Merged So there was melted steel

[bill smith]

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?

Well...I'm still working on that. I may come up with something at some point.

 

[Oystein]

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?

jaydee, we are NOT talking here about dust, we are NOT talking about microspheres!
We have threads for the dust, and we have threads for the microspheres.

Travis set this thread up to ask why macro amounts of molten steel, supposing they existed at all, would indicate "inside job". How bulk amounts of molten steel could have been created by the same stuff that supposed inside jobbers supposedly used to demolish the towers.

MM and BS moved goal posts, you followed them, and ensured their success at avoiding the question.
Why'd you do that?

 

[Oystein]

Well...I'm still working on that. I may come up with something at some point.

You never thought it through. You have no idea. Ok. That's enough for the moment.

I wish all truthers would be this open and honest.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Travis
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.

9/11 Conspiracists please note the above.

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

Not addressed here yet.

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Not addressed here yet.

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Well ergo simply pooh-poohs the idea that fires can be made hotter and so far tmd seems to be trying to tell us that NIST says iron smelting is impossible.

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?

Not addressed here yet. .

Now tmd asserts that there is no way that the WTC rubble could become a furnace because landfills, the ones he's looked up at any rate, do not.

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?

I note that you have posed this line of questioning several times Oystein but cannot explain why ergo, tmd, or bill have yet to see it.

 

[bill smith]

jaydee, we are NOT talking here about dust, we are NOT talking about microspheres!
We have threads for the dust, and we have threads for the microspheres.

Travis set this thread up to ask why macro amounts of molten steel, supposing they existed at all, would indicate "inside job". How bulk amounts of molten steel could have been created by the same stuff that supposed inside jobbers supposedly used to demolish the towers.

MM and BS moved goal posts, you followed them, and ensured their success at avoiding the question.
Why'd you do that?

He's not a secret Truther, honest..

 

[jaydeehess]

jaydee, we are NOT talking here about dust, we are NOT talking about microspheres!
We have threads for the dust, and we have threads for the microspheres.

Travis set this thread up to ask why macro amounts of molten steel, supposing they existed at all, would indicate "inside job". How bulk amounts of molten steel could have been created by the same stuff that supposed inside jobbers supposedly used to demolish the towers.

Okie dokie

 

[bill smith]

Now tmd asserts that there is no way that the WTC rubble could become a furnace because landfills, the ones he's looked up at any rate, do not.



I note that you have posed this line of questioning several times Oystein but cannot explain why ergo, tmd, or bill have yet to see it.

Don't you recognise a poor fisherman when you see one JD ?

 

[jaydeehess]

He's not a secret Truther, honest..

Hmmm, not sure how I feel about bill defending my honour, thanks , I guess.

 

[Travis]

I'll give TMD credit for trying to address my third question.

I still don't see why the pile couldn't have acted like a furnace though.

 

[jaydeehess]

Don't you recognise a poor fisherman when you see one JD ?

I had trouble getting fish to take my lure all summer. Good thing I have friends who are better at it. I got my fill of fresh fish to eat.

On the matter of this thread though Travis also asked a series of questions as did Oystein. The later of which are relevent to Travis' OP.
OTOH some feel you have not been particularily on topic.

 

[bill smith]

I'll give TMD credit for trying to address my third question.

I still don't see why the pile couldn't have acted like a furnace though.

You don't think the pile might have been compacted too tightly to allow enough air to access the fire ?
No steady flow of air-no furnace.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'll give TMD credit for trying to address my third question.

I still don't see why the pile couldn't have acted like a furnace though.

Given the depth of material, the openings below the pile and the relatively large volume of voids in the pile(compared to a 'landfill') , and the availability of multiple fuel types,,, neither do I.

But tmd assures us it just couldn't be.

 

[tempesta29]

I'm not claiming that there was any molten steel, but if there was, it wasn't thermite. That would burn out in a matter of seconds.

Straw man. Who is claiming the thermite would have burned endlessly?

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't think the pile might have been compacted too tightly to allow enough air to access the fire ?
No steady flow of air-no furnace.

Do you have a figure for the mean separation of components of the rubble that you'd like to put forth?

 

[bill smith]

I had trouble getting fish to take my lure all summer. Good thing I have friends who are better at it. I got my fill of fresh fish to eat.

On the matter of this thread though Travis also asked a series of questions as did Oystein. The later of which are relevent to Travis' OP.
OTOH some feel you have not been particularily on topic.

I do love fish fresh from the sea or a river. The OP thing is more than arguable but never mind, all fixed now.

 

[bill smith]

Do you have a figure for the mean separation of components of the rubble that you'd like to put forth?

Verily in sooth, no.

 

[jaydeehess]

Straw man. Who is claiming the thermite would have burned endlessly?

So what did cause the rubble to be hot enough to melt metals for so long then tempesta?
See Oystein's questions and the OP please.

 

[alienentity]

Straw man. Who is claiming the thermite would have burned endlessly?

Truthers do. It's implied in their statements about the fires, the melting.. well, everything really.

 

[jaydeehess]

Verily in sooth, no.

Verily you say unto me? Hope that's not a God complex showing, bill.

We do know that there were at least two voids large enough to allow two firemen to survive being trapped in the rubble. As in other collapses the rubble is composed of structural components that have fallen in a more or less random pattern. If you ever played 'pick-up-sticks' as a kid you'd know that there is a lot of open space in such a pile. The non-structural constituents of the pile would be in those voids but would not completely fill them (note that you have already said that 50,000 tons of those constituents were dust spread over Manhattan). Some, liquids mostly, would pool near the bottom where, there was an air supply.

Now in a landfill the operators use heavy packers to ensure that the material is compacted and that there is no separation. In the rubble pile of the WTC no such action was in play and if the mean separation was even 5 mm that creates ample paths for air to enter.

In blow-downs of forested areas such as occured north of here about 20 years ago there is a very bad fire situation created. In the local blow down about 150 acres of trees went down in a severe thunderstorm. Over the next few years as much as possible was logged out but it was slow work as the trees were not easy to remove. After that they were not salvagable for use in lumber or paper making. A few more years went by and then lightning set it on fire. It burned for months, fire crews poured water on it from the air with helicopters and water bombers all of which had no effect. Several rain storms also had no or little effect. Only after much of it had burned off and a torrential downpour did this fire get put out.
Even then it was watched until the snow came for any sign that parts could flare up again.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Only 50-odd tons ? I would reckon far more myself.

Your iron isn't very dense if a 7m cube only weighs 50 tonnes.

I thought 1 cubic meter of steel weighs about 7.85 tons ?

Yes, so 343 cubic metres would weigh 2692 tonnes.

Math & English for Truthers.

Sometimes they have to work together, see? It's called "interdisciplinary studies". That's why they give you word problems in the second grade so that you can learn to express those words in numbers to come to a conclusion.

A cube of 7m on each side would not be the same thing as saying 7 cubic metres, Bill. That would actually equal 343 cubic metres.

You see, when you found out that a cubic metre is equivalent to an object that is one metre on each side (check the formula: 1 x 1 x 1 = ?? ), you shouldn't have taken off to go play dodge ball. You should've listened to the rest of the lesson. It only appeared that you found a nice shortcut and could summarily take one side of any cube and that would be the volume.

Now let's multiply 7 x 7 x 7. Does that equal 7? But how's that possible if 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, then surely 7 x 7 x 7 = 7.

Next time, Reactor Drone, follow Mrs. O'Toole's advice (she was my second grade teacher) and "Show your work."