Merged So there was melted steel

bill smith said:
I thought 1 cubic meter of steel weighs about 7.85 tons ?
Click to expand...

A 7x7x7 cube is 343 cubic metres. 343x7.85 = 2692.55
If you had a problem figuring that out how on earth can you make any sensible judgments about something as complex as the collapse of the twin towers?
 
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 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?
Click to expand...

I've only gotten as far as post #86 since logging on again this afternoon. I'll read more in a bit but thought I'd add that in many landfills the material is routinely packed down as it is added to the pile. this accomplishes several things but mostly its to reduce the voids in them. Landfills cost a lot to establish and have a maximum volume of material so any voids result in an earlier closure and, more money to establish another site.

Not so of course in the rubble of the WTC towers. Not only was there a subway tunnel beneath the rubble but the rubble itself , although quite dense, certainly did not come close to a landfill that gets packed down as material is added, both of which result in greater oxygen supply while barely compromising the insulative factor.
 
No, I was referring to macro amounts of liquid steel in the pile. You see I wasn't thinking crazy enough to consider anybody thought there was 3,000 tons of vaporized steel or 50,000 tons of dust at all.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
No, I was referring to macro amounts of liquid steel in the pile. You see I wasn't thinking crazy enough to consider anybody thought there was 3,000 tons of vaporized steel or 50,000 tons of dust at all.
Click to expand...

Well now you do know and I hope you have taken it on board.
 
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...

Buy steel wool and a pack of matches. I believe you can figure out what to do with them.
Did the match get to 1500+C degrees? Did the steel wool?

If it was not required for steel wool why would it be required for iron oxide chips?
 
I figured my second question...

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?
Click to expand...
...would have removed the ambiguity.
 
Oystein said:
I think you really see that these questions cut to the heart of your folly (or trolly), and that's why you must avoid them.


Well, see Travis' reply after yours: You're wrong.
Click to expand...

Well I won't bother arguing the legalities of it with you- though I easily could. Macro quantities of steel it is then. Chalk one up to me.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

bill, I did not think you were an adherent to the Wood space-a-beam.

I thought that you believed in thermite packed steel box columns, but now its the rebar and steel decking that is 'missing'?
How's that work?
 
Travis said:
I figured my second question...

...would have removed the ambiguity.
Click to expand...

There was no ambiguity.
Truthers move goal posts because they KNOW their foolish anecdotes don't survice scrutiny.
 
bill smith said:
Well I won't bother arguing the legalities of it with you- though I easily could. Macro quantities of steel it is then. Chalk one up to me.
Click to expand...

Ok. So you believe there were macro quantities of molten steel weeks after the collapses. You believe these were caused by thermite somehow. Surely you have thought this through, have you? Should be easy then to whip out answers to these:

  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?
 
bill smith said:
Say 50,000 tons of dust. RJ Lee figure of 5.7% iron microspheres. 2.800-some tons.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose someone might offer a direct quote from Lee?

This would include where the samples were taken from and the percentage in each sample as well as when the samples were taken. Was the 5.7% by weight or by volume?

After all the only quote of Lee I recall seeing in this thread is of him saying it is to be expected that iron microspheres would be present.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom