Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

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.

*sigh* Since there is much more to Oystein's post than just that and GlennB replied first before Travis wbo quotes neither, how are you so certain you know exactly what part of Oystein's post he is talking about when he says "sure?", whether he is even refering to Oystein at all or what he meant when he said it?

You sure do like to make some big assumptions. I guess that even when Travis turns up to clarify what he really thinks you'll tell him he doesnt really think what he says he thinks.

Here is the questions the OP asked:

"Is this supposed to mean thermite was used? If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?"

As sheeplesnshills says, truthers have yet to explain it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Or any reason that they would. They would simply surmise that there had been a furnace with chimney affect fed by the ample fuel available and it would just be another curiosity of 911. Some guy would earn his PhD writing a paper about it . The idea that there was additional accelerant (you really mean fuel) would have been rejected as absurd.

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

How many other debris piles of two 110 floor building did you check?

Your argument borders on the ridiculous, ignoring those high temperatures and only caring about water working on it or not

We explained how high temperatures could be possible....nothing miraculous, people have been doing it for 1000s of years.

It really is quite absurd. This thread is over in terms of the OP he got his answer.

No he didn't, we are still waiting for a plausible method that thermite could still produce molten steel 90 days after the collapse.So far we only have MMs silly silly ealed yet unsealed chamber being fueled by a dust that acts as a fire retardant everywhere else its seen.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"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.

Where in that statement does he say that????? What is your native language? please tell me its not English!

That's it no real reason to continue the thread.

Why so you can run away without answering the question?

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]

*sigh* Since there is much more to Oystein's post than just that and GlennB replied first before Travis wbo quotes neither, how are you so certain you know exactly what part of Oystein's post he is talking about when he says "sure?", whether he is even refering to Oystein at all or what he meant when he said it?

You sure do like to make some big assumptions. I guess that even when Travis turns up to clarify what he really thinks you'll tell him he doesnt really think what he says he thinks.

Here is the questions the OP asked:



As sheeplesnshills says, truthers have yet to explain it.

Right yet to explain it, it's been explained many times many different theories. In this thread others have done it, I will leave that to them to continue.
Sure he can comeback and take it back, but he said sure to everything, no qualificiations, why should I assume anything different. If he takes it back he is going against Oystein, as you are doing now. Oystein knows molten steel is big trouble (he won't admit it of course), he knows there appear to be no examples of similar situations that have gotten hot enough to melt steel.

Also Travis had a chance to respond look back I made these same points before, he simply ignored them.

 

[Edx]

Right yet to explain it, it's been explained many times many different theories. In this thread others have done it, I will leave that to them to continue.

I dare you to copy and paste a direct answer to those questions, we know you won't. Thermite does and is whatever you want it to as the argument demands.

Sure he can comeback and take it back,

?? Take what back? You dont even know who or what he was replying to!

he knows there appear to be no examples of similar situations that have gotten hot enough to melt steel.

110 story skyscraper collapses with an inferno inside. What possible similar situation can you come up with? You've been asked that so many times its a joke. We however do know how furnaces work and how hot regular office fires get. I wonder if you can show thermite working the way you say it worked, even just a little bit.

 

[tmd2_1]

I dare you to copy and paste a direct answer to those questions, we know you won't. Thermite does and is whatever you want it to as the argument demands.



?? Take what back? You dont even know who or what he was replying to!



110 story skyscraper collapses with an inferno inside. What possible similar situation can you come up with? You've been asked that so many times its a joke. We however do know how furnaces work and how hot regular office fires get. I wonder if you can show thermite working the way you say it worked, even just a little bit.

As I said it's clearly "pointed" to debate you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Thermite can be ruled out because no thermite was found, there is no ignition source for "unignited thermite," and there is no thermite compound that can burn for weeks at a time. Those three premises alone make thermite a non-starter no matter how insane the debris pile fires sound to "truthers"

 

[jaydeehess]

More for ya.

MM argues that the thermite chips that ignite at 430 C degrees did not do so on the surface because the surface was below that ignition point whereas tmd is pushing a surface temp of 1300+F degrees(700+ C)

 

[jaydeehess]

Your tossing around unproven numbers equals nothing Glenn.

To disprove my theory, you have to prove that there was insufficient heat retention in those pockets to allow the small, but continuous, red chip ignitions to create enough heat to continually raise the ambient temperature in the pocket.

Your problem here, Glenn, is that you are trying to evaluate a hypothesis with a closed mind.

MM

Actually MM either you have to prove that it is not possible for a well insulated underground fire of contents found in the WTC and its garage levels is insufficient to produce the same raised temps, or Glenn proves there is, since in BOTH cases (hydrocarbon or thermite burn) heat retention is considered a possible candidate for the high temps..
OTOH, its quite obvious those contents were there while its far from obvious your thermite was.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. Initially after 9/11, excavation activity would have been many feet above.

Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association: As demolition and rescue crews toiled to clear the debris, air pockets would open up, allowing fresh oxygen to cause hot spots to flare up.

Evidence that the pocket was absent oxygen but maintained a combustible temperature or higher.

I would suggest that with nothing to totally block it, the dust containing thermitic material, continued to fall into these pockets which were easily hot enough to continually achieve ignition (430 C) and maintain high ambient temperatures.

So the dust could easily get to hot spots but air can't. Is that what you are saying MM?

During a fresh oxygen-fed flareup, these super-heated pockets would ignite every nearby combustible, where, if not high enough already, quite likely pushed temperatures to a point where metals melt or become red hot.

"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

How do you account for such resistant, long lasting, incredibly hot fires, in an oxygen-starved environment Glenn if not for some sort of heat generating activity that provides its own oxygen?

You just allowed that dust particles that are millions of times larger than an oxygen molecule COULD get to thee hot spots and now argue that oxygen couldn't.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's put it this way;

It is well known that dumping water on landfill fires is not particularily effective.
It is known that it is nigh on impossible to stop oxygen from getting to the site of the burn in landfill fires..

It is also known that in numerous above ground fires that reports of molten steel/metal are common and in fact there are pictures of molten aluminum from automobile fires..

Physics tells us that in an insulated volume if the heat produced from combustion exceeds the heat dissipated by conduction (heat dissipation by convection and radiation is extremly small and zero respectively) the the temperature will rise.

Increased heat retention can be acheived also by using some heat to raise the temperature of the incoming air and the fuels yet to be consumed. In fact this would increase the efficiency of the burn and heat supplied by such things as plastics and auto tires.

The debris volume of the WTC towers had an underground oxygen supply, was insulated well and contained an enormous supply of various fuels.

Given all of the above there is no reason to suspect any self oxidizing incindiary had to be involved.

 

[Robrob]

Probably need to have a truther explain just exactly what they mean by pools of melted steel.

1) How big is a pool, 1", 1', 10', 100'?

2) By "melted" do they mean currently in a liquid state or previously having been liquified and now solid?

3) If still liquid, how long exactly after 9/11 was it liquid?

4) What do they think would cause steel to become liquid?

5) What do they think would cause steel to remain liquid "X" time after 9/11?

6) How do they know it was "steel" and not any other substance?

 

[jaydeehess]

Probably need to have a truther explain just exactly what they mean by pools of melted steel.

1) How big is a pool, 1", 1', 10', 100'?

2) By "melted" do they mean currently in a liquid state or previously having been liquified and now solid?

3) If still liquid, how long exactly after 9/11 was it liquid?

4) What do they think would cause steel to become liquid?

5) What do they think would cause steel to remain liquid "X" time after 9/11?

6) How do they know it was "steel" and not any other substance?

Hmmmm, and yet whenever asked these questions they simply don't get answered.

oh, of course tmd says that if people SAY it was molten steel then that's gospel as far as he's concerned.

,,, and of course reports of molten metals in fires is quite common, some even stating molten steel, but molten anything in the WTC is suspicious.

 

[GlennB]

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.

1341 what? Are you aware that there are 3 different temperature scales in common use? Failing to indicate the scale you are using is shoddy to say the least, tmd2_1. Or are you actually intending to be deceptive?

How many places reached 1341<whatevers> ?
How large were those places?

 

[Travis]

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.

The highlighted bits I was saying "sure" to.

 

[jaydeehess]

1341 what? Are you aware that there are 3 different temperature scales in common use? Failing to indicate the scale you are using is shoddy to say the least, tmd2_1. Or are you actually intending to be deceptive?

How many places reached 1341<whatevers> ?
How large were those places?

At any rate, 1341 degrees Kelvin, Celcius, or Farenheit are all above the ignition temperature of the supposed red chips of thermite that MM says did not ignite on the surface because it was too cold.

Maybe MM and tmd could PM each other and resolve this issue.

 

[GlennB]

At any rate, 1341 degrees Kelvin, Celcius, or Farenheit are all above the ignition temperature of the supposed red chips of thermite that MM says did not ignite on the surface because it was too cold.

Maybe MM and tmd could PM each other and resolve this issue.

Did MM say that? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

 

[Edx]

At any rate, 1341 degrees Kelvin, Celcius, or Farenheit are all above the ignition temperature of the supposed red chips of thermite that MM says did not ignite on the surface because it was too cold.

Maybe MM and tmd could PM each other and resolve this issue.

I dont even think Tmd would understand why there is an issue. He doesn't even want to accept that 3 out of 20 examples doesnt equal "a lot".

 

[tmd2_1]

At any rate, 1341 degrees Kelvin, Celcius, or Farenheit are all above the ignition temperature of the supposed red chips of thermite that MM says did not ignite on the surface because it was too cold.

Maybe MM and tmd could PM each other and resolve this issue.

First off It's Farenheit. Secondly, if you look at the NASA photos (I have them referenced a few pages back) you can see there are "hot spots" meaning isolated pockets of this high heat. The other areas are cooler.

 

[GlennB]

First off It's Farenheit. Secondly, if you look at the NASA photos (I have them referenced a few pages back) you can see there are "hot spots" meaning isolated pockets of this high heat. The other areas are cooler.

Well done. So why is 1341°F (727°C) remarkable when a massive amount of burning material exists just below? 727°C is well in the range of ventilated building fires. But probably not landfill or mine fires where the ventilation is seriously restricted.

Incidentally - did you notice that the 727°C was based on 14% and 8% of a single pixel in the cases it was noted? Hardly widespread, eh, and you wouldn't want to bet the ranch on the accuracy of these measurements.