Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

Except we have offered an explanation.

And, besides, just looking suspicious does not mean something is malicious.

I probably should have wrote this sooner, but whatever anyone believes happened on 9/11 the presence of molten steel is the result of something malicious. I mean if you believe Islamic terrorists flew planes into the building under the direction of OBL, that is certainly a malicious act, which caused the molten steel. So to be completely technical that would answer your OP, but I know that is not what you meant.

I contend the presence of molten steel that can't be explained, gives rise to suspicion, that something other then the official story is what happened.

Now in regards to your furnace, I see you withdrew your sure to Oystein's doubt that it was there, that's fine. Let me just ask a basic question, why do you think the fire would have gotten that much hotter when it was in debris, as opposed to when the building was standing up? I mean the source of fuel is the same. I would think that oxygen supply would be the same. I know you can say insulation, but I can easily counter with the smothering affect the debris would call. So why do you believe that in debris the temperature would be so much higher?

 

[TJM]

I contend the presence of molten steel that can't be explained, gives rise to suspicion, that something other then the official story is what happened.

Oh, that's all? That's easy then. You're wrong. Glad to help.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As I said viewers of this thread can make their own conclusions as to whether or not the presence of unexplainable (your words) molten steel is suspicious or not.

How can hypothetical steel be suspicious? You have yet to prove there was any.

But no. As you have yet to describe a method of CD that causes molten steel, and there are known sources of molten metal in fires, I don't think it was suspicious. I would trust that steel with my favourite teddy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Now in regards to your furnace, I see you withdrew your sure to Oystein's doubt that it was there, that's fine. Let me just ask a basic question, why do you think the fire would have gotten that much hotter when it was in debris, as opposed to when the building was standing up?

Not me. If there was steel a furnace effect is more likely an explanation than ..er... what explanation have you given for controlled demolition causing molten metal again? You haven't? Right.

So, let's see if we can follow your logic:
1) IF there was molten steel the official story is wrong.
2) Therefore: CONSPIRACY!
3) Therefore: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

Let's look at those points one at a time:
1) There wasn't. The thread is based on the PRESUMPTION there was. No evidence has yet suggested there was.

2) But if there was hypothetical molten steel you think that means the official story was wrong? Perhaps. But what evidence do you have that if there WAS molten metal the story would be the same?
3) Given your theory involves the molten metal being found UNDER the rubble, there are reasonable possibilities it would be left out of the reports that do not require a conspiracy. Or controlled demolition.

So let's play presumption again. If the official story was wrong, and there was this hypothetical steel, how do you get from "the government did not release this information for reasons unknown" to "controlled demolition".

Seriously. When are you ever going to admit "suspicion" does not mean "proof"? And "If there were," does not mean "there was".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As I said viewers of this thread can make their own conclusions as to whether or not the presence of unexplainable (your words) molten steel is suspicious or not.

What molten steel? Its hard to be suspicious about something you have not even proven to have existed...........sound more like paranoia.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I probably should have wrote this sooner, but whatever anyone believes happened on 9/11 the presence of molten steel is the result of something malicious.

Stop lying. Its been repeatedly show to you that it would not be suspicious.

I mean if you believe Islamic terrorists flew planes into the building under the direction of OBL, that is certainly a malicious act, which caused the molten steel. So to be completely technical that would answer your OP, but I know that is not what you meant.

Nonsense, its presence in a building that had collapsed in, say. an earthquake would not raise any suspicions at all.

I contend the presence of molten steel that can't be explained, gives rise to suspicion, that something other then the official story is what happened.

It has been repeatedly explained. You simply choose not to believe the explanation. And no one cares what you believe.

Now in regards to your furnace, I see you withdrew your sure to Oystein's doubt that it was there, that's fine. Let me just ask a basic question, why do you think the fire would have gotten that much hotter when it was in debris, as opposed to when the building was standing up?

Insulation and time. Next.

I mean the source of fuel is the same. I would think that oxygen supply would be the same. I know you can say insulation, but I can easily counter with the smothering affect the debris would call. So why do you believe that in debris the temperature wouldcould be so much higher?

ftfy because thats why people heat things in furnaces and not on open fire......duh!

 

[phunk]

I would think that oxygen supply would be the same. I know you can say insulation, but I can easily counter with the smothering affect the debris would call.

You seem to be directly contradicting yourself here within two sentences. You do know what smothering means, don't you?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You seem to be directly contradicting yourself here within two sentences. You do know what smothering means, don't you?

I not sure he really understands anything at all. Would you wanting him operating a deep fat fryer at McDs? He'd see some youtube video about how you can dunk your head in it and not be burned if you are quick.......and be silly enough to believe it and try...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How can hypothetical steel be suspicious? You have yet to prove there was any.

What molten steel? Its hard to be suspicious about something you have not even proven to have existed...........sound more like paranoia.

Remember... for the purpose of this thread, the existence of "melted steel" is accepted.

 

[Oystein]

I probably should have wrote this sooner, but whatever anyone believes happened on 9/11 the presence of molten steel is the result of something malicious.

You HAVE written this many times before, but you have always, and now again, forgotten to provide any REASONS why only "something malicious" could be that reasoned explanation.

I mean if you believe Islamic terrorists flew planes into the building under the direction of OBL, that is certainly a malicious act, which caused the molten steel. So to be completely technical that would answer your OP, but I know that is not what you meant.

Yep, that would be malicious. As would CD be.
But tell me, tmd: suppose the towers had not collapsed as a result of fires that were started with malicious intent, but as a result of fires that started accidentally, would the debris conditions have been significantly different? I say: No. The building, as it collapsed, was pretty agnostic as to the cause of the fires. The same temperatures would have been reached, and the same furnace conditions, or lack thereof, would have arisen, regardless of malicious or nonexistent intent.

I contend the presence of molten steel that can't be explained, gives rise to suspicion, that something other then the official story is what happened.

And what is that something? Please provide details and Reasoning!
Then please explain if that something that you come up with is the ONLY possible explanation, or just one of several.

Now in regards to your furnace, I see you withdrew your sure to Oystein's doubt that it was there, that's fine. Let me just ask a basic question, why do you think the fire would have gotten that much hotter when it was in debris, as opposed to when the building was standing up? I mean the source of fuel is the same. I would think that oxygen supply would be the same. I know you can say insulation, but I can easily counter with the smothering affect the debris would call. So why do you believe that in debris the temperature would be so much higher?

Who believes that?
I call strawman.

Besides, with this post, you continue your flight away from your job to provide us with Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) to explain why Molten Steel -> CD

 

[Miragememories]

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"

Not true.

Nano-thermite which is triggered at 430 C has been found in the red chips of every available WTC dust sample.

Sorry I haven't been able to followup much in this thread but I'll only be able to spot post until I return from Europe.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, (via thermitic reactions) even if it was a poor site for internal fire.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.
...

According to Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material...", the red-grey chips were about 0.1% by weight of the dust samples.

About 50% by weight of each chip was red layer

About 28% by weight of the red layer was minerals. Only 10% was a stochiastic mix of Al (disregarding the fact that it wasn't elemental, as evidenced by the clear presence of kaolinite crystals and equal amount of silicon) and Fe2O3.

So this "rich concentration of red chips" is actually only 0,005% by weight thermite.
Multiply that with the energy density of thermite (1.5MJ/kg) and you get a dust that contains 0.075 Joules = 0.0179 calories of thermitic energy per gram of dust.

Remember that 1 Calorie is defined as the energy to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C.


MM claims that Harrit's dust, if densely packed, can heat steel by more than 1500°C.
In fact, it could warm the same amount of water by less than 1/10th of a °C, if only it were thermitic (which of course it isn't)

Miragememories intuition is off of reality by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude. This is absolutely on par with truthers in general

 

[Tomtomkent]

Not true.

Nano-thermite which is triggered at 430 C has been found in the red chips of every available WTC dust sample.

Sorry I haven't been able to followup much in this thread but I'll only be able to spot post until I return from Europe.

MM

Oh no! That deadly surface preperation paint has some of the same chemicals in as thermite (or NANO thermite, or NanuNanu Thermite if you say it like Mork). Dear god! Other stuff uses the same ingredients in entirely different quantities for other purposes?


Please, explain, how the nano-thermite kept the steel molten that long after the collapse, and all the melted metal was at the bottom of the pile, not even disperesed?

 

[phunk]

Gross is a liar it's as simple as that. Ever wonder why he doesn't sue the people that call him a liar?

Because in this country, you have to prove damages to win a libel case. If he didn't get a job because a potential employer believed the lies about him, then he could win a libel suit. If he just doesn't like someone like you talking trash about him in some obscure forum, he'll be wasting his time and money on a lawsuit.

 

[GlennB]

According to Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material...", the red-grey chips were about 0.1% by weight of the dust samples.

About 50% by weight of each chip was red layer

About 28% by weight of the red layer was minerals. Only 10% was a stochiastic mix of Al (disregarding the fact that it wasn't elemental, as evidenced by the clear presence of kaolinite crystals and equal amount of silicon) and Fe2O3.

So this "rich concentration of red chips" is actually only 0,005% by weight thermite.
Multiply that with the energy density of thermite (1.5MJ/kg) and you get a dust that contains 0.075 Joules = 0.0179 calories of thermitic energy per gram of dust.

Remember that 1 Calorie is defined as the energy to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C.


MM claims that Harrit's dust, if densely packed, can heat steel by more than 1500°C.
In fact, it could warm the same amount of water by less than 1/10th of a °C, if only it were thermitic (which of course it isn't)

Miragememories intuition is off of reality by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude. This is absolutely on par with truthers in general

Normally you'd say "that's gotta hurt", but MM is The Black Knight, so "tis but a scratch"

 

[NoahFence]

Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, (via thermitic reactions) even if it was a poor site for internal fire.

MM

I'll be sure to let you know when any of that is actually true.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[phunk]

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

That's as wrong as you could possibly be. The opposite is true. Landfils are packed as tight as possible, they are not loosely piled up. The WTC pile was full of air spaces and piled on top of subway tunnels.

 

[Mudcat]

I realize that I'm kinda late to the party here, but I would like to point out that this thread started with a false premise: There was no melted steel on ground zero.

But hey, I'm willing to waive that aside for a moment just to ask an important question to any true believers here. Even if there was, so what?

 

[GlennB]

I'll be sure to let you know when any of that is actually true.

Don't hold your breath.

I think methane is fair enough. The rest - nope.