Merged So there was melted steel

[Travis]

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

Okay, so there was a lot of heat seven weeks after and molten metal.

Now what does that mean? How is it connected to "additional energetic materials" and how does it mean they are still active so long after the collapse?

 

[tsig]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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

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.



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

Do you really think steel burns?

 

[GlennB]

It would be great if some could revisit the o/p (or just read the thread title) and stop referring to "molten metal".

Travis's o/p is a valiant attempt to get Truthers to think about the implications of claims of molten steel, but so far it's pearls before swine. All the resident Truthers seem to be doing is reiterating the nature of the claims and not looking at where those claims logically lead. Which is persistent and repeated outbreaks of large-scale thermitic activity in the debris pile over a very long time span.

A minor thought - some of these alleged sightings of molten steel involved quite small amounts ("a little river of steel" under a flipped-over piece of concrete, for example). Given that the steel would necessarily solidify quickly (the observers were able to tolerate the ambient temperatures) why weren't the observers aware of the burning thermite that was, we suppose, producing the molten steel?

Apologies if I'm just repeating what others have already said.

 

[Oystein]

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)

1100 people unaccounted for - how did that happen, in your opinion? Is this because explosions ripped everything apart, turned mostly everything into fine dust, caused all the material of the towers to tumble down in enormous turbulences, and thus dispersed human remains widely and beyond recognition?

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.

[snipped long list of totally unrelevant videos that purport to prove something that is not in dispute for the purpose of this thread]

Atavism, please, read the OP, read my recent responses: We do assume in this thread that there was molten steel. You don't need to prove it! Okay?? Stop it!

"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

You have not answered the OP yet at all.

The heart of this thread is: Why is molten steel a sign for inside job? You must have a theory that explains how steel not only melted (yes, we know that thermite can melt steel, yaddayadda), but how thermite or molten steel that was in the towers before the collapses survived the collapses such that molten steel could still be observed a long time after the collapse.
Why did these materials not disperse? Why did the thermite charges survive when 1100 human bodies were so terribly minced and dispersed that they never even found as much as a knuckle in one piece? Why did steel that melted before the liquid not disperse and cool to solidify of in a matter of minutes, if not seconds?

 

[Oystein]

A reasonable argument has the following structure:


PREMISE -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CONCLUSION


The truther argument is

MOLTEN STEEL -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB

What's missing is the red part:

MOLTEN STEEL -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB

 

[alienentity]

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.?

Stop being so logical..
Welcome, btw. Great post.

 

[alienentity]

"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." -

What equipment was used and was it calibrated? There is no info on this at all in the article.

You don't just believe everything you read without checking for veracity, do you? What happened to skepticism?

 

[ozeco41]

A reasonable argument has the following structure:


PREMISE -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CONCLUSION


The truther argument is

MOLTEN STEEL -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB

What's missing is the red part:

MOLTEN STEEL -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB

Well put Oystein;

AND - in the absence of Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> all that this thread is doing is feeding the trolls.
And the trolls are lapping it up..

....they are getting responses

.....they are getting attention.

And that is all they want.

They are not truthers. Merely trolls who need somebody stoking their ego tripping.

 

[GlennB]

What equipment was used and was it calibrated? There is no info on this at all in the article.

You don't just believe everything you read without checking for veracity, do you? What happened to skepticism?

The accuracy of the helicopter measurements was, I believe, dealt with by R.Mackey
in this post and elsewhere.

 

[atavisms]

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?

You wanna know what's revealing.. when anyone mentions some easily verifiable anomaly that reveals these could not have been standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires, for example.. and wht someone [you] replies with 'your thermite' or 'your theory,' shows their one (blind) sided approach.

There should be no sides in any quest for truth. Why dont you answer the questions for yourself. Explain where these extremely anomalous features could have originated. Many Features that 'Office fires' do not even begin explain the fires at ground zero. (the like the intense heat intense corroded beam shown :http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm *and documented in a variety of different ways. In the real world fires go out when they get hit by continuous millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

 

[excaza]

In the real world fires go out when they get hit by millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

Yes, when they get hit. Pouring water on top of a giant pile of debris does not guarantee the water gets to the fire. This is not a complicated concept.

 

[WildCat]

Why can't you answer these simple questions?

 

[newton3376]

Well put Oystein;

AND - in the absence of Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> all that this thread is doing is feeding the trolls.
And the trolls are lapping it up..

....they are getting responses

.....they are getting attention.

And that is all they want.

They are not truthers. Merely trolls who need somebody stoking their ego tripping.

Just out of curiousity....


How could some get an ego boost off of internet discussions?

How pathetic does one have to be to seek attention on the internet?

I get plenty of attention in real life I do not require any on the internet


I just don't get it......

 

[newton3376]

You wanna know what's revealing.. when anyone mentions some easily verifiable anomaly that reveals these could not have been standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires, for example.. and wht someone [you] replies with 'your thermite' or 'your theory,' shows their one (blind) sided approach.

There was nothing "standard" about the fires in the WTC rubble pile...

Maybe you didn't notice....but the WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS collapsed...

Maybe you missed that..

There should be no sides in any quest for truth. Why dont you answer the questions for yourself. Explain where these extremely anomalous features could have originated. Many Features that 'Office fires' do not even begin explain the fires at ground zero. (the like the intense heat intense corroded beam shown :http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm *and documented in a variety of different ways. In the real world fires go out when they get hit by continuous millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

1. The fires in the rubble piles weren't office fires....I'll try to speak slowly if it will help...

2. How many "anomalous" features can you list? Do try to list something that hasn't already been explained....

3. The corroded beam has been gone over many times.....do some research and come back.....

4. Much of the water likely did not actually make it to the fire...what part of RUBBLE PILE did you not understand?

 

[000063]

You wanna know what's revealing.. when anyone mentions some easily verifiable anomaly that reveals these could not have been standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires, for example.. and wht someone [you] replies with 'your thermite' or 'your theory,' shows their one (blind) sided approach.

There should be no sides in any quest for truth. Why dont you answer the questions for yourself. Explain where these extremely anomalous features could have originated. Many Features that 'Office fires' do not even begin explain the fires at ground zero. (the like the intense heat intense corroded beam shown :http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm *and documented in a variety of different ways. In the real world fires go out when they get hit by continuous millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

For all your bluster, you answered not a single one of the questions.

 

[twinstead]

For all your bluster, you answered not a single one of the questions.

Yea, the only thing worse than being wrong, is being arrogantly wrong.

 

[Oystein]

You wanna know what's revealing.. when anyone mentions some easily verifiable anomaly that reveals these could not have been standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires, for example.. and wht someone [you] replies with 'your thermite' or 'your theory,' shows their one (blind) sided approach.

There should be no sides in any quest for truth. Why dont you answer the questions for yourself. Explain where these extremely anomalous features could have originated. Many Features that 'Office fires' do not even begin explain the fires at ground zero. (the like the intense heat intense corroded beam shown :http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm *and documented in a variety of different ways. In the real world fires go out when they get hit by continuous millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

atavism,

You are the one that says

MOLTEN STEEL -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB

When in a reasonable argument you ought to be saying

MOLTEN STEEL -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> DEMOLITION / INSIDE JOB


Since it is your argument and not ours, you ought to provide the Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) and not push that burden of proof on us!

 

[Edx]

In the real world fires go out when they get hit by continuous millions of gallons of water, not to mention fire suppressants.

Really? Lets see if that's true!

How about this one?

To cut off the oxygen supply to the fire, additional clay intermediate cover was placed on the side slopes of the burning cell over the weekend. Water application continued around the clock. Within a week the monitoring results conclusively demonstrated that carbon monoxide, temperature and oxygen levels were dropping.

Or this one?

Initially, water was applied to the fire in high-pressure streams in excess of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). This extinguished flames at the surface but did not quell the fire brewing deep in the landfill. In fact, most of the water quickly ran off the surface, draining to the landfill toe where pools of toxic black leachate...

Looks like atavisms is wrong again.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

Affirm means to state as fact.

I can only affirm that eyewitnesses stated they observed molten steel/metal.

"You might reconsider some of your own views on the subject, given you appear to be in such strong disagreement with the 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."

Since you do not hold ownership of this thread, and have contributed nothing of value to it, you can expect me to ignore such a request.

"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..."

Jeebus?

Maybe you consider eyewitness observation to be less worthy than your own lofty opinions, but I do not.

"...I affirm as premise of this thread that molten steel was not only observed, but in fact there..."

In that case, why don't you enlighten us all as all, by applying your own questionnaire to that affirmation?

"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"

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

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

Speculation = "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence"
Theory = "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something"

Since you will not provide a specific observation to "theorize about", I will. The "when" of the molten metal seen pouring in bulk from the corner of WTC2 was obviously pre-collapse, and most likely started melting at some point in the 56 minutes following the aircraft crash.

"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!". "

Any molten steel? No.

I'm saying that, if it can, a liquid will flow. How quickly molten metal will revert back to its solid state is strictly temperature dependent.

Since you brought it up, thinking for yourself is something you might try.

"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."

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

Numbers? Not at this time. That would require too much speculation. All I can say is that if certain locations of molten metal deep in the debris pile were well enough insulated, it is quite probable that thermitic activity could have ceased some time before the ruble pile at Ground Zero was finally cooled.

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

"Steel is a fuel source?"

A byproduct of the thermitic reaction with steel, is molten iron. In a confined and sufficiently well insulated location, the heat generated could also melt steel. Without the steel, the thermitic material has nothing to react with. Is that sufficiently clear?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"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!"

You are creating a false argument.

Show me the source of your simplistic statement; "There were observations of molten steel, therefore inside job"

Claims of an inside job are not based on simplistic statements such as yours, but glaring evidence of a failed, inadequate investigation into what happened on 9/11.

Molten metal deep in the debris pile is indicative of unaccountably high temperatures.

Were there raging, well-insulated, but somehow oxygen fed basement fires in WTC 1,2 & 7 to create molten metal and sustained heat over a period of months?

Is it reasonable to presume that the fires burning high up in the WTC Twin Towers would somehow find themselves continuing to burn in the basement after each collapse?

Why is it so wrong to ask these kinds of questions?

MM