Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

you confused something called "Patrick Law" with Plank's

Big wow. I made a mistake. That does not change the facts or the physics.

Can't you find something more important to talk about?

 

[Christopher7]

Note the casual way that Christopher7 is happy to assert that sometimes experts exaggerate. Dave

Get serious
Brian Williams is NOT an expert.

 

[GStan]

Denial! Denial! Double Talk! Denial! Double Talk! You argue like an elementary school student. (No offense intended to elementary school students.)

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

I do not say they are wrong. Relevant professionals who have examined the evidence (before it was destroyed) have shown that they are wrong. I am merely pointing this out on their behalf. On a topic which I am admittedly not trained, I am not qualified to judge for myself whether or not they are wrong. Neither are you. In such instances, the prudent and rational position to take is the one supported by evidence (before it was destroyed), scientific analysis and logical reasoning. The prudent and rational conclusion is that they were wrong. (In case you were wondering, the irrational conclusion is that the statements were right and the entire body of evidence <before it was destroyed> was wrong, and that some exotic accelerant incapable of cutting through a vertical column must have been the culprit.)

I will give you one point. The statements from this video are not nearly as ambiguous as those of others you have presented as evidence. Do you have the names of the firefighters in this video and the date of the interview? Additionally, it looks like it's cut out of a longer piece; do you have a link to the full interview?

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.

This is clear evidence that he believed he was looking at molten steel. It is not clear evidence that there was molten steel. I know that you cannot see the difference. I'm just pointing it out for any masochistic lurkers who may still be following this thread.

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.

How do you know your witnesses were describing something that they observed in "daylight"? Unless you know with certainty that your witnesses are describing something they observed in daylight, using the assertion that "aluminum glows silvery in daylight" does not support your argument. Addtionally, I think a qualified metalurgist already pointed out to you in this thread that the silvery glow would not necessarily apply to aluminum was not pure, that was likely contaminated by the burning contents of a 110 story building.

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?

I won't? I freely admit that there was molten steel. I'm just not going to make the transparently stupid and/or paranoid leap to equate descriptions of molten steel (i.e. steel that is glowing hot or plastically deformed by heat/pressure) with liquid steel (i.e. steel that is liquid), as you have done and as is required by your claims, despite the obvious physical impossibilities inherent in such claims that have been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread.

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

Why do you bring this up? Explosives do not create molten or liquid steel. Therefore, tests for explosive residue are irrelevant to the argument you are trying to defend in this thread.

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

Absence of evidence as evidence Christopher? Are we going to have to go back to critical thinking 101? In any case, the entirety of the evidence (before it was destroyed), the scientific analysis and logical reasoning not only dispute what they said, but render it impossible. There is NO evidence that confirms what they said.

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.

Source?

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

If groping = relying on the phyisical evidence (that was catalogued and analyzed before it was destroyed), the scientific analysis, and logical reasoning, then yes, I am totally guilty of said groping for reasons to deny.

BTW, I love a good conspiracy theory. Could you please present a reason for me not to deny your witness statements. So far your claim of thermite keeping steel liquid in the rubble has been shown to be physically impossible. Please demonstrate that your claim is not impossible, then we can move on.

BTW2, you claimed 24 witnesses to liquid steel. So far I count, O'Toole, Anastah (sp?), Riggs (above), and the two unnamed firefighters from the above video. I'll even give you Louxieau (sp), even though he has denied seeing liquid steel. That is six. Who are the other 18?

 

[BigAl]

Big wow. I made a mistake. That does not change the facts or the physics.

Your failure to understand the Decibel scale and not recognizing Plank's law are two examples that are easy to cite but part of a track record that shows a degree of ignorance about physical concepts that is both broad and deep and your inability to critically evaluate logic and evidence.

 

[BigAl]

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

Nobody in that video says "I saw ..." or I was told ..."

We don't what they said. They might have said "There was no ..."

Someone didn't want us to know what they said. There source is unknown and we don't know their names.

We know that if they said "I saw ...", the full video would be all over the Internets.

You can't use this video segment on your list of alleged eyewitnesses to liquid steel on the pile.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There is more than one 'meteorite'. Look at the 'meteorite' in the two videos. It is a different shape and composition than the one with the rebar.
Note that at 2:19 in the MSNBC video there are 2 other 'meteorites' in that room. All three look like rocks as does the one in the other video.

I know about them both, neither one is a gigantic chunk of steel. They are concrete with recognizable structural parts.

That is what Brian Williams said. He did not make that up either. Look close. There are just little scraps of carbonized paper that are readable. I have seen this before in house fires.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14788613#14788613

So this should be expected in the direct exposure to molten steel? This isn't just fire, you're claiming the paper was only carbonized?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your failure to understand the Decibel scale[...]

Wasn't that SteveAustin, not Chris?

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Wasn't that SteveAustin, not Chris?

Dave

Did Austin first post it? In any case, C7 touted it without understanding how sound levels are stated.

 

[tsig]

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.

So we're back to mid-air-meltdown?

You are saying that the steel was at 2500 degrees C after the collapse yet only seconds before it was solid.

Therefore the steel must have turned liquid in mid air.

 

[Christopher7]

Denial! Denial! Double Talk! Denial! Double Talk! You argue like an elementary school student. (No offense intended to elementary school students.)

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you guys.

I do not say they are wrong. Relevant professionals who have examined the evidence (before it was destroyed) have shown that they are wrong.

What relevant professionals?

I am merely pointing this out on their behalf.

Of course you are dear.

On a topic which I am admittedly not trained, I am not qualified to judge for myself whether or not they are wrong. Neither are you.

There is no reason to doubt them.

In such instances, the prudent and rational position to take is the one supported by evidence (before it was destroyed), scientific analysis

What scientific analysis?

and logical reasoning. The prudent and rational conclusion is that they were wrong.

Groping for reasons to deny the firefighters who saw molten steel running down the channel rails, a specialist on a History Channel special who said there was molten steel at the WTC, the contractor in charge who said he saw pools of molten steel, as we many others who saw molten steel, is neither logical or rational.

In case you were wondering, the irrational conclusion is that the statements were right and the entire body of evidence <before it was destroyed> was wrong,

What body of evidence?
I've heard a lot of speculation and double talk but no evidence.

I will give you one point. The statements from this video are not nearly as ambiguous as those of others you have presented as evidence. Do you have the names of the firefighters in this video and the date of the interview?

Please. Do you want their mother's maiden names too?

The statements do NOT need to be re-verified. That is a BS denial tactic to eliminate all witness statements.

This is clear evidence that he believed he was looking at molten steel. It is not clear evidence that there was molten steel.

Get out of town!
Who the hell are you to say he dosen't know what he is talking about? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your disrespect.

The rest is just more of the same.


Denial.

 

[Christopher7]

I know about them both, neither one is a gigantic chunk of steel.

That's a big 'duh' good buddy. No one said the 'meteorite' was a gigantic chunk of steel. Can you spell 'strawman'?

They are concrete with recognizable structural parts.

The one in the Voorsanger video is:
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

Brian Williams said:
"This was born of intense heat"He didn't make that up, someone told him that's how it was formed.

So this should be expected in the direct exposure to molten steel? This isn't just fire, you're claiming the paper was only carbonized?

Why do you ask such stupid questions? Why do you call facts "my claims?

 

[Christopher7]

So we're back to mid-air-meltdown?

Maybe you are, I'm not.

You are saying that the steel was at 2500 degrees C after the collapse yet only seconds before it was solid.

Therefore the steel must have turned liquid in mid air.

Dum-da-dum-dum.

Molten steel was found in the basements. Other than that, I don't know. You're the one talking about mid air.

 

[BigAl]

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

I'm posting about the picture of the crane picking up some orange object.


The earliest use of that picture I can find is in the paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" by Dr. Steven E. Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf​

Jones attributes the picture to Frank Silecchia which google will show was at WTC but little else.

Nowhere in that paper does Jones claim that this picture shows molten steel. There is a list of alleged eyewitnesses to molten sttel and Silecchia is NOT on it.

Given Jones' agenda of proving the case for Therm*te and molten steel at WTC, if Silecchia and his picture in any supported Jones' assertions, it certainly have been stated in the paper.

Based on this, Chris has no way he can use that picture as a sample of molten steel to make his case or to compare it to any color scale as a "calibration" point to understand any other picture.

That picture is strangely similar to this video. Maybe Silecchia used a video camera. In any case, the guy in the hard hat does not describe anything molten and if Silecchia didn't shoot the video, he took his picture under the same conditions.

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

In addition, I came across this bit about hydraulics systems. ANything with an upper limit of 212F would die a quick death near molten steel.

Machinery Lubrication – “ Symptoms of Common Hydraulic Problems and Their Root Causes”
“Fluid temperatures above 180°F (82°C) can damage seals and accelerate degradation of the fluid. This means that the operation of any hydraulic system at temperatures above 180°F is detrimental and should be avoided. Fluid temperature is too high when viscosity falls below the optimum value for the system’s components. The temperature at which this occurs is dependent on the viscosity grade of the fluid in the system and can be well below 180°F.”

And

Machine Design – “Predicting the life of hydraulic hose”
“Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set.

 

[BigAl]

Maybe you are, I'm not.

Dum-da-dum-dum.

Molten steel was found in the basements. Other than that, I don't know. You're the one talking about mid air.

What happened to it? Did someone suck it out with a straw?

 

[Christopher7]

Did Austin first post it? In any case, C7 touted it without understanding how sound levels are stated.

You guys act like this is rocket surgery.

130 db uncomfortably loud
81 - 100 db very loud
60 - 80 db moderately loud
50 db and below, quiet
http://www.rcaanews.org/noiselev.htm

[FONT=&quot]Sounds[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]dB SPL[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rocket Launching[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]180[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jet Engine[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]140[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thunderclap, Air Raid Siren 1 Meter[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]130[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jet takeoff (200 ft)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]120[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rock Concert, Discotheque[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]110[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Firecrackers, Subway Train[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]100[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Heavy Truck (15 Meter), City Traffic[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]90[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alarm Clock (1 Meter), Hair Dryer[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]80[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Noisy Restaurant, Business Office[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Air Conditioning Unit, Conversational Speech[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]60[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Light Traffic (50 Meter), Average Home[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]50[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Living Room, Quiet Office[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]40[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Library, Soft Whisper (5 Meter)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]30[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Broadcasting Studio, Rustling Leaves[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]20[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hearing Threshold[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]0[/FONT]
http://www.jimprice.com/prosound/db.htm

 

[TjW]

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.

Is it possible that the energy balance of the debris pile was such that it could have kept molten steel molten, and yet did not have enough energy to melt any other steel? Certainly. Is it likely?

You can easily balance a nickel on edge on a hard, flat surface. It's not only possible, nearly anyone can do it.
So when you're flipping a coin, do you call "edge"?

Consider also that you're claiming that the thermite was used to bring down the building. That would mean that the liquid iron started near the top of the building, where the collapse started. It had to fall a thousand feet or so through the chaos of the collapse. Many solid objects did not come through that process in one piece, but your idea seems to be that the liquid iron would stay together, or close enough that it would run together.

If your "towers brought down by thermite" speculation is correct, there wouldn't be one big pool to start with, but a number of smaller pools, on each of the targeted steel members. The higher the ratio of surface area to volume, the more quickly things cool.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the collapse started with globs of molten iron on the target steel members, what kept the molten steel from splattering all over the place and rapidly cooling as the towers collapsed?

 

[BigAl]

You guys act like this is rocket surgery.

130 db uncomfortably loud
81 - 100 db very loud
60 - 80 db moderately loud
50 db and below, quiet
http://www.rcaanews.org/noiselev.htm

[FONT=&quot]Sounds[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]dB SPL[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rocket Launching[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]180[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jet Engine[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]140[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thunderclap, Air Raid Siren 1 Meter[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]130[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jet takeoff (200 ft)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]120[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rock Concert, Discotheque[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]110[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Firecrackers, Subway Train[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]100[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Heavy Truck (15 Meter), City Traffic[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]90[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alarm Clock (1 Meter), Hair Dryer[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]80[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Noisy Restaurant, Business Office[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Air Conditioning Unit, Conversational Speech[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]60[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Light Traffic (50 Meter), Average Home[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]50[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Living Room, Quiet Office[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]40[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Library, Soft Whisper (5 Meter)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]30[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Broadcasting Studio, Rustling Leaves[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]20[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hearing Threshold[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]0[/FONT]
http://www.jimprice.com/prosound/db.htm

You don''t understand how relatively meaningless "reduce by 2/3rds" is when applied to human perception of volume, any volume.

You also continue to avoid what I believe is the case; that any of this noise abatement wouldn't reduce the seismic signal and might even increase it and we know that the two seimic nets that happened to cover WTC on 9/11 show no man-made explosion happened.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why do you ask such stupid questions? Why do you call facts "my claims?

Nothing really, I'm just astonished that there was anything left of the paper after coming into direct contact with liquefied steel. It's an amazing feat.

 

[Christopher7]

That picture is strangely similar to this video. Maybe Silecchia used a video camera.

Not even close.

In any case, the guy in the hard hat does not describe anything molten and if Silecchia didn't shoot the video, he took his picture under the same conditions.

I don't think so. The video was shot at dusk and the photo was taken at night IMO.

In addition, I came across this bit about hydraulics systems. ANything with an upper limit of 212F would die a quick death near molten steel.

Hogwash.

You seem to forget that Mark Loizeaux said they were scooping out molten steel with the buckets of the excavators.

The closest hydraulic seal on this piece of equipment is well away from the glob.

 

[Christopher7]

Nothing really, I'm just astonished that there was anything left of the paper after coming into direct contact with liquefied steel. It's an amazing feat.

Did you consider the possibility that the paper came into contact with the meteorite after it had cooled down a bit?