Merged So there was melted steel

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless vague answers. "Maybe it is and maybe it isnt". good god.

5) They didn't say anything one way or the other about what the pile could do. You saw the quote.
Click to expand...

And yet you did apply the quote to the pile when they were actuallly talking about the fire in the towers. This is why you claimed NIST would be "wrong" if there was melted steel in the rubble pile :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Plain and simple.

The red chips, endemic in the WTC dust, have been found to contain iron oxide, but not free iron, or iron microspheres.

At 430 C these chips ignite.

After ignition, free iron in the form of iron microspheres or droplets can be found.

Temperatures in the range of 1500+ C are required to do this.

The WTC dust is known to be riddled with iron microspheres as well as the red chips.

MM
 
Edx said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say anymore. All I'm saying is that the WTC debris, resembled a landfill right, I mean I'm only saying what you said. Yet the hottest I found was only 960 F and that was 4 meters deep. We know from the NASA photos the temperature was hot enough to melt aluminum on the surface. So it would seem something unusual is going on for temperatures to be that hot.
 
tmd may be a troll, but he may not be a troll.
 
Last edited:
The red chips, endemic in the WTC dust, have been found to contain iron oxide, but not free iron, or iron microspheres.
Click to expand...

Hang on.

They did NOT contain iron microspheres?

You people need to get your stories straight. Seriously. No wonder you're ALL viewed as idiots.
 
All I'm saying is that the WTC debris, resembled a landfill right, I mean I'm only saying what you said.
Click to expand...

As usual you quote-mine and delete the important parts.

Do you HONESTLY think you're fooling anybody with these retarded, childish tactics?
Honestly?
 
Miragememories said:
You need to upgrade your reading comprehension skills.

MM
Click to expand...

How many Stundies have you won?

You said:

Miragememories said:
The red chips, endemic in the WTC dust, have been found to contain iron oxide, but not free iron, or iron microspheres.
Click to expand...

Then NF said:

NoahFence said:
They did NOT contain iron microspheres?
Click to expand...

And, somehow, he's the one that needs a comprehension lesson?

Dude, that is massive Stundie material...
 
The National Fire and Arson Report, Vol 10, No 4, 1992
http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/MeltedSteel.pdf


'The theoretical flame temperature which can be achieved by hydrocarbon liquids is listed in the Fire Protection Handbook at between 3,500 and 4,200 degrees F. Thus flammable and combustible liquids are cited .. as having enough energy available to actually melt steel.'

'Recent studies in our laboratory indicate that it is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized.'
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say anymore.
Click to expand...

Im not sure why, I think I've been quite clear. You've shown me you don't read my posts properly in the past, so I reccomend you try hard to read everything Im saying to you.

All I'm saying is that the WTC debris, resembled a landfill right,
Click to expand...

Yes, resembled a landfill fire, but it was not an actual landfill fire.

So it will resemble it in some ways, and be different in others.

Yet the hottest I found was only 960 F and that was 4 meters deep.
Click to expand...

As I already said the WTC rubble pile had (to name some examples) different fuel sources and it had a lot of it, it had different sources for oxygen and different materials were involved. It was not an landfill fire, it resembled a landfill fire, as you wrote above.

That is why I asked you to tell us why, considering the very different composition and nature of the WTC rubble pile fire, should we only expect the fire to reach temperatures of the one of two examples of landfill fires you have found?

But here is the very important issue:

The observations you have given us on 911 for these extreme steel melting temperatures do not require these extreme steel melting temperatures like you claim they do.

I have listed them before but i will do so again, these are all reasons you have given that I remember you claimed or implied were evidence of these extremely high temperatures on 911:

The following 3 are found in the same exact way in landfill fires.

  • 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

If you you want to argue off the standpoint that landfill fires "cant even [get hot enough] to melt aluminium" thats fine by me, because it just means that all those points you've argued above that you believe point to an additional incendiary like thermite to explain, can actually occur at temperatures SO LOW they "can't even melt aluminium", which it seems to me puts your argument in an even worse position than it was before.

Here's some other points you've brought up to make the same argument.

  • People reporting molten metal
  • People reporting molten/melting/melted steel.
  • Experts reporting molten/melting/melted steel.
  • Reports of molten/melting/melted steel beams/girders.
  • Glowing red steel.

Yet as I have shown you these are all unremarkable as well and you can find plenty of other fires which have had reports of molten steel and metal in the same way as you find on 911. You simply have no reason to treat the reports on 911 differently to these ones. No thermite was needed for these other fires to cause people to report molten steel and melted girders, but they did.

Even if there was extremely high heat, even if thermite really was was used to demolish the towers somehow, even if people really did see melted steel, your arguments you have given listed in the bullet points above would still not be an indicator or evidence for any of it.

Now please, read this post properly.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that office buildings contain enormous amounts of combustible plastics, and the melting point of some plastics is listed as:
'PVC, polyvinyl chloride, melts at 212 °C (about 414 °F). Teflon®, which we use to coat cookware, is polytetrafluoroethene - PTFE, and it melts at 327 °C (about 621 °F)'

Once melted, there is no reason that the melted material would not be directed by gravity to pool somewhere and fuel an existing pocket of fire for a long time.

Why is it that 9/11 Truthers cannot find out the basic facts about materials which were in the debris piles, but instead issue proclamations and denials from a distance??
 
A landfill is typically compacted carefully. As such landfills are often planted over and used as parks or even residential land after they are no longer in use.

The debris piles contained many voids created by the jumble of large debris contained within. The voids would both:

a) allow air to circulate thru the piles
b) prevent water from directly contacting all the debris

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that debris piles would not behave exactly as typical landfills.
 
Steel may melt at 1,500 degrees centigrade but it doesn't boil till above 3.000 degrees C (5,400 F) It had to reach boiling point to create iron microspheres. This neatly covers why USGS found some microspheres of Molybdenum in the dust.(MP 4.700 F)

PS. as you can see we are now very far out of the range of any fire that could have ocurred in the Twin Towers according to the government lie.
 
Last edited:
Jebus, the OP poses a couple of direct questions, and the twoofers ignore the questions and elect to waffle about red herrings...

No wonder the twoof-movement is dead.
 
So much drama in the truth movement

can it be more dramatic?



at 2:30 there are apparently "Arabs in caves" smelting iron with a simple clay furnace. fueled by primitive Kingsfords.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Plain and simple.

The red chips, endemic in the WTC dust, have been found to contain iron oxide, but not free iron, or iron microspheres.

At 430 C these chips ignite.

After ignition, free iron in the form of iron microspheres or droplets can be found.

Temperatures in the range of 1500+ C are required to do this.

The WTC dust is known to be riddled with iron microspheres as well as the red chips.

MM
Click to expand...

I think we are more talking about observations of molten steel, as in "flowed like lava", "dripped from red-hot beams" etc., not microspheres that no one would observe in situ.

Do you think there were such bulk amounts of molten steel days or weeks after 9/11? If so, please try to answer:
  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): You say it was pre-planted thermite. Why did that thermite 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?
  4. If you answered c): Why did the thermite 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?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say anymore. All I'm saying is that the WTC debris, resembled a landfill right, I mean I'm only saying what you said. Yet the hottest I found was only 960 F and that was 4 meters deep. We know from the NASA photos the temperature was hot enough to melt aluminum on the surface. So it would seem something unusual is going on for temperatures to be that hot.
Click to expand...

Could that unusual thing be the presence of lots of fuel, insulating effects and a constant source of air?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom