Merged So there was melted steel

[cyclonic]

That twoofers don't play with a full deck.

 

[Edx]

Well lack of oxygen, ventilation...etc as in a landfill fire.

Don't know where you got the idea that the WTC rubble lacked oxygen. But, you know, even if you could somehow define the WTC rubble fire as having a "lack of oxygen", which you wouldn't be able to justify, any landfill fire does not compare to the vast amounts of oxygen suply that the WTC rubble fire had in comparison. Landfills intentionally minimise the air pockets in order to fit more in so they make more money, yet even so it is still notoriously difficult to stop oxygen getting into a landfill fire and feeding it. The WTC ground zero fires had a freakin subway underneath it.

But wait, that's one of the ways it's not like a landfill fire correct??

That is indeed correct, it is not a landfill fire. You keep wanting it to literally be a landfill fire because then you can argue that the WTC rubble fire should react exactly like a landfill fire and ignore all the differences.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So let me rephrase this for you. Basically what you are saying is that it is whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it to be it, for no other reason than you simply want it to be that way? And it's "pointed" to debate me?

No we are trying to explain to an apparently very slow child why it was like it was. The fire was is as we describe and shows zero unexpected conditions.

You claiming something is unusual and therefore requires unusual fuels is your error, not ours.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ah yes I'm sure it would be. Just like the WTC would have perfectly formed these conditions to have such a furnace. No doubt about it. Even Oystein doubts such a furnace took place, there's nothing more I can say. I have never found any similar type fire(due to collapse) or landfill fire that came close to coming hot enough to melt steel. Yet on this day that is what happened.

Please let us now what other day in history came close to 911? Answer none so why would you expect a burning debris pile unlike none ever before in human history to be just like ones you happen to have data for?
As for the furnace effect, thats an assumption to match the premise of the OP. It may or may not have existed and since we have no definitive proof steel was ever found in a molten state it doesn't matter if it did or didn't. There was no big pool of molten steel not no large cast ingot recovered so I too doubt that one existed but the point is one could have so even if someone had found and tested for molten steel it is not suggestive of foul play.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Right and again I ask it's "pointed" to debate me??

Indeed it is pointless to debate you but its fun letting you make such a fool of yourself And the point of a debate is not to convince your opponent but the audience.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well I don't see how it can be like an office fire being that there were no offices, I think they were uh kind of destroyed.

Note highlited word. You seem to have a problem with the English language.
When you say something is "like" something it means its is similar to, but not identical to, something else. The fuels available and the temperature reached were about the same so in those respects it was "like" an office fire.

 

[Oystein]

I haven't followed this thread in recent days, but see that you guys still allow tmd to venture the side-track of landfill furnaces and avoid answering the core question of this thread: "What reasons do you have to conclude from the alleged presence of molten steel a while after the collapses that a controlled demolition must have taken place?"

In other words: Has any truther in the mean time filled in the red part of the argument?

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job

 

[GlennB]

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds. Landfill fires are the closest resemblence and I did not find any that came close to that.

No, you totally distorted what I said. All it would need would be a couple of pathways for air in the subway system to be drawn into an active fire close to the surface, which then vents at the surface. The observed hotspot would be little cooler than the fire itself. And we note that the AVIRIS photos only find two very small spots up in the 700°c range.

Landfill is typically onto bedrock. Something like an exhausted quarry or open-cast mine. There is very little air source below the landfill, unlike WTC. Undoubtedly, though, some parts of the GZ fires were starved of air.

Did you know that - before the advent of ventilation fans - some mines would be ventilated by building fires at the top of a dedicated shaft? The fire sucked air up and out, thus pulling fresh air through the mine workings. A fire near an air source at WTC would be self-ventilating if there were also an exit for the plume.

Also remember that is on the surface...I did a rough caclulation of how hot it may have been underneath. It's probably high, but the point is that it got extremely hot, much hotter than even your "building" fires.

I remember your 'calculation'. Sorry to have to tell you that it was laughable. You can't just scale things up that way.

 

[beachnut]

Well I don't see how it can be like an office fire being that there were no offices, I think they were uh kind of destroyed.

110 acres of office space in each tower collapsed into a pile and burned. Collapsed office fires. You don't see much, you know less. You are 10 years behind in understanding 911. It was worse than office fires, you can't get to them to put them out, and the collapsed office fires were mixed with cars crushed.

There was more heat energy in the WTC collapsed office fires than 120,000 pounds of jet fuel. The jet fuel was equal in heat energy, over 600 tons of TNT. Jet fuel as 10 times the heat energy of thermite. This means you and your 911 truth failed followers need over 600 tons of thermite to equal the jet fuel, which NIST says did not contribute significantly to the failure of the WTC. And you need over 6,000 tons of thermite to equal the heat energy of the fires which caused the collapse of the WTC.
Too bad you don't do physics and math, you could check the numbers, but you have no clue how much energy the fires in the WTC had. No clue, zip.

 

[tmd2_1]

No, you totally distorted what I said. All it would need would be a couple of pathways for air in the subway system to be drawn into an active fire close to the surface, which then vents at the surface. The observed hotspot would be little cooler than the fire itself. And we note that the AVIRIS photos only find two very small spots up in the 700°c range.

Landfill is typically onto bedrock. Something like an exhausted quarry or open-cast mine. There is very little air source below the landfill, unlike WTC. Undoubtedly, though, some parts of the GZ fires were starved of air.

Did you know that - before the advent of ventilation fans - some mines would be ventilated by building fires at the top of a dedicated shaft? The fire sucked air up and out, thus pulling fresh air through the mine workings. A fire near an air source at WTC would be self-ventilating if there were also an exit for the plume.



I remember your 'calculation'. Sorry to have to tell you that it was laughable. You can't just scale things up that way.

You were the one claiming a pile of debris on fire was a ventilated building fire. I didn't mix your words up.

Do you have a better calculation for how hot it was at the core?

 

[phunk]

You were the one claiming a pile of debris on fire was a ventilated building fire. I didn't mix your words up.

No, he didn't, and yes, you did.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You were the one claiming a pile of debris on fire was a ventilated building fire. I didn't mix your words up.

Liar. He said it was "like" and this has been explained to you at least twice.
Lie again like this and you will be reported

Do you have a better calculation for how hot it was at the core?

was or could have been? It was probably very close to the highest temp. NASA recorded, it could have been much higher with having to invoke magical thermite explanations.

 

[GlennB]

You were the one claiming a pile of debris on fire was a ventilated building fire. I didn't mix your words up.

No, I said:

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.

That areas of fire in the GZ pile would be behaving as ventilated building fires is unremarkable.

Do you have a better calculation for how hot it was at the core?

You previously said:

So if we use the same factor that would mean there's a core temperature of 9789. Now I know this may not be the best way to come up with the core temperature, but the point is, that it's awfully hot. That is a big difference from the landfill fire, a landfill fire that by it's description should be acting the way it did at the WTC, loosely compacted . So you have the subway providing more air, and what you claim may be a different source of fuel although I can not how what was in the WTC would burn much hotter than a landfill.

9789 (presumably °F) exceeds by an insane amount the maximum combustion temperature of everyday organic materials. In this same post you claim that the landfill is pretty much the same as GZ, when we know GZ had subways below it. You could hardly be more wrong if you tried.

All the AVIRIS measurements need to make perfect - and unremarkable - sense is a patch of ventilated fire just below the surface of GZ. Hell, the device could be looking straight down a hole directly at a fire.

 

[tmd2_1]

No, I said:



That areas of fire in the GZ pile would be behaving as ventilated building fires is unremarkable.



You previously said:



9789 (presumably °F) exceeds by an insane amount the maximum combustion temperature of everyday organic materials. In this same post you claim that the landfill is pretty much the same as GZ, when we know GZ had subways below it. You could hardly be more wrong if you tried.

All the AVIRIS measurements need to make perfect - and unremarkable - sense is a patch of ventilated fire just below the surface of GZ. Hell, the device could be looking straight down a hole directly at a fire.

Right so how was I suppose to know you meant "like" a ventilated building fire. I was only going by what you said. Even if I accept this (which I don't) can you name a ventilated building fire that was hot enough to melt steel? Which is the point of this whole thread, and my whole point. If it can't be explained, you better believe there is every reason to believe it is suspicious.

 

[tmd2_1]

Liar. He said it was "like" and this has been explained to you at least twice.
Lie again like this and you will be reported



was or could have been? It was probably very close to the highest temp. NASA recorded, it could have been much higher with having to invoke magical thermite explanations.

This is what he said (note we were talking about NASA thermal photos of the debris)


"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."

Let me know where he says "like" he has now clarified that he did mean like. But based on the below quote I could only conclude he meant that the pile of debris was a building fire. I wanted to clarify that for him, by stating there was clearly no building, to have a building fire. So the comparison between a regular building fire and the debris fire may not be a good one. That is all I was trying to get at.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I haven't followed this thread in recent days, but see that you guys still allow tmd to venture the side-track of landfill furnaces and avoid answering the core question of this thread: "What reasons do you have to conclude from the alleged presence of molten steel a while after the collapses that a controlled demolition must have taken place?"

In other words: Has any truther in the mean time filled in the red part of the argument?

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job

Bimp

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Right so how was I suppose to know you meant "like" a ventilated building fire.

by listening instead of sleeping in English class

I was only going by what you said.

No, you were going by what you THOUGHT he had said. No one else had any difficulty in comprehending it.

Even if I accept this (which I don't) can you name a ventilated building fire that was hot enough to melt steel?

proven to or just people reporting "molten steel?

Which is the point of this whole thread, and my whole point. If it can't be explained, you better believe there is every reason to believe it is suspicious.

You are getting confused (again), There was no molten steel at ground zero so there is no reason to find it suspicious.......but the thread is based on the premise that there was for the sake of argument. Now I and other debunkers came up with a plausible furnace effect that could have melted steel and MM came up with an unsealed yet sealed chamber that used a fire retardant as a fuel to keep metal molten for 90 days, whilst you came up with.......nothing, other than the stundie that reports of molten steel proved thermite and no reports of molten steel also proved thermite

So the conclusion to date is that even if there was molten steel at ground zero it means zilch as evidence of evil doing......and that you and MM were definitely swinging from a low branch of the evolutionary tree.

 

[GlennB]

Right so how was I suppose to know you meant "like" a ventilated building fire.

Read for comprehension?

I was only going by what you said. Even if I accept this (which I don't) can you name a ventilated building fire that was hot enough to melt steel?

No, because it doesn't happen.

Which is the point of this whole thread, and my whole point.

No, it isn't the point of the thread. The point of the thread is for Truthers to explain how molten steel might fit in with CT theories. The point is that CT theories cannot explain molten steel at GZ either.

If it can't be explained, you better believe there is every reason to believe it is suspicious.

There is no need to explain it. It didn't happen. There was no molten steel. Molten metal that was mistaken for steel? Very possibly.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Something occurs to me. When one of the warhouses caught fire in the Great Fire of London of 1666, was there not reports of the metal objects in the warehouses melting and smelting? And there was no thermite required there...

 

[GlennB]

Something occurs to me. When one of the warhouses caught fire in the Great Fire of London of 1666, was there not reports of the metal objects in the warehouses melting and smelting? And there was no thermite required there...

Coincidence? I don't think so .....