Merged So there was melted steel

[Robrob]

Simply answer the question: What Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) do you have that the assumed presence of molten steel weeks after the collapses can only mean some malicious act before the collapse, but not plane crashes!

While he's at it, it would help if he articulated understanding the difference between "presently hot molten liquid metal" and "previously hot liquid, now cooled solid metal."

 

[tmd2_1]

No, this is only a part of what you are saying!
You actually qualify that by insisting that
+ only a malicious act can be the ultimate result of everything that was found at ground zero
+ The malicious act of "flying planes into the towers" cannot be be this malicious act


That's not of interest - we are already assuming for the purpose that molten steel was found - no reasons why required.


Harrit's work? Only shows that primer paint was scrapped off the floor joists. Does not explain, and does not try to explain, why molten steel (assuming there was any) would be the result of some malicious act other than flying planes into the towers. There is a LOT of Reasoning missing between Harrit's work and the allegation of what molten steel implies. A LOT.


Can you please write it down? Do you mean "in Cole's garden"?
Where it MAY have been?
Tell me the story, please!
Where WAS it place?
WHEN was it ignited? Before or after the collapse?
What happened to the molten steel during the collapse?
What happened to any unreacted thermite during the collapse?

Why wasn't both the molten steel and the unreacted thermite not dispersed by collapse such that no molten steel could have been possible mere MINUTES AFTER the collapse?


Yes, we know that you believe in all these conclusions. However, you provide zero Reasoning for all these beliefs. Why (by what Reasoning) do these beliefs follow from the premise of molten steel weeks after the collapses?

You are always shifting the burden of proof.

Let's imagine a courtroom setting if you will (as you know I've done this before) AQ and OBL are on trial. Now remember in terms of *this* thread molten steel is assumed and therefore it can be entered into evidence. So say you represent the prosecutions expert witnesses. You're asked why was there melted steel. You may say (as you did earlier) I can not explain it. You may go into a furnace, then you would be asked to go into detail, something none of which anyone has been able to do in this thread. It will also be pointed out that there appears to be no evidence anything like it has happened in history. So far I haven't heard much of why it would have been there, just a lot of whining asking me to show why thermite..etc would have produced the molten steel.

Then the defense gets to call their witnesses, Jones, Ryan, Cole, Etc... showing what thermite can do, why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel. Laying out their theories, of which you are familiar. As an example watch the Toronto hearings. Compare that to your "we can't explain it" Which do you think the jurors will go with. Assuming a fair jury of course.

 

[beachnut]

... what thermite can do...

There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC, thus, no need to debunk you or 911 truth. Saying they found thermite is ironic when their paper proves no thermite. No melted steel, no thermite, no evidence from you or 911 truth after 10 years of nonsensical claims.

The burden of proof is on you, you don't have evidence, you failed. When and if you gain knowledge and critical thinking skills, you will be upset you fell for the delusional claims of 911 truth.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm sure someone else already asked, but I would love to see these rough calculations......

I normally ignore tmd's claims to have done calculations as he never posts any.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah I know a discussion on what is malicious or not is way of topic for an OP that asked "I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious." (it here is referring to molten steel) Sorry I'll try to do better the next time. I was pointing out a mere technicality.

You might also try to do better next time, with grammar. The above is barely comprehensible.

Point is that we all knew the context of 'malicious' and you are, it seems, using a discussion of the word to avoid actually answering the question in the context it was posed.

How is the presence of molten steel an indication of a malicious act other than as a possible outcome of the act of flying airliners into the buildings?

Do you require that the italicized portion of the above be tacked onto all posts making such reference to malicious acts from now on?

 

[Robrob]

There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC, thus, no need to debunk you or 911 truth. Saying they found thermite is ironic when their paper proves no thermite. No melted steel, no thermite, no evidence from you or 911 truth after 10 years of nonsensical claims.

The burden of proof is on you, you don't have evidence, you failed. When and if you gain knowledge and critical thinking skills, you will be upset you fell for the delusional claims of 911 truth.

No evidence of thermite and no reason why thermite would create "molten pools of steel" that lasts for weeks. It's a house of cards without any cards.

 

[tmd2_1]

I normally ignore tmd's claims to have done calculations as he never posts any.

Post 212 of this thread.

Before I reply let me qualify as I've been doing that the landfill fire I found was highest I found, I am not saying it's the highest ever.

Let's see what else the article says about that particular fire. "The excavated deposits were piled loosely
in the landfill. The pile grew from September 1999 to August 2000 reaching a maximum height of 15 m. "

So the loosely piled would indicate it would be similar to the WTC, making it easier for air to get through. 15 M is about 50 feet the pile at the WTC was 80ft. Let's see what else it says. "Pile surface temperature was recorded to be 130oF (54oC)" and "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." That means the core is about 7.3 times hotter than the surface.

So let's see we have recorded reading from NASA at 1341F on the surface.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...ermal.r09.html 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.

Awfully interesting information this all is.

 

[tmd2_1]

You might also try to do better next time, with grammar. The above is barely comprehensible.

Point is that we all knew the context of 'malicious' and you are, it seems, using a discussion of the word to avoid actually answering the question in the context it was posed.

How is the presence of molten steel an indication of a malicious act other than as a possible outcome of the act of flying airliners into the buildings?

Do you require that the italicized portion of the above be tacked onto all posts making such reference to malicious acts from now on?

No I was pointing a technicality, I made it clear I knew the intent of the OP.

 

[jaydeehess]

I was only stating that perhaps the great amount of water would had some affect on the surface where thermite may have been present. If it were to have any affect it would have been on the surface. If I am wrong about that so be it. As I said my main point is I am distrustful of what was not found at ground zero.

,,,,, and my point was that there were surface fires, that thermite burns are unaffected by water and that given these two facts that if thermite was present it should have been noticed burning on the surface.

YOU claim that mere reports of molten steel indicate that it was present despite no photographic or other evidence that it was. Yet in the case of burning thermite you accept it as highly probable despite not even a report of burns consistent with thermite occuring on or below the surface of the rubble.

 

[jaydeehess]

No I was pointing a technicality, I made it clear I knew the intent of the OP.

Yet you moaned about no one taking up the topic. Now you seem defensive that I have. Shall we take it you are done with this minor distraction now?

I also note that you still avoid:
"How is the presence of molten steel an indication of a malicious act other than as a possible outcome of the act of flying airliners into the buildings?"

 

[tmd2_1]

,,,,, and my point was that there were surface fires, that thermite burns are unaffected by water and that given these two facts that if thermite was present it should have been noticed burning on the surface.

YOU claim that mere reports of molten steel indicate that it was present despite no photographic or other evidence that it was. Yet in the case of burning thermite you accept it as highly probable despite not even a report of burns consistent with thermite occuring on or below the surface of the rubble.

Appendix C of the FEMA report...again I am distrustful of what was not found, you know my reasons for doing so.

 

[jaydeehess]

Post 212 of this thread.

Before I reply let me qualify as I've been doing that the landfill fire I found was highest I found, I am not saying it's the highest ever.

Deciphering your posts is getting easier. I must be learning tmd-ish.
You've been 'doing' that landfill fire though?

Let's see what else the article says about that particular fire. "The excavated deposits were piled loosely
in the landfill. The pile grew from September 1999 to August 2000 reaching a maximum height of 15 m. "

So the loosely piled would indicate it would be similar to the WTC, making it easier for air to get through. 15 M is about 50 feet the pile at the WTC was 80ft.

So the WTC rubble would have nearly twice the thickness of insulation. The WTC rubble was also not strictly a 'pile' as it existed in a basement several storeys deep rather than as a 'pile' on the surface. This would add to the insulation effects, obviously.

Let's see what else it says. "Pile surface temperature was recorded to be 130oF (54oC)" and "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." That means the core is about 7.3 times hotter than the surface.

You realize that multiplying temperatures is really horrible physics?
Simple example. Is 64 deg F double the temperature of 32 degrees? What about if you convert that to Celcius?

So let's see we have recorded reading from NASA at 1341F on the surface.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...ermal.r09.html 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.

See above. Did not the fact that your numbers come just short of the boiling point of tungsten carbide ring any alarm bells about perhaps some errors.
Hell, carbon would be sublimating at that temperature.

ETA: It strikes me that a large amount of material at this temperature would be boring itself a tunnel towards the center of the planet. Its quite a bit higher than the temperature of magma. Its at least 1000 deg F higher than a thermal lance. Much greater than the melting point of silica(sand).
No alrms bells though tmd?

Let's see, what else did you miss? Well only a few spots managed the 1300 F temp. Likely these were vents where escaping gasses were rising to the surface.

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.

.

I do not recall making much a deal about the different fuel sources though I know I did mention what they would be. I did however, several times, make quite a bit of mention about the much greater insulation and the underground air supply as well as the scale of the rubble volume as having a big effect on the probability of combustion conditions.

 

[jaydeehess]

Appendix C of the FEMA report.

indicates a sulphidation clearly not indicative of a thermite burn.

again I am distrustful of what was not found, you know my reasons for doing so.

Yes I do. You are willfully blind to anything counter to your own narritive.

 

[Oystein]

You are always shifting the burden of proof.

Let's imagine a courtroom setting if you will (as you know I've done this before) AQ and OBL are on trial. Now remember in terms of *this* thread molten steel is assumed and therefore it can be entered into evidence. So say you represent the prosecutions expert witnesses. You're asked why was there melted steel. You may say (as you did earlier) I can not explain it. You may go into a furnace, then you would be asked to go into detail, something none of which anyone has been able to do in this thread. It will also be pointed out that there appears to be no evidence anything like it has happened in history. So far I haven't heard much of why it would have been there, just a lot of whining asking me to show why thermite..etc would have produced the molten steel.

I am not shifting the burden of proof at all - I am putting it back on your back every time you try to shed it.

You see, assuming for the sake of argument in this thread that there was molten steel does NOT mean that anyone really accepts there was molten steel. An explanation needs only be brought forward at said trial by the party who is actually asserting that this premise is true - and that would be you, my dear, not me.

Then the defense gets to call their witnesses, Jones, Ryan, Cole, Etc... showing what thermite can do, why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel. Laying out their theories, of which you are familiar. As an example watch the Toronto hearings. Compare that to your "we can't explain it" Which do you think the jurors will go with. Assuming a fair jury of course.

I am not going to watch any hearing. I am fulling expecting YOU to explain to me how the thermite that malicious folks supposedly installed BEFORE the collapse to initiate the collapse could possibly be responsible for molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. I am saying "thermite", because that is what your witnesses Jones, Ryan, Cole would testify for, right?
May I remind you at this point that you doubted the thermite theory as recently as today? That you admitted YOU don't have an explanation? So all your witnesses could not explain why molten steel after the collapses is evidence for any malice.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are always shifting the burden of proof.

Let's imagine a courtroom setting if you will (as you know I've done this before) AQ and OBL are on trial. Now remember in terms of *this* thread molten steel is assumed and therefore it can be entered into evidence. So say you represent the prosecutions expert witnesses. You're asked why was there melted steel. You may say (as you did earlier) I can not explain it. You may go into a furnace, then you would be asked to go into detail, something none of which anyone has been able to do in this thread. It will also be pointed out that there appears to be no evidence anything like it has happened in history. So far I haven't heard much of why it would have been there, just a lot of whining asking me to show why thermite..etc would have produced the molten steel.

Then the defense gets to call their witnesses, Jones, Ryan, Cole, Etc... showing what thermite can do, why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel. Laying out their theories, of which you are familiar. As an example watch the Toronto hearings. Compare that to your "we can't explain it" Which do you think the jurors will go with. Assuming a fair jury of course.

The opposing attorney then asks the 'experts' how molten steel can be produced by thermite such that its only found underground and in minute quantities (no large solidified pools) yet also have caused enough damage to structural members of the standing towers to cause their collapses. He asks if any solidified blobs of previously molten steel were ever found.

They will say first that they 'cannot explain it" and second that 'no solidified blobs of previously molten steel were ever found" (or they might tout the so called 'meteorite' with its carbon based components sticking out of it )

 

[tmd2_1]

Deciphering your posts is getting easier. I must be learning tmd-ish.
You've been 'doing' that landfill fire though?



So the WTC rubble would have nearly twice the thickness of insulation. The WTC rubble was also not strictly a 'pile' as it existed in a basement several storeys deep rather than as a 'pile' on the surface. This would add to the insulation effects, obviously.



You realize that multiplying temperatures is really horrible physics?
Simple example. Is 64 deg F double the temperature of 32 degrees? What about if you convert that to Celcius?



See above. Did not the fact that your numbers come just short of the boiling point of tungsten carbide ring any alarm bells about perhaps some errors.
Hell, carbon would be sublimating at that temperature.

.

I do not recall making much a deal about the different fuel sources though I know I did mention what they would be. I did however, several times, make quite a bit of mention about the much greater insulation and the underground air supply as well as the scale of the rubble volume as having a big effect on the probability of combustion conditions.

I said it may not be the best way. Perhaps you would like to use your infinite wisdom and tell us how you would calculate the temperature at the core given a surface temperature of 1341F?

 

[jaydeehess]

I said it may not be the best way. Perhaps you would like to use your infinite wisdom and tell us how you would calculate the temperature at the core given a surface temperature of 1341F?

I'm telling you its simply a huge mistake. Have you tried multiplying the Celcius equivalent of 32F by 2 yet?

First you will have to determine if its a vent for escaping gasses, how deep the fire is and several other factors that are not in evidence.

What do these spot temps of 1341 deg F tell us? That there were 1341 deg F spot temperatures and little else.

 

[tmd2_1]

I am not shifting the burden of proof at all - I am putting it back on your back every time you try to shed it.

You see, assuming for the sake of argument in this thread that there was molten steel does NOT mean that anyone really accepts there was molten steel. An explanation needs only be brought forward at said trial by the party who is actually asserting that this premise is true - and that would be you, my dear, not me.


I am not going to watch any hearing. I am fulling expecting YOU to explain to me how the thermite that malicious folks supposedly installed BEFORE the collapse to initiate the collapse could possibly be responsible for molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. I am saying "thermite", because that is what your witnesses Jones, Ryan, Cole would testify for, right?
May I remind you at this point that you doubted the thermite theory as recently as today? That you admitted YOU don't have an explanation? So all your witnesses could not explain why molten steel after the collapses is evidence for any malice.

You clearly are, it's what you always do. I laid out exactly what would happen, and you know that's what would happen. Any neutral observer can see this.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be interested in evidence and theories is not interested in the Toronto hearings. That is perhaps the best place of yet, to get this type of information from the side you oppose yet you have no interest in it.

Want to know what I think may have happened? This is speculation on my part. I'd say there was some thermetic material placed at the impact zone of the planes. They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance, and I think you can see why have thermite would aid in this. This would explain why molten steel appears to be pouring out of the South tower before collapse. Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse. The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives, or nano-thermite. The demolition was clearly over-engineered, as they had to make sure it came down. Could not afford it not to. But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..etc..to give a more accurate theory. The point is that if there was molten steel found(as there almost assuredly really) it should not have been there.

Any neutral person can see what you are trying to do. The courtroom setting I laid out is what would happen and you know it. Except the amounts of molten steel and when it was found would all be known so defense experts could refine their theories.

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm telling you its simply a huge mistake. Have you tried multiplying the Celcius equivalent of 32F by 2 yet?

First you will have to determine if its a vent for escaping gasses, how deep the fire is and several other factors that are not in evidence.

What do these spot temps of 1341 deg F tell us? That there were 1341 deg F spot temperatures and little else.

Your answer speaks volumes towards showing you have no real interest in any kind of debate. This may be even worse then you not seeing the silver being poured out of the cylinder.

 

[tmd2_1]

The opposing attorney then asks the 'experts' how molten steel can be produced by thermite such that its only found underground and in minute quantities (no large solidified pools) yet also have caused enough damage to structural members of the standing towers to cause their collapses. He asks if any solidified blobs of previously molten steel were ever found.

They will say first that they 'cannot explain it" and second that 'no solidified blobs of previously molten steel were ever found" (or they might tout the so called 'meteorite' with its carbon based components sticking out of it )

The amounts of molten steel would have to be entered into evidence, in this hypothetical trial it has not been established. The defense experts would then evaluate their theories. The prosecution would still not be able to explain (at least not give much of an explanation) as to why it was there at all.