Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

Ah, I see so it's like landfill fires controlled demolition when it's convenient to you, and not (i.e. temperatures reached) when it's not.

Right back atcha....

 

[tsig]

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.

Is everything you don't understand malicious?

 

[Oystein]

Is everything you don't understand malicious?

tmd's world must be very scary indeed!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

TMD is trying to declare victory and run away before he puts his foot in his mouth again. This thread has been a gold mine as an insight into his grasp of reality......claiming that reports of molten steel means Thermite AND no reports of molten steel also means Thermite, IN THE SAME POST, is just twooferism at its best!

 

[jaydeehess]

Only got as far as post 509 but thought I'd respond as I have little time today.

If the surface temperature throughout the debris pile was at the combustion point of paper, I doubt there would have been so many people standing around.

True, but just as the underground exhibited a range of temperatures so would the surface.

Except for the immediate hotspots occurring right after the collapses, there is no reason to believe that surface temperatures throughout would be the same as that deep in the pile

There were many spot fires around ground zerro, including the aforementioned automobile fires. These would easily raise the temperaturte of any nearby dust to 430 degrees yet we see no flaring off of the dust around and on these burning vehicles.

What I described was a gradual build up of heat from deep in the pile where the observations of molten metal and prolonged fire occurred.

Which is oddly close to one of the explanations given that do not include the addition of unknown materials. Underground and continuing fires in an insulated volume raising the heat continuously. Fuel is the smashed office contents plus the gasoline, oil and times of the vehicles in the parking areas.

The surface, in particular in the areas where smoldering was evident, was constantly being cooled by firefighters.

Once the FFs got there, yes. However, there was a substantial period between the two tower collapses and after WTC 1 went down when NO water was being poured on the suface. IF you are correct and there were thermite burns in the standing towers then hot slag would have been no only underground but also on the dust itself. No slag observed on the dust and no flare offs of dust during this period either.

There were reports of the rubber melting on the firefighters boots. It is quite likely that there were occasional ignitions of the surface dust at times.

Why is something that was never reported 'likely'?

Out in the daylight, I doubt that igniting chips, most of which were invisible to the naked eye, could be readily observed.

Even to FFs whose vulcanized boots were melting?

Preferentially?

The most immediate reason would be ignition temperature availability.

For the most part the debris at the surface would be too cool. Hermetically sealed deep pockets containing still hot debris could build up heat sufficiently to provide the necessary 430 C ignition temperature.

Yes, preferentially since at no time were there any flare offs of surface dust, not immediatly post collspe , not when the surface was hot enough to melt boots, not when clean up operations included torches, saws and grinders. Only underground apparently.

You are asking for pure speculation. I do not know.

Well bill says that there were 3000 tons of it leftover in the dust shall we start with that?

How can you say it wasn't observed?

To my knowledge there are no reports of such a white hot flaring that were observed. Were there?

I definitely saw strong evidence of thermitic activity in the downpour of molten metal from the WTC2 corner.

ONE corner of ONE floor of ONE tower in the vicinity of a large amount of aircraft debris there was a flow of a molten material, pre-collapse.

There was no obsevered burn similar to this at any other time, anywhere elser(pre collapse, during collapse, or post collapse). Hardly evidence of thousands of tons of thermite being used in the towers.

Well, like you said, "if".

So thermite was not used to sever columns then? Or did you mean IF more burned pre- and during collapse than was leftover post collapse?

So I'll speculate.

No doubt there would have been a great deal of overkill to guarantee the desired collapse result, but the rapid, fountain-like failure of the twin towers suggests the supports were cut for implosion and not much additional melting would have occurred or been required once the collapse got under way.

So the columns were cut as well as thermite being used to initiate collapse but they still used thousands of tons of thermite?( or do you dispute the amount that bill says is evident in the 'leftovers'?)

During the collapses, and as a consequence of an abrasive debris removal process, a lot of slag would have been removed and mixed into the general debris pile.

Including in with the dust and leftover thermite that did not ignite upon contact with the liquid metal?

The collapse methodology is really a subject for a different thread.

Well you believe that there was a large amount of thermite leftover post collapse which would seem pertinant to the collapse method used but if you are willing to hand wave this away in this thread , ok.

MM[/QUOTE]

No, I proposed that sufficient heat can raise ambient temperature to a level high enough to make metal red hot or liquid.

In a small space, that is hermetically sealed, if a source of heat is not vented, the ambient temperature inside the space can be expected to continuously rise.

Regardless of what is burning.

Just as an example, I've seen a fire started by a small low wattage reading lamp having been knocked over by a cat and not getting sufficient ventilation.

As I postulated in an earlier post, the initial heat source inside these small pockets could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

In a small confined space, they would only need to raise the temperature to 430 C to promote ignition of those red chips.
I do not disagree that burning paper and plastics can also raise the ambient temperature -except for one important detail.

My theory allows for a heat build up in a hermetically sealed space that has had its oxygen rapidly burned off.

As we all know, unlike pulverized paper and plastic (good insulation), thermitic materials do not require an external source of oxygen for ignition.

So with a supply of oxygen, heated as it passes through a volume heated by previous burning, there could not be a build up of heat sufficient to cause observed events? Why?

 

[tmd2_1]

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

As I said I remain unconvinced(and that's an understatement) that fires lasting as long as they did, despite millions of gallons of water being dumped it is something that is not unusual. But besides that I love your logic. Let's just gloss over the extreme high temperatures, you know 1341 on the surface Never mind that nothing (at least that I could find) even comes close to that on the surface. That's not important, nope let's just focus on lower temperature fires being hard to put out, so it's no big deal that it happens with this higher temperature fire. That's all that's important. Amazing really.

 

[tmd2_1]

TMD is trying to declare victory and run away before he puts his foot in his mouth again. This thread has been a gold mine as an insight into his grasp of reality......claiming that reports of molten steel means Thermite AND no reports of molten steel also means Thermite, IN THE SAME POST, is just twooferism at its best!

Put my foot in my mouth again?? Forget about thermite for the moment, he agreed to that he would not know the source of molten steel. Most people (note I don't mean most of the posters here who of course won't admit it) would consider that a basis for something malicious.

 

[Edx]

As I said I remain unconvinced(and that's an understatement) that fires lasting as long as they did, despite millions of gallons of water being dumped it is something that is not unusual.

Well too bad I gave you the examples. It matches all the same problems they had putting out the fires at ground zero. Its expected in those kinds of fires.

I love how many arguments truthers make for bombs and thermite and its all expected in normal fires.

Let's just gloss over the extreme high temperatures, you know 1341 on the surface

You've already been told a method by which it could occur, but you choose to believe a vastly improbable scenario instead,. For example we already know how a furnace works, thermite could never do what you think it can do and you ascribe whatever properties you need it to have whenever the arguments suits you. Your problem is you always believe the least likeliest scenario even if you have a perfectly understandable and logical explanation available.

Instead of thinkingthat explosions could come from a hundred different things and people use the word explosions all the time to refer to things that arent explosives, you choose to think they really were talking about bombs. Instead of realising that molten metal is common and expected in normal fires, you choose to think that it is not and is evidence of extreme temperatures. Instead of understanding that reports of molten steel are not actually abnormal at all since it is seen in plenty of other fires, you choose to believe that on 911 they really did see molten steel but in other fires they were mistaken and therefore this implies extreme temperatures. Instead of thinking that fighting landfill fires typically have the exact same issues as they had fighting the WTC rubble fire, you choose to believe that when it happened on 911 it means that there's extreme temperatures anyway. When the WTC rubble pile fire lasted for months you choose to believe that it shows extreme temperatures only thermite explains even though landfill fires have lasted for weeks, months and even years.

Never mind that nothing (at least that I could find) even comes close to that on the surface. That's not important, nope let's just focus on lower temperature fires being hard to put out, so it's no big deal that it happens with this higher temperature fire. That's all that's important. Amazing really.

If the high temperatures really were abnormal then that may be a valid argument, the fact would still remain that dumping gallons of water on a fire and it not do much would still not be an argument for those extreme temperatures as we've already discussed and therefore cannot be used as evidence. Even if there really was abnormal temperatures only explained by an additional accelerant, YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD STILL BE INVALID.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As I said I remain unconvinced(and that's an understatement)

again for the umpteenth time, so what? You ability to be convinced is your problem not ours.

that fires lasting as long as they did, despite millions of gallons of water being dumped it is something that is not unusual.

It isn't unusual, it fact its the norm in thios kind of fire.

But besides that I love your logic. Let's just gloss over the extreme high temperatures, you know 1341 on the surface Never mind that nothing (at least that I could find) even comes close to that on the surface.

the temperature at the top of a chimney effect opening in the pile would be about the same as that of the the fire itself.

That's not important, nope let's just focus on lower temperature fires being hard to put out, so it's no big deal that it happens with this higher temperature fire. That's all that's important. Amazing really.

If the water isn't getting to it, the temperature of the fire is irrelevant, it would be equally hard to put out, hot or very hot Not amazing at all....its exactly what would be expected.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Put my foot in my mouth again?? Forget about thermite for the moment, he agreed to that he would not know the source of molten steel.

No he didn't. Please learn english. he said "lets assume there was molten steel as a premise"

That doesn't mean he accepts there was. Its a way of asking to TWOOFERS to show why molten steel means what you think it does.

