Merged So there was melted steel

[alienentity]

As such features (molten metal, wtc7's implosion, 100 day fires, pulverized concrete, etc) have never EVER been seen without the use of explosives and in controlled demolitions,, the burden of proof clearly lies with anyone saying these were natural events not involving the use of explosives.

Holy reversal of burden of proof Batcrapman! PLEASE, atavisms, find us an example of a controlled demolition which involved molten metal and 100 day fires. Pulverized concrete? Can you explain how cutter charges pulverize concrete? Please provide some technical material from the demolition industry to back that up as well. There ARE peer-reviewed papers in the journal of ASCE which explain the pulverized concrete as a product of gravitational collapse alone.

That NEVER happens with controlled demolitions. Never. So by default, these phenomena are NOT associated with demolition.

I wish you were just joking....

 

[jaydeehess]

You know you go on and on about how the environment created a furnace like atmosphere. Why don't you show 1 just 1 example of a landfill fire building collapse..etc...(where there was known to be no agents hot enough to melt steel) that reached fires hot enough to do so. I've looked and looked, there's been thousands of fires/building collapses, and I haven't found one. So maybe you can do better than me. It's easy to say this is what would have happened much harder to give an example of it happening.

Also in regards to water, here's a picture of how wet things got there, and those fires survived it.

1) That's not the fire IN the rubble pile. That is apicture of the surface. Seems you still cannot understand my bonfire&umbrella analogy.

2) You still are labouring under the idea that anyone here is argueing against the existance of molten steel/iron.

3) You still have not addressed the questions concerning the amount of molten metal , when it occured or how it supports the existance of a material that can supply sufficient heat to keep this molten steel/iron in liquid form for weeks/months.

4) Why would you expect to be able to find a collapse and rubble pile comparable to two 110 storey office structures that have collapsed?

 

[alienentity]

atavisms - molten metal was seen running in the basement of WTC 6. What caused the molten metal? That building was taken apart by hand - no thermite or whatevertruthersclaimwasthereite was found. ZERO evidence.

 

[tmd2_1]

1) That's not the fire IN the rubble pile. That is apicture of the surface. Seems you still cannot understand my bonfire&umbrella analogy.

2) You still are labouring under the idea that anyone here is argueing against the existance of molten steel/iron.

3) You still have not addressed the questions concerning the amount of molten metal , when it occured or how it supports the existance of a material that can supply sufficient heat to keep this molten steel/iron in liquid form for weeks/months.

The general point of this thread, is basically ok so there's molten steel what's the big deal? Is it not? I am saying I have not found any landfill fires building collapses...etc, ever that got hot enough to melt steel. That would make this a one of a kind event, if there was in-fact molten steel which was the premise of this thread.

Also while I'm at it based on your second point, you are now saying there was indeed molten steel?

 

[jaydeehess]

Pulverized concrete? Can you explain how cutter charges pulverize concrete? Please provide some technical material from the demolition industry to back that up as well. There ARE peer-reviewed papers in the journal of ASCE which explain the pulverized concrete as a product of gravitational collapse alone.

That NEVER happens with controlled demolitions. Never. So by default, these phenomena are NOT associated with demolition.

I wish you were just joking....

It would appear that atavisms is of the camp that believes that the towers were 'blown to smithereens' with enough explosive to tear most of the structure and contents (specifically the concrete) into dust. What is curious is that in no controlled demo of steel buildings,do we see the focus of explosive devices being the concrete floor pans. Yet according to this camp it was, in the towers.

 

[Edx]

atavisms - molten metal was seen running in the basement of WTC 6. What caused the molten metal? That building was taken apart by hand - no thermite or whatevertruthersclaimwasthereite was found. ZERO evidence.

I said this to someone on youtube and he claimed the thermite fell onto WTC6 and therefore that is what caused all the molten metal in there.

He too insisted that molten metal was not expected in fires, he didn't reply when I showed him various other fires where people talked about molten metal and that professional fire training resources talk about what metals you'll encounter melted and molten in fires.

I find it amazing that so many truthers in this thread can continue to talk about reports of molten metal and steel as if reports of such things are abnormal in fires.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You know you go on and on about how the environment created a furnace like atmosphere. Why don't you show 1 just 1 example of a landfill fire building collapse..etc...(where there was known to be no agents hot enough to melt steel) that reached fires hot enough to do so. I've looked and looked, there's been thousands of fires/building collapses, and I haven't found one. So maybe you can do better than me. It's easy to say this is what would have happened much harder to give an example of it happening.

Also in regards to water, here's a picture of how wet things got there, and those fires survived it.

How many time do you have to be told? This thread accepts the premise that there was molten steel.
The question posed is SO WHAT!

PS and off topic: if all that water is enough o put out a "furnace" how come its not enough to solidify all your molten metal? and if 15" of rain can't put out a shallow peat fire why do you think it would have been effective on the ground zero debris. That picture is of the runoff so clearly it wasn't getting at the fire was it!

 

[Edx]

I am saying I have not found any landfill fires building collapses...etc, ever that got hot enough to melt steel.

What a strange way to put it. I told you over and over that the WTC rubble fire was not a landfill fire, it just resembled a landfill fire in various ways. Apparently this is too difficult for you to comprehend and think "resembled" means it "was" a landfill fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

Fortunately there's been thousands of landfill fires and building collapses to compare to. But I haven't found any that got that hot. That should really be the end of the thread. There are other comparable situations thousands of them, but none I could find got that hot.

In regards to thermite, there was a tower taken down in 1934, using thermite, but you can't really compare the two for several reasons except to say thermite did indeed take it down. You see that's the problem, I ask you for an example, there is a large case history of similar situations. You ask me, there is essentially nothing to compare it to.

Are you admitting that there is no comparable situation?
If so then why do you continue asking for one?

You are correct, no CD could be comparable given that in prep for them ALL the combustibles are removed from the structure.

Does it compare with other collapses? NO, since NO other collapse comes close to the situation of two 110 storey(and several underground storeys) office structures collapsing.

Will you ever get around to the actual topic of this thread?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

is the stupid never ending?

Definition of PREMISE
1
a : a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn

No, he is not saying there was indeed molten steel. He is asking YOU the question "Ok, even if we assumed you were right, what does it matter if molten steel was there"

 

[jaydeehess]

The general point of this thread, is basically ok so there's molten steel what's the big deal? Is it not? I am saying I have not found any landfill fires building collapses...etc, ever that got hot enough to melt steel. That would make this a one of a kind event, if there was in-fact molten steel which was the premise of this thread.

Also while I'm at it based on your second point, you are now saying there was indeed molten steel?

We are allowing the 911 conspiracy believeers a benefit of doubt for the existance of molten steel without admitting that there indeed was. We are simply trying to get you to address the situation beyond that point.
EDX showed that reports of molten steel in fires is unremarkable.

Now that we move beyond argueing the existance of it you are being asked how much there was, how it became molten and how it managed to stay molten.

You have either ignored this or simply cannot grasp the concept of the questions.

 

[tmd2_1]

Are you admitting that there is no comparable situation?
If so then why do you continue asking for one?

You are correct, no CD could be comparable given that in prep for them ALL the combustibles are removed from the structure.

Does it compare with other collapses? NO, since NO other collapse comes close to the situation of two 110 storey(and several underground storeys) office structures collapsing.

Will you ever get around to the actual topic of this thread?

No I'm saying there would be no comparable situation for thermite, and to give an example as he was asking. There are many comparable situations to the situation if it happened naturally (I mean other than a plane hitting the building) and it's resulting after math. Examples of creating a "furnace" Landfill fires, for one. Yet none I found were hot enough to melt steel. This really should be the end of the thread.

 

[NoahFence]

You know you go on and on about how the environment created a furnace like atmosphere. Why don't you show 1 just 1 example of a landfill fire building collapse..etc...(where there was known to be no agents hot enough to melt steel) that reached fires hot enough to do so. I've looked and looked, there's been thousands of fires/building collapses, and I haven't found one. So maybe you can do better than me. It's easy to say this is what would have happened much harder to give an example of it happening.

Also in regards to water, here's a picture of how wet things got there, and those fires survived it.

You do realize that image is above ground, right?

 

[jaydeehess]

I said this to someone on youtube and he claimed the thermite fell onto WTC6 and therefore that is what caused all the molten metal in there.

:

Which would ellicit from me a question I have asked several times;"why was none of this thermite ever observed burning on the surface of the rubble?" Seems that this thermite preferentially burned underground.

 

[NoahFence]

The extremely rapid and explosive nature of the destruction of the Twin Towers are established beyond all doubt.

Didn't they burn for +/- an hour? Not very rapid.

 

[NoahFence]

"Why is molten steel a sign for inside job?" Because it, along with a host of other well documented features, could not be present without the use additional energetic materials. Materials which Islamic terrorists could have have had access to the buildings to install.

Holy crap Alt.

Give us ONE example of a controlled demo that had molten steel. Just one'll do.

 

[Edx]

No I'm saying there would be no comparable situation for thermite, and to give an example as he was asking. There are many comparable situations to the situation if it happened naturally (I mean other than a plane hitting the building) and it's resulting after math. Examples of creating a "furnace" Landfill fires, for one. Yet none I found were hot enough to melt steel. This really should be the end of the thread.

As I told you a billion times now... Landfill fires are comparable to the WTC rubble pile for several reasons, but the were not landfill fires so they will behave differently.

It acted a lot like a landfill fire which is why you find the same issues with landfill fires as they had on 911. Such as:

• Stopping the oxygen getting to the fire is very difficult
• Putting water on the fire around the clock to little effect
• Fires can take weeks, months and even years to put out in some cases.

Now as i told you before - which you didn't reply to - if you claim that landfill fires are of such a low temperatures that they "can't even melt aluminium" then the claims that the 911 piles were hot because they had the above issues simply cannot possibly point to extreme high temperatures. Why? Because the fact is if landfill fires that you say "can't even melt aluminium" have such issues I listed above at such low temperatures, then all you've done is unintentionally concede that these observations of the firefighting efforts on 911 can actually take place at a very low temperatures after all. How then can it point to high temperatures on 911 if it can occur at temperatures this low?

Then you have the fact that molten metal is expected in fires and molten steel reports are common in plenty of other fires and thats 99% of the arguments truthers have for the claim that an additional accelerant must have been present refuted.

 

[jaydeehess]

Holy crap Alt.

Give us ONE example of a controlled demo that had molten steel. Just one'll do.

Or terrorist bombing that had the same?(car bomb for eg.)

Since in a CD all combustibles are removed prior to collapse but in a terrorist bombing of a building this is not the case.

 

[tmd2_1]

As I told you a billion times now... Landfill fires are comparable to the WTC rubble pile for several reasons, but the were not landfill fires so they will behave differently.

It acted a lot like a landfill fire which is why you find the same issues with landfill fires as they had on 911. Such as:

• Stopping the oxygen getting to the fire is very difficult
• Putting water on the fire around the clock to little effect
• Fires can take weeks, months and even years to put out in some cases.

Now as i told you before - which you didn't reply to - if you claim that landfill fires are of such a low temperatures that they "can't even melt aluminium" then the claims that the 911 piles were hot because they had the above issues simply cannot possibly point to extreme high temperatures. Why? Because the fact is if landfill fires that you say "can't even melt aluminium" have such issues I listed above at such low temperatures, then all you've done is unintentionally concede that these observations of the firefighting efforts on 911 can actually take place at a very low temperatures after all. How then can it point to high temperatures on 911 if it can occur at temperatures this low?

Then you have the fact that molten metal is expected in fires and molten steel reports are common in plenty of other fires and thats 99% of the arguments truthers have for the claim that an additional accelerant must have been present refuted.

To be perfectly honest I have no idea what you are trying to say anymore. I don't even think you do. The general point is that the high temperatures would be coming from some agent that shouldn't have been there.

 

[Edx]

Which would ellicit from me a question I have asked several times;"why was none of this thermite ever observed burning on the surface of the rubble?" Seems that this thermite preferentially burned underground.

I figured it wasnt worth that argument, the main issue was showing that he was wrong about molten metal not being expected in normal fires.

Clearly he thought that because that is the implication truthers put out. Molten metal is not expected in a fire, neither are reports of molten steel. Therefore it is abnormal and these high temperatures have to point to some other accelerant - like thermite!

Once you realise that none of its abnormal... they realy have to do some amazing gymnastics to justify using the same arguments. Such as what Tmd is doing now.

They claim that the rubble piles heat lasted for months, which is the same for various documented landfill fires. They claim that the WTC rubble pile had extreme heat because they poured gallons of water on it to little/no effect, again this is the same for various documented landfill fires. But then an amazing thing happens! Tmd claims that the WTC rubble pile must have been much hotter than landfill fires because he can only find the hottest case of a landfill fire being of such a low temperature that it wouldnt have been able to melt aluminium. Except now he has just debunked the idea that those observations on 911 had to require extreme heat, if they can occur in such low temperature in landfill fires.

Its amazing to watch, really.