Molten Steel

[tsig]

Man that did make me laugh - I'm now going to pinch that and use it at work all the time, it's a classic.

Is it Stundiable?

Maybe he means open hearth rocket surgery.

That accounts for the metal and explains what hit the buildings.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A 2/3 reduction in sound is a 2/3 reduction in sound. What matters is how loud it is, not what number you put to it.

I wonder sometimes whether you even understand your own posts, since it's clear you don't understand anyone else's. I explained how loud it would have to have been - "uncomfortably loud", even with noise abatement. You even quoted that bit; how could you not have read it?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

I explained how loud it would have to have been - "uncomfortably loud", even with noise abatement. You even quoted that bit; how could you not have read it?

Dave

You refer to "it". Are you referring to the analysis NIST did on a single explosion in WTC 7?

They assumed column would have to be taken out with explosives rather than thermite.

My point is that a 2/3 reduction in the noise level would be significant as it relates to smaller explosions in the towers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My point is that a 2/3 reduction in the noise level would be significant as it relates to smaller explosions in the towers.

Which, being too small to sever core columns, would not result in the collapse mechanism proposed by the truth movement. Anyway, the whole question is absurd; all you're doing is trying to explain away a lack of evidence for your theory, hence making it unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. You should be trying to find non-anecdotal and unambiguous evidence for explosives and thermite, not making excuses for the lack of it.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

My point is that a 2/3 reduction in the noise level would be significant as it relates to smaller explosions in the towers.

Which, being too small to sever core columns, would not result in the collapse mechanism proposed by the truth movement. Anyway, the whole question is absurd; all you're doing is trying to explain away a lack of evidence for your theory, hence making it unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. You should be trying to find non-anecdotal and unambiguous evidence for explosives and thermite, not making excuses for the lack of it.

Dave

Column 79 in WTC 7 weighed 1,240 lbs per lin. ft.
The core columns in the towers at the level of the collapse were much less massive and would not take anywhere near as much explosives.

All this speculation on the sound factor is part of the "It can't be because." denial tactic which is based on a desire to deny the statements of the witnesses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Column 79 in WTC 7 weighed 1,240 lbs per lin. ft.
The core columns in the towers at the level of the collapse were much less massive and would not take anywhere near as much explosives.

Of course you can pull all of this fact without ever committing to the maths... bravo C7

All this speculation on the sound factor is part of the "It can't be because." denial tactic which is based on a desire to deny the statements of the witnesses.

Or you could be dodging the issue knowing you just demonstrated another area you don't have any basic understanding in... The list is getting longer

 

[Mercutio]

All this speculation on the sound factor is part of the "It can't be because." denial tactic which is based on a desire to deny the statements of the witnesses.

Some of it is part of the "it can't be because..." denial tactic which is based on a desire to have any explanations conform to the known laws of science. Fortunately, there are explanations which do conform to the known laws of various sciences. Unfortunately, those are not C7's.

C7's explanations are in conflict with [at least] physics and psychology. I would not be surprised if others can list more science that C7 is blissfully ignorant of.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All this speculation on the sound factor is part of the "It can't be because." denial tactic which is based on a desire to deny the statements of the witnesses.

Is that like the "It can't be anything but thermite because I can't think of anything else" denial tactic?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

A neat summary of the "quantum leap" gap between molten steel "up there" and, weeks later, "molten steel down there".

There is no quantum leap.
The witness statements establish, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was molten steel at the WTC. That is my position.

All the questions of how or where or how much or how thermite works are a diversion as they call for speculation.

Has the well established, known to all blacksmiths, phenomenon of the self sustaining exothermic burning of iron/steel been considered? dismissed? as a source of the hot steel in the basement areas?

This is a very silly bit of sophistry. If what you are alluding to is true, once a fire got going in a steel framed building, the steel would self destruct.

 

[Christopher7]

Is that like the "It can't be anything but thermite because I can't think of anything else" denial tactic?

Dave

Just the opposite. It is a statement of fact.

I have repeatedly asked you for another explanation for the molten steel and you subject shift because the is no other possibility.

This is why you-all are so fanatically claiming that all the witnesses are wrong and you know better.

 

[TheRedWorm]

And still too big of a coward to answer Jack's and my questions.

 

[BigAl]

Column 79 in WTC 7 weighed 1,240 lbs per lin. ft.
The core columns in the towers at the level of the collapse were much less massive and would not take anywhere near as much explosives.

All this speculation on the sound factor is part of the "It can't be because." denial tactic which is based on a desire to deny the statements of the witnesses.

Was it thermite, explosives or both? I've lost track.

The idea that the NWO used those massive rubber mats to muffle sounds in what was supposed to be a hasty and covert operation is even sillier than your ignorance of what a reduction of sound level of 4db is to the people hearing the explosion.

Besides, the material used to muffle the sound would have made the seimic signal even greater.

There was no man-made explosion heard at WTC.

There was no seismic event recorded on 9/11 consistant with man-made demolition.

Google "seismic' if you don't kwno what the word means.

 

[Christopher7]

And still too big of a coward to answer Jack's and my questions.

Inappropriate and childish name calling is the rule here. Since you are going to keep repeating this question I will point out why I did not respond.


1 - Please explain in your own words how you think thermite works?
Thermite melts steel by burning at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F.
You know this so your question is just a sarcastic diversion

2 - Please tell us how long you think 'thermite' burns for and at what temperature it burns at.
You know the answer so your question is just another unnecessary diversion.

3 - Please then explain, in your own words, how molten steel can be found amongst rubble and what fueled the fires to keep it molten!
The question calls for speculation which will be inevitably answered with more childish insults.
I have answered this many times. New posters come along and ask the same questions in a blatantly obvious attempt to engage in an endless pissing match.

4 - Please tell us what material you think an excavators bucket is made from, including the teeth and nuts/bolts used to attach the teeth/cutting edge.
You know the answer to this question so again it is just a sarcastic argumentative waste of space.

5 - Please tell us which contractors and specifically which machine operator reported molten steel.
Asked and answered many times. Either go back and find the answer or google "911,witnesses,steel".

6 - Please tell us the locations of these pools of molten steel.
Asked and answered many times.
If you will take the time to read the witness accounts you will know what is known about the location of the molten steel.

 

[TjW]

I don't make any claim about what was used or where except for the molten steel falling from the 80th floor.

Okay. What's your evidence that what fell from the 80th floor was steel, and not some other metal like lead from UPS?
What's your evidence that what fell from the 80th floor was liquid when it hit the ground?

 

[Christopher7]

Was it thermite, explosives or both? I've lost track.

Asked and answered many times.
The witness statements establish both beyond a reasonable doubt.

The idea that the NWO used those massive rubber mats to muffle sounds in what was supposed to be a hasty and covert operation is even sillier than your ignorance of what a reduction of sound level of 4db is to the people hearing the explosion.

The whole discussion of sound levels is a denial tactic. You don't know all there is to know about the possibilities for noise reduction. That is what Steve Austin was pointing out. As usual, you-all ignored the point and engaged in a technobable insult fest.

There was no man-made explosion heard at WTC.

Now you are saying all the witnesses who heard explosions are wrong and you know better.
This is just pure denial.

There was no seismic event recorded on 9/11 consistant with man-made demolition.

That is a matter of opinion. I have no comment so if you want to debate that point then do so on the appropriate thread.

 

[BigAl]

Asked and answered many times.
The witness statements establish both beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dear Dog. Why explosives and thermite and airplanes???

 

[Christopher7]

Okay. What's your evidence that what fell from the 80th floor was steel, and not some other metal like lead from UPS?

No one has provided a source to establish that the batteries were lead-acid, as opposed to nickel-cadmium, or how much lead there would have been if they were.

In any case, the molten metal falling from the tower was in the 1000-1400 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range. Jet fuel/office fires are not hot enough to heat tons of any metal to those temperatures.
Furthermore, lead would have melted and run out thru the hole made by a landing gear [or other piece of the airplane] as soon as it melted at around 327[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C [620[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F]

What's your evidence that what fell from the 80th floor was liquid when it hit the ground?

I don't know if it was.

 

[bje]

Chris,

It's taking you an amazingly long time to come up with any scientists who claimed that the "meteorite" had any molten metal in it.

You were lying about that, weren't you? Be a man - admit it.

 

[BigAl]

No one has provided a source to establish that the batteries were lead-acid, as opposed to nickel-cadmium, or how much lead there would have been if they were.

Ni-Cads don't work in UPS applications.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

It's taking you an amazingly long time to come up with any scientists who claimed that the "meteorite" had any molten metal in it.

You were lying about that, weren't you? Be a man - admit it.

I assumed it was scientists as that is the logical source of the information given to Mr. Voorsanger [and Brian Williams]. Although I have not been able to verify this, I still believe that is the case.

Do you think Mr. Voorsanger and Brian Williams just made up "fused together by intense heat"?