Merged So there was melted steel

sheeplesnshills said:
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!
Click to expand...

My general point in asking that question is simple. It's to show you guys (as usual) want things both ways. Conditions there were such it could have melted steel no problem...but there wasn't any. If the conditions were such that steel could have melted so easily, and there certainly was no shortage of steel, why was none found?
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You could write a novel larger than Moby Dick with all of your silly theories, and none will be more wrong than what you just wrote.

If the fire keeps burning, it gets hotter. Period.

The rubble pile acts like a furnace. It's up to YOU to figure out what a furnace is, and why it is important.

The fact that there was temperatures vastly greater than your "typical office fire" is common sense to the rest of us.
 
tmd2_1 said:
My general point in asking that question is simple. It's to show you guys (as usual) want things both ways. Conditions there were such it could have melted steel no problem...but there wasn't any. If the conditions were such that steel could have melted so easily, and there certainly was no shortage of steel, why was none found?
Click to expand...

You really have no clue what the premise of the thread is, do you?
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

i know exactly what im saying, what exactly is it that you have trouble with?

Do you still believe that the following effects on the WTC rubble pile indicate extreme temepratures?
  • 1. Heat and fires that lasted for months
  • 2. Gallons of water were put on the fire to little effect.

Additionally do you believe the following witness reports indicate there was extreme abnormal temperatures?
  • 1. Reports of molten metals
  • 2. Reports of molten steel

How much simpler can I make it? Just answer those 2 questions above and give reasons for your answers.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems that you are getting tripped up over the relationship to the landfill fires.

Okay, a landfill fire resembled the pile in the following ways:


  • There were buried combustibles
  • There was insulation to trap heat
  • It is hard to put out with water from the surface

But it did not resemble a landfill fire in the following ways:


  • It had a source of air from below
  • It had numerous air pockets within

So please stop saying that because Landfill Fire X-Y don't produce the same results it disproves my idea of a natural furnace. I've never said that a landfill fire is exactly the same. In fact the only thing that is about the same is a freaking furnace.

So what of the above bulleted points do you think are untrue? If they are all true then will you concede that based on those points of characteristics the debris pile did resemble a furnace?
 
tmd2_1 said:
The general point is that the high temperatures would be coming from some agent that shouldn't have been there.
Click to expand...

The agents for hot fires most certainly should be there. Hot enough to melt steel? Certainly, under the right conditions that is possible.

You cannot say otherwise, because neither you nor I know exactly what conditions were in the debris piles. But we know it was pretty hot down there, for weeks.

It is you who does not have a coherent point to make. That much is very clear.
 
tmd2_1 said:
To be perfectly honest I have no idea what you are trying to say anymore.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you ever did........:(

I don't even think you do.
Click to expand...

Nope, everyone else seems to have grasped the question.

The general point is that the high temperatures would be coming from some agent that shouldn't have been there.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't a large fire create high temperatures in a furnace like environment? If primitive man can melt steel with no more than some charcoal and his lungs please explain why those conditions CANNOT exist in the debris pile. Plenty of voids to create chimney effect, lots of fuel, plenty of voids to allow air into the base. I'm not saying it did get hot enough to melt some steel but I sure as heck wouldn't bet against it.
Click to expand...
 
Once again, for the terminally hard-of-learning around here:

The National Fire and Arson Report, Vol 10, No 4, 1992
http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/MeltedSteel.pdf


'The theoretical flame temperature which can be achieved by hydrocarbon liquids is listed in the Fire Protection Handbook at between 3,500 and 4,200 degrees F. Thus flammable and combustible liquids are cited .. as having enough energy available to actually melt steel.'

PVC, polyvinyl chloride, melts at 212 °C (about 414 °F). Teflon®, which we use to coat cookware, is polytetrafluoroethene - PTFE, and it melts at 327 °C (about 621 °F)'

*PVC is a chlorinated hydrocarbon polymer
 
Travis said:
It seems that you are getting tripped up over the relationship to the landfill fires.

Okay, a landfill fire resembled the pile in the following ways:


  • There were buried combustibles
  • There was insulation to trap heat
  • It is hard to put out with water from the surface

But it did not resemble a landfill fire in the following ways:


  • It had a source of air from below
  • It had numerous air pockets within

So please stop saying that because Landfill Fire X-Y don't produce the same results it disproves my idea of a natural furnace. I've never said that a landfill fire is exactly the same. In fact the only thing that is about the same is a freaking furnace.

So what of the above bulleted points do you think are untrue? If they are all true then will you concede that based on those points of characteristics the debris pile did resemble a furnace?
Click to expand...

Your last two. For one thing I gave you an example of a landfill fire that had air pockets within it. What I'm saying is out of all the landfill fires collapses etc...none had an air source below, or some other mechanism to enhance air intake? It's just in this example, it gets this hot. I told you the hottest I found at it's core was 960F and on the surface the WTC was 1341F, you are asking people to believe that an awful lot was particular to the WTC site.
 
tmd2_1 said:
My general point in asking that question is simple. It's to show you guys (as usual) want things both ways. Conditions there were such it could have melted steel no problem...but there wasn't any. If the conditions were such that steel could have melted so easily, and there certainly was no shortage of steel, why was none found?
Click to expand...

Have we now come full circle and Truthers are now saying: "Where was the melted steel if this furnace thing is possible?"
 
alienentity said:
Once again, for the terminally hard-of-learning around here:

The National Fire and Arson Report, Vol 10, No 4, 1992
http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/MeltedSteel.pdf


'The theoretical flame temperature which can be achieved by hydrocarbon liquids is listed in the Fire Protection Handbook at between 3,500 and 4,200 degrees F. Thus flammable and combustible liquids are cited .. as having enough energy available to actually melt steel.'

PVC, polyvinyl chloride, melts at 212 °C (about 414 °F). Teflon®, which we use to coat cookware, is polytetrafluoroethene - PTFE, and it melts at 327 °C (about 621 °F)'

*PVC is a chlorinated hydrocarbon polymer
Click to expand...

terrific now let me know of one that got hot enough to melt steel. An actual example of one.
 
GlennB said:
This isn't just wrong, it's heroically wrong.

It couldn't be wronger.

It's the epitome of wrongness.

It has been bukakked with wrongitude.
Click to expand...

I believe the subject dealt with how molten metal, in this case how molten steel was achieved.

A thermitic reaction without nearby steel to heat and melt is not going to leave pools of molten metal.

MM
 
tmd2_1 said:
Your last two. For one thing I gave you an example of a landfill fire that had air pockets within it. What I'm saying is out of all the landfill fires collapses etc...none had an air source below, or some other mechanism to enhance air intake? It's just in this example, it gets this hot. I told you the hottest I found at it's core was 960F and on the surface the WTC was 1341F, you are asking people to believe that an awful lot was particular to the WTC site.
Click to expand...

An awful lot was particular to this WTC site. Know of any other 110 story buildings that were constructed right over a large subway station? Know of any huge skyscrapers built over any subway station that collapsed while on fire?

So are you denying that there was an air source from below and air voids within?
 
Travis said:
Have we now come full circle and Truthers are now saying: "Where was the melted steel if this furnace thing is possible?"
Click to expand...

Wonderful irony. If there were melted steel it wouldn't indicate controlled demolition anyway, just very hot fires in the debris piles. This is yet another red herring presented by 9/11 Truth, jumping to conclusions without understanding the facts nor the implications of their own claims.:boggled:
 
tmd2_1 said:
terrific now let me know of one that got hot enough to melt steel. An actual example of one.
Click to expand...

The blacksmith at the local historical recreation village normally only performs on Friday but sure......:rolleyes:
 
tmd2_1 said:
terrific now let me know of one that got hot enough to melt steel. An actual example of one.
Click to expand...

There are dozens of reports of molten metal or steel at fires. You've already been given those examples.

Can you not remember the answers to your own questions? Yikes! This does not bode well for you.

Besides, the document I linked to already states the proven temperatures reached by hydrocarbons. What part of this do you not understand? RU claiming that it is not possible for hydrocarbons to cause these temps? Because if you are, you're arguing pointlessly against established empirical fact.
 
Travis said:
An awful lot was particular to this WTC site. Know of any other 110 story buildings that were constructed right over a large subway station? Know of any huge skyscrapers built over any subway station that collapsed while on fire?

So are you denying that there was an air source from below and air voids within?
Click to expand...

Yep you're right about that...an awful lot was particular about that day. That's for sure. I'm not denying anything, simply stating that I find out extremely hard to believe that similar conditions didn't exist somewhere else at some other time that would have allowed the temperature to get that hot. Yet I found none.
 
alienentity said:
There are dozens of reports of molten metal or steel at fires. You've already been given those examples.

Can you not remember the answers to your own questions? Yikes! This does not bode well for you.

Besides, the document I linked to already states the proven temperatures reached by hydrocarbons. What part of this do you not understand? RU claiming that it is not possible for hydrocarbons to cause these temps? Because if you are, you're arguing pointlessly against established empirical fact.
Click to expand...

Not reports....actual evidence that it happened. Because the premise of this thread is that there was indeed molten steel, and what would be the big deal. I'm not saying anything is not possible, would simply like to know if it's ever happened somewhere else, because this would be another one of a kind event on 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom