Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

It is a silly argument.

The fact is that people report molten/melting/melted steel, molten/melting/melted beams and girders in other ordinary fires. We find find dozens and dozens of quotes very easily on Google Archive. It seems pretty common.

Tmd has already been told all that but pretends he hasnt seen any of it
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7591926&postcount=30

They probably didnt see melted steel in those fires either, but we still have people talking about melted steel in the exact same way as we find on 911. If thermite wasnt needed then, then thermite wasnt needed on 911. Truthers better have a better reason than falsly claiming that these reports on 911 are abnormal for us to think there had to be some kind of extra source for the heat like they claim. The reports on 911 are totally unremarkable if we can find the exact same kind of reports in plenty of other normal fires!

Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?

 

[Oystein]

Travis, I think revealing answers could be expected from the following, additional question:

1. If the molten steel was observed a significant while after the collapses - 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month - when did it melt? a) before the collapse b) during the collapse c) after the collapse
2. If you answered a or b): Why did the molten steel not disperse, mix with cooler dust and debris, and resolidify before 1 day (week, month) had passed and the molten steel was observed?
3. If you answered c): What heat source was responsible for melting the steel, and how was it tapped (ignited...)?
4. If you answered c): If you say it was a specific and suspicious pre-planted agent such as a form of thermite, why did that agent not disperse and mix with the other dust and debris and become ineffective? How could it stay concentrated in sufficient amounts during the collapse to produce a bulk amount of molten steel after the collapse?
5. If you answered c): Why did the agent not melt steel before or during the collapse? Did it malfunction? Or was it never intended to play a role with regard to the collapse itself?

 

[Edx]

You guys are amazing your own beloved NIST says "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)." They made no exceptions, no qualifications, (i.e well in the debris..etc). I don't or any "truther" need to say anymore than what NIST has already said.

I dont believe there was molten steel as you know, since the reports are totally unremarkable. I do have to point out though as others have, NIST were not talking about the debris pile. It says it right there in your quote what they were talking about.

I realise that you're frustrated that your sources dont say what you wish they said, but thats hardly our fault.

I might as well point out this is yet another thing you have been wrong about, I wouldnt normally count because you're wrong about everything, but since you claim you've never been shown to be wrong I thought you'd need reminding every once and a while. In case it wasn't clear, the quote doesnt say what you claim it is says.

 

[Horatius]

Kits for outside air supply to wood furnaces routinely use flue heat to warm the incoming air.

High end wood stoves are engineered to allow some flue gases back into the combustion chamber and have sections where unburned flue gases are caused to ignite thus reducing creosote and increasing heat o/p.

In finding those two links, I found lots of other links. Most of the pre-heating fuel and air references I found dealt with increasing fuel efficiency. However, considering his inability to even understand the basic thermodynamic effects expected by adding the heat of combustion to materials that were already at an elevated temperature, I despaired of him understanding how efficiencies produced by pre-heating the fuel and air might be related to the temperatures involved.

So I went with the painfully obvious quotes, in the full expectation that he won't even understand those.

 

[Travis]

I wish I could say I'm surprised the thread has gone the way it has gone so far.

But sadly I'm not. I was really hoping to get to the bottom of what all this talk about molten steel is really about.

 

[CurtC]

Because steel melts at about 2700F, the hottest jet fuel burns at is about 1800F, there is nothing that would burn hotter than this 1800F in a normal office environment.

But wait - we're not talking about "in a normal office environment." We're talking about in the ground zero debris pile.

In other conditions, you could get jet fuel (or any combustible material) to burn at 10,000F. You just have to insulate it properly and feed it oxygen at the right rate.

 

[Horatius]

I wish I could say I'm surprised the thread has gone the way it has gone so far.

But sadly I'm not. I was really hoping to get to the bottom of what all this talk about molten steel is really about.

Well, the essential problem with any of the supposed "anomalies" they continually cite as disproving the Official Story(tm) has always been, "Why does that mean there was an inside job?"

We've asked that question about all sorts of things, and have never gotten useful results, because truthers in general are hilariously bad at thinking through the implications of their beliefs.

So I predict you'll never get a useful answer out of them. All they have is, "There might have been molten steel, and that's weird, for some reason."

 

[Edx]

I wish I could say I'm surprised the thread has gone the way it has gone so far.

But sadly I'm not. I was really hoping to get to the bottom of what all this talk about molten steel is really about.

TMB has already said what he thinks made the debris pile that hot. He thinks "unreacted thermite" that I suppose kept reacting periodically to melt steel and so on for weeks.

 

[adkinsjr]

I wish I could say I'm surprised the thread has gone the way it has gone so far.

But sadly I'm not. I was really hoping to get to the bottom of what all this talk about molten steel is really about.

The molten steel issue is pretty straight forward. Truthers have heard unproven reports of molten steel, jet fuel fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, therefore the only explanation is that the towers were brought down in a nano-thermite controlled demolition, we were lied to about 9/11, 9/11 was an inside job, planet Nibiru, roswell aliens, and bla bla bla.

The truth is, there wasn't any molten steel, 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and planet Nibiru doesn't exist. But "truthers" don't want the truth, they want larger-than-life government plots, otherwise 9/11 just isn't any fun for them.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I was really hoping to get to the bottom of what all this talk about molten steel is really about.

Then you need to post in a forum discussing mental illness. To turn a few off hand comments, ones made on many other occasions before and since 911, into definitive proof of molten steel at ground zero is insane. Especially so when even if there was molten steel it would prove nothing other than that it gets damned hot in burning debris piles.

 

[Travis]

Well, frankly, I think that if Truthers are not willing to step up to the plate in this thread then we really do not need any future threads on the subject of molten steel.

 

[Edx]

Well, frankly, I think that if Truthers are not willing to step up to the plate in this thread then we really do not need any future threads on the subject of molten steel.

Travis, what is it you want the truthers to tell you? As I said Tmd thinks its unreacted thermite that caused the steel to melt in the debris pile and cause the high temperatures.

 

[Horatius]

Travis, what is it you want the truthers to tell you? As I said Tmd thinks its unreacted thermite that caused the steel to melt in the debris pile and cause the high temperatures.

Well, first off, can he tell us how much thermite it is he thinks they used, such that the "unreacted" portion left over could not only last that long, but make "pools" of steel so large that they were of particular note to those people he's quoting?

Then, we can ask if it's reasonable to suppose that that much thermite could be placed in the towers without anyone noticing.

It's these sorts of questions I had in mind when I said truthers were bad at considering the implications of their beliefs.

 

[bill smith]

Page 16 RJ Lee report.

Do ypou believe yourself that the iron microspheres were to be expected in the WTC dust Sunstealer. And such a massive volume of them ?

 

[Sabretooth]

TMB has already said what he thinks made the debris pile that hot. He thinks "unreacted thermite" that I suppose kept reacting periodically to melt steel and so on for weeks.

Are you serious?

Does he know that thermite needs to be ignited by temperatures that can't be reached in a "regular office fire"?

Good gawd...I'm glad I have him on ignore...

 

[tmd2_1]

Well, frankly, I think that if Truthers are not willing to step up to the plate in this thread then we really do not need any future threads on the subject of molten steel.

Step up? Did you forget about the the literal millions of gallons of water dumped on the site along with several rain falls? Why do landfill fires not get hot enough to melt steel and these fires do whatever furnace technique is in place should work the same should it not? That one example I gave which involved fuel was the hottest I saw and that was 4 meters deep.

Besides: so your now saying there was this furnace like atmosphere taking place, and there certainly was no shortage of steel, why was there no reports of it (at least officially) I mean I would think there would be, with how meticulous (LOL) the scene was investigated. Which way do you want it? Should I go on to Cpt'n Bobby's site (as you guys love to call him) and say JREF now says they accept Melted steel? I mean that would mean NIST is wrong, and clearly lying, and we know that can't be true right?

 

[NoahFence]

I fail to see how it makes the slightest bit of difference. Does something magical happen when the building is now in debris, as opposed to standing up?

Um...


Yea. It's not magical, but it happens. I once remembered to COVER a grease fire, and not put water on it. I was like 18. That's the extent of my firefighting knowledge, and EVEN I KNOW what the difference is between the standing structures and the debris pile.

GET A NEW HOBBY

 

[bill smith]

Well, frankly, I think that if Truthers are not willing to step up to the plate in this thread then we really do not need any future threads on the subject of molten steel.

Hold your horses Travis. There is more to discuss yet.

 

[Sunstealer]

Do ypou believe yourself that the iron microspheres were to be expected in the WTC dust Sunstealer. And such a massive volume of them ?

Yes.

 

[Edx]

Step up? Did you forget about the the literal millions of gallons of water dumped on the site along with several rain falls?

Here we go again, pretending you were never shown something you had been shown before. Landfill fiires where basically the same thing happened, where they had huge issues stopping the oxygen getting to the fires, where they dumped water on it around the clock that did nothing.

Here, go read about it again and refresh your memory.

Besides: so your now saying there was this furnace like atmosphere taking place, and there certainly was no shortage of steel, why was there no reports of it (at least officially) I mean I would think there would be, with how meticulous (LOL) the scene was investigated.

No reports of what??

Which way do you want it? Should I go on to Cpt'n Bobby's site (as you guys love to call him) and say JREF now says they accept Melted steel?

I believe Travis is arguing hypothetically with his OP and I already told you and showed you that reports of molten steel on 911 are totally unremarkable since plenty of other normal fires have the same reports.

I mean that would mean NIST is wrong, and clearly lying, and we know that can't be true right?

Good god man, youre STILL claiming NIST said something about the debris pile when they said they were talking about the the fire IN THE TOWERS in the very quote you posted! NIST never said what you claimed they said, get that through your head! Read the all the words of the quote you posted!