Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

???

Are you attempting to explain the lack of oxygen or what?

MM

Why do you always act so intentionally dense? I just showed you two examples where they dumped gallons of water on the fires and it didn't do anything, you claim this happening on 911 proves thermite, yet this happens with landfill fires and its well understood.

 

[Miragememories]

Why are you always so intentionally dense? I just showed you two examples where they dumped gallons of water on the fires and it didn't do anything, you claim this happening on 911 proves thermite, yet this happens with landfill fires and its well understood.

Back at you Edx.

The water on the surface of the WTC debris pile kept the surface temperatures down as well as reduced oxygen availability -yet the the hot pockets below were unaffected.

From your link;
http://waste360.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire

"For two days, two bulldozers covered the fire zone with unburned waste to limit oxygen. This dramatically reduced the burn rate and the amount of smoke."

"... poor compaction of demolition waste can pose an extreme fire hazard."

"Strong evidence suggests that the Delta Shake and Shingle Landfill was caused by spontaneous combustion. Sperling Hansen Associates Inc., North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, noted that the second fire, which broke out on the back side of the landfill midway through the firefight, was in an old, inactive area of the site filled with mixed roofing material and wood waste. "

"Thus, heat released during rapid oxidation of pyrophoric substances in the landfill is believed to be the triggering mechanism that elevates internal temperatures above the 300 degrees Fahrenheit required to create spontaneous combustion in wood. Common pyrophoric substances include rags soaked in vegetable oils, linseed oil, low-grade coal, grass, straw and certain metal compounds such as iron sulphite."

I do not have time to scrutinize your link further but that landfill site had very little resemblance to the WTC GZ debris pile.

MM

 

[twinstead]

You opinion is noted, MM. Keep being true to yourself, is all I can say. Personally I think you just like to argue about things. You appear to be not real concerned about right or wrong from what I can see.

 

[NoahFence]

The water on the surface of the WTC debris pile kept the surface temperatures down as well as reduced oxygen availability -yet the the hot pockets below were unaffected.

And the oxygen flow from the subway?

 

[Edx]

Back at you Edx.

The water on the surface of the WTC debris pile kept the surface temperatures down as well as reduced oxygen availability -yet the the hot pockets below were unaffected.

uh huh..... exactly like the examples I gave,

I do not have time to scrutinize your link further but that landfill site had very little resemblance to the WTC GZ debris pile.

MM

Except they had trouble stopping the oxygen getting to it and dumped tons of water on it that ran off and did nothing. yet this happened on 911 and you claim this has to indicate thermite. Okay MM.

Don't know why you you think the contents of the landfill means anything, unless you think thermite was in those fires.

 

[GlennB]

I would say that any time those thermitic red chips were exposed to a minimum temperature of 430 C, they would ignite.

Wherever temperatures reached 430 C or greater at the oxygen-rich surface, not only would the red chips in the dust ignite, but so would other combustible materials in the dust, like paper.

So why didn't the chips ignite as they fell and approached your mythical "insulated chamber" down in the bowels of GZ? In the zone that would be hot enough to ignite them, but not the 1500c zone that could melt steel? At that size, MM, they would be little more than the sparks that fall from a kiddies sparkler and would dissipate their heat in an instant. Ever lit a "sparkler", MM? Do you recall how those high temp sparks don't hurt at all?

And why wouldn't they have ignited every time a piece of burning paper came close to some WTC dust, and then have ignited each other, causing a trail of fire all across Lower Manhattan? It's you that claimed the WTC dust was thoroughly impregnated with thermitic chips. Either it was or it wasn't. If it was, there would be no way to stop WTC dust from setting off its neighbouring dust, eh?

We didn't see that because the thermitic chips are a myth.

 

[Travis]

Back at you Edx.

The water on the surface of the WTC debris pile kept the surface temperatures down as well as reduced oxygen availability -yet the the hot pockets below were unaffected.

From your link;
http://waste360.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire

"For two days, two bulldozers covered the fire zone with unburned waste to limit oxygen. This dramatically reduced the burn rate and the amount of smoke."

"... poor compaction of demolition waste can pose an extreme fire hazard."

"Strong evidence suggests that the Delta Shake and Shingle Landfill was caused by spontaneous combustion. Sperling Hansen Associates Inc., North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, noted that the second fire, which broke out on the back side of the landfill midway through the firefight, was in an old, inactive area of the site filled with mixed roofing material and wood waste. "

"Thus, heat released during rapid oxidation of pyrophoric substances in the landfill is believed to be the triggering mechanism that elevates internal temperatures above the 300 degrees Fahrenheit required to create spontaneous combustion in wood. Common pyrophoric substances include rags soaked in vegetable oils, linseed oil, low-grade coal, grass, straw and certain metal compounds such as iron sulphite."

I do not have time to scrutinize your link further but that landfill site had very little resemblance to the WTC GZ debris pile.

MM

I'm really scratching my head as to why you would quote all that. It doesn't prove your case at all.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I never said a unit of thermite gave off heat forever. It does generate heat when ignited and does not cool itself by the equivalent amount. That is a mockery of science.

That not what he said it did. learn to read and comprehend english.

Your freezer analogy shows an impressive ignorance of science.

No it doesn't but I suspect you just showed an inability to comprehend what you are reading. You have never studied physics or chemistry so stop pretending you know something about them when you don't. That called a lie.

Only if your container of water is kept boiling will it have any hope of defrosting the contents of the freezer.

Indeed. Well done.

In my theory, we have an insulated hot space with a renewing heat source.

What renewing heat source??? if its sealed there can be no addition of energy and if its not then it will cool down and be solid long before 90 days are up. you can't have it both ways.

If you have been following this thread, you'll note that I earlier explained how fresh dust would be exposed and gradually ignited due to excavation activity on the surface.

So you are saying its not sealed now???? Make up your mind. And what energy are you going to get from a dust that puts fires out?? even if your red chips were thermite they are so rare in the dust that they wouldn't even make the dust much warmer let alone heat up any "molten" steel!
from my post #459

You theory is clearly "not Scottish"

Please go get an education, you are embarrassing the species.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why do you always act so intentionally dense?

No, thats not fair to MM, he may not acting intentionally dense, he may have no choice in the matter.

 

[Sunstealer]

No, thats not fair to MM, he may not acting intentionally dense, he may have no choice in the matter.

Harsh, but fair.

 

[Edx]

I'm really scratching my head as to why you would quote all that. It doesn't prove your case at all.

Now taking bets that he'll never explain it.

 

[Miragememories]

Now taking bets that he'll never explain it.

I can only explain to the visitors. Trying to reason with you guys is like trying to get the Republicans to tax the rich.

MM

 

[Edx]

I can only explain to the visitors. Trying to reason with you guys is like trying to get the Republicans to tax the rich.

MM

How are you going to explain to the "visitors" if you havent explained it at all?

Do you claim that "mixed roofing material and wood waste" is the same as having thermite in the piles? Do you claim that the contents of the WTC rubble had less energy than "mixed roofing material and wood waste"?

 

[Miragememories]

How are you going to explain to the "visitors" if you havent explained it at all?

Do you claim that "mixed roofing material and wood waste" is the same as having thermite in the piles? Do you claim that the contents of the WTC rubble had less energy than "mixed roofing material and wood waste"?

I claim that "mixed roofing material and wood waste" do not provide their own oxygen when ignited.

MM

 

[Edx]

I claim that "mixed roofing material and wood waste" do not provide their own oxygen when ignited.

MM

UUh So?

What your point?

I told you that these fires are very difficult to STOP oxygen getting to them, that tremendous amounts of water can put on these fires around the clock that do next to nothing. I have no idea why you think this happening on 911 has to prove fires so hot an additional accelerant is required to explain, when the same thing happens in other fires. Now you are making an argument that says that there was no oxygen getting to the fire on 911 and therefore it had to be thermite, not sure where you think you demonstrated that especially when the WTC rubble had plenty of available oxygen.

Its the same thing with reports of molten steel and metal, those kinds of reports are common in plenty of fires yet you claim this happening on 911 is abnormal.

If it happens in other circumstances that do not require thermite, then you cannot use that as an argument,

 

[Miragememories]

All debris piles are not created equal.

Yours is 'simple-think'.

MM

 

[Edx]

All debris piles are not created equal.

Yours is 'simple-think'.

MM

Yes.. they are not all equal. But if you're going to claim that observations of the fires on 911 are abnormal then you better expalin why we can find the same observations in other fires without thermite or any other additional accelerant

Same with molten metal, its EXPECTED in normal fires. Reports of steel being molten and melted, we again have so many ordinary fires that have these same reports that its accurate to say its EXPECTED as well, yet you also claim that reports of such things on 911 are abnormal.

Same with reports of explosions, explosions are entirely expected in normal fires. Someone reporting an explosion could be a hundred different things, yet you claim it is abnormal and points to explosives despite no one suffering any blast injuries and none of these explosives caught on tape that truthers claim were so intense they hurled steel around during the collapse.

• So, hot rubble pile that lasted for months that was hard to extinguish. UNREMARKABLE.
• Molten metal - EXPECTED
• Reports of Molten Steel - UNREMARKABLE
• Explosions - EXPECTED

You want us to believe such observations on 911 are abnormal, they are either expected or unremarkable due to being able to find the same things in other fires.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I claim that "mixed roofing material and wood waste" do not provide their own oxygen when ignited.

MM

Who cares? Its utterly irrelevant.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes.. they are not all equal. But if you're going to claim that observations of the fires on 911 are abnormal then you better expalin why we can find the same observations in other fires without thermite or any other additional accelerant

Same with molten metal, its EXPECTED in normal fires. Reports of steel being molten and melted, we again have so many ordinary fires that have these same reports that its accurate to say its EXPECTED as well, yet you also claim that reports of such things on 911 are abnormal.

Same with reports of explosions, explosions are entirely expected in normal fires. Someone reporting an explosion could be a hundred different things, yet you claim it is abnormal and points to explosives despite no one suffering any blast injuries and none of these explosives caught on tape that truthers claim were so intense they hurled steel around during the collapse.

• So, hot rubble pile that lasted for months that was hard to extinguish. UNREMARKABLE.
• Molten metal - EXPECTED
• Reports of Molten Steel - UNREMARKABLE
• Explosions - EXPECTED

You want us to believe such observations on 911 are abnormal, they are either expected or unremarkable due to being able to find the same things in other fires.

Ah, I see so it's like landfill fires when it's convenient to you, and not (i.e. temperatures reached) when it's not. Although I'm not sure you've even made the case with the millions of gallons of water...etc. But that's besides the point, the point is the hypocrisy that is all to apparent in these threads.

The thread is over really, in terms of the OP. He asked his question "why should I think molten steel is malicious" (I'm paraphrasing) He got his answer, because the source is unknown (his own admission), and in this context there is strong reason to believe it is malicious. All the denying, and excuses that will come (i.e there's no reason to think that) can't change it. Everyone knows that it is true.

 

[Edx]

Ah, I see so it's like landfill fires when it's convenient to you, and not (i.e. temperatures reached) when it's not. Although I'm not sure you've even made the case with the millions of gallons of water...etc. But that's besides the point, the point is the hypocrisy that is all to apparent in these threads.

No, because once again you don't understand the argument. I've explained this to you several times and each time you've ignored it completely.

Truthers will claim that dumping tremendous amounts of water on the WTC rubble prove additional accelerants must have been used because this is abnormal in a fire.

Landfill fires have the same issue, so it is not abnormal and therefore doesnt require an additional accelerant to achieve.

Then somehow you make the case even better for me, by coming back and telling me that you think landfill fires only reach temperatures so low they cant even melt aluminium .

That means you've just showed that the observation on 911 you previously argued indicates extremely high temperatures and therefore an additional accelerate must have been used for it to occur, in fact can occur in fires with temperatures so low they cant even melt aluminium.

The conclusion is that this observation on 911 cannot be an argument for extreme temperatures if you can find the same effect in other fires, other fires which you even argue are of a very low temperature. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand, you just argued that the effect you claim has to point to extreme temperatures can occur in low temperatures.

Also, I'm not sure where this hypocrisy is unless you still think I am saying the WTC rubble pile was literally a landfill fire. Even if it was, the above would still be true. The observation would still not necessarily point to extreme temperatures