Merged So there was melted steel

[jaydeehess]

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?????

Apparently all unreacted thermite only supplied heat to the underground fires. None of it apparently was burning at anytime at the surface. I have in the past asked how it is that the thermite was preferentially underground but have not received a pertinent reply

 

[jaydeehess]

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.?

Indeed, Vinny, and this is covered in Travis' OP

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.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

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

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

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?

Its a point so far ignored by the resident 911 conspiracists.

this of course assumes large quantities of such molten steel, something none of the resisdent 911 conspiracists will hang their hats on in public.

Though as mentioned bill smith has in the past said that the box columns were full of thermite, and that there were 3000 tons of steel actually vapourized, so one would expect him to agree on large quantities of such molten steel.

tmd won't admit to believeing anything

MM finds other things to talk about

ergo and tempesta rarely actually contribute anything.

 

[Travis]

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.?

If they left it in place it would be a cool museum exhibit.

Oh and thanks for finally posting.

 

[Miragememories]

"You say that bulk amounts of molten steel were observed some time after 9/11."

Did I ever say "bulk amounts"?

And what in your mind constitutes a bulk amount?

I did provide a number of references, both video and eyewitness testimony, to the observation of molten or red hot metal in the WTC debris pile after 9/11.

Certainly some of those observations suggest substantial amounts.

"Why don't you answer a few obvious follow-up questions? Or have you never followed up your claim logically?"

You might reconsider some of your own views on the subject, given you appear to be in such strong disagreement with people who were actually there.

I was not there either, but I will attempt to give answer to your questions as honestly and fairly as I reasonably can.

"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"

The observation of molten metal is not negated by, or dependent on, knowing when this condition occurred.

Your question demands speculation without even referring to a particular observation. I have no doubt that at various times, there was molten metal at the WTC, prior to the collapses, and, 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after the collapses.

"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?"

My expectation would be that unless the molten metal was contained in some sort of crucible, that by the very nature of any material in a liquid form, it would tend to disperse by flowing and seeping.

I would imagine that a lot was gradually removed in the form dust impregnated slag, and attached to various pieces of debris as a slag film or coating.

Without knowing the details, one can only speculate as to how each occurrence behaved.

"If 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?"

It would have to have existed in great quantity in combination with a steady fuel source in the form of steel.

"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?"

On what basis can you say with such certainty that no steel was melted before or during the collapse? I do not agree with your unsupported premise.

"Do you think these questions go away when you ignore them just hard enough?"

No, I did not think those questions would go away when ignored and that was never my intention.

I have now answered your questions.

MM

 

[MIKILLINI]

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?

Miragememories will play dodge with these; We know he can see them.

 

[Justin39640]

Because steel melts at about 2700F, the hottest jet fuel burns at is about 1800F, there is nothing that would burn hotter than this 1800F in a normal office environment. Given this there is nothing that should have been naturally occurring that was hot enough to melt steel. So if there was melted steel, game over for the official story. It doesn't matter whether it was thermite or some other agent. If there was molten steel, it's game over for the official story.

Hmm that's funny, when I run out of strikers I use a relatively low heat lighter to start an oxy-acetalyne torch, which is quite a bit hotter than the lighter that originally ignited it. Maybe you should rethink the way you think things actually work. Fuel and ignition are two different things. Just cause something ignited something else doesn't mean it's the hottest thing that's gonna burn.

 

[Oystein]

Did I ever say "bulk amounts"?

And what in your mind constitutes a bulk amount?

I did provide a number of references, both video and eyewitness testimony, to the observation of molten or red hot metal in the WTC debris pile after 9/11.

Certainly some of those observations suggest substantial amounts.

That's what I mean: Bulk amounts, that people observe as "molten steel", as opposed to "microspheres" that are too small to be observed at the scene by eyewitnesses.

So you affirm that there were substantial / bulk amounts of molten steel some time (days, weeks, months) after 9/11.

You might reconsider some of your own views on the subject, given you appear to be in such strong disagreement with people who were actually there.

That's off topic. The premise of this thread, which I defend and insist upon, is "there were bulk amounts of molten steel days or weeks after 9/11". I simply wanted to know if you are ready to accept that premise. Cuz otherwise, you'd be off-topic, and I'd ask you to leave this thread.

I was not there either, but I will attempt to give answer to your questions as honestly and fairly as I reasonably can.

Jeebus. A Yes or No instead of all the hair-splitting above would have sufficed. So great, now your answers...

The observation of molten metal is not negated by, or dependent on, knowing when this condition occurred.

I didn't say that, and don't negate the the observation of molten thread within the scope of this current thread. To the contrary, I affirm as premise of this thread that molten steel was not only observed, but in fact there. Get it yet?

Your question demands speculation without even referring to a particular observation.

That which you call "speculation" is better known among scientific minds as "theory".

I have no doubt that at various times, there was molten metal at the WTC, prior to the collapses, and, 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after the collapses.

Gnaaaahhh!!!! Yes! You said so already!! That's the premise of this thread!

My expectation would be that unless the molten metal was contained in some sort of crucible, that by the very nature of any material in a liquid form, it would tend to disperse by flowing and seeping.

I would imagine that a lot was gradually removed in the form dust impregnated slag, and attached to various pieces of debris as a slag film or coating.

Without knowing the details, one can only speculate as to how each occurrence behaved.

Wait a second, are you telling me that, in your judgment, any molten steel would have dispersed and quickly resolidified? Does that not mean no bulk amounts of molten steel could have been observed 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after the collapses?!? MM, I am surpised! You actually found something out, by thinking for yourself!

It would have to have existed in great quantity

What quantity is "great"? Can you put numbers to that? A lower bound at least?

in combination with a steady fuel source in the form of steel.

Steel is a fuel source?

"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?"

On what basis can you say with such certainty that no steel was melted before or during the collapse? I do not agree with your unsupported premise.

Quote-mining. Had you quoted me correctly, with full context, you would not have said such a stupid thing. Full context quote would have been "If you answered c) [i.e. it melted after the collapse]: 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?"

No, I did not think those questions would go away when ignored and that was never my intention.

I have now answered your questions.

Yes, partially. You argued that any steel that melted before or during the collapse could not have been observed 1 day or more after the collapses du to dispersal and resolidfying. You failed to answer however the questions about what happened to unreacted thermite.

 

[Edx]

this of course assumes large quantities of such molten steel, something none of the resisdent 911 conspiracists will hang their hats on in public. .

Actually Bill has. There was a video a while back he claimed was of a truck happily driving through a lake of bright glowing steel. Everyone else knew it was just the Sun and shadows but there you are .

 

[MIKILLINI]

I would imagine that a lot was gradually removed in the form dust impregnated slag, and attached to various pieces of debris as a slag film or coating.

That guess proves you don't know very much about thermite, but you do agree the steel resolidified.

Without knowing the details, one can only speculate as to how each occurrence behaved.

Details are what you don't have or care to understand.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Actually Bill has. There was a video a while back he claimed was of a truck happily driving through a lake of bright glowing steel. Everyone else knew it was just the Sun and shadows but there you are .

Oh brother, I remember that one!

 

[Oystein]

I missed the killer in my first reply:

...
Your question demands speculation without even referring to a particular observation.
...

Miragememories, when truthers make a claim like this:

"There were observations of molten steel, therefore inside job"​

they generally are not referring to a particular observation, and advance no hypothesis about how that stuff got there, not even a speculation! Yet, despite the absence of even a speculative theory, they kmow with certainty that thermite could have done and only inside jobby job can be right.

How, Miragememories, can you truthers be so sure that "molten steel = inside job", if you can't or won't even speculate on how and when the steel melted and pooled amid the uncomfortable fact that there were turbulent collapses between supposed planting of the thermite and supposed observation of molten steel? I would have thought that you guys have a theory, not speculation!

 

[Travis]

I did sort of suspect that this fuss over molten steel was more about them simply thinking anything anomalous had to be good for them without thinking through the implications of what it means or proves.






ETA: Does anyone remember when Mythbusters tried to cut a car in two with thermite? I can't help but think of that when there is this insistence that thermite kept steel molten for weeks afterwards.

 

[tsig]

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.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

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

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

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?

If there was molten steel under the solid steel how did the solid steel stay solid?


Claiming there was molten steel is like saying you can build an ice bridge over boiling water

 

[WildCat]

I am saying that I have had the experience of knowing that such a situation was the case.
Air can get to fire that is under a covering layer of debris by any path available. It is not confined to a direction dictated by gravity whereas water is.

Think of a bonfire in a rain storm. It gets puts out right?
However what if there is an umbrella over the fire? water runs over the umbrella and exits around the fire. If the fire is on higher ground than its perimeter then the water simply never tounches any burning material. Smoke billows up and around the umbrella, and air enters to sustain burning from any direction.

In a rubble pile the water runs to the lwest point and certainly no fire is possible there. However there are many places where the burning material is shielded from the water coming from above. Its unaffected no matter how much water pools below.

This is very well explained and simple to understand. Nevertheless, I will guess that tmd2-1 is incapable of understanding it.

 

[Travis]

If there was molten steel under the solid steel how did the solid steel stay solid?

Beats me.....concrete rubble insulation or something?

Heck, it's not my claim I'm just trying to get answers as to what it would mean.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Oystein
"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"

The observation of molten metal is not negated by, or dependent on, knowing when this condition occurred.
MM

In this thread the premise is agreed that molten metal was observed. This has been explaine to you several times and yet you continue to post arguements promoting the existance of something that Oystein and Travis are not disputing.
Why?

The question stands on its own, ; given molten metal in the rubble when did it melt, prior to or after the creation of the rubble pile it was found in.

Obviously if it was created post-collapse then it had no role in the collapse and is a moot point wrt the collapses, no matter how it came to be molten.

If it was created pre-collapse or during collapse then it begs the further question, 'why was it not observed?' Specifically, but not limited to, why was none of it found re-solidified on top of the rubble? Why are there no examples of columns or beams showing partial melting on top of the rubble?

 

[atavisms]

Do a little research on your own. The evidence for additional energetic materials at ground zero come from numerous sources most of which do not deal with molten metal. (Such as the 100 days fires with excessive temperatures, the explosiveness in the destruction of WTC1&2 which pulverized so much concrete and left 1100 people unaccounted for. WtC 7 etc)

The clips below are all very short and are only a fraction of where the evidence for molten steel originates.

There is no question molten metal was observed at ground zero before and after the Towers were shredded with explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html#ref8

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

"The immense heat. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires." - (This 2800f reading was taken over 1 week later at the surface of the smoldering pits that remained where the Towers had stood. 7 weeks after 9-11 the temps at the surface were still hot enough to melt aluminum) http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm

 

[WildCat]

Do a little research on your own. The evidence for additional energetic materials at ground zero come from numerous sources most of which do not deal with molten metal. (Such as the 100 days fires with excessive temperatures, the explosiveness in the destruction of WTC1&2 which pulverized so much concrete and left 1100 people unaccounted for. WtC 7 etc)

So your thermite was reacting for 100 days? How do you get thermite to react for 100 days, while surviving the collapse? How much thermite would that take?

These are some of the questions asked in this thread, which you and your little truther friends have not yet answered.


Will you be answering them?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do a little research on your own. The evidence for additional energetic materials at ground zero come from numerous sources most of which do not deal with molten metal. (Such as the 100 days fires with excessive temperatures, the explosiveness in the destruction of WTC1&2 which pulverized so much concrete and left 1100 people unaccounted for. WtC 7 etc)

WHOOSH!!! Know what that was? That was this whole damn page going right over your head.

There is no question molten metal was observed at ground zero before and after the Towers were shredded with explosives.

Youtube videos tell exactly what here?

"

The immense heat. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires." - (This 2800f reading was taken over 1 week later at the surface of the smoldering pits that remained where the Towers had stood. 7 weeks after 9-11 the temps at the surface were still hot enough to melt aluminum) http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm

WHOOSH!!! The whole freakin page. Smouldering pile atavisms...How's that thermite still active weeks after collapse?

 

[Justin39640]

Do a little research on your own. The evidence for additional energetic materials at ground zero...

Like paper, gasoline, etc?