Merged So there was melted steel

[Travis]

Molten metal, fires that lasted for months in spite of constant firefighting and several heavy rains, combined with strong evidence of unspent thermitic material throughout the WTC dust, provides lots of reason to suspect a cause beyond aircraft crashes.

MM

And what is this "strong evidence of unspent thermitic material" again?

Everything else still sounds perfectly reasonable with just the office tower debris and the pile conditions being what they were.

 

[WildCat]

Affirm means to state as fact.

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

Why are you having so much difficulty understanding the topic of this thread?

This thread assumes there was molten steel. You're supposed to explain how molten steel means thermite, space beams, inside jobby job, whatever.

Ready? Go!

 

[WildCat]

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.

Another truther who is unable to understand this thread.

But then again, poor reading comprehension is almost a requirement to be a truther so this should be expected.

 

[Edx]

Molten metal, fires that lasted for months in spite of constant firefighting and several heavy rains,

Except thats all perfectly normal and expected in a variety of cases Ive already named.

 

[phunk]

Well someone is actually starting to get my point. Though still missing most of it.

Oystein's questions were asking for speculation which I provided.

Significant amounts of molten steel, IMHO, could be created as a result of thermitic activity if the heat generated was sufficiently trapped and the surrounding temperature rose sufficiently to reach the melting point of any steel in close proximity.

How much steel do you think 1 ton of thermite could melt, in perfect conditions?

 

[Travis]

So, if no Truther can ever meet the challenge of this thread should we declare the molten steel issue settled as not relevant?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Looking into the Dresden bombing and subsequent firestorm, a direct result of thermitic incendiaries, the only reference to molten metal I've found was this;

http://www.archive.org/stream/Apocalypse1945TheDestructionOfDresden_44/Dresden_1995_djvu.txt
""When rescue teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants...The uncommon temperatures in these bunkers were further testified to by the pools of molten metal [only reference] which had formerly been pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken into them."

I'm not aware of any WW2 incendiary bombs using thermite. As far as I know, the only use of thermite in WW2 was in grenade form. The main active ingredient of the incendiaries used in the Dresden raid would have been white phosphorus. As for "pools of molten metal", we know that people use the term very loosely, whether to mean red-hot metal, metal that's reached some kind of softening point, metal that is currently liquid, or metal that was at some previous time molten. It seems fairly clear from this quote that the metal wasn't molten at the time the bunkers were re-opened; why would it be said that the uncommonly high temperatures were "testified to" by melted cooking utensils, when if they were still liquid the uncommonly high temperatures could simply have been measured?

Aluminium cooking utensils were of course very common in the 1940s, so the temperature may have been no higher than about 700ºC here in any case. So, no thermite, and temperatures accessible to a normal hydrocarbon fire. It seems to me that the results of the Dresden bombing are completely irrelevant here.

Dave

 

[uke2se]

So, if no Truther can ever meet the challenge of this thread should we declare the molten steel issue settled as not relevant?

That would be the rational thing to do, but twoofers aren't rational. It goes against their religion.

 

[tmd2_1]

So, if no Truther can ever meet the challenge of this thread should we declare the molten steel issue settled as not relevant?

Oh the thread should be closed but not for the reasons you think. You haven't even provided one example of your "furnace" Even if accept this, that would only mean there should have been molten steel reported, so which way do you want it?

 

[uke2se]

Oh the thread should be closed but not for the reasons you think. You haven't even provided one example of your "furnace" Even if accept this, that would only mean there should have been molten steel reported, so which way do you want it?

Seriously? You don't believe there are things such as furnaces?

Also, why do you think this thread should be closed? Is it because it's making you twoofers look absolutely insanely stupid beyond belief? 'Cause it does.

 

[tmd2_1]

Seriously? You don't believe there are things such as furnaces?

Also, why do you think this thread should be closed? Is it because it's making you twoofers look absolutely insanely stupid beyond belief? 'Cause it does.

He knows what I'm talking about, no example of a landfill/building collapse fires ever reaching temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

 

[OCaptain]

Steel may melt at 1,500 degrees centigrade but it doesn't boil till above 3.000 degrees C (5,400 F) It had to reach boiling point to create iron microspheres. This neatly covers why USGS found some microspheres of Molybdenum in the dust.(MP 4.700 F)

PS. as you can see we are now very far out of the range of any fire that could have ocurred in the Twin Towers according to the government lie.

Wait, so now it's not enough for steel to melt, that now it has to boil?

Really?

 

[MIKILLINI]

""When rescue teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants...The uncommon temperatures in these bunkers were further testified to by the pools of molten metal [only reference] which had formerly been pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken into them."

Note that the bunkers were hermetically sealed.

MM

Did you identify the past tense of that quote? I hilited that part for you to read those 2 words and catch the flaw in your point.

The firestorm created from the bombing and incendaires was already extreme before these areas became hermetically sealed.
Try to completely understand what you're reading.

 

[uke2se]

He knows what I'm talking about, no example of a landfill/building collapse fires ever reaching temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

No other example of a landfill/building collapse creating conditions such as this.

Also, no example of controlled demolition of a skyscraper using thermite. Guess that rules that out then.

 

[tmd2_1]

No other example of a landfill/building collapse creating conditions such as this.

Also, no example of controlled demolition of a skyscraper using thermite. Guess that rules that out then.

First of all many of those other situations are similar to the WTC. Yeah sure no other site may have been exaxtly like this. But very few things are exactly the same.

Second of all thermite has indeed been used before. http://dprogram.net/2011/09/01/ther...ons-and-popular-mechanics-covered-it-in-1935/

 

[MIKILLINI]

Molten metal, fires that lasted for months in spite of constant firefighting and several heavy rains, combined with strong evidence of unspent thermitic material throughout the WTC dust, provides lots of reason to suspect a cause beyond aircraft crashes.

MM

Hey tmd2, how many different CD videos have you seen (I'm not including the WTC's collapse)? How many of them ended as a smouldering pile of debris?

Same question Miragememories; How many of your observed CD videos ended as a smouldering pile of debris?

 

[uke2se]

Second of all thermite has indeed been used before. http://dprogram.net/2011/09/01/ther...ons-and-popular-mechanics-covered-it-in-1935/

You need to learn reading-comprehension, my young friend. Unless that tower is called a "skyscraper" in twoofville.

Now, it seems you have still not figured out what this thread is about, despite it being clearly stated in the OP. I'll give you some more time to mull it over. Get those grays working, as it were.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

first time ever in history fallacy......... If you can't show when there was a similar size and content debris fire then your demand for a previous example is just silly.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Miragememories
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?

Thermite does not "react" with steel. It heats it, causing some of it to melt.

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.

Well someone is actually starting to get my point. Though still missing most of it.

Oystein's questions were asking for speculation which I provided.

Significant amounts of molten steel, IMHO, could be created as a result of thermitic activity if the heat generated was sufficiently trapped and the surrounding temperature rose sufficiently to reach the melting point of any steel in close proximity.

Trapped heat seems like a possible explanation for molten steel.

Some of the firefighter molten metal observations appear to have occurred when they broke into debris pockets.

It would seem that yours is also a case for heat of normal combustion heating these compartments.

How much, and how long the thermitic activity continued after 9/11 is anyone's guess.

A thermitic activity that is pure speculation.

But I have yet to hear of a non-thermitic furnace-like scenario that has any credibility.

What makes it incredible to you?

Looking into the Dresden bombing and subsequent firestorm, a direct result of thermitic incendiaries, the only reference to molten metal I've found was this;

http://www.archive.org/stream/Apocalypse1945TheDestructionOfDresden_44/Dresden_1995_djvu.txt
""When rescue teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants...The uncommon temperatures in these bunkers were further testified to by the pools of molten metal [only reference] which had formerly been pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken into them."

Note that the bunkers were hermetically sealed.

MM

Magnesium incindiaries IIRC, and besides that these were simply the accelerant for the fires.
How many incidiaries d you believe hit each building in Dresden?
The firestorm was the result of widespread burning of the contents of the town. The vast majority of heat produced in the dresden firestorm was the result of the hydrocarbon materials in the town burning.

Thank you for debunking yourself.

 

[Travis]

He knows what I'm talking about, no example of a landfill/building collapse fires ever reaching temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

And did those other situations match the basic configuration of a furnace?

Let's make this simple. In what way was the WTC pile not like a basic furnace?