Merged So there was melted steel

[twinstead]

What about the thermitic behavior of the dust?

We know that much of the WTC and its contents were pulverized into dust.

We know that the WTC dust is thoroughly impregnated with red chips that ignite at 430 C, at which temperature, they flare up and release a significant amount of energy.

Imagine the conditions in the debris pile where pockets have been created during the collapse and have initial temperatures high enough to ignite the red chips in any exposed dust lining the pocket.

Up above, Ground Zero debris removal operations are constantly disturbing unspent dust which continues to fall into these pockets and ignite.

Surrounded and thermally insulated by the dense mass of the pulverized debris pile, and constantly being re-supplied with falling dust, very high temperatures capable of melting metal could be achieved.

As long as any one of these thermal pockets has a minimal temperature of 430 C and a steady supply of un-ignited dust, the hotspot will perpetuate.

As each pocket is excavated, the temperature inside would immediately begin dropping and once a pocket is exposed sufficiently to reduce the temperature below 430 C, the dust would no longer ignite.

MM

I bolded that part that stood out to me. "We" know no such thing. Why do you folks keep repeating this like it's suspicious?

 

[tmd2_1]

To give props where props are due MM has put forth that he believes that the molten steel was there from the beginning and was kept molten by the slow release of heat due to the insulative effects of the rubble pile.

That is as close to answering the OP that anyone has come.

tmd insists on debating the existance of molten steel in a thread in which the OP assumes there is molten steel.
A clear case of an inability to take 'yes' for an answer it would seem.

tmd asserts that since no 'official' account exists concerning molten steel or any discussion of how such would be produced, that the existance of molten steel is therefore poison to the 'official' story.

Far from it of course. Take NIST for example, what was their task? To work on the damage to the buildings and the collapses. Underground fires and the effects that such fires have on the rubble of collapsed buildings was simply not their task.
FEMA had interest in the rescue and clean up and the underground fires would have hampered that effort but as proved in Centralia it already known how difficult fighting such fires is and there would be no impetus to describe in minute detail, those fires.

So I have to ask, what official agency would be interested or tasked with determining the details of the underground fires and why?

tmd asserts that this answers the qusetion of 'so what?' His reasoning goes something like this:

There are reports of molten steel>>Molten steel is not mentioned officially>>therefore molten steel is anathema to the official story>> therefore the official story is hiding the existance of molten steel because it illustrates the falseness of that history.

1) it has been shown that reports of molten steel are no uncommon
2) there is no reason for any official mention of the molten steel in the underground other than as it affected the clean up operation and certainly no reason to attempt a detailed analysis of how said molten steel came to be.
3) It does not follow, logically, that not mentioning a detail that has nothing to do with the task of a report is evidence that the report is false.
4)this still does not explain from a 911 conspiracy POV how the molten steel came to be and given that this molten steel is considered to be a cornerstone of the conspiracy 'evidence' , explaining its distribution and how it came to be is important for any conspiracy theory.

Are you really saying those sent to investigate after the event (i.e.) FEMA BRAT team should not have been looking for molten steel? This is up there in terms of some of the things I've read here.

Listen my initial point is that there are no examples in history where a similar type fire got hot enough to melt steel, or at least that I couldn't find any. That in of itself is a big deal. Next I was addressing his "furnace" theory, and showing which ever way you look at it a furnace was not in place. So yes I am suggesting that if there was molten steel it is evidence of a CD of some sort, and "the powers that be" would not want that to get out, because of it knowing it couldn't be explained by way of a "furnace" or anything else. How it is, has been explained many times over by many people, you don't want to believe it that is your business.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

.

We know that the WTC dust is thoroughly impregnated with red chips that ignite at 430 C, at which temperature, they flare up and release a significant amount of energy.


MM

Really and what percentage of the dust is supposedly Thermitic?

We know the dust could not sustain a flame otherwise all of South Manhattan would have gone up on 911!

If it won't even burn how is it supposed to keep metal molten!

 

[tmd2_1]

Sorry, this is not the way logic works. Just because an outcome didn't happen because of numerous variables doesn't mean that an explanation for one possible outcome is wrong. When the pile comes down it will either do so in such a way that it will form this natural furnace effect or it won't. Whether this happens will depend on chaotic factors that probably start at the quantum level. But if it does--and then it does melt some steel--we have a potential explanation for it.

