Molten Steel

[BigAl]

I think it's a screen shot from a short video frequently posted here in which someone in a safety vest and hard hat speaking at length about how hot the fires are.

It's clearly a screen shot from the same source as this short clip.

Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY
​

Listen to the words. Nobody says anything that would support the existence of liquid steel.

Does anyone know where this video comes from? I want to see what the people that use the word, "truth" too much edited out.

The video is cut just before the orange blob is shown. I suspect that when shown in motion, it becomes clear what the orange object is and it isn't liquid steel.

 

[tsig]

It's clearly a screen shot from the same source as this short clip.

Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY
​

Listen to the words. Nobody says anything that would support the existence of liquid steel.

Does anyone know where this video comes from? I want to see what the people that use the word, "truth" too much edited out.

The video is cut just before the orange blob is shown. I suspect that when shown in motion, it becomes clear what the orange object is and it isn't liquid steel.

Strange isn't it.

This photo is such an icon of the "liquid steel" bunch I think it deserves much closer scrutiny.

If this has been done(Gravy?) then OK.

 

[BigAl]

[URL="http://img383.imageshack.us/...hack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

Chris; The video of this short clip of the crane lifting some object appears to have the same source as your picture (URL above) that has the WTC tower and the color temperature scale and the crane.

You claim that what is in the right side is molten.

Watch the video and listen carefully to the words. Compare the picture to the video and decide for yourself it they don't have the same source.

Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY​

Nowhere does the guy in the hard hat describe anything that would support the claim of molten steel.

Someone that uses the word, "Truth" too much edited the video because he doesn't want us to see what the grapple picked up.

We know damn well that if this or any other video showed dripping metal, it would be all over the Twoofer Youtube videos. Clearly no such video exists.


Does anyone know what this video clip is from? I'd like too see it. I bet it becomes obvious that the orange thing isn't liquid steel.

 

[chillzero]

Off topic posts removed, and put in Forum Mgt. Do not discuss moderation actions in threads.

ETA: link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139040

Keep the thread on topic from here please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[TheDaver]

[Post moved]

 

[Sunstealer]

This suggests that it was melted with thermate which lowers the melting point of steel.

No it doesn't! You keep saying this and it is wrong. You have been shown time and time again why this is wrong yet you continue to to spout such nonsense. Stop it or show scientifically how the addition of sulphur to thermite can lower a steel's melting point. And for god's sake don't point to a Fe-O-S eutectic without showing how this is produced. If you cannot do this then retract the above statement or by called a liar again.

I know the mechanism of how Sulphur gets into steel at high temperatures so don't muck about on it - I want to see a clear, concise, well written piece demonstrating the mechanisms by which sulphur in thermate lowers a steels melting temperature. And no I don't want a one line answer in font size 7.

Also "slag" is the by product of the iron (and steel) making process. The slag is what you take off the top in a blast furnace and it mainly comprises CaOSiO₂

from the following

CaCO₃ --> CaO +CO₂ and 2CaO + SiO₂ --> CaO.SiO₂

The lime (CaO) is added in order to make SiO₂ a liquid, because it wouldn't be a liquid below at or below the iron making temperature. There will be as little Iron (Fe) it it as possible. Often this slag is used as railway ballast, road making, concrete aggregate.

A similar slag will be produced in the steel making process depending upon which method is employed. Again very little Iron will remain in the slag.

You can clearly see in the video that this slag has solidified where it's been in contact with the vessels walls which is to be expected as that is where the cooling rate is highest.

Note how C7 has claimed that smouldering fires of 3-400°C plus some random insulation will keep liquid steel hot for 6 weeks, yet the video clearly shows material that would have been as hot as liquid iron/steel has now solidified in a very short time period. This video again debunks liquid steel being present after 6 weeks.

 

[tsig]

No it doesn't! You keep saying this and it is wrong. You have been shown time and time again why this is wrong yet you continue to to spout such nonsense. Stop it or show scientifically how the addition of sulphur to thermite can lower a steel's melting point. And for god's sake don't point to a Fe-O-S eutectic without showing how this is produced. If you cannot do this then retract the above statement or by called a liar again.

I know the mechanism of how Sulphur gets into steel at high temperatures so don't muck about on it - I want to see a clear, concise, well written piece demonstrating the mechanisms by which sulphur in thermate lowers a steels melting temperature. And no I don't want a one line answer in font size 7.

Also "slag" is the by product of the iron (and steel) making process. The slag is what you take off the top in a blast furnace and it mainly comprises CaOSiO₂

from the following

CaCO₃ --> CaO +CO₂ and 2CaO + SiO₂ --> CaO.SiO₂

The lime (CaO) is added in order to make SiO₂ a liquid, because it wouldn't be a liquid below at or below the iron making temperature. There will be as little Iron (Fe) it it as possible. Often this slag is used as railway ballast, road making, concrete aggregate.

A similar slag will be produced in the steel making process depending upon which method is employed. Again very little Iron will remain in the slag.

You can clearly see in the video that this slag has solidified where it's been in contact with the vessels walls which is to be expected as that is where the cooling rate is highest.

Note how C7 has claimed that smouldering fires of 3-400°C plus some random insulation will keep liquid steel hot for 6 weeks, yet the video clearly shows material that would have been as hot as liquid iron/steel has now solidified in a very short time period. This video again debunks liquid steel being present after 6 weeks.

If it could keep it liquefied then it should have been able to melt it to begin with so no thermite need apply.

Once again C7 arguments crash into each other and drop to the ground faster than free fall.

 

[Christopher7]

There was no liquid steel. The evidence does not support it.

That is denial.
These firefighters saw molten steel. Who are you to say the are wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK8zVbUw&feature=player_embedded

Richard Riggs said there was molten steel in a History Channel special. Who are you to say Richard and the producers of this special are wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI&feature=related
This is clear evidence of molten steel. You can double talk and deny all you like but that's just arrogant silliness. Don't hand me that garbage about how it might have been some other metal. Aluminum glows silvery in daylight. These people were not mistaken. You won't even admit that it might have been molten steel. That's just denial. You are so obvious. Who do you think you are fooling?

Nope. The steel was adequately examined and catalogued by investigators prior to recycling. They found no evidence of liquid steel at ground zero.

It was NOT examined for explosive residue. You are trying to obfuscate the facts with your double talk. You are being very dishonest.

Nope. Witness statements are evidence, but this particular tiny collection of witness statements should be disregarded because they are not consistent with all of the other evidence collected and analysed,

Double talk. There is NO evidence that disputes what they said.

as well as not consistent with all of the thousands of other witnesses who worked on the rubble pile and made no mention of liquid steel.

You have no idea who saw what or what was not reported. Most of the people working at the WTC were not around where the molten steel was dug up.

Yes. Publication is confirmation that the statements were made, unless they have retracted them, but not confirmation that they were certain they were looking at liquid steel, and certainly not confirmation that it was liquid steel.

More double talk. The statements are clear and you are just groping for reasons to deny.

 

[Christopher7]

If it could keep it liquefied then it should have been able to melt it to begin with so no thermite need apply.

Wrong. The fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel.

You know that. Why do you keep lying about it?

 

[Christopher7]

No it doesn't!

Yes it does.

You could have looked this up but you would rather deny than do a little research. Steel melts at 1500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

 

[Mercutio]

Wrong. The fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel.

Um... that was kinda his point. There is no interpretation of your theory, consistent with physics, that would allow for molten steel in the quantities you insist, in this universe. You are quite right that the fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel. Tsig understands that, too, and simply points out yet another flaw in your fantasy.

You know that. Why do you keep lying about it?

Note the "if" at the beginning of his statement? It is a conditional statement, conditional on your fantasy of their being molten steel present when you claim it was, and in the quantities you claim it was. The only way for that to be true (thus, the "if") would be for there to exist sufficient heat energy for that to be true (by definition--this is no trick question). If there was sufficient heat energy for your fantasy, then there was clearly sufficient heat energy to melt it to begin with.

Thus, tsig's statement was not a lie, although it was indeed (and admittedly) based upon a faulty assumption. That assumption, of course, is the fantasy that you have been claiming as fact through this whole thread.

So, of course, the irony is, you are calling tsig a liar for a conclusion which logically follows from your own assumption.

I'll leave you to connect the dots.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes it does.

You could have looked this up but you would rather deny than do a little research. Steel melts at 1500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

~~~Yawn... from the wall board... All of those components were present with the materials used in the building's construction. You of course like to shove that little fact under the rug... Thermite's not required to understand why those chemical's were there.

 

[tsig]

Wrong. The fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel.

You know that. Why do you keep lying about it?

But they were hot enough to keep it liquid.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris; The video of this short clip of the crane lifting some object appears to have the same source as your picture (URL above) that has the WTC tower and the color temperature scale and the crane.

No, the photo I posted is a still and not from a video. It was taken at night with work lights.

Red hot pools of molten steel

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

Nowhere does the guy in the hard hat describe anything that would support the claim of molten steel.

He said a bright redish orange. That's below the melting point but far above what fires in a debris pile can attain.

Someone that uses the word, "Truth" too much edited the video because he doesn't want us to see what the grapple picked up.

You are assuming it was edited by a truther. It probably came from a TV special.

We know damn well that if this or any other video showed dripping metal, it would be all over the Twoofer Youtube videos. Clearly no such video exists.

The government is withholding 6,900 videos from the public. [Appendix H] Mark Loizeaux said there were videos of molten steel being dipped out. Those videos are among the ones the government is keeping from the public.

Does anyone know what this video clip is from?

I'd like too see it.

So would I.

 

[tsig]

Um... that was kinda his point. There is no interpretation of your theory, consistent with physics, that would allow for molten steel in the quantities you insist, in this universe. You are quite right that the fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel. Tsig understands that, too, and simply points out yet another flaw in your fantasy.

Note the "if" at the beginning of his statement? It is a conditional statement, conditional on your fantasy of their being molten steel present when you claim it was, and in the quantities you claim it was. The only way for that to be true (thus, the "if") would be for there to exist sufficient heat energy for that to be true (by definition--this is no trick question). If there was sufficient heat energy for your fantasy, then there was clearly sufficient heat energy to melt it to begin with.

Thus, tsig's statement was not a lie, although it was indeed (and admittedly) based upon a faulty assumption. That assumption, of course, is the fantasy that you have been claiming as fact through this whole thread.

So, of course, the irony is, you are calling tsig a liar for a conclusion which logically follows from your own assumption.

I'll leave you to connect the dots.

Thanks however I fear the dots are doomed to a life of solitude and will forever remain unconnected.

 

[TheRedWorm]

But no physical evidence of molten steel, is there? And please don't counter with your "well it was all destroyed" ********.

It's not going away, C7. Even if you'd like it to.

 

[Christopher7]

Wrong. The fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel. You know that.

But they were hot enough to keep it liquid.

Yes, Debris pile fires would be in the 300-400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range. Thermite burns at 2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. That leaves 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C of cooling before the steel would solidify. The smoldering fires in the debris pile would slow the cooling. The data to calculate how long these smoldering fires and the insulating effect of the pulverized debris could keep the molten steel molten is not available to the public if it exists at all.

 

[Christopher7]

It's not going away, C7. Even if you'd like it to.

God forbid you should hear the truth but . . . . . . the physical evidence was destroyed.

ETA: there was solidified molten steel in the "meteorite".

 

[Christopher7]

~~~Yawn... from the wall board... All of those components were present with the materials used in the building's construction. You of course like to shove that little fact under the rug... Thermite's not required to understand why those chemical's were there.

Hogwash. There is no president or scientific evidence that sulfur from wallboard can be freed in a high temperature environment. They use wallboard for fireproofing!
There is no president or scientific evidence that sulfur from any source in a building could cause intergranular melting.

 

[Christopher7]

Um... that was kinda his point. There is no interpretation of your theory, consistent with physics, that would allow for molten steel in the quantities you insist, in this universe.

You have not a clue what you are talking about.

People here claim to be expert in what the various blends of thermite can do. They are not and you are not.