Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Correct. People should not believe any of us. They should believe the witnesses.

Correct.
Click to expand...
No, one should confirm what the witnesses claim. This is obvious.

Forget 9/11, WTC, thermite, conspiracy, Bush, JREF, etc, for 1 minute. Clear your head and read the following;

If someone claims something that you did not personally witness then do you automatically believe that this person is 100% correct?

Now imagine that two people tell you what they saw, it doesn't matter what they saw, it's got nothing to do with 9/11, but each person's sighting directly contradicts the other person's sighting.

Do you understand that you cannot believe both of them at the same time, because your own position is then self contradictory?

How would you go about determining which one, if anyone of them, is correct? Maybe they are both wrong? Maybe one of them is mistaken or both are? They will both swear on their mother's graves that what they saw is correct but they can't both be correct. How do you determine which one to believe?

Notice how I don't talk about truth or liars.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Heh... good point. Maybe we were seeing the interior columns melting. ;)
Click to expand...
Is that the same thing as core columns? Funny how a core was seen clearly standing for a few seconds after total collapse. Obviously those bits weren't targeted by thermite.
 
Tre months ago I installed a new keylock on the door to the accomodation. The solenoid was to be mounted in the dorframe and the keypad next to it.
We had previusly used a simpler system that was mounted right on the door over handle andd lock.

I had to remove the ceiling in order to remove the wall paneling, and then modify the doorframe with a anglegrinder. It took two days for a job that looks remarkebly simple, and involves only a keypad, a solenoid, a box for powersupply, and the cables between them.

Have anybody teorised on how big a crew could work on wtc 1, 2, and 7, how long it would take them, and what trade they would be from?:D
 
Christopher7 said:
Yes.

We still have to take the word of a denier on a denier forum. People should not believe anonymous posters, they should believe the numerous eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...

Then we would conclude that the WTC towers were brought down by hyperbole and metaphor.
 
Sunstealer said:
So you claim the exact colour is irrelevant yet make claims based on that colour. Can you see the fault in your logic?
Click to expand...
What part of 'approximate' don't you understand? It is not necessary to say exactly how hot the molten steel was, only that it was far above what open or debris pile fires could attain, much less maintain long enough to melt tons of steel [or any other metal for that matter].

You have been told a thousand time that you must first ascertain what the material is before even deciding that you will use a colour/temperature chart to estimate the temperature.
Click to expand...
All metals glow at the same colors. NIST admits that what was seen falling from the south tower was molten metal. From there, it's a process of elimination. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support the NIST claim that aluminum mixed with organic materials.

You must then decide whether the charts will give a reasonably accurate estimation based upon the charts intended usage and the conditions you intend to use it in.
Click to expand...
Correct. The chart goes up to 2500[FONT=&quot]°F. [/FONT]This is sufficient to estimate the temperature of the falling molten steel and the molten steel in the crab claw.
 
"All metals glow at the same colors. NIST admits that what was seen falling from the south tower was molten metal. From there, it's a process of elimination. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support the NIST claim that aluminum mixed with organic materials."

But I thought you said aluminum is silvery when molten.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
No, one should confirm what the witnesses claim. This is obvious.
Click to expand...
Because it is not necessary.

How would you go about determining which one, if anyone of them, is correct? Maybe they are both wrong? Maybe one of them is mistaken or both are? They will both swear on their mother's graves that what they saw is correct but they can't both be correct. How do you determine which one to believe?
Click to expand...
If there were only one or two witnesses saying there was molten steel you would have a point. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are numerous credible witnesses saying there was molten steel.
 
Christopher7 said:
Only a idiot would say words brought down the towers.
Click to expand...

Unlike an idiot who believes that the towers were brought down by secret death squads who went into fully occupied building and planted thermite, explosives and blast mats totally unnoticed. The same idiot that believes that this thermite also kept tons of metal molten by the ton for weeks afterwards.
 
TokenMac said:
"All metals glow at the same colors. NIST admits that what was seen falling from the south tower was molten metal. From there, it's a process of elimination. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support the NIST claim that aluminum mixed with organic materials."

But I thought you said aluminum is silvery when molten.
Click to expand...
Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity. In a darkened room it glows the same colors as other metals.
 
stateofgrace said:
Unlike an idiot who believes that the towers were brought down by secret death squads who went into fully occupied building and planted thermite, explosives and blast mats totally unnoticed.
Click to expand...
Only an idiot would insist it could not be done.

The same idiot that believes that this thermite also kept tons of metal molten by the ton for weeks afterwards.
Click to expand...
No one has made that claim.
 
Christopher7 said:
It is not necessary for me to know more than thermite melts steel and is the only thing that could have melted the steel seen falling from the south tower and in the debris pile.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, it is necessary. You would need to know those two things (the second of which, of course, you do not actually know--but, nice try) and much much more, in order to make a convincing case.

For instance, there is every bit as much evidence that high-powered lasers melted the steel as there is that thermite melted it (specifically, none). Do you deny that lasers can melt steel? There is a rich literature on the subject. Certainly, no lasers were found in the pile, but of course that is because the evidence for them was destroyed. So... it is necessary for you to know what the evidence might be that would confirm or deny the presence of thermite, or of lasers. (Come to think of it, lasers can cut horizontally, so lasers are actually a better choice than thermite for your fantasy; have you thought about adopting lasers as your invisible steel-melter of choice?)

For instance, given the utter absence of any physical evidence of thermite or of molten steel, your entire fantasy depends upon the reliability of eyewitness testimony; it is thus necessary for you to know that eyewitness testimony has been thoroughly researched and found to be subject to systematic errors. The paucity of witnesses you are able to pretend support your fantasy, compared to the number of witnesses present during the attack, collapse, and cleanup, should tell you something. That it tells you nothing, tells us quite a bit.

For instance, the color matching you are doing to determine the temperature of your molten steel is dependent on a number of presuppositions. Do you know what they are? For you to make your argument, it is necessary for you to be able to understand the scale and the process behind it. You clearly do not.
You cannot deny this so you will switch to denial #2 "There was no molten steel."
Click to expand...
I have no need to do this. To deny something, there must be something there to deny. Your fantasy does not rise to that level.

You are ignorant of a great many important things, among which is the number of things you are ignorant of. You fail, C7.

The fact that you lie so consistently and knowingly argues that you have at least an inkling of how ignorant you are. You know, at least, that you have no case at all, or you would be gathering statements from your "witnesses". You could admit your ignorance... oh, who am I kidding?
 
Christopher7 said:
You are right, it is a good question but it calls for speculation and will be answered with childish insults. Knowing that, I will have a go at it.
Click to expand...
Speculation is not a bad thing. What it does is allow people to produce hypotheses. Without speculation nothing would ever be speculated and tested therefore knowledge would remain static.

Christopher7 said:
The falling molten steel occurred just before the collapse. The columns were not all cut at once. It is possible that some of the columns were cut with thermite over a period of several minutes leaving just enough to hold up the top section. Then the rest were taken out simultaneously.
Click to expand...
This is so much better. Actually getting a proper coherent argument is refreshing so I'll treat it with the courtesy that it deserves. if I may I'll answer it bit by bit -sorry for the duplication.

Christopher7 said:
The falling molten steel occurred just before the collapse.
Click to expand...
I do not know the exact timing between the material falling from the corner of the tower and the actual start of collapse, but I seem to recall that this was indeed minutes - I'm sure someone can clarify.

Christopher7 said:
The columns were not all cut at once
Click to expand...
*This again would make sense because in a controlled demolition the timings of the conventional charges are modelled and calculated based upon the building's individual characteristics (design/materials etc).

Christopher7 said:
It is possible that some of the columns were cut with thermite over a period of several minutes...
Click to expand...
Thermite would indeed take minutes to cut columns*.

Christopher7 said:
...leaving just enough to hold up the top section.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but if I'm correct, you mean that a number of columns were fully cut by thermite, but some were left fully intact. These fully intact columns were only just enough to hold the structure up.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

* Thermite doesn't ignite all at once - this is plainly obvious, therefore it takes minutes for a bulk of thermite to react. This lengthening of the reaction means that it is a very imprecise method compared with conventional explosive demolition which employs computer modelling, (experience) and a controllable (most likely programmable) electronic "box" or computer with a physical connection to the charges that times the delays between the ignition (? - sorry, don't know the technical term) of each charge on the different floors.
 
Christopher7 said:
They wanted the building to fall straight down and minimize the noise level.
Click to expand...
Except some of the 25 ton steel sections that were flung 600ft along with 100% of the aluminium cladding.

Nor the bits that hit WTC7.

Except the fact that seismographs sensitive enough to detect tremors in the earth's crust didn't pick up these explosive anomalies, but measured the collapses, nor did any electronic equipment record noises consistent with muffled explosions that would still (if you understand the logarithmic scale of db) be of an order of magnitude to deafen people close by and be heard by all and sundry for miles around.

Mmmmn?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom