If you had some melted steel you would win. But you have hearsay, and did some quote-mining to come up with your delusion on 911. You did not win, you failed to present evidence. You failed to much more than call people liars.
Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read
- Thread starter tmd2_1
- Start date
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
All part of the master plan.
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
This is a useless argument and it's been pointed out before. The WTC had already been privatized. Marvin Bush was the head of the company that monitored its security.
Extensive renovations including elevator repairs had been conducted in the year and months leading up to 9/11, as has been documented elsewhere. Large areas of tenant space were unoccupied at any given time. The MER floors would have had easy access by any authorized private team of contractors or workers. Whatever processes were required would not have needed a large team.The above is simply not an argument.
Last edited:
The above is simply a collection of lies and fantasy you adopted from 911 truth and you can't back them up with facts and evidence. You spread lies and fantasy. Where is your evidence?.... Marvin Bush was the head of the company that monitored its security.
The above is simply not an argument.
Do you have any evidence to support these allegations?
And if true, how is this evidence of explosives being places in the WTC before 9-11?
How is the renovation of a twenty-year old elevator system evidence of anything but old elevators?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
My money's on no.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Elevator shafts stuffed chock full of thermite? Nobody would notice that.
Animal
Master Poster
This is a useless argument and it's been pointed out before. The WTC had already been privatized. Marvin Bush was the head of the company that monitored its security.
A troofer lie long debunked. Securacom was excused from its contract in 1998, and Marvin Bush was only on the board of directors through 1999 and was not even a shareholder by 2000.
Meaningless. With 198 elevators in the towers alone, not even counting what was in the rest of the complex, elevator maintenance, annual inspections and renovations would have been almost continuous in the complex.
Yet another lie
"February 12, 2001
As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.
Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent. "
<snicker> the only thing that is a non argument is your claims.
Let me add that when I was thinking of the fires being indicative of something, I was thinking of Steven Jones paper he wrote. While the fires do seem strange to me there does appear to be evidence that it's possible. But Jones paper has some very strange results. It is data he had to file a FOIA to get. The information he received was higher then what the EPA publicly published at the time. Strange why do you think they felt the need to do that? Here it is a good read.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Yes it is. We have tried to explain to him Dunning-Kruger, but without even perusing the link he asserted we were the ones who were "whatever you call that". This guy is so confident in himself I have doubts whether he is even technically conscious at this point. His posts are reminiscent of when my bar patrons were so in the tank that they found getting on their stool required at least a few seconds a planning & serious contemplation.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
tmd2-1, which thermite theory are you going with? The one where a small amount is used so no one notices it being planted or igniting, or the one where such a ridiculous amount was used it continued to react for weeks and even months after 9/11, enough to make "little rivers of molten steel"?
You have to pick one or the other, you can't claim both.
You have to pick one or the other, you can't claim both.
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
I can answer this. Its the one that suits a given premise at any given time.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
NutCracker
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 654
That really hurt, indeed. Don't you just love it? Blahblah not adequately explained blahblah, better explained by <insert pet theory>. The page screams 'confirmation bias'
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Huh? Read that sentence. Is that what results when you specifically want to be clear?
You introduce your personal guess into your fictitios legal defense??
So, when was Robertson's "little river of steel" observed? Early on? Did they make it to the basement levels early on? Or would that not be the part of the pile they'd get to last? Think!
Correct: You don't know.
Incorrect: Wasn't early.
You don't know.
Why then did you argue that 99 days is somehow worthy of doubt?
Which one? And timestamp, please! You have been asked this several times!!!
No.
If little thermite was used to demolish the towers, why was any left over after the collapse?
How did whatever little amount of thermite stay together during the immense destrcutive turbulences of the collapse? All of the gypsum and most of the concrete was broken and dispersed, everything mixed with everything else - how did the thermite keep from dispersing such that it would not burn any longer?
How did thermite burn weeks after the collapse? Two possibilities can be imagined:
1. it burned continually. This must remain imagination; it is impossible. I'll explain if you disagree
2. It didn't burn on 9/11, and was ignited later. Then the question: Hiow was it ignited weeks later? Especially if you wish to believe that ordinary building contents could not have kept burning this long.
"Looks like" does not equal "is". You know that, right?
Nonsense.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
In this post, I attempt to tie the Opening Post to the issue of molten metal.
The OP is framed as the legal defense in a ficticious criminal case presenting evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the culpability of certain Al Qaeda operatives. This culpability rests in the follwoing assertion: 19 members of Al Qaeda acted out a plan conceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, planned with the help of a few others, and sponsored and approved by Osama Bin Laden, to hijack four civilian airliners and pilot them into four buildings. Al Qaeda is thus accused of conspiring to hijack planes (a federal crime) in four cases, and murder (a federal and state crime) in several hundred cases. The legal defense team's goal would be to show that these Al Qaeda operatives did not hijack and crash planes and thus relieve them of culpability as per the legal accusation.
The OP is outspoken about it not going to rely on an alternative story:
Much of this thread has circled around the issue of molten steel. So let me quote what the OP said about molten steel:
I submit that any reports of molten steel after the collapses do not cast any doubts on the legal culpability of the 19 hijackers and their co-conspirators: The argument does not even address the matter of hijackings and crashes. What is the jury supposed to think about this issue of molten steel? It means nothing more and nothing less that there may have been molten steel at Ground Zero. Without a theory that ties molten steel to the deeds of the accused, this issue does not belong in the court room. It is very much like introducing reports of dildos found in the rubble: You would not expeczt dildos in an office building, so...???
However, tmd wants us, (or) the jury, to think that
Conclusion: The evidence presented by the defense counsellor is dismissed as there is no logical or factual connection to the case at hand.
Now let us inspect more closely the theory that "reports of molten steel mean towers were intentionally demolished", without thinking any longer about hijacked planes and Al Qaeda, in other words, totally off topic to this thread:
The theory would hold water if all of the following were true:
Step 2 is tricky and contested: As EDX has shown repeatedly, it is quite normal for witnesses of large fires to speak of "molten steel" when in fact they mean "softened and bent steel" or "glowing metal", etc. One would have to chack with these witnesses to find out what they really meant. Also, some
Step 3 is not fact for most, if not all, genuine witnesses of molten steel: It is clear that hardly anybody has the experience and training to tell molten steel from molten other metal, or even molten steelk from glowing oxidized steel. The defense team would have to point out which of their witnesses have this kind of experience and training; does a structural engineer have this expertise? We have structural engineers on this very board, and they would deny they can do that. We have heard from an actual metallugist, Sunstealer, who clearly does have the required experience and training to identify metals in their various states, and he has unequivocally testified that it is not possible to do that analysis by sight alone, even with the best of relevant expertise.
Step 4 is trivial now: Since the only proper way to identify a material as both steel and liquid is to actually analyse it: For example, do some sort of spectroskopy, or measure the melting point; and since nothing of the sort has been done by any of the known witnesses for molten steel, there exists no proof that molten steel was actually observed at Ground Zero by any one witness.
Step 5 is non-trivial and has not been conclusively shown by any truther. However, I would be willing to just concede this claim.
Step 6 is non-trivial (there certainly are other possibilities; human ingenuity knows few bounds). However, I am willing to concede that thermite at least is one possible (in principle) alternative explanation: Thermite can melt steel.
Step 7 is not fact. Even if there were confirmed reports of molten steel (there are none, see step 4), thermite is an unlikely candidate. Here is why: Any observed molten steel must be on the surface - it is thus not insulated and will cool rapidly. As the Wikipedia article on thermite welding explains, the liquid iron cools so fast that a train can run over a track freshly welded by thermite after 45 minutes. Thus any molten steel that was melted by thermite had its thermite reaction take place a very short time before the observation was made. However, such a reaction itself was never observed, even though it releases very bright, even dangerous amounts of light, including UV light. In addition, neither thermite itself nor its reaction products (slags of iron and aluminium oxide) have been found. The reaction would suddenly introduce great heat to the vicinity and very likely incinerate any unburnt other material; such outbursts of flames would have sparked as much attention as the flow of liquid steel. Also, there is no explanation yet of what would ignite the thermite weeks after the event, but minutes before the observation. It seems that almost all reports of allegedly molten steel describe a bulk property of the portion of the debris in question: It was generally quite hot
Step 8: Such a theory does not exist. The problem here is mainly that charges of pounds and more of thermite rigged to the intact tower would get destroyed and dispersed during the collapse. There are very few ways out of this dilemma: One would be to posit extremely large charges, another to posit extremely large overall amounts. Another problem is quite trivial: If there was a plan to destroy the towers with thermite charges, then the planners would have tried to use all the charges during the collapse initiation phase; any unburned charge would have reduced the chance of success, or raised the proportion of unnecessary redundancy. Ideally, NO thermite is left after collapse initiation, and ALL molten steel has resolidified minutes later (as molten steel would disperse just like dust and mix with more than enough cool material). So again, the way out is to posit extreme amounts of thermite on top of what's sufficient to do the demolition. Then, again, we have the problem of how to burn the thermite such that molten steel weeks later is the result: You either have noticeable reactions for unknown reasons later, or the stuff burns continually. The latter is impossible. Here is why: One gram of thermite contains a theoretical maximum of 3.9kJ of energy (heat). If you let that burn over a period of, say, 2 weeks, or 1,209,600 seconds, that's a power of 3,900J/1,209,600s/gram, or 0.003W/g, or 3.2W/kg. A large dog (15kg) produces about twice as much heat per kg of his own weight (a dog produces as much heat as a 100W light bulb, or about 100W/15kg = 6.7W/kg). Dogs are twice as able to melt steel as concentrated thermite would be if you managed to let it keep burning for 2 weeks.
Step 9: Without a theory, it is not clear which predictions can be made. At a bare minimum I would expect to find: Traces of thermite, or reaction products; Members of structural steel that show signs of one end having been severed by melting; observations of very bright white light as thermite reactions take place; findings of serious amouns of resolidified steel. AFAIK, none of those predictions have come true; all are falsified. This alone breaks the theory
Step 10+11: Truthers have not exposed themselves to this kind of scrutiny. No truther theory has stood the test of scientific rigour
Step 12: The only purported incidence of positive proof for thermite is the paper by Harrit e.al. at Bentham publishers. It has been thoroughly debunked based on its own data: It drwe unwarranted conclusions; better conclusions must be drawn from the data; these point towards paint, not thermite.
To summarize: Truthers who think reports of molten metal are indicative of intentional demolition of the towers have a vague theory in mind that no one has so far fully spelled out; but of rigid necessity, that theory has unproven premises, has logical and factual gaps, and is not supported by any evidence at all. The conclusions truthers wish to draw from such a theory are thus invalid for a multitude of reasons.
Such a theory, even if it existed and had merits, does nothing to cast reasonbable doubts on the accusation that Al Qaeda operatives planned and carried out four plane hijackings and hundreds of cases of murder.
The OP is framed as the legal defense in a ficticious criminal case presenting evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the culpability of certain Al Qaeda operatives. This culpability rests in the follwoing assertion: 19 members of Al Qaeda acted out a plan conceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, planned with the help of a few others, and sponsored and approved by Osama Bin Laden, to hijack four civilian airliners and pilot them into four buildings. Al Qaeda is thus accused of conspiring to hijack planes (a federal crime) in four cases, and murder (a federal and state crime) in several hundred cases. The legal defense team's goal would be to show that these Al Qaeda operatives did not hijack and crash planes and thus relieve them of culpability as per the legal accusation.
The OP is outspoken about it not going to rely on an alternative story:
Much of this thread has circled around the issue of molten steel. So let me quote what the OP said about molten steel:
I submit that any reports of molten steel after the collapses do not cast any doubts on the legal culpability of the 19 hijackers and their co-conspirators: The argument does not even address the matter of hijackings and crashes. What is the jury supposed to think about this issue of molten steel? It means nothing more and nothing less that there may have been molten steel at Ground Zero. Without a theory that ties molten steel to the deeds of the accused, this issue does not belong in the court room. It is very much like introducing reports of dildos found in the rubble: You would not expeczt dildos in an office building, so...???
However, tmd wants us, (or) the jury, to think that
- molten steel, as reported, is impossible or at least prohibitively unlikely, to form on Ground Zero unless intentionally created by someone
- reports of molten steel are reliable: That the witnesses who reported molten steel did in fact see molten steel
- 1.+2. mean that someone must have created molten steel intentionally, or must have put steel-melting stuff there
- the same means that created the observed amounts of molten steel were used to help demolish the towers
- No Al Qaeda operative hijacked any of the planes that crashed into the towers because someone made steel melt on Ground Zero
- We can't fail to notice that this is an alternative theory! tmd told us that he did not assume the burden of presenting an alternative theory, so he would not also have the burden of proving it. But if that is his intention, he should not use an alternative theory. If he does, he must also prove it is.
- #1 is not proven (even though most here agree that bulk amounts of steel melting for "natural" reasons is very unlikely)
- #2 is not proven (I'll get to that later)
- #3 is not conclusive; even if steel melting is highly improbable: If molten steel is indeed observed, that changes the probability for natural occurrence drastically, as anyone who ever heard of understood Bayesian probability will appreciate.
- #4 is pure conjecture. No one has yet been able to tie both events together in one internally consistent theory (I'll get to that later)
- #5 is an outright Non-Sequitur, a logical fallacy
Conclusion: The evidence presented by the defense counsellor is dismissed as there is no logical or factual connection to the case at hand.
Now let us inspect more closely the theory that "reports of molten steel mean towers were intentionally demolished", without thinking any longer about hijacked planes and Al Qaeda, in other words, totally off topic to this thread:
The theory would hold water if all of the following were true:
- There are in fact witness reports of molten steel
- The witnesses did in fact mean "steel", and not "metal", and they did in fact mean "molten", and not "glowing" or "bent" or anything of the sort
- Those valid witnesses had a valid analytical method at their disposal to correctly identify an observed material as being steel and as being liquid
- The witnesses did in fact employ that valid method
- There exists no "natural" reason for steel to melt in the conditions found at Ground Zero
- The only alternative explanation is thermite
- Thermite does in fact explain all (or most) of the confirmed reports of molten steel
- There further exists a single theory that explains reports of molten steel after 9/11 and explains how the towers were demolished on 9/11
- This theory makes falsifiable predictions
- Attempts have been made to falsify these predictions
- These attempts have failed
- As a bonus: Any evidence exists that there was indeed thermite present
Step 2 is tricky and contested: As EDX has shown repeatedly, it is quite normal for witnesses of large fires to speak of "molten steel" when in fact they mean "softened and bent steel" or "glowing metal", etc. One would have to chack with these witnesses to find out what they really meant. Also, some
Step 3 is not fact for most, if not all, genuine witnesses of molten steel: It is clear that hardly anybody has the experience and training to tell molten steel from molten other metal, or even molten steelk from glowing oxidized steel. The defense team would have to point out which of their witnesses have this kind of experience and training; does a structural engineer have this expertise? We have structural engineers on this very board, and they would deny they can do that. We have heard from an actual metallugist, Sunstealer, who clearly does have the required experience and training to identify metals in their various states, and he has unequivocally testified that it is not possible to do that analysis by sight alone, even with the best of relevant expertise.
Step 4 is trivial now: Since the only proper way to identify a material as both steel and liquid is to actually analyse it: For example, do some sort of spectroskopy, or measure the melting point; and since nothing of the sort has been done by any of the known witnesses for molten steel, there exists no proof that molten steel was actually observed at Ground Zero by any one witness.
Step 5 is non-trivial and has not been conclusively shown by any truther. However, I would be willing to just concede this claim.
Step 6 is non-trivial (there certainly are other possibilities; human ingenuity knows few bounds). However, I am willing to concede that thermite at least is one possible (in principle) alternative explanation: Thermite can melt steel.
Step 7 is not fact. Even if there were confirmed reports of molten steel (there are none, see step 4), thermite is an unlikely candidate. Here is why: Any observed molten steel must be on the surface - it is thus not insulated and will cool rapidly. As the Wikipedia article on thermite welding explains, the liquid iron cools so fast that a train can run over a track freshly welded by thermite after 45 minutes. Thus any molten steel that was melted by thermite had its thermite reaction take place a very short time before the observation was made. However, such a reaction itself was never observed, even though it releases very bright, even dangerous amounts of light, including UV light. In addition, neither thermite itself nor its reaction products (slags of iron and aluminium oxide) have been found. The reaction would suddenly introduce great heat to the vicinity and very likely incinerate any unburnt other material; such outbursts of flames would have sparked as much attention as the flow of liquid steel. Also, there is no explanation yet of what would ignite the thermite weeks after the event, but minutes before the observation. It seems that almost all reports of allegedly molten steel describe a bulk property of the portion of the debris in question: It was generally quite hot
Step 8: Such a theory does not exist. The problem here is mainly that charges of pounds and more of thermite rigged to the intact tower would get destroyed and dispersed during the collapse. There are very few ways out of this dilemma: One would be to posit extremely large charges, another to posit extremely large overall amounts. Another problem is quite trivial: If there was a plan to destroy the towers with thermite charges, then the planners would have tried to use all the charges during the collapse initiation phase; any unburned charge would have reduced the chance of success, or raised the proportion of unnecessary redundancy. Ideally, NO thermite is left after collapse initiation, and ALL molten steel has resolidified minutes later (as molten steel would disperse just like dust and mix with more than enough cool material). So again, the way out is to posit extreme amounts of thermite on top of what's sufficient to do the demolition. Then, again, we have the problem of how to burn the thermite such that molten steel weeks later is the result: You either have noticeable reactions for unknown reasons later, or the stuff burns continually. The latter is impossible. Here is why: One gram of thermite contains a theoretical maximum of 3.9kJ of energy (heat). If you let that burn over a period of, say, 2 weeks, or 1,209,600 seconds, that's a power of 3,900J/1,209,600s/gram, or 0.003W/g, or 3.2W/kg. A large dog (15kg) produces about twice as much heat per kg of his own weight (a dog produces as much heat as a 100W light bulb, or about 100W/15kg = 6.7W/kg). Dogs are twice as able to melt steel as concentrated thermite would be if you managed to let it keep burning for 2 weeks.
Step 9: Without a theory, it is not clear which predictions can be made. At a bare minimum I would expect to find: Traces of thermite, or reaction products; Members of structural steel that show signs of one end having been severed by melting; observations of very bright white light as thermite reactions take place; findings of serious amouns of resolidified steel. AFAIK, none of those predictions have come true; all are falsified. This alone breaks the theory
Step 10+11: Truthers have not exposed themselves to this kind of scrutiny. No truther theory has stood the test of scientific rigour
Step 12: The only purported incidence of positive proof for thermite is the paper by Harrit e.al. at Bentham publishers. It has been thoroughly debunked based on its own data: It drwe unwarranted conclusions; better conclusions must be drawn from the data; these point towards paint, not thermite.
To summarize: Truthers who think reports of molten metal are indicative of intentional demolition of the towers have a vague theory in mind that no one has so far fully spelled out; but of rigid necessity, that theory has unproven premises, has logical and factual gaps, and is not supported by any evidence at all. The conclusions truthers wish to draw from such a theory are thus invalid for a multitude of reasons.
Such a theory, even if it existed and had merits, does nothing to cast reasonbable doubts on the accusation that Al Qaeda operatives planned and carried out four plane hijackings and hundreds of cases of murder.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
That paper is nothing but conjecture and speculation. They are trying to use other peoples legitimate work to squeeze thermite into the fray and fail badly.
Funny how they covered up the data by not releasing all the data to the public, but when a known truther files a request they give him the extra data. These illuminati NWO mastermind criminals sure are sloppy. It seems that the only people more stupid than the so called truther perpetrators of this crime are truthers themselves.
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Especially when the stuff is not particularly stable.......these thermite installing shape shifting lizard Illuminati s have some cohones.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
As its falling (like the material in the towers) ITS ORANGE! Only when it manages to lose a little heat does it appear silver(BTW why is it not molten silver, after all IT LOOKS LIKE SILVER?)
Huh? Read that sentence. Is that what results when you specifically want to be clear?
You introduce your personal guess into your fictitios legal defense??
So, when was Robertson's "little river of steel" observed? Early on? Did they make it to the basement levels early on? Or would that not be the part of the pile they'd get to last? Think!
Correct: You don't know.
Incorrect: Wasn't early.
You don't know.
Why then did you argue that 99 days is somehow worthy of doubt?
Which one? And timestamp, please! You have been asked this several times!!!
No.
If little thermite was used to demolish the towers, why was any left over after the collapse?
How did whatever little amount of thermite stay together during the immense destrcutive turbulences of the collapse? All of the gypsum and most of the concrete was broken and dispersed, everything mixed with everything else - how did the thermite keep from dispersing such that it would not burn any longer?
How did thermite burn weeks after the collapse? Two possibilities can be imagined:
1. it burned continually. This must remain imagination; it is impossible. I'll explain if you disagree
2. It didn't burn on 9/11, and was ignited later. Then the question: Hiow was it ignited weeks later? Especially if you wish to believe that ordinary building contents could not have kept burning this long.
"Looks like" does not equal "is". You know that, right?
Nonsense.
You wrote a lot it's hard for me to respond to it all...just due to time.
This brings me to my first point...you have all this time to write this, and you can't make time to watch cole's videos. How do you want me to give you a timestamp when it's all important? Every minute of it. Are you scared of what's on it? He proves quite easily that what was falling from the south tower could not have been aluminum mixed with any office supplies. If you don’t like his results prove him wrong by experiment. It shouldn’t be very difficult to melt aluminum to 1800F and see what happens if you try to add these things. This is something NIST should have done instead of just hypothesizing that this is what would happen.
It seems like most of your post is just going on and on....in an attempt to make thermite seem impossible. For example the more you write, would indicate a lot of evidence, and many things against thermite. Just by the sheer volume.
But in actuality most of what you wrote is somewhat repetitive.
First of all molten steel is a big problem for the official story...most people even those on this site will admit it. To say it's not, even in smaller amounts you'd be disagreeing with a lot of people.
It's clear that molten steel casts series doubts about al qaeda doing it.
I was only saying I can't answer when the witnesses saw molten steel/rivers of steel, I'd have to ask them. I would guess early.
If you watch cole’s videos he has NASA photographs showing high temperatures consistent with thermitic reactions, for a few days after the event.
As I said the fires may or may not be indicative of anything. I don’t think landfill fires is a 1 for 1 comparison. There are many things in landfills that would not be found at the WTC….brush….wood, all catch fire more easily. What is interesting is Steven jones paper, in which Jones had to request information via a FOIA. It is seen here http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ Say what you will about Jones…this paper is really just about the EPA data. I can’t imagine him lying about that and the EPA not taking action against him.
The data Jones presents shows the EPA figures were higher then what they initially released at the time. Strange they would do that. Some of the data suggests some chemical reactions that are peculiar . Some as far in as February 2002.
As for a dog being twice as likely to melt steel then thermite, how can you say that with a straight face? Thermite gets to temperatures 1500F higher to melt steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite If you watch Cole’s videos you see he melts steel with only the smallest amount of it….I mean we’re talking single digit pounds.
As far as dogs melting steel, if that were true, you would have nothing to worry about in terms of molten steel. I don’t like writing this, but I would think humans give off at least as much energy as dogs, and humans were burning for many…many weeks. So there should be a lot of molten steel if something that is twice as likely to melt steel then a substance already proven to melt steel was known to be in the rubble and sadly in abundance.