Molten Steel

beachnut · Mar 31, 2009

Christopher7 said:
Correct, however, the thermite had burned up before the molten steel was uncovered.
...

Thermite disappeared into thin air after melting all the steel? What is your excuse for zero thermite products being found? Please remember they were looking all over for people parts but never found your delusional thermite products. Not one piece of thermite stuff, like piles of iron found due to thermite reactions with pounds or the tons of thermite you say are used to bring down the WTC.

Disbelief · Mar 31, 2009

Disbelief said:
I have a question, probably for Sunstealer as he is obviously the most qualified.

If you have a ton of thermite and are using it to cut through two tons of steel, would the final weight of the result after reaction be between 2 and 3 tons or would it only be the weight of the steel? Would the thermite "burn off" completely?

This has been lost in the fray, but I am wondering if anyone has any idea about it. Thanks.

TheDaver · Mar 31, 2009

Page 78 now.

Any molten steel yet?

Mercutio · Mar 31, 2009

Christopher7 said:
Actually, there is no evidence that the molten metal was not steel, just a lot of speculation by people who don't want to believe the witnesses.

Logically, it could be any metal that melts at a lower temperature, or it could be a mistake on the part of an honest witness. After all, each of your witnesses was there with other people, people who have not confirmed the statements. There is no evidence that the alleged molten metal was steel.

In actual fact, you have not a clue what they are thinking.

Sounds like a good reason to ask them. I have told you repeatedly that I would admit it if they confirmed. That you choose not to contact them speaks volumes about your actual belief in what they said.

You intentionally misinterpret what I say and call me a liar. You call me a liar every time you disagree. You call your opponents a liar so often it has become meaningless.

Then it shouldn't bother you so much. And, C7, I have always pointed out what your lies are when I call you a liar. This is why my posts have not been moderated.

You are lying when you call others liars.

Along with you, who are these "others"?

That's a lie. Their statements are clear an in context.

Yet you use them in a completely different context. There is a word for that...

That's another lie. I am quoting what they say and you call that lying.

When others have put their words back into context, you have ignored every part of what they said except for the tiny fraction that supports your fantasy.

I respect them enough to take them at their word and not bother them with insulting questions like "Did you really mean what you said about seeing molten steel?"

So, you respect them enough to tacitly accuse them of silent complicity in murder, not having the guts to stand up and publicly confirm what they saw those years ago? Wow, C7. You really do respect them. I personally think they would speak up if they thought they saw something that contradicted the evidence-based theory.

You have no respect for the people who were there. Not believing what they said is very disrespectful.

I do believe what they said. I have told you that repeatedly. Why do you deny that? What I do not believe is your twisted interpretation of what they said.

Actually there's a couple dozen and I see no reason to doubt them.

Good; then ask them. You have no reason not to.

That's a lie.

The evidence is quite clear. You have stripped the quotes from their larger contexts, ignored other parts of the statements (for instance, the "office fires" bit), and promoted a twisted distortion of their words that is wholly different from what they said.

Your position is so vacant, all you can do is deny and call people liars. There is little else in your posts.

C7, it is my choice to call you out when you insult these people by hiding behind their words, borrowing their authority when you have none of your own. You do them a disservice every time you lie like this. You could shut me up in a heartbeat--I have told you two ways: get their current statements, or quit lying.

Have a nice day.

BigAl · Mar 31, 2009

Christopher7 said:
Correct, however, the thermite had burned up before the molten steel was uncovered.

Incorrect
All metals glow at the same colors at the same temperatures. Aluminum will appear silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity but in a dark room it will glow the same color as other metals.
This is Patrick's law on black bodies:
[FONT=&quot]Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body.

Patrick's law on black bodies ????

Why is it that I don't believe that C7 has a clue about the application of Plank's law to reality.

C7 seems to be oblivious to the most recent warning about ambient viewing light given by the source of the image he likes to use. It's by the source of the color chart in the center of the image. It's in the URL listed in the right-hand frame.

He's speaking of direct observation by the human eye. Taking pictures with uncalibrated cameras and uncontrolled post-processing adds uncounted additional variables.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg

Any conclusions drawn from that picture would never stand up in court, as they say.

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

X · Mar 31, 2009

IIRC, that one of glowing stuff in the claw is thought by some to be glass, reflecting the work lights.

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

X said:
IIRC, that one of glowing stuff in the claw is thought by some to be glass, reflecting the work lights.

So if "you recall correctly" .... what if you do not?

and it is "thought to be"

So no one can say that it is glass, but it is enough simply to say that to cast doubt in the minds of some

GStan · Mar 31, 2009

Christopher7 said:
Actually, there is no evidence that the molten metal was not steel, just a lot of speculation by people who don't want to believe the witnesses.

Actually, there is no evidence that the molten metal was steel, just a lot of speculation by people who desparately want to believe in a conspiracy.

<snip>

I respect them enough to take them at their word and not bother them with insulting questions like "Did you really mean what you said about seeing molten steel?"

You have no respect for the people who were there. Not believing what they said is very disrespectful.

And as if on cue, you refuse to clarify the statements of individuals who you claim as witnesses to mass murder and coverup. At least you're consistent.

Actually there's a couple dozen

Twenty-four? Really? Link please.

and I see no reason to doubt them.

<snip>

Correction. You refuse to see any reason to doubt them. The reasons have repeatedly been provided to you for nearly three years now. You have ignored those reasons because they disrupt your fantasy. You choose to believe "a couple dozen" eyewitnesses and your own amateur analysis of a photo and a video over thousands of man-hours of man hours of research by relevant experts that shows that your fantasy is impossible.

There was no liquid steel at ground zero.

BigAl · Mar 31, 2009

SteveAustin said:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ground_zero_fires.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_hotspots.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_cutter.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2groundshake.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shake.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_firefighters.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_explosions.html

No evidence of explosives? No evidence of molten steel? Really? Is that because you have not looked for it?

"Explosion" is just a good word for loud noise. It would appear that the WTC towers were brought down by the three well-known demolition artists, Simile, Metaphor and Hyperbole.

Any sound loud enough to be man-made demolition would be on the sound tracks of ALL the video cameras in use at WTC. There were many cameas in use by the time the buildings collapsed.

There is no such recording.

Nobody reports noises consistent in timing and loudness with any building collapse.

As for claims of liquefied steel, essentially all the quotes are second-hand and can be explained by simile, metaphor and hyperbole.

A second-hand quote is not an eyewitness account and counts for nothing as evidence given that there is absolutely no physical evidence for any molten metal on the pile.

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

GStan said:
Actually, there is no evidence that the molten metal was steel, just a lot of speculation by people who desparately want to believe in a conspiracy.

Sounds to me like a very good reason for a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation to figure this out...not to mention all the other anomalies

GStan said:
You choose to believe "a couple dozen" eyewitnesses and your own amateur analysis of a photo and a video over thousands of man-hours of man hours of research by relevant experts that shows that your fantasy is impossible.

Are these the same experts that support the flawed NIST report?

GStan said:
There was no liquid steel at ground zero.

If you do not go looking for the evidence of liquid steel you can claim that without actually lying...however, as can be seen from my post just above there is plenty of evidence of liquid steel at ground zero (and those links are only the tip of the iceburg)

BigAl · Mar 31, 2009

SteveAustin said:
If you do not go looking for the evidence of liquid steel you can claim that without actually lying...however, as can be seen from my post just above there is plenty of evidence of liquid steel at ground zero (and those links are only the tip of the iceburg)

Please narrow that list down to people that reportedly says something equivalent to "I saw ..." and lets see what we have. Second-hand accounts count for nothing as evidence. (In the sort video of the firemen, nobody says "I saw". )

There is no physical evidence for liquid steel. Only a couple people claim to be eyewitnesses to "molten steel" and nobody in the "Half Truth Movement" seems to be interested in getting a current interview with them on video tape
to confirm what they say and said and to get additional information from them.

Getting one current credible first-hand report of molten steel described in detail on videotape would be a major coup for the movement that uses the word, "truth" much too much.

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

BigAl said:
"Explosion" is just a good word for loud noise. It would appear that the WTC towers were brought down by the three well-known demolition artists, Simile, Metaphor and Hyperbole.

This sounds like a good explanation but it really explains nothing, because the sound of an explosion could still be an explosion

Did you read that article where the author talks about what real explosions sound like?

BigAl said:
Any sound loud enough to be man-made demolition would be on the sound tracks of ALL the video cameras in use at WTC. There were many cameas in use by the time the buildings collapsed.

There is no such recording.

this is simply a false assumption. Go back and review all the hundreds of witnesses that heard explosions, and no most are not second hand quotes.

BigAl said:
Nobody reports noises consistent in timing and loudness with any building collapse.

You did not read that article that mentions the timing of reported explosions and the timing of collapses did you?

BigAl said:
As for claims of liquefied steel, essentially all the quotes are second-hand and can be explained by simile, metaphor and hyperbole.

In that case you can take them one claim at a time (including the pictures) and debunk them all right? Or are you just trying to use the OCT BRUSH to wipe away all claims contrary to the OCT in an effort to sweep them out of sight so no one is even aware of these?

BigAl said:
A second-hand quote is not an eyewitness account and counts for nothing as evidence given that there is absolutely no physical evidence for any molten metal on the pile.

The physical evidence was illegally carted away before an investigation could be done... go figure, why would they cart away all this steel before it could be investigated for cause of collapse?

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

BigAl said:
Getting one current credible first-hand report of molten steel described in detail on videotape would be a major coup for the movement that uses the word, "truth" much too much.

Maybe you missed it because I added it in as an edit to my original post because I forgot to include it, or maybe you are just ignoring it, but scroll back up and go look at the link I added in with my "edit" and then come back and tell me there are no credible first-hand reports of molten steel.

Grizzly Bear · Mar 31, 2009

SteveAustin said:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ground_zero_fires.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_hotspots.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_cutter.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2groundshake.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shake.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_firefighters.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_explosions.html

No evidence of explosives? No evidence of molten steel? Really? Is that because you have not looked for it?

Edit: sorry forgot one link http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-ground-zero.html

whatreallyhappened is one of the worst sources you could have ever picked in making any argument for this... the worst for your credibility.

Christopher7 said:
Correct, however, the thermite had burned up before the molten steel was uncovered.

<-->
SNIP

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5015/chartcompare2.jpg[/qimg]

If you wish to continue this discussion in adult manner, I will be happy to do so but if you call me a liar or such, will not respond.

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

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?

GStan · Mar 31, 2009

SteveAustin said:
Sounds to me like a very good reason for a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation to figure this out...not to mention all the other anomalies

I've bolded the important part of your post. It may appear that way to you, yet the vast majority of engineering and physics professionals from around the world have no objections to the findings of the investigations. If you were to educate yourself in such subjects, and review the facts without a predetermined conspiratorial conclusion in mind, you would see as well that a new investigation is not necessary.

Are these the same experts that support the flawed NIST report?

Please use the forum search function or google to identify the alleged flaws that have already been exhaustively discussed here. If after reading the relevant threads you are still unclear as to why these alleged flaws either don't exist or are immaterial to the conclusions, you are free to start a thread on the particular topic, or revive the old one.

If you do not go looking for the evidence of liquid steel you can claim that without actually lying...however, as can be seen from my post just above there is plenty of evidence of liquid steel at ground zero (and those links are only the tip of the iceburg)

Please isolate the link that deals with evidence for liquid steel (the topic of this thread.) As for the other links, see the above paragraph. (By the way, What Really Happened is not the best source of information.)

And welcome to the forums.

GStan · Mar 31, 2009

Seeing as how explosions, explosives and sounds of explosions do not create liquid steel, discussions of same are off topic. Steve, please find another thread where this has already been discussed or start one of your own.

ETA: FWIW, Walmart is selling troll food 50% off this week.

BigAl · Mar 31, 2009

SteveAustin said:
Maybe you missed it because I added it in as an edit to my original post because I forgot to include it, or maybe you are just ignoring it, but scroll back up and go look at the link I added in with my "edit" and then come back and tell me there are no credible first-hand reports of molten steel.

What name would that be? There are only a handful of people Twofers quote as saying "I saw".

ravdin · Mar 31, 2009

GStan said:
ETA: FWIW, Walmart is selling troll food 50% off this week.

Mmm... red herrings are tasty.

SteveAustin · Mar 31, 2009

Grizzly Bear said:
whatreallyhappened is one of the worst sources you could have ever picked in making any argument for this... the worst for your credibility.

When you can't argue the facts instead try and smear the person. Debunking 101

Molten Steel

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

hairy farting brute

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

Slide Rulez 4 Life

Critical Thinker

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

Critical Thinker

&#12371;&#12398;&#12510;&#12473;&#12463;&#12395;&#

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Illuminator

Critical Thinker

このマスクに&#