OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[triforcharity]

There are many accounts of molten steel at ground zero, including some who saw steel beams melting.

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Hearsay. This is the AUTHOR'S words, not anyone who was there. She quoted nobody. The other problem is that it would be neigh unta impossible to transport any significant quantity of molten steel/metal in a dumptruck. Two reasons. Too dangerous, and would cause serious damage to the truck.

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx

From your own article.

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

So, this is hearsay at best. He most likely was not at GZ talking to the firefighters. I know the system that they are talking about, and it sucked.

http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm

Page cannot be located.

Not that it matters, as it is hearsay. He heard from someone......sorry, it's hearsay.

So months after 9/11 there is still immense heat coming from this rubble?

Yes.

Why?

Fire tends to produce heat.

These were office fires isolated to select floors.

Right. And once the collapse occured, there were no definitive floors. It was one big cluster **** of a mess.

Only in the North Tower did fire even spread beyond its crash zone.

Citation required.

Why are temperatures so hot deep in the sub-levels? I don't recall a fire ever existing there.

Fire burns. Fire spreads. Just because YOU don't recall, doesn't mean a damn thing.

This isn't a foundry; it's a pile of rubble, the overwhelming majority of which never experienced fire and the surface of which was sprayed with water constantly.

Specualtion.

Also, the water being sprayed on the pile had little effect. Why you ask?

Try to fight a fire through a tree. It doesn't work well. The stream is broken up, and goes in all different directions. Not to mention that in order for the water to be effective, it had to get to the fire. This was extremely difficult as the water would hit hot spots on the way down, and become steam.

People did see molten steel. A melting steel beam is molten steel. It's a shame I have to point that out.

People reported seeing molten steel, correct. Now, can they definitively identify molten steel versus molten by sight alone? No. Of course not.

Can you point to ANY physical evidence of a steel column/beam that has had parts of it melted away?

I'll wait.

 

[Edx]

This isn't a foundry; it's a pile of rubble, the overwhelming majority of which never experienced fire and the surface of which was sprayed with water constantly. People did see molten steel. A melting steel beam is molten steel. It's a shame I have to point that out.

So was Building 6 a demolition as well?

"Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6"
-
[source]

"Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. "
-
[source]

 

[alienentity]

So was Building 6 a demolition as well?

"Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6"
-
[source]

"Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. "
-
[source]

Watch out, Tempesta's head is gonna splode from the cognitive dissonance.

 

[twinstead]

There are many accounts of molten steel at ground zero, including some who saw steel beams melting.

Why is it you believe accounts that appear to support your position, no questions asked, yet totally ignore ones that don't?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Obviously temperatures were initially very extreme and those temperatures persisted, perhaps due to insulation.

You get an F.

Melting point of steel. Not answered.

Requirements for maintaining heat. Insufficiently answered. Extreme initial heat + insulation alone cannot account for heat high enough to maintain molten steel weeks later. You are missing a critical ingredient without which this would be physically impossible.

No conditions from Ground Zero (known or speculative) offered that would meet these requirements.

 

[chipmunk stew]

@tempesta29:

What does fire do when it encounters something combustible?

 

[jaydeehess]

So months after 9/11 there is still immense heat coming from this rubble? Why? These were office fires isolated to select floors. Only in the North Tower did fire even spread beyond its crash zone. Why are temperatures so hot deep in the sub-levels? I don't recall a fire ever existing there. This isn't a foundry; it's a pile of rubble, the overwhelming majority of which never experienced fire and the surface of which was sprayed with water constantly. People did see molten steel. A melting steel beam is molten steel. It's a shame I have to point that out.

I asked you before why you would expect that the underground fires MUST be direct continuations (that is to say involving only the material found on those floors)of the fires previously 800 feet up?
Then again what do you suppose happened to all that material on the fire floors that was in the fires? Did it cool down below the ignition point of paper,synthetics and automobile gasoline(vehicles in the parking area of the basement) in 15-20 seconds the collapse took to occur?

You proved yourself inept at Newtonian kinetics, now you move onto thermodynamics in order to prove your ineptness in yet another field?

 

[jaydeehess]

@tempesta29:

What does fire do when it encounters something combustible?

More to the point, IMHO;
What occurs when hot material (but not neccessarily rapidly oxydizingi.e. burning), encounters other materials and an oxygen supply is established?

For that matter;
What happens when a material that is burning has its oxygen supply cut off and then re-established before the temperture goes below the ignition point?

 

[chipmunk stew]

More to the point, IMHO;
What occurs when hot material , in the presence of oxygen,encounters other materials?

Yes, very true. Your version is more general and broadly applicable.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, very true. Your version is more general and broadly applicable.

Thx, I modified it to make it even more general and applicable.

tempesta seems to believe that the heat of the office fires should have magically dispersed in less than 20 seconds when the offices ended up as rubble in the basement levels.

An example is easy to demonstrate;
Turn on an element on your electric range to 'high'. Let it heat up and touch a piece of paper to it. It ignites despite the fact that the element is not on fire because it is sufficiently hot to raise the temp of the paper to its ignition point. Now turn the element off and every 5 seconds touch a piece of paper to it. Continue this until it will no longer ignite paper.
Repeat, except this time turn all 4 elements to high then once they are all hot turn them off and see how long it takes for one element to get below the ignition point.
I contend that after having more heat in the general vicinity of the element under test , that element will cool off slower. (D'uh!)

Now in reference to the towers imagine not 4 small stove elements at 600deg F (IIRC a common temp for electric stove elements) you have tons of concrete and steel at anywhere from 100 -1500 deg F.

Furthermore it is not actually neccessary for hot material from the fires to ignite the gasoline from crushed auto gas tanks(for eg.). There would have been ample friction sparking from multi-ton steel structural members grinding on each other.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Truthers always miss the 800lb gorilla in the room.

In order for it to be explosives at a minimum ALL of these criteria must be met:

1) The explosive device (this means all of the device, not just one part of it) must be able to withstand an impact from a 400+ MPH 767 along with its cargo and fuel. This means that not only can't it detonate but it also must remain 100% functional.

2) The explosive device must then be able to withstand a minimum of 45 minutes worth of unfought office type fires.

3) The explosive device and whatever type of protection that you used to meet 1 and 2 above cannot be detectable through casual observation to the untrained eye.

If you can't meet at least ONE of those minimum conditions then the entire theory falls apart.

The reality is that those are the absolute best possible case scenarios. I'm quite sure that in a real world application there are many other criteria that would need to be met but truthers haven't even met these basic truths yet so there's no point in continuing on.

 

[Chodorov]

please provide evidence of molten IRON in GZ.

Why should I? Are you claiming you yourself have not seen it? Are you a high school student? Are you not interested in this subject you purport to know something about.

Why ..... should ...... I.

Its the same internet right there before you.

The fact is that everyone has seen the molten iron dripping from the building before it fell.

 

[Chodorov]

Truthers always miss the 800lb gorilla in the room.

I don't think so. I think you've missed the molten iron in all three basements.

 

[Chodorov]

Watch out, Tempesta's head is gonna splode from the cognitive dissonance.

What exactly is your point about this? That sort of heat refutes the arabs-alone fairy tail outright.

 

[Chodorov]

appeal to magic!!!!

woo hoo.

You realize the black ops people know exactly who you are right?
And where you live?
They are EVERYWHERE!!!

run

I didn't appeal to magic. You are a liar. You are appealing to magic. You want the molten metal in all three basements to go away, by magic.

 

[Chodorov]

Crap on the internet is not evidence.Do you have any real evidence of molten iron?

You are not interested in the evidence. For example if you had video proof that the planes were not commercial airliners this would mean nothing to you.

 

[Chodorov]

What would be the correct response from people who weren't woo, tribal, and faith-based. Who were capable of scientific analysis? Well they might say ... Hey I checked out that molten iron story about five years ago, and it turned out that ........ And out would come some very excellent explanation that in retrospect only would seem pretty satisfying and plausible. But this is not what is going on. What is going on is more akin to Moony deprogramming. Back when the Reverend Moon had such a hold on people there were Moony deprogrammers. And they would kidnap the Moonie on behalf of the family, and just basically argue with him for days and nights until the denialism was up.

Well this is not possible here. Since I'm not about to kidnap anyone. We need merely note that even though all of us have the same internet in front of us, one side of the argument is not interested in evidence. They keep asking for it only to waste time and for no other reason.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

When are you going to start reading replies to your BS? It might--might--make you look less foolish, or at the very least less dense. You were told hours ago that WTC7 had NO basement and yet you continue to babble on about "all three basements." It was also pointed out to you that your response to a request for evidence by characterizing it as a 'wild goose chase' doesn't exactly reflect your having any confidence in the existence of such evidence to support your argument..whatever it is. In short--you're not very good at this.

 

[Chodorov]

You were told hours ago that WTC7 had NO basement

So what? Its just someone lying. What you have to explain is the molten iron in all three basements. The pretense that building seven, miraculously had not basement is neither here nor there.

 

[tempesta29]

I asked you before why you would expect that the underground fires MUST be direct continuations (that is to say involving only the material found on those floors)of the fires previously 800 feet up?
Then again what do you suppose happened to all that material on the fire floors that was in the fires? Did it cool down below the ignition point of paper,synthetics and automobile gasoline(vehicles in the parking area of the basement) in 15-20 seconds the collapse took to occur?

Why are the hottest temperatures recorded at the deepest depths of the rubble, in the sub-levels of the towers? Assuming the collapses wouldn't have severely diminished these fires, why would the fire seek deeper, more oxygen-deprived depths?

You proved yourself inept at Newtonian kinetics, now you move onto thermodynamics in order to prove your ineptness in yet another field?

This is coming from the man who believes that acceleration is constant even when resistance is not, and that steel columns can just up and decide not to offer any resistance to collapse.