Most people (note I don't mean most of the posters here who of course won't admit it) would consider that a basis for something malicious.

Most people are not as slow as you are and understood the OP.

 

[tmd2_1]

Well too bad I gave you the examples. It matches all the same problems they had putting out the fires at ground zero.



You've already been told a method by which it could occur, but you choose to believe a vastly improbable scenario instead,. For example we already know how a furnace works, thermite could never do what you think it can do and you ascribe whatever properties you need it to have whenever the arguments suits you. Your problem is you always believe the least likeliest scenario even if you have a perfectly understandable and logical explanation available.

Instead of thinkingthat explosions could come from a hundred different things and people use the word explosions all the time to refer to things that arent explosives, you choose to think they really were talking about bombs. Instead of realising that molten metal is common and expected in normal fires, you choose to think that it is not and is evidence of extreme temperatures. Instead of understanding that reports of molten steel are not actually abnormal at all since it is seen in plenty of other fires, you choose to believe that on 911 they really did see molten steel but in other fires they were mistaken and therefore this implies extreme temperatures. Instead of thinking that fighting landfill fires typically has the exact same issues as they had fighting the WTC rubble fire, you choose to believe that when it happened on 911 it means that there's extreme temperatures anyway. When the WTC rubble pile fire lasted for months you choose to believe that it shows extreme temperatures only thermite explains even though landfill fires have lasted for weeks, months and even years.





If the high temperatures really were abnormal then that may be a valid argument, the fact would still remain that dumping gallons of water on a fire and it not do much would still not be an argument for those extreme temperatures as we've already discussed and therefore cannot be used as evidence. Even if there really was abnormal temperatures only explained by an additional accelerant, YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD STILL BE INVALID.

As I said I base those extreme temperatures on the NASA photos. You want to argue a furnace, the OP and others disagree with you. Like I said they agreed they wouldn't know the source of the molten steel. So I see know reason why an "added accelerant" (something that shouldn't have been there) wouldn't be considered a source for it.

Yeah I would say the temperatures are abnormal, I couldn't find and others that high. Your argument borders on the ridiculous, ignoring those high temperatures and only caring about water working on it or not. It really is quite absurd. This thread is over in terms of the OP he got his answer.

 

[Edx]

You want to argue a furnace, the OP and others disagree with you.

Lol, no you still understand the OP!

The furnace effect could explain molten steel if it really was there, it certainly explains the heat we do observe.

The OP is asking for a reason why molten steel would prove thermite considering that we have the furnace effect that would explain it and the fact that thermite cannot do what you want it to do.

Like I said they agreed they wouldn't know the source of the molten steel.

No, Travis was hypothetically agreeing that there WAS molten steel and asking truthers why it HAS to equal thermite necessarily.

So I see know reason why an "added accelerant" (something that shouldn't have been there) wouldn't be considered a source for it.

Well thermite wouldn't make any sence and cannot do what you claim it did, but an additional accelerate might be possible of course. There certainly was a lot of different types of fuel sources in the rubble pile, but then we know none of that is interesting to you because its not thermite. The point is you haven't proved that it was necessary to require one in the first place even if we are to hypothetically agree with the idea that there was molten steel - and you don't even have any evidence of that anyway.

Yeah I would say the temperatures are abnormal, I couldn't find and others that high.

Even if you are right about landfill fires not getting that high, the WTC rubble pile was not a landfill fire. Office fires regularly get up to that kind of temperature. What was the rubble pile but a massive destroyed office building? So office fires get to that temperature, why cant a huge collapsed building with the same debris and fuel sources get up to that temperature?

Your argument borders on the ridiculous, ignoring those high temperatures and only caring about water working on it or not. It really is quite absurd. .

You truthers make claims like this.. they reported molten steel!... or.... they put gallons of water on it and it did nothing!.... to prove that thermite was used. The fact that its common to find this in other fires apparently means nothing to you.,

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You want to argue a furnace, the OP and others disagree with you.

Actually, Travis, the originator of this thread, has been arguing a furnace effect for more than a handful of posts. I, too, am of the opinion that it is a likely cause for the observed temperatures.

So, you're wrong. Again.

Whether that's the result of poor memory, poor reading comprehension, poor observational skills, or just self-induced ignorance... it's something you should rectify.

 

[Edx]

Actually, Travis, the originator of this thread, has been arguing a furnace effect for more than a handful of posts. I, too, am of the opinion that it is a likely cause for the observed temperatures.

So, you're wrong. Again.

Whether that's the result of poor memory, poor reading comprehension, poor observational skills, or just self-induced ignorance... it's something you should rectify.

Its funny because Im sure Tmd wont even admit that the OP doesnt really say what he thought it said and Travis clearly hasnt been saying what he claims he is saying. Even though anyone can check this thread and see for themselves. Its just one of the many reasons debating Tmd is futile, when it comes to something THAT simple. btw Travis talks about the furnace as an example in the OP itself.

 

[tmd2_1]

Lol, no you still understand the OP!

The furnace effect could explain molten steel if it really was there, it certainly explains the heat we do observe.

The OP is asking for a reason why molten steel would prove thermite considering that we have the furnace effect that would explain it and the fact that thermite cannot do what you want it to do.



No, Travis was hypothetically agreeing that there WAS molten steel and asking truthers why it HAS to equal thermite necessarily.




Well thermite wouldn't make any sence and cannot do what you claim it did, but an additional accelerate might be possible of course. There certainly was a lot of different types of fuel sources in the rubble pile, but then we know none of that is interesting to you because its not thermite. The point is you haven't proved that it was necessary to require one in the first place even if we are to hypothetically agree with the idea that there was molten steel - and you don't even have any evidence of that anyway.





Even if you are right about landfill fires not getting that high, the WTC rubble pile was not a landfill fire. Office fires regularly get up to that kind of temperature. What was the rubble pile but a massive destroyed office building? So office fires get to that temperature, why cant a huge collapsed building with the same debris and fuel sources get up to that temperature?


You truthers make claims like this.. they reported molten steel!... or.... they put gallons of water on it and it did nothing!.... to prove that thermite was used. The fact that its common to find this in other fires apparently means nothing to you.,

What was the name of that thread you started? Why it's "pointed" to debate me? This post here is a perfect example of why it's "pointed" to debate you.

Here's a quote from the original post

"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."

So there is his answer by his own admission he can't explain it, that's certainly reason to believe it's malicious.

That's it no real reason to continue the thread. There really is no reason to talk to you either...you argue the absurd, with an unbelievable amount of tenacity. It only leaves me scratching my head. So yes I would say it is "pointed" to debate you.

 

[tmd2_1]

Actually, Travis, the originator of this thread, has been arguing a furnace effect for more than a handful of posts. I, too, am of the opinion that it is a likely cause for the observed temperatures.

So, you're wrong. Again.

Whether that's the result of poor memory, poor reading comprehension, poor observational skills, or just self-induced ignorance... it's something you should rectify.

Post 429 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 Travis replied "Sure" in post 431.

 

[TJM]

Here's a quote from the original post

"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."

So there is his answer by his own admission he can't explain it, that's certainly reason to believe it's malicious.

That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've read on this forum.

 

[Edx]

Here's a quote from the original post

"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."

So there is his answer by his own admission he can't explain it, that's certainly reason to believe it's malicious.

You conclude its malicious, that its your claim and what the OP is dealing with. The entire point of the OP is to hypothetically agree that there was molten steel and have truthers explain why the presence of which necessarily has to equal thermite.

He also didnt say he cant explain it, he says he wants to know why its presence can't have been caused by another process like a furnace. Most of all he never said there was molten steel, you just dont know what hypothetical means.


You still dont understand the OP or what Travis is talking about.

That's it no real reason to continue the thread. There really is no reason to talk to you either...you argue the absurd, with an unbelievable amount of tenacity. It only leaves me scratching my head. So yes I would say it is "pointed" to debate you.

Says the guy who claimed I didn't show him other fires talking about molten steel when only 3 out of 20 examples I gave did NOT do this. Whatever Tmd.

 

[tmd2_1]

You conclude its malicious, that its your claim and what the OP is dealing with. The entire point of the OP is to hypothetically agree that there was molten steel and have truthers explain why the presence of which necessarily has to equal thermite.

He also didnt say he cant explain it, he says he wants to know why its presence can't have been caused by another process like a furnace. Most of all he never said there was molten steel, you just dont know what hypothetical means.


You still dont understand the OP or what Travis is talking about.



Says the guy who claimed I didn't show him other fires talking about molten steel when only 3 out of 20 examples I gave did NOT do this. Whatever Tmd.

Whatever indeed. Right I claim that was in the OP because it was. By his own admission it was answered. He certainly did say he can't explain it. As I posted above.

Post 429 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 Travis replied "Sure" in post 431.

He certainly agreed he can't explain.

What more is there to say? he agreed it can't be explained, therefore there is every reason to believe it was malicious.

 

[TJM]

Whatever indeed. Right I claim that was in the OP because it was. By his own admission it was answered. He certainly did say he can't explain it. As I posted above.

Post 429 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 Travis replied "Sure" in post 431.

He certainly agreed he can't explain.

What more is there to say? he agreed it can't be explained, therefore there is every reason to believe it was malicious.