Merged So there was melted steel

Oystein said:
MM, I didn't ask you to prove there was molten steel. I simply asked you: "Do you think there were such bulk amounts of molten steel days or weeks after 9/11?". A simple Yes or No would have totally sufficed. No book was asked for, no evidence too. Remember, this thread was opened under the premise that we agree, for argument's sake, that indeed there were bulk amounts of molten steel observed some time after 9/11.

But you managed successfully to dodge the real questions! Because, as you are certainly well aware, my post went on to ask the real questions:



So now please, MM:

  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...

Bumped for MM.

MM,

  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?
 
The stupidity and complete lack of connection to reality that twoofers are exhibiting in this thread is painful to watch. I hope for their sake that they are all really trolling.
 
Edx said:
TMB has already said what he thinks made the debris pile that hot. He thinks "unreacted thermite" that I suppose kept reacting periodically to melt steel and so on for weeks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Then the unreacted thermite left chips in the debris pile while it was melting the steel.
 
So far only three Truthers have ventured into this thread. I was hoping for more activity.
 
So we have steel, heated by burning in small cavities beneath a niceinsulating pile of debris for a considerable time, conditions that could easily lead to the molten steel if it had happened. Just likemolten steel found under the rubble of Dresden, or in other fires, that required no thermite.

On the other hand we know that when thermite is used for chemical welding we know an intense heat is. Generated but confined to a small area. Only the joint is molten because if the mould were not in place the molten metal falls off the structure and drops away before the heat has the time to conduct to the whole girder. The reaction is too fast for the effect truthers describe.

So even if there were molten metal the mundane reason remains a better fit.
 
Tomtomkent said:
... Just likemolten steel found under the rubble of Dresden, or in other fires, that required no thermite.
...
Click to expand...

Actually, although I don't know as fact, I think it is quite probable that thermite was actually part of the stuff they dropped on Dresden to burn it down. ;)
 
Tomtomkent said:
So we have steel, heated by burning in small cavities beneath a niceinsulating pile of debris for a considerable time, conditions that could easily lead to the molten steel if it had happened. Just likemolten steel found under the rubble of Dresden, or in other fires, that required no thermite.

On the other hand we know that when thermite is used for chemical welding we know an intense heat is. Generated but confined to a small area. Only the joint is molten because if the mould were not in place the molten metal falls off the structure and drops away before the heat has the time to conduct to the whole girder. The reaction is too fast for the effect truthers describe.

So even if there were molten metal the mundane reason remains a better fit.
Click to expand...

Pfft. Like a furnace could melt steel. ;)
 
Sunstealer said:
"Now I've posted that several times. Infact you've posted in the same thread only a few posts after I've posted that graphic. Funny how you seem do dismiss data even when that data has come from truthers!

Thermite with 1.68% aluminium in it! roflmao. Ludicrous."
Click to expand...
Misrepresent much. Do you honestly believe Mark Basile expected that chart to be interpreted as the elemental distribution thermite?

Yes, I have a copy of that video and have watched it. If you consider it to be 'smoking gun' proof for your primer paint than milk it all you want.

Too funny.

Sunstealer said:
"Now if you had bothered to read Oystein's thread FROM THE START, you would have seen that there was MORE THAN ONE primer paint used in the WTC.

Infact you have been shown this before! You ignored it. So here it is again."
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Yes I have read that whole tedious thread and have a pdf copy of it.

I am well aware of the attempt being made to prove that the red chips are actually samples of the Laclede primer.

Yes I have a copy of NIST NCSTAR 1-6B and I believe every NIST document made available to the public with regarding the WTC and 9/11.

Sunstealer said:
"So that takes care of the BS that Farrer spouts because he is unaware that there is more than one primer paint and he is talking about tnemec red when we are talking about Laclede primer."
Click to expand...
Rant much?

He referred to the primer paint he tested, which came from a known WTC source.

He makes no claim that other types of primer paint were not used in the WTC.

Most of your ranting is simply not worthy of reply because you appear to be blinded by your own unproven Laclede primer paint theory.

Sunstealer said:
"This is not high tech it is very simple chemistry that any one who can read can learn. Mother nature produces these hexagonal platelets all by herself."
Click to expand...

Physicist Jeff Farrer said:
"The red layer is not a naturally occurring material. Sure you have iron oxide everywhere that you have iron you get an iron oxide. But you don't get them in nice little 100 nanometer rhombohedral shaped particles inside of a very small red layer."
Click to expand...

I suggest you upgrade your reading skills as well. Start by learning the different between "rhombohedral" and "hexagonal"

Sunstealer said:
"Of course the material is embedded in a carbon rich matrix because that's what paint is! Now don't post any crap about the MEK test and it's chip it's been done to death, get back on topic."
Click to expand...

My comments about the MEK red chip test were strictly intended to correct the disinformation you and others were spreading about its contained elements, by ignoring that it used a known raw, contaminated red chip sample.

Well Dr. Harrit made some interesting comments about the "carbon rich matrix" but I won't bore you with the details.

The remainder of your post is too childish to warrant a reply.

MM
 
How predictable that Miragememories would, in post 181, answer at length a yes/no question, only to dodge the real questions completely, and then go on to dodge the questions again that were repeated in post 217 and post 241

Hey, Miragememories!

You say that bulk amounts of molten steel were observed some time after 9/11.
Why don't you answer a few obvious follow-up questions? Or have you never followed up your claim logically?
  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?

Do you think these questions go away when you ignore them just hard enough?
 
tsig said:
Then the unreacted thermite left chips in the debris pile while it was melting the steel.
Click to expand...

and yet no concealed stash of thermite was ever seen to ignite or found unignited on a part of the debris pile that never was on fire?????:boggled:
 
Miragememories said:
I suggest you upgrade your reading skills as well. Start by learning the different between "rhombohedral" and "hexagonal"
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Do you realise that hematite (a-Fe2O3) nanoparticles can easily be produced by the controlled hydrolysis of Fe3+ salts or the thermal decomposition of the same which is the most usual route but one amongst many. You can make the stuff in your kitchen. Yes it might then take a bit more heat to transform to y-Fe2O3 which is what we see but this requires nothing spectacular. Infact you can ball mill a-Fe2O3 to produce y-Fe2O3.

You do not need a super sekrit lab to do this. This done industrially for dozens of applications.

Basile claims the red chip is thermite and shows the EDX quantitative analysis yet you hand wave it away with a silly statement, it's like saying

This is thermite and here is the chemical make up of the thermite except it's not.

Goodbye MM you are going onto ignore, there's no point, you simply aren't worth replying to anymore because you do not have the education or experience to understand what I'm talking about.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Wait a second so you're really telling me that holes/voids will make it tougher for the water to get through?
Click to expand...

Travis said:
No, he was telling you that there is more surface area for fire to cling to while water will simply drop down thanks to gravity.
Click to expand...

Yes, Travis. There is more surface area under cover than there is for water flow.
I am unsure about what part of the umbrella analogy tmd does not understand.
 
Miragememories said:
He makes no claim that other types of primer paint were not used in the WTC.


MM
Click to expand...

Oddly, he doesn't show, or compare to the one that seems to match his "therm*te"!
Strange that, however we all know why!
Even you can't be that...
 
Last edited:
My first post after lurking for a few years:

If there were huge pools of molten something underground, they would eventually solidify...and then what?

The slabs would have to be dug up and extracted from the site, wouldn't they? Isn't that action someone would have seen, commented on, reported, taken pictures of, etc.?
 
Miragememories said:
... Well Dr. Harrit made some interesting comments about the "carbon rich matrix" but I won't bore you with the details.

The remainder of your post is too childish to warrant a reply.

MM
Click to expand...

The carbon matrix proves Harrit has no evidence for thermite. He has dust from NYC (maybe) that burns at the same temperature paper burns at, but paper has more energy than thermite.

Where is melted steel, zero was found. ... the OP asks what if there was melted steel, what does it mean? Thermite reaction lasts a few seconds and it is done, it would fuse to the steel it was next to.

911 truth and you have no evidence, never discuss facts, ignore immense energy released by the office contents on fire, which burned for months. I agree with the OP, what if there was melted steel, it does not mean CD, inside job, or thermite. Jones and Harrit's paper proves no thermite was found. The clean up at ground zero recovered no iron fused to steel from thermite. The funny truther videos, show thermite cutting steel, and then, thermite product (iron) fused to the steel, leaving a unique signature, not found on steel on 911.

Children think they have evidence for Santa, and the easter bunny. You have no evidence for thermite. Children have better evidence for their claims.
 
Sunstealer said:
Goodbye MM you are going onto ignore, there's no point, you simply aren't worth replying to anymore because you do not have the education or experience to understand what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

This statement sums up nicely the two main characteristics I have found to be true among truthers......

1. They are ignored.

2. They don't have the education or experience to understand what I'm talking about.

Yep....that pretty much sums it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom