Merged So there was melted steel

[alienentity]

you are asking people to believe that an awful lot was particular to the WTC site.

The WTC debris piles were unique in the history of building collapses, yes. That's exactly what we are saying.

There are no other examples of fully involved 110 story towers collapsing, and I hope there never will be again.

Hot fires and molten metal are found in large building fires. That is an established fact.

Hot fires and molten metal are NOT found in explosive demolitions. That is also an established fact.

I have no trouble understanding those things, but you apparently do. I'm sorry for your confusion.

 

[Edx]

terrific now let me know of one that got hot enough to melt steel. An actual example of one.

How about my all my examples I gave you before that you handwaved? Of course, there wasnt any molten steel saved in those cases but then you cant prove there was actual molten steel at ground zero either for the same reason.

The fact is its relatively common for people to claim to have seen molten steel in normal fires. Therefore you cannot use eyewitness' on 911 that said they saw any to claim that it has to be evidence of abnormally extreme heat only explained by an additional accelerate like thermite.

 

[Edx]

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the following effects on the WTC rubble pile necessarily indicate extreme temepratures?

• 1. Heat and fires that lasted for months
• 2. Gallons of water were put on the fire to little effect.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe the following witness reports indicate there was extreme abnormal temperatures?

• 1. Reports of molten metals
• 2. Reports of molten steel

 

[NoahFence]

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

So now we have thermite reacting without being in contact with the steel.



Wow.

 

[alienentity]

Not reports....actual evidence that it happened. Because the premise of this thread is that there was indeed molten steel..

You don't understand. I get it. The OP is a premise, there is no real evidence that it actually happened on 9/11, you see.
Get it now?

If I were to turn your own question back to you, and refer to the reports of molten steel at GZ, it might provide some insight into your confusion. Can you provide real evidence 'Not reports....actual evidence that it happened.' on 9/11?

ETA EDX also answered above.

 

[Travis]

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.

You can find it hard to believe all you want but the peculiarities are true. The WTC was a one of a kind engineering triumph. It's collapse would then, by necessity, have to also be a one of kind disaster.

And are you really arguing against the existence of the underground tunnels and their ability to be a constant air source for fires in the pile?

Your answer is unsurprising to say the least....

That you continue to deny the very basic characteristics of a hydrocarbon fueled furnace is also unsurprising.

 

[tmd2_1]

You don't understand. I get it. The OP is a premise, there is no real evidence that it actually happened on 9/11, you see.
Get it now?

If I were to turn your own question back to you, and refer to the reports of molten steel at GZ, it might provide some insight into your confusion. Can you provide real evidence 'Not reports....actual evidence that it happened.' on 9/11?

ETA EDX also answered above.

Among other things Appendix C of the FEMA report.

 

[tmd2_1]

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the following effects on the WTC rubble pile necessarily indicate extreme temepratures?

• 1. Heat and fires that lasted for months
• 2. Gallons of water were put on the fire to little effect.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe the following witness reports indicate there was extreme abnormal temperatures?

• 1. Reports of molten metals
• 2. Reports of molten steel

I base my belief of extreme temperatures on the NASA photos showing 1341. Those two things you mention won't necessarily mean high temperatures. Of course it doesn't mean they weren't there either.

Witnesses reporting it wouldn't necessarily mean high temperatures, no. But if what they reported is indeed true, then yes high temperatures.

 

[tmd2_1]

You can find it hard to believe all you want but the peculiarities are true. The WTC was a one of a kind engineering triumph. It's collapse would then, by necessity, have to also be a one of kind disaster.

And are you really arguing against the existence of the underground tunnels and their ability to be a constant air source for fires in the pile?



That you continue to deny the very basic characteristics of a hydrocarbon fueled furnace is also unsurprising.

I'm simply asking for an example out of the thousands in history. If there are none this thread should end.

 

[GlennB]

Without the steel, the thermitic material has nothing to react with. Is that sufficiently clear?

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

The thermitic material doesn't need anything to react with. It's self-sufficient. It works happily under water with nothing else nearby.

Your highlighted comment above is nonsense.

Is that sufficiently clear?

 

[phunk]

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

Nonsense. Thermite's main byproduct is molten metal. In fact, if you put thermite in contact with steel, the majority of the resulting molten metal will be the thermite leftovers. Thermite will melt much less than its own weight in the steel.

 

[Edx]

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the following effects on the WTC rubble pile necessarily indicate extreme temepratures?

• 1. Heat and fires that lasted for months
• 2. Gallons of water were put on the fire to little effect.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe the following witness reports indicate there was extreme abnormal temperatures?

• 1. Reports of molten metals
• 2. Reports of molten steel

I base my belief of extreme temperatures on the NASA photos showing 1341. Those two things you mention won't necessarily mean high temperatures. Of course it doesn't mean they weren't there either.

Witnesses reporting it wouldn't necessarily mean high temperatures, no. But if what they reported is indeed true, then yes high temperatures.

So you accept that none of those points I listed actually demonstrate that there were high temperatures then, correct? Then you will stop using those arguments and correct truthers like MM who continue to use them?

 

[phunk]

I'm simply asking for an example out of the thousands in history. If there are none this thread should end.

Thousands? Can you name a single example of a building collapse anywhere near the size of even 1 of the WTC towers?

 

[beachnut]

... Why didnt the sites cool quicker? is a good question but the fact that they didnt and that they were so hot for so long (and this just another in the long list of anomalous features that indicate the presence of additional energetic materials), is the critical issue here.

The office contents have more energy, heat energy, than thermite. Jet fuel which started the fires had the heat energy of 300 tons of TNT. Know what, the WTC towers office contents fires had many times more energy. The fires that burned due to office contents had more heat energy than the jet fuel, and the jet fuel beat thermite by 10 times the energy. Plastic in the WTC burning had 14 times the energy of thermite.

Thermite is nonsense, and you don't do physics; proof is your statement.
Did you try to look up energy of different things? Do you do research before spreading delusional statements you googled from 911 truth nuts?
Wood beats thermite and TNT.
Paper beats thermite and TNT.
Plastic beats thermite and TNT.
Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite and TNT.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JetFuelandWoodBeatThermite.jpg

Using TNT or thermite when you have 66,000 pounds of jet fuel or over 220 floors of office contents to burn, is like bringing a pen knife to a gun fight.

...
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.
...

The truth is in a controlled demolition the primary energy used to destroy the building and turn it to dust and a pile of scrap is E=mgh. It is called physics, and 911 truth expects their loyal Followers not to be skilled in physics.

E=mgh, do you understand physics, or do you need some help? Let me guess, you did not go to engineering school and you failed to do research on 911. There were no explosives used on 911, the energy used to destroy the WTC complex is E=mgh, you might need help from a physics teacher to get your gyros realigned to reality. You have spun off into fantasy-land of 911 truth delusions, repeating the catechism of Gage and other failed 911 truth preachers and snake-oil salespeople.

Good luck; Please go see a few physics teachers and discuss E=mgh, and use some math. Math classes, higher math will help with logic and critical thinking.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Are you saying an awful lot was not particular to the WTC site?.......well I'm only in my mid 50's but I don't recall any other 110 floor building being hit by an airliner and having unfought fires and collapsing let alone two buildings that size plus WTC 7, a mere 47 floors, plus WTC 3,4,5 and 6 plus the church, dozens of vehicles, 3000 people. You bet your $%^ the site was "particular"!

And get it through your head, the example of the landfill is to show that some fires can have huge quantities of water put on them and they do not go out. No one, but you, expects the temperatures have to be similar.

 

[alienentity]

Among other things Appendix C of the FEMA report.

Ooops! That was not melted steel, not that you properly gave a citation (page number and specific quote). It was 'eutectic erosion', which is a corrosive process. Read it and see that the temps were under 1000 Centigrade.

But please, quote the appendix where there was molten steel and temps recorded at 1500 Centigrade. Page numbers please.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Wow MM is going for a record number of stundies in a day!

MM they use Thermite to join rail sections together, it melts only a small amount of the rail as other wise it would be greatly weakened (a railroad rail is a rolled steel beam, a cast steel section will be much softer and weaker.
http://www.arema.org/files/library/1999_Conference_Proceedings/00059.pdf

 

[beachnut]

Numbers? Not at this time. That would require too much speculation. ...

Not at this time? 21 Sep 2011, not the right time. Over 10 year, no numbers, "not at this time."

... 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.
...

Thermite burns in seconds.
What is the formula for slow burning, long lasting thermite? Does it match the Jones fake paper formula?

... 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

Steel in the WTC is 99 percent iron.

The byproduct of thermite, iron. No steel needed. Thermite is used to fuse steel together.

Without steel, the thermite reacts by-itself. Where did you get this nonsense from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpOJE-mkWmw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6K90cR8Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCqG3rWtNbc

It would take 660 tons of thermite to equal the heat energy of the jet fuel which set the fires in the WTC. The jet fuel was negligible in heat energy to the OFFICE fires in the WTC. Which makes 660 tons of thermite negligible to the Office fires in the WTC towers, and WTC 7.
What is the 911 truth master plan, waste 10 more years pushing lies?

... Without the steel, the thermitic material has nothing to react with. Is that sufficiently clear?

Will you retracted that?
Steel is not needed. What is the chemistry of thermite?

A byproduct of the thermite reaction is molten iron.

 

[phunk]

MM they use Thermite to join rail sections together, it melts only a small amount of the rail

And even that requires preheating the rails with a large torch.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And even that requires preheating the rails with a large torch.

And, the amount of heat that remains in the rail over any great distance is limited. On an overnight possession the stressing team can, and have to, work close to a thermite weld to ensure the rail is under the right tension. The thermite is incredibly hot, but very localised. The rest of the rail acts like a big heatsink. Unlike the "truther" description of thermite enduced melting little deformity of the rail tends to occur beyond the cast.

Now compare that to the warping of rails by consistent heat over a large portion of the rail, as we find from summer sun or confined fires in tunnels. In those situations the rail can buckle and wobble over a distance so that it ends up looking like a curly wurly.