Merged So there was melted steel

bill smith said:
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 would neatly explain why USGS found some spheres 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.
Click to expand...

Oh, like you find in any steel structured building where the construction of some framework may have required welding? Or other mundane causes? Yeah, that must mean thermite.

What has it got to do with the "pools of melted steel" again?

Even if there are microspheres, the chances are it means that our estimates of the temperature of the fires was low, not that thermite or demolition was used.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Oh, like you find in any steel structured building where the construction of some framework may have required welding? Or other mundane causes? Yeah, that must mean thermite.

What has it got to do with the "pools of melted steel" again?

Even if there are microspheres, the chances are it means that our estimates of the temperature of the fires was low, not that thermite or demolition was used.
Click to expand...

3,000 tons of microspheres ? From welding ? Come on now
 
Boiling steel? ya right.

As for the fuel. My dad has a furnace in his workshop, he can melt up to 5lb of iron in it (for various castings for model engineering. it is powered by bottled Propane and an old hoover mechanism for the draught. it's down to the right amount of air and insulation.
 
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...

Were you home schooled? If yes, your Mom was lying to you when she said you were smart........

Do you want to try that again in comprehensible sentences? For example what do you mean by more severe? more severe than what? Temperature, smell , amount of fairies per cubic furlong?


"That made it far worse than the worse I found?
Click to expand...

worse? worse than what? in what units? worse for your case or ours? and how can you find a "worse"?:boggled:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Were you home schooled? If yes, your Mom was lying to you when she said you were smart........

Do you want to try that again in comprehensible sentences? For example what do you mean by more severe? more severe than what? Temperature, smell , amount of fairies per cubic furlong?




worse? worse than what? in what units? worse for your case or ours? and how can you find a "worse"?:boggled:
Click to expand...

The grammatically correct way to say this is 'more worser'. :D
 
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...


Yep sounds like paint to me. Prove otherwise.:D
 
Man, 3,000 tons is a lot of microspheres. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like if it was all piled together.

Question to those that might know: just how much steel would have to have been attacked by thermite to produce around 3,000 tons of microspheres?
 
Travis said:
Man, 3,000 tons is a lot of microspheres. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like if it was all piled together.

Question to those that might know: just how much steel would have to have been attacked by thermite to produce around 3,000 tons of microspheres?
Click to expand...

Most of the steel in and on the floors. The rebar in the floors, the floorpans that held the concrete and the steel decking covering the floors. These are all largely missing from the rubble pile.
 
Travis said:
Man, 3,000 tons is a lot of microspheres. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like if it was all piled together.

Question to those that might know: just how much steel would have to have been attacked by thermite to produce around 3,000 tons of microspheres?
Click to expand...

Depending on packing efficiency of the spheres, it'd be a cube at least 7 metres along each side.

ETA- that works out to a layer 0.38mm deep on every floor of both towers.
 
Last edited:
Dear fellow debunkers,
why do you allow these truther trolls to re-define the thread topic?

Travis, when you wrote the OP, were you thinking about microspheres, or were you thinking about the supposed observations of macro-amounts of molten steel?

If the latter, why do you (and the others) allow MM to get away with that moved goal post?

Ask him, if he thinks that there were bulk (macro) amounts of molten steel weeks after the collapses, created by thermite. If so, he should answer this:
  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?
 
Oystein said:
Dear fellow debunkers,
why do you allow these truther trolls to re-define the thread topic?

Travis, when you wrote the OP, were you thinking about microspheres, or were you thinking about the supposed observations of macro-amounts of molten steel?

If the latter, why do you (and the others) allow MM to get away with that moved goal post?

Ask him, if he thinks that there were bulk (macro) amounts of molten steel weeks after the collapses, created by thermite. If so, he should answer this:
  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?
Click to expand...

Molten steel is molten steel Oystein- conforming to the OP. ESpecially when collectively it is a vast quantity of molten steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom