Merged So there was melted steel

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The WTC debris pile also had fuel, lots and lots of fuel. Hundreds of acres of fuel.
 
alienentity said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about the thousands of tons of iron microspheres that RJ Lee tested samples of . They came from molten steel. Airborne microspheres at that.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The WTC debris pile also had fuel, lots and lots of fuel. Hundreds of acres of fuel.
Click to expand...

Gasoline and oil too. Many hundreds of gallons of it.

Although that fuel pales in comparison to the carpenting, drywall, ceiling tiles, paper, etc...etc...etc...

What about the thousands of tons of iron microspheres that RJ Lee tested samples of . They came from molten steel.
Click to expand...

You know what would be groovy? If you had the first idea what the hell you're talking about.
 
Sunstealer said:
Oh come now, metallurgy 101 states in the very first paragraph that the only thing that can melt steel is themite. Duh!
Click to expand...

Hey sunstealer, would you mind dropping by this video and take up the points of ThePeage?
Ivan Kminek has already had a conversation with him, but he seems unable to fathom that the Harrit paper data doesn't support their conclusions.

Thanks in advance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY
 
tmd2_1 said:
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. Given this there is nothing that should have been naturally occurring that was hot enough to melt steel. So if there was melted steel, game over for the official story. It doesn't matter whether it was thermite or some other agent. If there was molten steel, it's game over for the official story.
Click to expand...
You do realize that controlled demolition doesn't cause pools of molten steel as a matter of predictable side-effect.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What games?

You made a false implication that them dumping lots of water on the WTC rubble pile is signficant to your case, which is that some other source of the heat is needed to explain it. Do you not accept that landfill fires have the same exact issues? Because they do, I've already shown you they do.

I have also already addressed your point. The WTC rubble pile was not a landfill fire. It resembled a landfill fire in many ways but it also differed in very relevant areas: For example, it had sources of oxygen that a landfill fire wouldnt have, it involved materials that landfill fires wouldnt have, it has types of fuel sources a landfill fire wouldnt have, it had HUGE amounts of that fuel that a landfill fire wouldn't have. Why you expect it to be only as severe as the one or two examples you found of a landfill fire I do not know and you won't tell us.

  • Molten steel reports on 911 are totally unremarkable.
  • Firefighters dumping lots of water on the pile is totally unremarkable
  • Glowing red steel is totally unremarkable
  • NIST was talking about the fire in the towers in your own quote, not the pile.

So then what evidence do you have that the pile was so hot that it isnt explained by the "official story" and requires something else?
 
Last edited:
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...

No problem. Then if you disagree with these claims, do you agree with them? Which is it?

1) Hydrocarbon fires cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, only thermite can do that. True orFalse
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.True or False
3)If people report seeing molten steel at GZ, they cannot be mistaken. It must be molten steel and nothing else. True orFalse
4) No other molten metals were seen at GZ, it was all molten steel. True or False
5) NIST said the debris pile fires couldn't melt steel.True or False


Now's your chance to clarify your views on these points. They're either true or false, and they're derived directly from your positions and arguments. I've just distilled them into less weaselly formats. :)
 
OCaptain said:
You do realize that controlled demolition doesn't cause pools of molten steel as a matter of predictable side-effect.
Click to expand...

Damn! Why'd you have to bring that up??? LOL

Come to think of it, can tmd provide us with a case history where either therm*te or nanothermite was used to demolish a tall office building? That would be swell.
Thanks in advance tmd!!!
 
Can we also at least get at least an acknowledgment that furnaces exist? I'd hate to think that Truthers think that steel components come from magical workshops where wizards summon it into existence.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Stop it. I believe you are doing nothing but adjectating me.
Click to expand...

adjectating is not a word in the english language.:boggled:

Landfill fires yes. I gave you two reports on landfill fires. Two different times yet you haven't addressed them once.
Click to expand...

Were they the remains of two 110 floor buildings, if not, why do you expect the fires to be exactly the same? What point are you trying, and failing miserably, to make?:confused:
 
tmd2_1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Travis said:
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.
Click to expand...



See, Travis, this is why you'll never get a straight answer out of these guys. He can't even keep track of the point of this thread, which is: Even if we postulate (postulate: Suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief) the existence of pools of melted steel, what relevance does that have for the inside job hypothesis?

No one has said they "accept melted steel". What we're saying is, IF that's true, what implications does it lead to? What would be the likely causes of that (hypothetical!) steel?

You insist that the most likely cause is thermite. Okay, then demonstrate why that is more likely than the Debris Pile Furnace Effect Hypothesis.


Christ, dude, we're giving you extra points in this particular debate, just to see if you can do any reasoning at all beyond what we've already seen you can't do, and even with that help, you're still failing!
 
Edx said:
What games?

You made a false implication that them dumping lots of water on the WTC rubble pile is signficant to your case, which is that some other source of the heat is needed to explain it. Do you not accept that landfill fires have the same exact issues? Because they do, I've already shown you they do.

I have also already addressed your point. The WTC rubble pile was not a landfill fire. It resembled a landfill fire in many ways but it also different in very relevant areas: For example, it had sources of oxygen that a landfill fire wouldnt have, it involved materials that landfill fires wouldnt have, it has types of fuel sources a landfill fire wouldnt have, it had HUGE amounts of that fuel that a landfill fire wouldn't have. Why you expect it to be only as severe as the one example you found of a landfill fire I do not know and you won't tell us.

  • Molten steel reports on 911 are totally unremarkable.
  • Firefighters dumping lots of water on the pile is totally unremarkable
  • NIST was talking about the fire in the towers in your own quote, not the pile.
Click to expand...

No you misunderstand it would have had to have been far more severe than the example I gave. 960F is far from melting steel, it can't even melt aluminium. That's why I gave it, that was the worst I found. There's been literally thousands and thousands of landfill fires, and that was the worse I found. So it had sources of oxygen/fuel etc...that made it far worse than the worse I found?
 
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? 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?
Click to expand...

TMD, I wonder if you have thought about these questions:
  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?
Straight answers to these would be greatly appreciated. You do agree that these questions must have answers, right?
 
alienentity said:
No problem. Then if you disagree with these claims, do you agree with them? Which is it?

1) Hydrocarbon fires cannot produce temps hot enough to melt steel, only thermite can do that. True orFalse
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.True or False
3)If people report seeing molten steel at GZ, they cannot be mistaken. It must be molten steel and nothing else. True orFalse
4) No other molten metals were seen at GZ, it was all molten steel. True or False
5) NIST said the debris pile fires couldn't melt steel.True or False


Now's your chance to clarify your views on these points. They're either true or false, and they're derived directly from your positions and arguments. I've just distilled them into less weaselly formats. :)
Click to expand...

1. Thermite is not only thing that can melt steel.
2. No it doesn't prove thermite was used, doesn't prove it wasn't either.
3. They can be mistaken, but they may also not be mistaken.
4. I have not seen many reports of any molten metal, but yes of course others could be there.
5) They didn't say anything one way or the other about what the pile could do. You saw the quote.
 
tmd2_1 said:
No you misunderstand it would have had to have been far more severe than the example I gave. 960F is far from melting steel, it can't even melt aluminium. That's why I gave it, that was the worst I found. There's been literally thousands and thousands of landfill fires, and that was the worse I found. So it had sources of oxygen/fuel etc...that made it far worse than the worse I found?
Click to expand...

So after listing the ways the WTC rubble pile fire was different to a landfill fire, I posed you a question.

Why you expect it to be only as severe as the one example you found of a landfill fire I do not know and you won't tell us.

Granted, I could have phrased it so it ended with a question mark to make it more obvious, but until you deal with it your agrument is going nowhere.

I still want to know if you accept that landfill fires have the same problems they had on 911, such as:

  • Stopping the oxygen getting to the fire is very difficult
  • Putting water on the fire around the clock to little effect
  • Fires can take weeks, months and even years to put out in some cases.

Additionally, if landfill fires only get to the low temperatures you say they do, then how do those points listed above point to extreme steel melting temperatures on 911 like you claim? Surely all you've done is show that all those things you've argued just has has to point to an additional incendiary like thermite to explain, can actually occur at temperatures so low they "can't even melt aluminium". Chew on that for a while and get back to me.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
No you misunderstand it would have had to have been far more severe than the example I gave. 960F is far from melting steel, it can't even melt aluminium. That's why I gave it, that was the worst I found. There's been literally thousands and thousands of landfill fires, and that was the worse I found. So it had sources of oxygen/fuel etc...that made it far worse than the worse I found?
Click to expand...

Yes, so if there really was this great, mysterious anomaly that in this debris pile, unlike any other debris pile in the entire history of the world, and for the first time ever, humongous amounts of steel melted like snowmen in Death Valley in july.

Let's suppose all this is true. Firemen wading thigh-deep in melted steel all over the place.

It's ridiculous, but we will grant you this: There was lots and lots of molten steel, four weeks after the collapses, and everybody and their stepmommy saw it.


Now: Why do you think all this has anything at all to do with the collapses? Why would that mean inside job?
Can you explain how the molten steel got there - had it been around for four weeks since the morning of 9/11? Did it melt four weeks after the collapse? And in either case, how come the collapses did not disperse either the molten steel, or the incendiaries that melted the steel? What protected that material? Please try to tell a reasonable story that includes
- origin of the incendiaries
- how and when they were ignited
- the collapses that pulverized everything and covered Manhattan with dust and minced 1100 humans such that no trace of them was ever found
- the presence of molten steel some time after 9/11
Not necessarily in that order. I really want you to track the materials through the whole process!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom