's a tribute to your trolling abilities that it's lasted this long, and will no doubt last a lot longer.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

You know the list. I'm not going to argue the point.

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight. If you think all the witness saw molten aluminum there's nothing I could say to change your mind.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you have no idea if they would know or not, because you have no proof of it. You have not demonstrated in any fashion that the witnesses you tout could have in any conceivable way known the difference between types of molten metal.

 

[stateofgrace]

Ah, so in addition to rigging BOTH of the towers for demolition without being noticed, those clever culprits also installed blast mats to muffle the sound.

Looks that way, from the link provided.

The following blast mat configurations were investigated:
4.3.3.1 Rubber Blast Mats
The Rubber Blast Mats, ARMAG Model 35SB-12, weighed approximately 5200 lb, and were constructed of rubber tire sections woven with steel wire rope

Steel Blast Mats, ARMAG 5/8-inch Wire Rope models, weighed approximately 2600 lb, and

were constructed of woven steel wire rope recovered from elevator applications.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...12267.pdf+blast+mats&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

No problem to sneak these into the WTC totally unnoticed, no problem whatsoever.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ah, so in addition to rigging BOTH of the towers for demolition without being noticed, those clever culprits also installed blast mats to muffle the sound.

Hush-a-booms are massively powerful yet highly gentle and selective. I thought the NWO gave you the memo?

Golly it's as if witness fallibility witnesses and explosions in burning buildings are unheard of in their worlds... I'll have to agree with Dave on multiple levels, if their premise is that error, simile, metaphor, etc are non-existent and everything is taken literally then there's no convincing the likes of C7 and others. C7 is grossly uninformed on the topics he touts and he's unlikely to ever understand them.

 

[ravdin]

Ah, so in addition to rigging BOTH of the towers for demolition without being noticed, those clever culprits also installed blast mats to muffle the sound.

And then sending perfectly timed radio controlled planes into the buildings.

I never did get a straight answer on who pulled this off. I only know it wasn't the Bush administration- they were too incompetent to cover up the outing of a CIA agent or the improper firings of several US attorneys.

Whoever is responsible, I would like to know so I can declare my allegiance to them. They have amply demonstrated their prodigious abilities and their right to rule.