Think of it this way. I have a huge pile of junk outside and in middle of it, somewhere, is an electrical device that is live. I now pour water on it. If the water falls down through the pile in one particular way it will hit the live electrical device. That should cause an immediate short.

So now IF I hear a loud pop and see smoke I have an explanation for why it occurred. The fact that it might not happen if the water cascades in a slightly different way doesn't invalidate the idea that water will short out the device and cause that reaction. And if it does "pop" and make smoke you can't come in and say the real reason is someone snuck a bunch of potassium pellets into the pile when no one was looking. Especially not if the presence of the electrical device is already established while the potassium is not.



I have conceded nothing. It's your job to figure out why molten steel was there if it was as I already have one explanation that satisfies me. Do you believe molten steel was there? Do you still believe the only way it could be there is through a bunch of magic thermite that only goes off underground?

My logic is fine. You have conceded nothing??

This is what Oyestein said,

"(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.) "

To which you answered "Sure"

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"

 

[NoahFence]

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"

Are you really saying those sent to investigate after the event (i.e.) FEMA BRAT team should not have been looking for molten steel? This is up there in terms of some of the things I've read here."

looking for it? no why would they??? notice it if they find it? of course they would.

Listen my initial point is that there are no examples in history where a similar type fire got hot enough to melt steel, or at least that I couldn't find any. That in of itself is a big deal.

no its not a "big deal" its a "first time in history fallacy" so no deal at all.

Next I was addressing his "furnace" theory, and showing which ever way you look at it a furnace was not in place.

You have shown no such thing. Stop lying.

So yes I am suggesting that if there was molten steel it is evidence of a CD of some sort,

No its not unless you can show thats its impossible for temps that high to form in the unique conditions at ground zero. You can't. Period.

and "the powers that be" would not want that to get out, because of it knowing it couldn't be explained by way of a "furnace" or anything else.

A furnace effect is not impossible just because you think it is!

How it is, has been explained many times over by many people, you don't want to believe it that is your business.

repeating a lie does not make it true. No one has explained why a furnace effect is not possible. It might not be likely but then its one heck of a more likely explanation for some molten steel than sooper nanny thermopoop. Which we are still waiting for a credible way that it could explain steel being still molten 90 days after 911.

stop digging TMD you are just making yourself look a bigger and bigger fool.

 

[NoahFence]

Are you really saying those sent to investigate after the event (i.e.) FEMA BRAT team should not have been looking for molten steel? This is up there in terms of some of the things I've read here.

Why would they?

To investigate why the towers collapsed? The rational universe knows why they collapsed already. I knew it before they hit the ground. What's taking you so long?

 

[uke2se]

My logic is fine. You have conceded nothing??

This is what Oyestein said,

"(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.) "

To which you answered "Sure"

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"

You seriously still don't get what this thread is about? I mean, are you just trolling and pretending to be this stupid?

 

[Tomtomkent]

My logic is fine. You have conceded nothing??

This is what Oyestein said,

"(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.) "

To which you answered "Sure"

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"

Nope. You seem to be assuming most people are idiots and / or will believe what ever is most useful for you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you really saying those sent to investigate after the event (i.e.) FEMA BRAT team should not have been looking for molten steel? This is up there in terms of some of the things I've read here.

What's "BRAT"?
,,, yes I am saying that there was no reason to 'look for' or explain the existance of molten steel.
Please outline your reasons to believe otherwise.

Listen my initial point is that there are no examples in history where a similar type fire got hot enough to melt steel, or at least that I couldn't find any. That in of itself is a big deal.

Except of course that you accnot actually show that molten steel was present, only reports of its presence, which has been pointed out is most certainly NOT remarkable and there are numerous reports of molten steel in other innocuous fires. Conclusion, its not a big deal.

Next I was addressing his "furnace" theory, and showing which ever way you look at it a furnace was not in place.

No in fact there are ways that a natural furnace can occur, in theory, and so its not possible to claim that none existed. Besides, see the last point. REPORTS OF MOLTEN STEEL are NOT remarkable in fires.

So yes I am suggesting that if there was molten steel it is evidence of a CD of some sort,

That 'sort' is part of the questions in the OP.

and "the powers that be" would not want that to get out, because of it knowing it couldn't be explained by way of a "furnace" or anything else. How it is, has been explained many times over by many people, you don't want to believe it that is your business.

As has been explained many times now to you, your path of logic requires many leaps. You take unremarkable reports of molten steel and jump to a conclusion that this constitutes evidence of CD "of some sort" and then jump again to a further conclusion that TPTB are hiding this molten steel (seems to me the better way to go about this would be to simply demonstrate through a fabricated experiment that such furnaces do exist IF IF IF there was any cause to address molten steel by a nefarious and hugely funded org, but that's just the way I would work if I were a James Bond villian).

Will you ever really answer the OP?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

My logic is fine.

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"

Why do you think "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" means that it cannot be explained???? All that statement says is that its moot since YOU cannot credibly explain the putative molten steel either...............

 

[Travis]

I don't know if there was a furnace effect either. But it sure as hell is a lot more parsimonious than thermite reactions. At least all the furnace effect requires is stuff that was known to be there.

 

[Miragememories]

"What about the thermitic behavior of the dust?

We know that much of the WTC and its contents were pulverized into dust.

We know that the WTC dust is thoroughly impregnated with red chips that ignite at 430 C, at which temperature, they flare up and release a significant amount of energy.

Imagine the conditions in the debris pile where pockets have been created during the collapse and have initial temperatures high enough to ignite the red chips in any exposed dust lining the pocket.

Up above, Ground Zero debris removal operations are constantly disturbing unspent dust which continues to fall into these pockets and ignite.

Surrounded and thermally insulated by the dense mass of the pulverized debris pile, and constantly being re-supplied with falling dust, very high temperatures capable of melting metal could be achieved.

As long as any one of these thermal pockets has a minimal temperature of 430 C and a steady supply of un-ignited dust, the hotspot will perpetuate.

As each pocket is excavated, the temperature inside would immediately begin dropping and once a pocket is exposed sufficiently to reduce the temperature below 430 C, the dust would no longer ignite."

"Really and what percentage of the dust is supposedly Thermitic?

We know the dust could not sustain a flame otherwise all of South Manhattan would have gone up on 911!

If it won't even burn how is it supposed to keep metal molten!"

To date, all the known dust samples have contained significant concentrations of these thermitic red chips. There were tons upon tons of dust in that debris pile.

In a confined, densely insulated space, if the heat produced is greater than the heat escaping, the ambient temperature will have to rise.

The dust does not have to "sustain a flame". If it produces a sufficient number of these highly energetic reactions, a significant amount of heat will be produced.

If the temperature rises high enough, metals will melt.

The amount of molten metal produced will depend largely on how much and how long the metals are exposed to the elevated temperatures in these pockets.

MM

 

[tmd2_1]

What's "BRAT"?
,,, yes I am saying that there was no reason to 'look for' or explain the existance of molten steel.
Please outline your reasons to believe otherwise.



Except of course that you accnot actually show that molten steel was present, only reports of its presence, which has been pointed out is most certainly NOT remarkable and there are numerous reports of molten steel in other innocuous fires. Conclusion, its not a big deal.



No in fact there are ways that a natural furnace can occur, in theory, and so its not possible to claim that none existed. Besides, see the last point. REPORTS OF MOLTEN STEEL are NOT remarkable in fires.



That 'sort' is part of the questions in the OP.



As has been explained many times now to you, your path of logic requires many leaps. You take unremarkable reports of molten steel and jump to a conclusion that this constitutes evidence of CD "of some sort" and then jump again to a further conclusion that TPTB are hiding this molten steel (seems to me the better way to go about this would be to simply demonstrate through a fabricated experiment that such furnaces do exist IF IF IF there was any cause to address molten steel by a nefarious and hugely funded org, but that's just the way I would work if I were a James Bond villian).

Will you ever really answer the OP?

You know I meant BPAT team, and I know you know what that is.

Address the OP? Here is the opening of the OP "Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious."

I'll repeat what I said.

This is what Oyestein said,

"(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.) "

To which you answered "Sure"

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"


I'll add to this if it can't be exaplained by natural events, as he's agreed to, there is only one conclusion to draw. That is there was something that should not have been there, and that was melting the steel. That is malicious. That is exactly what is in his OP. This thread should end, it's all been outlined here in my post.

 

[jaydeehess]

To date, all the known dust samples have contained significant concentrations of these thermitic red chips. There were tons upon tons of dust in that debris pile.

In a confined, densely insulated space, if the heat produced is greater than the heat escaping, the ambient temperature will have to rise.

The dust does not have to "sustain a flame". If it produces a sufficient number of these highly energetic reactions, a significant amount of heat will be produced.

If the temperature rises high enough, metals will melt.

The amount of molten metal produced will depend largely on how much and how long the metals are exposed to the elevated temperatures in these pockets.

MM

Perhaps you'd like to address problems with this theory?

The dust samples came from above ground and I expect that we assume that the dust underground is consistent with the dust above the rubble, correct?

You say that significant amounts of thermitic material in the form of these red chips are in the dust. You say that in the underground the flaring off of these chips is what contributed enough heat to build up to metal/steel melting temperatures.

Why was there never an observed thermite burn in the dust on top of the rubble pile given that your 'thermitic' material has an ignition point close to that of newspaper?

Why does this thermite burn seem to preferentially occur underground?

If there were tons of left-over thermitic material how much was in the towers pre-collapse?

If, as we could expect, more thermitic material burned pre-collapse than post collapse, why was no thermite flaring observed pre-collapse?

If, as we could expect, more thermitic material burned pre-collapse than post collapse, where is the evidence of the large number of partially melted structural steel members? Molten steel may flow into pockets underground and remain there but a steel column 30 feet long is not very likely to have had its entire length converted to liquid form and we should have numerous examples of partial structural components with melted ends.

 

[jaydeehess]

You know I meant BPAT team, and I know you know what that is.

Address the OP? Here is the opening of the OP "Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious."

I'll repeat what I said.

This is what Oyestein said,

"(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.) "

To which you answered "Sure"

Notice the part "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not" most people (note I don't mean most posters here, because we know they will come in and assure you I am wrong) would consider this an answer to your "So what if there was molten steel?" Not being able to explain something is important, and would be considered a "big deal"


I'll add to this if it can't be exaplained by natural events, as he's agreed to, there is only one conclusion to draw. That is there was something that should not have been there, and that was melting the steel. That is malicious. That is exactly what is in his OP. This thread should end, it's all been outlined here in my post.

You realize that the furnace effect is one scenario that was put forth, right?

The other was close to what MM is proposing (how odd is that?).

That underground fires contributed heat to their surroundings and that heat escape was slower than heat input (the definition of insulation) causing the temperature to rise. Air entering this volume would necessarily have to pass through heated areas before getting to the location of burning fuel thus increasing the efficiency of the burning and the heat output.

MM contends that ONLY a thermitic burn could contribute enough heat to cause this effect. I and others contend that this is not shown to be true and that continued fires of available fuels known to be in the structures will suffice.

Yes, I assumed that you meant BPAT, but on my keyboard the "R" and "P" are quite widely separated so I could not be sure it was a typo. Besides 'BRAT" was funny!

Did I not ask you why the details of the molten metals in the fires in the rubble would be of interest to studies of HOW the buildings collapsed, or to studies concerning the response of the first responders, or of the reasons why persons would attack the USA in this manner?

If not , consider the query as having been put forth now.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

To date, all the known dust samples have contained significant concentrations of these thermitic red chips. There were tons upon tons of dust in that debris pile.

really? how do you know that? and significant concentrations? hardly, there was not even enough to make the dust burn even when it was on top of paper next to burning cars. In fact there is more evidence that it was a good fire retardant than a heat source.

In a confined, densely insulated space, if the heat produced is greater than the heat escaping, the ambient temperature will have to rise.

Indeed especially if there are good things to burn like wood and pladtics rather than poor ones like thermite.

The dust does not have to "sustain a flame". If it produces a sufficient number of these highly energetic reactions, a significant amount of heat will be produced.

baseless assertion, If it won't burn its useless for the purpose you claim.

If the temperature rises high enough, metals will melt.

indeed, especially if you have a furnace effect.

The amount of molten metal produced will depend largely on how much and how long the metals are exposed to the elevated temperatures in these pockets.

so how much was there and why should we care less since there is a perfectly normal way of explaining them?.

 

[tmd2_1]

You realize that the furnace effect is one scenario that was put forth, right?

The other was close to what MM is proposing (how odd is that?).

That underground fires contributed heat to their surroundings and that heat escape was slower than heat input (the definition of insulation) causing the temperature to rise. Air entering this volume would necessarily have to pass through heated areas before getting to the location of burning fuel thus increasing the efficiency of the burning and the heat output.

MM contends that ONLY a thermitic burn could contribute enough heat to cause this effect. I and others contend that this is not shown to be true and that continued fires of available fuels known to be in the structures will suffice.

Yes, I assumed that you meant BPAT, but on my keyboard the "R" and "P" are quite widely separated so I could not be sure it was a typo. Besides 'BRAT" was funny!

Did I not ask you why the details of the molten metals in the fires in the rubble would be of interest to studies of HOW the buildings collapsed, or to studies concerning the response of the first responders, or of the reasons why persons would attack the USA in this manner?

If not , consider the query as having been put forth now.

It doesn't matter how many theories were put forth. He agreed it can not be explained, if it can be explained there is reason for it to be malicious.

In regards to BPAT, maybe it's just me, but those responsible for studies of how the building collapsed would be interested in molten steel, or just the condition of the steel in general. But I'm sure that's just me. Anyway you are diverting the thread, what they were or were not looking for is not important for this thread. He asked a questions and got his answer, an answer he agreed to.

 

[jaydeehess]

It doesn't matter how many theories were put forth. He agreed it can not be explained, if it can be explained there is reason for it to be malicious.

What?? That makes no sense. If you meant something other than what you wrote try again in English.

Its only malicious IF you CAN DEMONSTRATE that an unnatural event caused it. So far you have used nothing but the 'appeal to ignorance' logocal falisly to claim that since we cannot determine a natural event to a certainty that an unnatural one must be in play.

In regards to BPAT, maybe it's just me, but those responsible for studies of how the building collapsed would be interested in molten steel,

Well you and bill , ergo, tempesta, Gage and others with no training in such matters, and with a desire to push a '911 was an inside job' dogma.

or just the condition of the steel in general. But I'm sure that's just me.

No, that part was not just you and in fact FEMA and NIST and BPAT did exactly that. They examined the steel components of the towers.

Anyway you are diverting the thread, what they were or were not looking for is not important for this thread. He asked a questions and got his answer, an answer he agreed to.

Yeah, I diverted the thread because I brought up the idea that the investigative agencies should be interested in the molten materials and thus the lack of mention of them in formal reports indicates that it was being covered up because the investigative agencies would be shown to be lieing by ommission.... that's sarcasm of course

(that's a good summary of your belief in this matter, right?)

 

[tmd2_1]

What?? That makes no sense. If you meant something other than what you wrote try again in English.

Its only malicious IF you CAN DEMONSTRATE that an unnatural event caused it. So far you have used nothing but the 'appeal to ignorance' logocal falisly to claim that since we cannot determine a natural event to a certainty that an unnatural one must be in play.



Well you and bill , ergo, tempesta, Gage and others with no training in such matters, and with a desire to push a '911 was an inside job' dogma.



No, that part was not just you and in fact FEMA and NIST and BPAT did exactly that. They examined the steel components of the towers.



Yeah, I diverted the thread because I brought up the idea that the investigative agencies should be interested in the molten materials and thus the lack of mention of them in formal reports indicates that it was being covered up because the investigative agencies would be shown to be lieing by ommission.... that's sarcasm of course

(that's a good summary of your belief in this matter, right?)

What I said makes perfect sense.

realized I made a type-o It doesn't matter how many theories were put forth. He agreed it can not be explained, if it can't be explained there is reason for it to be malicious.


I do agree I was being contradictory, with saying you are diverting the thread. I apologize for that. My point is, I believe they were looking at the steel had there have been molten steel they would have reported it (this is assuming no CT of course, in reality I don't believe the BPAT team had much of a chance to look at the steel)