Merged So there was melted steel

tmd2_1 said:
I have been...post 993 is the latest example of it.
Click to expand...

Really? Let's see...
Remember, the task here is to provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic). I am sure you know that phrase by heart by now, I have posted it and marked it red enough times I think.
Allow me to point out that whatever Reasoning you provide, it should not merely consist of speculation, innuendo, imagination and personal beliefs. Instead, you should be
- point out established facts
- correctly employ laws of science
- string everything together with proper logic

Here is post 993. In the quote, I coloured each established fact in COLOR=Teal, each law of science that you employ in COLOR=DarkGreen, and each proper logical construct in COLOR=Sienna.

tmd2_1 said:
Well first of all don't you think after the buildings fell some other material could have combined with the thermite slowing down the reaction. Also you make it sound like the molten steel would just re-solidify instantly. The truth is how much time it would take to re-solidify is a difficult things to assess. As you said it was an insulated environment, could not the heat have stayed trapped keeping the steel molten, and only solidifying after debris were removed, exposing it to cooler elements? I honestly see no reason why what I suggested could not have happened, and as I said, that is pretty much how I would do it, given this task.

In regards to a natural furnace, the only thing you wrote that makes it any different than regular landfill fires is perhaps the subway. But as I said I could not find any other landfill fire/collapse fire that approached steel melting temperatures. Surely there must have been something similar somewhere, some subway system providing oxygen to a landfill fire, yet I could not find any. (notice I am saying that I could not find any, not that there was none, I can not say that for sure) To me is just seems very unlikely something like that could have occurred, not saying it's impossible(can not make a statement like that with 100% certainty) just very unlikely.
Click to expand...

See, I found a couple of facts, but no reference to any science or logic; and anyway, the facts you used have nothing at all to do with either the claim of molten steel nor the conclusion of malice.


So it is plain to see that post 993 does not even begin to provide the Reasoning that ties the (assumed) premise of molten steel AFTER the collapse to malicious deeds BEFORE the collapse.

I tell you what: Since the alleged CAUSE happened BEFORE the collapse, and the alleged EFFECT was observed AFTER the collapse, your Reasoning must necessarily contain some narrative as to what must, and what cannot, have happened DURING the collapse.

Try again! Don't forget the applicable facts, the science and the logic this time!
 
ozeco41 said:
Well if you think the question is loaded (it isn't) what do you think the collapses looked like?
A) Did not look like CD.
B) Did look like CD.
C) Looked like CD to me but cleverly done so it doesn't look like CD to other people.
D) Did not look like CD but I think it was CD cleverly disguised.
E) (Fill in your version)................................................

I think you are down path "D" but the confusing way you write makes it hard to tell with any assurance. :)

And there is no real difference between "C" and "D" ;)
Click to expand...
I've said all I can say on the subject. You can read the previous posts.
 
Oystein said:
Let's try to remember what we are talking about here:

1. You claimed that the collapses were designed to NOT look like CD. Right? This question is not loaded and can be answered "yes" or "no"
2. I asked if YOU think that "they" succeeded with their design; this can be answered "yes" if YOU cannot tell by the look of of the collapses that they are CDs, and "no" if YOU can see that they are CDs. So this question can be rephrased: Can YOU, tmd, see that the towers were CDs?
This question is not loaded, and can be answered with a simple "yes" or a simple "no". You either can or can't; there is no middle ground. If "yes" you can see they are CDs, then the answer to my initial question "did they succeed with their design?" is "no", and vice versa.
Click to expand...

There's really nothing more I can add to what I have already written.
 
Oystein said:
Really? Let's see...
Remember, the task here is to provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic). I am sure you know that phrase by heart by now, I have posted it and marked it red enough times I think.
Allow me to point out that whatever Reasoning you provide, it should not merely consist of speculation, innuendo, imagination and personal beliefs. Instead, you should be
- point out established facts
- correctly employ laws of science
- string everything together with proper logic

Here is post 993. In the quote, I coloured each established fact in COLOR=Teal, each law of science that you employ in COLOR=DarkGreen, and each proper logical construct in COLOR=Sienna.



See, I found a couple of facts, but no reference to any science or logic; and anyway, the facts you used have nothing at all to do with either the claim of molten steel nor the conclusion of malice.


So it is plain to see that post 993 does not even begin to provide the Reasoning that ties the (assumed) premise of molten steel AFTER the collapse to malicious deeds BEFORE the collapse.

I tell you what: Since the alleged CAUSE happened BEFORE the collapse, and the alleged EFFECT was observed AFTER the collapse, your Reasoning must necessarily contain some narrative as to what must, and what cannot, have happened DURING the collapse.

Try again! Don't forget the applicable facts, the science and the logic this time!
Click to expand...

As I said I believe what I wrote it a plausible answer. In short, there are three items to take into consideration. Un-reacted thermite. reacting as fire approaches it. An insulated environment keeping the heat trapped, and not allowing the steel to solidify. Some substances got added to the unreacted thermite during the collapse slowing down the reaction.

I also believe it is logical to think that since there appears to be no evidence for furnace like conditions happening in similar situations (ie landfill fires) that the WTC would be the same. I am also not sure how the subway would make too much of a difference.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Way back in this thread I mentioned the problem with that ASSE report (as mentioned, hearsay, not their original work) pointing out that the helicopter IR measurements were untrustworthy. You've either ignored it or not noticed it.

So start here where R.Mackey discusses the issue in depth.
Click to expand...

The ASSE accept it, why shouldn't I? Also, and this is an important point, the premise of this thread is that there was indeed molten steel right? You and others seem to believe that if there was indeed molten steel, it would not be that big of a deal. Yet when you are presented with evidence that suggests temperatures got hot enough to melt steel, you argue vigorously that it is incorrect.

There's only one explanation for this, you really don't believe molten steel being there is a non-issue. Otherwise the 2800F would not be that big of a deal for you.
 
tmd2_1 said:
The ASSE accept it, why shouldn't I? Also, and this is an important point, the premise of this thread is that there was indeed molten steel right? You and others seem to believe that if there was indeed molten steel, it would not be that big of a deal. Yet when you are presented with evidence that suggests temperatures got hot enough to melt steel, you argue vigorously that it is incorrect.

There's only one explanation for this, you really don't believe molten steel being there is a non-issue. Otherwise the 2800F would not be that big of a deal for you.
Click to expand...

Did anybody say how many istances there were of molten or near molten steel weing found in the rubble pile ?
 
The lengths truthers will go to avoid answering a simple question is astonishing.
 
tmd2_1 said:
sheeplesnshills said:
This is not a very hard concept, this is what you said "because idiots like you think he meant literally molten steel when all he meant was a molten metal. " I was stating that Robertson said molten metal in the radio interview, so even if he meant metal and not steel(I don't believe that for a second by the way) he's still contradicting himself.
Click to expand...

So what???? people do. its a completely trivial matter. And I repeat, he cannot have known it was steel without having tested it so it wouldn't matter if he stood on the Staue of liberty and yelled "I saw molten steel at ground zero" to one hundred TV crews, it is of zero worth as evidence of anything.

and again I repeat even if he had tested it, and found it was steel, again its just evidence that the fire in the unprecedented debris pile were unprecedentedly hot, a curiosity, no more.
Click to expand...
 
tmd2_1 said:
As I said I believe what I wrote it a plausible answer. In short, there are three items to take into consideration. Un-reacted thermite. reacting as fire approaches it.
Click to expand...

And never seen on the surface and no unreacted thermite ever found?.......implausible

An insulated environment keeping the heat trapped, and not allowing the steel to solidify.
Click to expand...

Implausible. no insulation is that good. Feel free to show us the math otherwise............list assumptions and show working.

Some substances got added to the unreacted thermite during the collapse slowing down the reaction.
Click to expand...

like what? and less heat output jus means more time for conduction to cool it down.

I also believe it is logical to think that since there appears to be no evidence for furnace like conditions happening in similar situations (ie landfill fires) that the WTC would be the same
Click to expand...

There has never been a similar situation..............

. I am also not sure how the subway would make too much of a difference.
Click to expand...

Huge tunnel allowing airflow into bottom of a fire and you can't see why that would make a difference :rolleyes:
 
tmd2_1 said:
There's only one explanation for this, you really don't believe molten steel being there is a non-issue. Otherwise the 2800F would not be that big of a deal for you.
Click to expand...


Nope it IS a non-issue. What temp the fire got to is just a curiosity, if it melted steel is just a curiosity.

What the measured temp was not a deal at all, let alone a big one. You insisting that it must be correct, is however, as you have no experience or education that lets you make the claim with any credibility.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Nope it IS a non-issue. What temp the fire got to is just a curiosity, if it melted steel is just a curiosity.
Click to expand...

That can't be overstated. How hot was the fire? Hot enough.
How big? Big enough.

How damaging was the aircraft? Damaging enough.

Any studies by actual engineers after the fact are only used to help design safer buildings, which has already happened. They are not used to point fingers anywhere. The rational world knows what happened.

Aircraft impacts + Fire doomed the buildings.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Glad you think an ASSE release is drivel. I'm sure they would love to hear that.
Click to expand...

Posting from another 'puter;

I merely pointed out that there is no way to DIRECTLY measure an underground temperature from a helicopter.
I also noted that the max surface temp of 1341F would corresspond to the 2800F quoted by the ASSE.
So the underground temp was approx only doble the temp measured at the surface.
Rather than fight anything said to you how about actually commenting on something tangible.
How about answering the questions posed about how molten steel is indicative of another substance and unigue to the cause of the collapses of the towers.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I've said all I can say on the subject. You can read the previous posts.
Click to expand...


You can't say anymore? why not? who is stopping you? has NWO kitty got a gun against your head???:eek:

yes we can read your previous post but they are uniformed gibberish.
 
tmd2_1 said:
The ASSE accept it, why shouldn't I? Also, and this is an important point, the premise of this thread is that there was indeed molten steel right? You and others seem to believe that if there was indeed molten steel, it would not be that big of a deal. Yet when you are presented with evidence that suggests temperatures got hot enough to melt steel, you argue vigorously that it is incorrect.

There's only one explanation for this, you really don't believe molten steel being there is a non-issue. Otherwise the 2800F would not be that big of a deal for you.
Click to expand...
ASSE did not accept the temperature of 2800F, and the sensors used only found temperatures to 1300F.
The fact is you and 911 truth use quote mining of hearsay to sustain your delusions on 911. You refuse to question your quote mined lies you find from the "official" source (ASSE) and use hearsay, and data that is wrong to base your fantasy on.

I found original data from sensors flown over ground zero, and they don't and can't have temperatures of 2800F. Now you need to do research to back up your delusions, but all you can do is talk. You never post first hand evidence, it is hearsay, and lies you prefer to remain in ignorance and spread lies. 10 years of failure from 911 truth, you joined the liars late, and don't seem prepared to do rational research or critical thinking to escape from spreading nonsense.

I found 911 truth source which use the hearsay from ASSE to support their too hot delusions. That is failure, and they are so proud, sourcing ASSE for 2800F and you and 911 truth fail to notice ASSE did not source the temperature, they did not source the data explicitly. AND, when you follow ASSE implications, you find source that go to 1050K, not 2800F. You don't do research to find the truth, you google 911 truth lies and spread them.

Retract the 2800F, or source it directly! Tell us what the expected temperature would be based on real data, not hearsay you found because you have been mislead by nuts in 911 truth who use hearsay as their evidence, and seem to be dumb enough to believe their own failed work.

You found and posted hearsay. You seem to think it supports your fantasy version of 911 of thermite or something of a inside job. You base your claims on hearsay.
tmd2_1 said:
... exact quote "· The immense heat. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires. ...
Click to expand...
An exact quote of hearsay, from ASSE.
tmd2_1 said:
This is the third time I posted it. [URL]http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm[/URL]
Click to expand...
Your source for 2,800 F is hearsay, can you find another source that is first hand? Will you present the whole story on temperatures at ground zero? Why or why not? Is your spreading lies about 911 hobby based on shallow research involving hearsay quote mined nonsense? Why are you spreading lies based on hearsay? I know first hand oxygen starved fires can reach 1300 to 1500 F easy, maybe 2000 F under certain conditions depending on what is burning. I have done the fires myself. What do you bring to the table besides hearsay and nonsense? You are trying to say 911 was an inside job and you want to spread this lie based on hearsay and faulty research.

Where did you get your quote from the first time? What 911 truth source mislead you to post hearsay like they do?

Was it AE?
The 1600 nuts at AE for 911 lies and Gage's travel club fall for the same hearsay, building their fantasy on it.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html
Click to expand...
They used the same hearsay.

Did you find it at facebook? The facebook page for 911 delusions has your same cherry-picked hearsay.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-9...teel-Underneath-WTC-1-2-and-7/234626239922521
Wow, a cargo cult movement, based on hearsay and quote mining.

Was it this paper? These guys are nuts, trying to back in lies about 911.
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf
A quote of hearsay, used to build lies. 911 truth, a movement of ignorance.

Why have you failed to present the big picture on temperatures at ground zero, why have you narrowed your scope to 911 truth hearsay and claims of thermite, or inside job nonsense?

Did you miss this one?
ftp://popo.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/docs/workshops/02_docs/2002_Green_wtc_web.pdf
This one?
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP05-screen.pdf
This one?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
This one?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2006-0919.ch004

Some discussion of temp, a starting point for you to do a few weeks of research... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4452063#post4452063

There are many, maybe hundreds of reality based papers and work on 911 issues, and you ignored them and picked 911 truth sources and hearsay that fit your fantasy on 911. Good work being the best you can be, a 911 truth follower and poster of their failed legacy.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Posting from another 'puter;

I merely pointed out that there is no way to DIRECTLY measure an underground temperature from a helicopter.
I also noted that the max surface temp of 1341F would corresspond to the 2800F quoted by the ASSE.
So the underground temp was approx only doble the temp measured at the surface.
Rather than fight anything said to you how about actually commenting on something tangible.
How about answering the questions posed about how molten steel is indicative of another substance and unigue to the cause of the collapses of the towers.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one that told me we couldn't know the temperature at the core based on what we know at the WTC. In fact post 852 of this thread this is what you said (you had given an example of when you could extrapolate) "In the case of the WTC you know none of this, you don't know the distance from surface to fire, the distance travelled etc." So now it can be done? LOL I mean really come on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom