• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

grandmastershek said:
Pffft! There is an entire steel forming process called "cold rolling". With the proper forces you can bend steel at room temperature. I know this simply from when I took freshman metal shop 17 years ago. What does that say about TMD's knowledge base?
Click to expand...

Wow, yes, for me high school was just after the bronze age (1970's) but I do recall making a 1/2 inch socket wrench. The knurling was an example of the mallabilty of the steel. So was putting a pipe on the shaft to increase leverage on a stuck bolt and succeeding in bending the wrench into a handsome "U".:D
 
WildCat said:
Steel beams twisted beyond belief are quite common in ordinary fires. Ever been in a building after a major fire? I have, and I have seen steel beams bent like a horseshoe from the heat. This is not an unusual phenomenon.
Click to expand...

"Why don't wood stoves weaken and slump then" in 3..2..1

So in order to head this off;

Steel loses its strength as it heats up.
Obviously a structure that is under load will need more cold strength to remain undeformed at elevated temperatures than one in which the only load is its own mass.
A structure in which the steel can normally and often be expected to be at an elevated temperature will be designed to hold a greater cold load than would be required at room temperature.
Wood stoves employ fire brick in the hearth, and plate sheilding, to lower the heat getting to the vertical parts which carry the static load. The hottest part of the stove is the horizontal top which carries very little load.
Wood stove DO deform and over time require replacing.

Wood stove chimneys in Canada require a fire resistance rating to 2000 degrees F and must be replaced if they suffer a chimney fire.

Short answer is that stoves are DESIGNED to contain a fire for long periods of time, office buildings are not and probably cannot be.
 
Last edited:
Here's a pic of something made of steel (a product improved M134 Minigun to be specific) that's a little "warm."

Is the steel molten, melted, or something else?

warmminigun.jpg
 
jaydeehess said:
Once again you are assuming that since people said only 'steel' but not 'cladding' that it must be steel and that the cladding did not melt. However humans are inherently subjective. Tell me, what was the common description of the structure's construction? (rhetorical question) They are described commonly referred to as 'all steel construction'. Only in more technical articles does anyone get into the fact that the floors were lightweight concrete or that the floors were of two types of support, long span trusses and a few floors that actually did use heavy steel beams, and that the exterior was clad in aluminum. In the chaotic jumble of rubble it would be difficult to identify a steel element from a similar looking piece of aluminum cladding and the human (rather than robotic computer) mind will use the most common and subjective description.
Now if Spock or Data had been on the scene their statement might have been different but alas they are fictitious characters.
Click to expand...

I still would think there would be a verified report of it? Everything points to molten steel. They physical appearance in the picture...take a look at this video, there are those who try to deceive others by posting pictures right after it is heated...all metals give a similar glow at that point. Look at this compared to the pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U These aren't just some witnesses...some would have to know the difference. Please watch the video again to see who is saying they saw melted beams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
 
tmd2_1 said:
Sad...really sad actually... knowledgeable people telling you how hot it would have to be, and all you can do is make jokes.
Click to expand...

"Knowledgeable" people as defined by you, correct?

I believe that your critera for knowledge is primarily determined by whether or not said individual is a truthbot or fellow traveller.
 
BStrong said:
"Knowledgeable" people as defined by you, correct?

I believe that your critera for knowledge is primarily determined by whether or not said individual is a truthbot or fellow traveller.
Click to expand...

I'll address this because it will follow up a point. The people in the video are not CTers..at least not that I am aware of. The ones discussing how hot the beam would have to be that is.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'll address this because it will follow up a point. The people in the video are not CTers..at least not that I am aware of. The ones discussing how hot the beam would have to be that is.
Click to expand...

Why don't you take a swag at the pic I posted above?
 
grandmastershek said:
When did you document a U shaped steel column at the WTC?

When did you document that people can identify molten metals by eye sight?
Click to expand...

When did you refute my sources on judging metals and temps in fires.

Any day now TMD. Typical truther hiding from facts.

Keep dancing TMD.

tmd2_1 said:
I'll address this because it will follow up a point.
Click to expand...

I see so if its convenient to you , you respond. Silly reality. Why can't it just be selective for everyone!
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
What do you want me to say...i already said it...here is molten aluminum....doesn't seem like it would too difficult to tell the difference between that and steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U
Click to expand...

Right...and as we have shown molten aluminum can be many colors & fire investigators themselves know you can't make such judgement calls. Also like how you chopped most of my post off to ignore the fact that you have been running from facts coward.

tmd2_1 said:
What do you want me to say.
Click to expand...

"I am very sorry for lying and presenting my personal delusions as fact." That'll work for me.

Molten Aluminum
P015-Reverb%20Molten%20Aluminum%20-%20sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
grandmastershek said:
Right...and as we have shown molten aluminum can be many colors & fire investigators themselves know you can't make such judgement calls. Also like how you chopped most of my post off to ignore the fact that you have been running from facts coward.
Click to expand...

Here's an even better example...this guy heats it to just over 1800F or the temperatures of the fires....tell me you can't see a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ
 
tmd2_1 said:
I still would think there would be a verified report of it?
Click to expand...

Why?
I asked you questions about this that you have not addressed such as how confirming the metal involved would help in determining how the structure collapsed(since the material is contained in an underground hot debris pile)
Everything points to molten steel.
Click to expand...
Other than the subjective reasoning of a few witnesses I have seen NOTHING to point to it being steel. Instead I have seen fire engineering reports indicating the temperatures expected in office fires do get to those that would melt copper, tin and aluminum. I have seen pictures of cars that have burned out in which the aluminum wheels have quite obviously melted and run. Thus I can conclude that the molten material seen in the WTC debris pile is most likely NOT steel and instead a metal with a lower melting point.
Its called objective reasoning.
They physical appearance in the picture...take a look at this video, there are those who try to deceive others by posting pictures right after it is heated...all metals give a similar glow at that point. Look at this compared to the pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U
Click to expand...
What about it? Do you have a simlar video showing pouring of molten steel in which we can compare the two? How would the two differ in a darker enviroment such as an underground debris pile?
These aren't just some witnesses...some would have to know the difference. Please watch the video again to see who is saying they saw melted beams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
Click to expand...

I have not disputed that people made subjective statements that they saw molten steel. You place a great deal of trust in subjective, off hand statements.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
You know the one's that have a molten liquid. http://www.v911t.org/WTC7GuyRazer3.php
Click to expand...

Geez, go out for dinner and the thread has grown four more pages, kee-rist.

Anyway, I got to screwing around with the "molten steel" in the claw pic and I don't know if this has been discussed before:

Molten2.jpg


I cropped and enlarged the circled object:

Claw1.jpg


I don't know what that device is, it looks familiar, but it appears to be an integral part of what ever that is in the claw. I do know this though, it isn't molten and it isn't dripping anything.

Maybe it's one of that YouTube idiot's thermite cutters? :eye-poppi

Maybe someone can forward this to NIST and recommend that we start making buildings out of that stuff. It seems to be completely unfazed being in such close proximity to "molten steel".

Sorry tmd, but what ever that thing grabbed up by the claw is, it ain't molten.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Why?
I asked you questions about this that you have not addressed such as how confirming the metal involved would help in determining how the structure collapsed(since the material is contained in an underground hot debris pile)

Other than the subjective reasoning of a few witnesses I have seen NOTHING to point to it being steel. Instead I have seen fire engineering reports indicating the temperatures expected in office fires do get to those that would melt copper, tin and aluminum. I have seen pictures of cars that have burned out in which the aluminum wheels have quite obviously melted and run. Thus I can conclude that the molten material seen in the WTC debris pile is most likely NOT steel and instead a metal with a lower melting point.
Its called objective reasoning.

Waht about is? Do you have a simlar video showing pouring of molten steel in which we can compare the two? How would the two differ in a darker enviroment such as an underground debris pile?


I have not disputed that people made subjective statements that they saw molten steel. You place a great deal of trust in subjective, off hand statements.
Click to expand...


Look at this video....it looks nothing like what we see at the WTC...nothing at all...he heated it just about the same temperatures as the fires in the WTC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

Why would I expect to see reports...I mean it would only make sense...there was clearly melting if it was cladding...I would just expect to see pictures and reports of it wouldn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom