Merged So there was melted steel

So we've gone from molten steel to vaporized steel?
 
bill smith said:
So where did the temperature to vapourise steel come from ?
Click to expand...

Bill....I know you rarely answer my questions....and we all know why ;)

But DID you just say "VAPORISE STEEL"? I know you misspelled it and everything....but we know what you meant....


vaporise steel?


:newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol :newlol
 
Travis said:
So we've gone from molten steel to vaporized steel?
Click to expand...

Spherical often hollow iron microspheres means that the steel was vapourised.

PS. Just like the droplets of vapourised water I mentioned earlier. Only these were metal and cooled quite quickly retaining their spherical form.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Step up? Did you forget about the the literal millions of gallons of water dumped on the site along with several rain falls?
Click to expand...

Shoot, if that's all it takes then what happened to Centralia?

tmd2_1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Some of those fires do get really hot. But even if they don't it's probably a lack of constant air flow into their bottom.

tmd2_1 said:
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)
Click to expand...

Why there are no reports of it is not my problem. Truthers wanted me to believe in molten steel. So, for the purposes of this thread I am believing them.

tmd2_1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You have yet to present evidence NIST ever said that the pile could not produce temperatures that hot.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Step up? Did you forget about the the literal millions of gallons of water dumped on the site along with several rain falls?
Click to expand...

Water is usually ineffective in land fill fires as it simply evaporates before reaching thge actual fire.

Fires in peat moss in a local swamp had about 15" of rain dropped on them in Hurricane Irene and they were not put out.

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.
Click to expand...

prove that they never do and the debris in the WTC site was rather different than your typical land fill so its not unlikely that results may differ.

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.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.........you are now saying there were no reports of molten steel? :D Make up your mind!

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?
Click to expand...

Feel free. They would love you. They like liars and fools.

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

How? NIST says nothing about the debris pile so how could they be wrong about it???? What do you imagine they had lied about even if molten steen was found in the debris pile????
Click to expand...
 
This magical thermite which keeps steel molten for months, why don't truthers use it to power a steam turbine and generate cheap cheap cheap electricity!
 
bill smith said:
Do ypou believe yourself that the iron microspheres were to be expected in the WTC dust Sunstealer. And such a massive volume of them ?
Click to expand...

no.
Two of the tallest buildings in the world should have produced just enough iron microspheres to coat a piece of toast.


dolt
 
tmd2_1 said:
DenialDenialDenialDenial
Click to expand...

Let's look at the list of denials from you so far:

1) Hydrocarbon fires cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, only thermite can do that. False
2) If the debris pile fires could not be put out with water, it proves that thermite was used, nothing else could've caused that.False
3)If people report seeing molten steel at GZ, they cannot be mistaken. It must be molten steel and nothing else. False
4) No other molten metals were seen at GZ, it was all molten steel. False
5) NIST said the debris pile fires couldn't melt steel. False

That's just a brief list, I'm sure I could find more if I felt like wasting more time on these ridiculous denials and circular logic....
 
I do love it when people tell me that fire can not melt steel, only thermite can melt steel.

How many hundreds of years have the human race been able to forge steel? How exactly do these people think that swords, shields and armours were forged in the crusades? Wow, a furnace? Ok and what is that orange flamey stuff in the furnace?


So, let me put my view nice and clearly: I don't know if fire did melt steel moltan pools, but given the conditions within the fire, and the amount of fuel burning, the amount of fixtures and fittings and papers in an office that are nice solid fuel for a fire, I would be far from surprised.

But most importantly not all the steel HAD to melt to topple the building. It just had to get hot enough for metal to expand and weaken supports and joints. I know, from my work, that steel can get hot enough to expand and cause trouble with out melting. I know that on a summer day the sun can push steel rails to the limits of their expansion gaps, and make overhead cables droop. A summer day. And I am supposed to believe that the fire in the wtc wouldn't melt and weaken a steel structure?
 
bill smith said:
Spherical often hollow iron microspheres means that the steel was vapourised.

PS. Just like the droplets of vapourised water I mentioned earlier. Only these were metal and cooled quite quickly retaining their spherical form.
Click to expand...

Does it? Prove it.
 
Edx said:
Here we go again, :rolleyes: 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. :rolleyes:




No reports of what??



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.



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!
Click to expand...

Stop it. I believe you are doing nothing but adjectating me. Landfill fires yes. I gave you two reports on landfill fires. Two different times yet you haven't addressed them once.
 
We're not saying that there WAS melted steel, we're saying that IF there WERE melted steel, it most likely would have been created in the debris piles thru heat trapping. There's no logical, sane reason to insist on therm*te as the cause of heat.

But there is no firm evidence there even was melted steel, so this speculation is moot. TMD cannot provide a shred of empirical evidence that a person can identify the composition of a molten metal at GZ by sight alone. Nobody can. It's a pointless exercise which only 9/11 Truthers would bother to engage in.
 
alienentity said:
Let's look at the list of denials from you so far:

1) Hydrocarbon fires cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, only thermite can do that. False
2) If the debris pile fires could not be put out with water, it proves that thermite was used, nothing else could've caused that.False
3)If people report seeing molten steel at GZ, they cannot be mistaken. It must be molten steel and nothing else. False
4) No other molten metals were seen at GZ, it was all molten steel. False
5) NIST said the debris pile fires couldn't melt steel. False

That's just a brief list, I'm sure I could find more if I felt like wasting more time on these ridiculous denials and circular logic....
Click to expand...


I've never made any of these claims. NIST said what they said, it's not my fault they gave no qualifications. Address what I said about landfill fires.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Stop it. I believe you are doing nothing but adjectating me. Landfill fires yes. I gave you two reports on landfill fires. Two different times yet you haven't addressed them once.
Click to expand...

You've already been told that the WTC pile was "like" a landfill fire, it was not the same as a landfill fire. You do understand the difference, right?

The point which you continue to ignore is that you claim firefighters dumping lots of water ineffectually onto the WTC rubble pile is abnormal for an ordinary fire and suggests something else (like your magical thermite) is required to explain it. But the fact that landfill fires, examples of which I have already shown you, also have the exact same problem trying to stop oxygen from getting to the fires and dumping lots of water it as they had on 911, so it means that like the reports of molten steel on 911 its is TOTALLY UNREMARKABLE.

Now, do you accept that NIST never claimed what you said they did? They were not talking about the rubble pile they were talking about the fires in the towers, right?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
You've already been told that the WTC pile was "like" a landfill fire, it was not the same as a landfill fire. You do understand the difference, right?

The point which you continue to ignore is that you that them dumping lots of water ineffectually onto the WTC pile is abnormal for an ordinary fire and suggests something (like your magical thermite) to explain it. The fact that landfill fires, examples of which I have already shown you, also have the exact same problem means that like reports of molten steel on 911, is TOTALLY UNREMARKABLE.

Now, do you accept that NIST never claimed what you said they did? They were not talking about the rubble pile they were talking about the fires in the towers, right?
Click to expand...

No, I am not playing games with you anymore, address that the highest landfill fire was only 960F and that involved fuel (that I found I mean there may be more higher) Address what's in that official FEMA report.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I've never made any of these claims. NIST said what they said, it's not my fault they gave no qualifications. Address what I said about landfill fires.
Click to expand...

The first of AE's points is:

1) Hydrocarbon fires cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, only thermite can do that. False

So if you dont claim that it has to be thermite, what else do you think can cause steel to melt on 911?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom