Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

So how can thermite keep liquid steel liquid for 5 months?

That was obviously a typo.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There are very credible eyewitnesses who saw molten steel [and it is absolutely inconceivable to me that witness are fallible when they make a statement with little other information available to them.]

That would sum it up actually since you rely on manipulating ambiguities in the witness statements to fragilely support thermite with a bare assertion

ETA: And this doesn't mean they're idiots or that they are lying. Mistakes are unintentional errors of fact, lying is the intentional error of fact with the intent to deceive. And they don't need to have an IQ below 72 to get something wrong. Contrary to your world things are not so black and white

 

[Christopher7]

You are making the claims - it is upto you to prove that what you claim the witnesses saw is actually possible.

DUDE, It is not up to me to prove every aspect. THERMITE MELTS STEEL

There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

Stop asking for the impossible. That's just a BS denial tactic.

 

[Christopher7]

That would sum it up actually since you rely on manipulating ambiguities in the witness statements to fragilely support thermite with a bare assertion

You are the one trying to manipulate. I'm taking what the numerous witnesses said at face value.

To support the witnesses there is the video of molten steel falling from WTC 2 and the glob of molten steel in the crab claw.

If you look at the body of mutually supporting evidence, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You like to read from Gravy's "reasons to deny witnesses" list and parrot what has been regurgitated by practically everyone on the thread.

ETA: Do you really think these firefighters were "mistaken"?

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK8zVbUw&feature=player_embedded
[/URL]​

 

[ravdin]

There are very credible eyewitnesses who saw molten steel but I don't expect you to believe them either. You are in denial and you won't believe any evidence of molten steel.

Have a nice day.

Yes, my denial must run deep in order for me to doubt your vague assertions or your inexpert opinions.

I understand how you feel though, and it's summed up nicely in the immortal words of Eric Cartman:

 

[lapman]

That's absurd for a lot of reasons but if it makes you feel good, go with it.

We have already been over that one so don't ask, go back and read.

And all I got was one big heap of denial from you. Still waiting for your evidence that thermite could have created the quantities reported months afterward. Yet you keep on running away. You asked for another possibility. I gave it. You then deny it without proof, again.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are the one trying to manipulate. I'm taking what the numerous witnesses said at face value.

But you take this a step further. You implicitly imply that not a single witness is capable of making an erroneous identification, you treat this as if it's an unheard of concept. And when I bring this up you explicitly accuse me of calling them either liars or idiots. You can take from my last response:

And this doesn't mean they're idiots or that they are lying. Mistakes are unintentional errors of fact, lying is the intentional error of fact with the intent to deceive. And they don't need to have an IQ below 72 to get something wrong. Contrary to your world things are not so black and white

The obfuscation between metal and steel shows that people aren't necessarily knowledgeable in a particular procedure. How many people knew the design of the towers for example? How many knew that the towers were clad in aluminum? It's perfectly reasonable if people call it steel even if wrongly. You completely exclude this from the realm of possibility. As if it is absolutely unheard of for people to make mistakes. This is like you people asserting that explosions = explosives. Since when is it absolutely unheard of for combustibles to explode!? When the hell did this become part of rational logic!? This is a fundamental problem in your contention. And you don't really care...

To support the witnesses there is the video of molten steel falling from WTC 2 and the glob of molten steel in the crab claw.

To be honest I find myself disagreeing with what NIST has to say about this feature. If the location was a power supply room full of batteries then I think it's a stream of sparks from the power flow, or something coming from the plane that was lodged in that area, be it oxygen tanks or what have you. I honestly couldn't tell you what I think it was, but either of my impressions or NIST's contention is more likely than thermite. The impact of the plane into the building kind of reinforces this contention. If I supposed it were thermite and it was somehow ignited it's certainly not working on the columns. And this certainly was not a feature of the north tower.

As for the object in the grab claw... you defined molten as a liquid. If that material is indeed steel then certainly it's plasticized, but by no means liquefied. Which by itself renders your color scale contentions moot in the context of the photo.

If you look at the body of mutually supporting evidence, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem C7 is that none of it is. Thermite comes out of absolutely nowhere. Unlike you I don't define my criteria for structural failures on whether a first time takes place in the manifestation of its severity. If you honestly want to argue that a building cannot collapse due to factors which are known to weaken structural elements for a first time, then you'll need to concede that the first time use of thermite in a super complicated demoltion cover up is also impossible. This is how stupid and hypocritical your use of the first time line of reasoning is.

You like to read from Gravy's "reason to deny witnesses" list and parrot what has been regurgitated by practically everyone on the thread.

Sorry, I don't need Gravy's work to determine that you've made uninformed opinions on fields which you have no qualifications -- let alone any study -- in. I applaud Gravy's work because he makes valid points and he isn't too lazy like I am to set up his own site to catalog what he has studied, but I don't explicitly rely on his work having my own experience. Once again, if you don't like my qualifications then criticize the University I do my studies at, don't assign scapegoats. It's an embarrassment to yourself

 

[Christopher7]

But you take this a step further. You implicitly imply that not a single witness is capable of making an erroneous identification,

Please That is NOT what I said or implied!
Did you read this?

If you look at the body of mutually supporting evidence, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And this doesn't mean they're idiots or that they are lying. Mistakes are unintentional errors of fact,

Get serious. You are saying all the people who said they saw molten steel/metal were mistaken.

The obfuscation between metal and steel shows that people aren't necessarily knowledgeable in a particular procedure.

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight.

To be honest I find myself disagreeing with what NIST has to say about this feature. If the location was a power supply room full of batteries then I think it's a stream of sparks from the power flow, or something coming from the plane that was lodged in that area, be it oxygen tanks or what have you. I honestly couldn't tell you what I think it was,

There is no evidence to support the contention that the falling molten metal was lead. If there was, NIST would have tried that instead of aluminum. What ever it was, it was much hotter than office fires can attain, much less maintain long enough to heat tons of metal to well over 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

but either of my impressions or NIST's contention is more likely than thermite.

No they are not. You are talking thru your hat.

If I supposed it were thermite and it was somehow ignited it's certainly not working on the columns. And this certainly was not a feature of the north tower.

So what? That does not change the fact that there was molten metal in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range falling from WTC 2.

As for the object in the grab claw... you defined molten as a liquid.

Good grief Griz, can't you get anything right? I said the glob in the crab claw was semi-solid.

How can anyone take you seriously when you obviously have a severe reading comprehention problem?

If that material is indeed steel then certainly it's plasticized, but by no means liquefied. Which by itself renders your color scale contentions moot in the context of the photo.

My god, you have a vision problem too.
The molten steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is off the chart. About 1500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C

If you honestly want to argue that a building cannot collapse due to factors which are known to weaken structural elements for a first time, then you'll need to concede that the first time use of thermite in a super complicated demotion cover up is also impossible.

That does not make any sense.

Sorry, I don't need Gravy's work to determine that you've made uninformed opinions on fields which you have no qualifications

I am qualified to read the witness statements an understand what I have read. Just because this is a problem for does not mean that it is a problem for everybody eise.

Once again, if you don't like my qualifications then criticize the University I do my studies at

Dude, you are an anonymous poster on a very biased forum.


Do you really think these firefighters were "mistaken"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK...layer_embedded

 

[George 152]

There are very credible eyewitnesses who saw molten steel but I don't expect you to believe them either. You are in denial and you won't believe any evidence of molten steel.

Have a nice day.

The thermite claim didn't come up until a defrocked university lecturer made it.
This is the same person who was part oof the room temperature fusion claims.
There was no molten steel. There was no fuel source to melt the steel and there was no fuel to keep the steel molten for any period of time.

 

[TokenMac]

I have said that thermite melts steel.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile.

Name another possibility or stop denying that thermite created the molten steel.

I have said that torches melts steel.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile.



I have said that a furnace melts steel.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile.



I have said that God melts steel.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile.


With that type of logic I could prove anything, all I need to do is say what one thing can do, then claim it's the only thing that can do it.

P.S.
Before you respond to this with a nice huge Size 7 "Thermite melts steel" just know I don't think there was melted steel, melted metals but not steel.

 

[Christopher7]

just know I don't think there was melted "steel", melted metals but not steel.

If not steel, then what?

Why don't you think it's steel?

 

[Mercutio]

There are very credible eyewitnesses who saw molten steel but I don't expect you to believe them either. You are in denial and you won't believe any evidence of molten steel.

Have a nice day.

Oh, Christopher. You were so close. All you needed to say, to be telling the truth, was that there were very credible eyewitnesses who claimed they saw molten steel. That one tiny difference. (Yes, others said they saw molten metal, which you are conflating with steel when it suits your fancy, but we will let that lie alone for now.)

Your witnesses' claims are taken seriously. They cannot--as any eyewitness claims cannot--be taken as fact without additional evidence. People have been convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony, and later freed when DNA evidence exonerated them. Your logic, of course, would tell us that the DNA evidence was wrong because it disagreed with the eyewitness.

It is true that one or more witnesses said, once, years ago, that they saw molten steel. If you believe your witnesses, you would have asked them to verify these statements. If you believe your witnesses, you would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you believe your witnesses, you could draw this thread to a close in glorious fashion. If you... ah, but you do not. You don't believe that they would support you, so you are forced to lie using their words from years ago. You don't believe they would support you, so you hide behind their hard work on the pile and whine that we are denying their testimony. You disrespect their work every time you take their words and put them in your context. You insult them every time you falsely claim their words fit your ludicrous theory. Every time you lie, Christopher7, you smear dirt on your alleged eyewitnesses.

Stop disrespecting them, C7.

Stop lying.

 

[Christopher7]

you are forced to lie using their words from years ago.

Mercutio, They said they saw molten steel/metal years ago because it happened years ago. What makes you think they have changed their minds?

Why don't you believe them?
If you don't believe them, what's the point in contacting them? You will just think of another reason to deny.
Your response will be:
You are lying!

You don't believe they would support you

Actually, I support them, you don't.

You disrespect their work every time you take their words and put them in your context.

You disrespect them every time you say they are mistaken.

You insult them every time you falsely claim their words fit your ludicrous theory.

You are insulting them by doubting their word.

Every time you lie, Christopher7, you smear dirt on your alleged eyewitnesses.

I am quoting them. That is not lying. You are saying the are all wrong. That is disrespectful and insulting.

Stop disrespecting them Mercutio.

Stop denying.

 

[tsig]

Please That is NOT what I said or implied!
Did you read this?

If you look at the body of mutually supporting evidence, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Get serious. You are saying all the people who said they saw molten steel/metal were mistaken.

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight.

There is no evidence to support the contention that the falling molten metal was lead. If there was, NIST would have tried that instead of aluminum. What ever it was, it was much hotter than office fires can attain, much less maintain long enough to heat tons of metal to well over 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

No they are not. You are talking thru your hat.

So what? That does not change the fact that there was molten metal in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range falling from WTC 2.

Good grief Griz, can't you get anything right? I said the glob in the crab claw was semi-solid.

How can anyone take you seriously when you obviously have a severe reading comprehention problem?

My god, you have a vision problem too.
The molten steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is off the chart. About 1500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

That does not make any sense.

I am qualified to read the witness statements an understand what I have read. Just because this is a problem for does not mean that it is a problem for everybody eise.

Dude, you are an anonymous poster on a very biased forum.


Do you really think these firefighters were "mistaken"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK...layer_embedded

Can you tell me where you got the claw picture?

 

[Baylor]

You are saying the are all wrong.

Is English your first language?

That is disrespectful and insulting.

Stop disrespecting them Mercutio.

Stop denying.

No one's denying. We're saying take my word for it does not cut it in science. You agree.

Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

 

[GStan]

DUDE, It is not up to me to prove every aspect. THERMITE MELTS STEEL

There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

Stop asking for the impossible. That's just a BS denial tactic.

Thermite melts steel. Great. You spent 77 pages shouting something we all already knew. You have failed to show sufficient cause to believe that their was liquid steel at GZ. You have failed to present any explanation of the collapse or rubble pile conditions that require the presence of thermite.

Thermite melts steel. Got it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Please That is NOT what I said or implied!

But you seem to throw hissy fit every time I ask if you've considered this... why?

Did you read this?

I did... that quote didn't say much about your interpretation of witness statements. In fact you've not once acknowledged that there was any potential for witnesses to have misidentified anything.

Get serious. You are saying all the people who said they saw molten steel were mistaken.

In most cases yes... The building was steel construction but it was far from the only metal present there. If a person were not actively aware that the facade for example was aluminum then I can easily see people misidentifying it. Others may well have been looking at steel but this gets back again to the terminology; some encyclopedias describe the trade centers' structural members "melting" because of the fire, or the oil platform example I gave you several days ago where they use the term "melting" to describe the state of the steel framing after fire weakened it. Steel becomes akin to a limp noodle when it's exposed to sufficient heat: http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/images/G3a.jpg

And get this: "Steel beams have melted and collapsed over charred timber beam, which, despite heavy damage, remains in place."

Source

So yes they could have been mistaken, in the context of what you're ascribing the term "Molten/melted" to. And no... just because they describe something as melted does not mean explicitly that they are literally calling it "melted." As my examples point out.

Get serious. You are saying all the people who said they saw molten metal were mistaken.

You will also notice I separated this into two unique quotes. If you put it in this context absolutely not. The debris pile was sufficiently hot enough to melt other metals with lower melting points, but not enough to fully liquefy steel. Hot enough to make the steel sag, twist, turn into limp noodles (my favorite term BTW), maybe... hot enough to allow the steel to emit red on the color spectrum... yeah... hot enough to literally melt it.... erm no... no evidence for those sorts of temperatures and no reason to suspect it.

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight.

I speculated oxygen canisters and an electric arc... I could be wrong about either ultimately but I'm rather curious where you got aluminum from that particular quote. I'm open to a range of things here but thermite ain't among them.

There is no evidence to support the contention that the falling molten metal was lead. If there was, NIST would have tried that instead of aluminum.

See above but replace aluminum with lead

What ever it was, it was much hotter than office fires can attain, much less maintain long enough to heat tons of metal to well over 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

"Whatever it was" it was in middle of cocktail of different fuel mixes and the area where a giant 767 plowed into the other side of the building. Not ideal if you're intending to to bring a building down with an aluminum/iron-oxide powder mix. Never observed in the north tower. At best it's extremely weak.

No they are not. You are talking thru your hat.

I pulled them from materials that were already there... Your thermite was on an overnight express trip from India.

Good grief Griz, can't you get anything right? I said the glob in the crab claw was semi-solid.

And according to that color chart that material should look more like this:

How can anyone take you seriously when you obviously have a severe reading comprehention problem?

I would be more worried about why that glob isn't completely viscous at the height of that temperature scale, particularly when you have it side by side with a claimed image of flowing molten metal dripping from the trade center. Are you sure that color scale is sufficient for comparison for a picture?

My god, you have a vision problem too.
The molten steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is off the chart. About 1500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

See above

That does not make any sense.

Allow me to reword it then:

No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire correct? Is there a reason why there cannot be a "first time" when the vulnerability of the materials the structures were made with are known explicitly, and demonstrated numerous times?

If we apply that the severity of the consequences of this case were a "first" and that as such it should not have happened, then what does this imply about a proposed "first time" application of thermite to a complicated cover up demolition?

I am qualified to read the witness statements an understand what I have read. Just because this is a problem for does not mean that it is a problem for everybody eise.

You've demonstrated a fine case of of misinterpreting them too. And you have demonstrated that much of the other material you've pushed -- especially in design [in my case] -- that you have no formal study in it. You don't need to be majoring in the field or a professional to have some familiarity with these, but actually studying it and obtaining relevant texts would be a nice start for you. I doubt you're inclined to do it though.

Dude, you are an anonymous poster on a very biased forum.

I'm only pointing out that if you're going to criticize my education then you're best off looking to the Universities I attended for my studies rather than assigning a scapegoat all because you assume too much about where people draw their conclusions. I can care less whether you in fact take my student status at face value or not... my position means nothing if the material I provide doesn't demonstrate that I know the material. Based on what I've studied you've yet to get much of anything right there...

Do you really think these firefighters were "mistaken"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK...layer_embedded

I don't have any option but to take their statements at face value. The volumes of witnesses you offered otherwise don't support that it was steel. Is the timing of the interview known?

 

[boloboffin]

Christopher7, how do you think bomb-sniffing dogs find bombs?

 

[GStan]

<snip>

Get serious. You are saying all the people who said they saw molten steel/metal were mistaken.

<snip>

Nope. Some of them were probably not qualified to judge what it was. Some of them said molten metal, not steel. Some of them probably said molten or melted to mean plastically deformed. Some probably saw liquid metal and called it steel, incorrectly. Some claims were made days or weeks after the collapse and others were made months later.

They were just describing what they thought they saw. If you want to try to claim these various statements as evidence of liquid steel, a claim which is inconsistent with all other evidence of day, your first step is to clarify the witnesses' statements.

We all know you won't; and this thread will end like all of your arguments end, with you refusing to do the investigative work to support your delusional claims.

 

[BigAl]

I have said that thermite melts steel.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile.

We haven't established that there was, in fact any steel that had ever been liquid on 9/11.