Merged So there was melted steel

[ozeco41]

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"

I've said all I can say on the subject. You can read the previous posts.

OK. Your choice. Remember it is you who is having difficulty being clear what you mean - several of us are only trying to help you be clear.

Looking back on this thread why did you choose this thread to evade saying anything? It was custom made to help you get your point across. The OP here said (in effect) "Assume there was molten steel - answer some questions about how it was used?":

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.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?
[Several more questions followed]

So even when your point of interest - assume there was molten steel - is given you from the OP you still cannot explain how molten steel means anything....

...you will never get a thread more set up to suit you and you blew it.

 

[triforcharity]

Someone please explain to TMD (Since he it too much of a truther to talk to me) the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a very hot object will transfer it's energy away from itself to a cooler object, than a mildly hot object will.

You can even give this link. It explains the SLoT quite simpily, which will be perfect for him.

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm

 

[Oystein]

As I said I believe what I wrote it a plausible answer.

You need to keep in mind, and concentrate on, the question, which was for you to provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, and logic) for your assertion that molten steel after the collapses means some malicious deed other than plane crashed before the collaspes.
Let's be very clear that without any established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct, you would not have given such an answer at all. So let's see if your "answer" cuts it:

In short, there are three items to take into consideration. Un-reacted thermite.

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's a false claim.

reacting as fire approaches it.

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.

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

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.

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

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.

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.

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's personal belief.

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

This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's personal incredulity.



So it is obvious that your answer is a complete failure.

Please come back, and focus on the Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, and logic) for your assertion that molten steel after the collapses means some malicious deed other than plane crashed before the collaspes.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Someone please explain to TMD (Since he it too much of a truther to talk to me) the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a very hot object will transfer it's energy away from itself to a cooler object, than a mildly hot object will. You can even give this link. It explains the SLoT quite simpily, which will be perfect for him.

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm

Did you omit a word or two in there somewhere, triforcharity?

 

[ozeco41]

Did you omit a word or two in there somewhere, triforcharity?

"More" or "faster" would fit.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"More" or "faster" would fit.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

 

[tmd2_1]

OK. Your choice. Remember it is you who is having difficulty being clear what you mean - several of us are only trying to help you be clear.

Looking back on this thread why did you choose this thread to evade saying anything? It was custom made to help you get your point across. The OP here said (in effect) "Assume there was molten steel - answer some questions about how it was used?":

So even when your point of interest - assume there was molten steel - is given you from the OP you still cannot explain how molten steel means anything....

...you will never get a thread more set up to suit you and you blew it.

Evade? What have I evaded? Look at Oystein, he's saying insulation in not a scientific law. Because he has nothing to say to what I wrote. You however have not answered how you think NIST would "do" perform on the stand. How you think their testimony would hold up. What do you think the jury would think of their answers. Would the judge even allow them the continue with their non answers. Would they be treated as hostile witnesses. Is that clear enough? Do you know what I'm asking? and of course I am talking about their not releasing the numbers, and their brilliant circular reasoning.

 

[tmd2_1]

You need to keep in mind, and concentrate on, the question, which was for you to provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, and logic) for your assertion that molten steel after the collapses means some malicious deed other than plane crashed before the collaspes.
Let's be very clear that without any established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct, you would not have given such an answer at all. So let's see if your "answer" cuts it:


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's a false claim.


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's speculation.


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's personal belief.


This no established fact, no law of science and no proper logical construct. It's personal incredulity.



So it is obvious that your answer is a complete failure.

Please come back, and focus on the Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, and logic) for your assertion that molten steel after the collapses means some malicious deed other than plane crashed before the collaspes.

Insulation, unreacted thermite reacting when it comes into contact with fire, substances slowing down the reaction of thermite, these aren't scientific laws? Seriously what is your purpose for posting here, or anywhere? It's clear you have no interest in real debate.

 

[tmd2_1]

Someone please explain to TMD (Since he it too much of a truther to talk to me) the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a very hot object will transfer it's energy away from itself to a cooler object, than a mildly hot object will.

You can even give this link. It explains the SLoT quite simpily, which will be perfect for him.

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

 

[WildCat]

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

x~

 

[beachnut]

... It's clear you have no interest in real debate.

You are the one posting hearsay. Hearsay, lies and fantasy drive the 911 truth propaganda machine.
Have you admitted what you posted from ASSE was hearsay?


We waste time researching for you and you don't debate, you don't respond. You can't! Because you don't have the time to comprehend what happen on 911 and prefer to spread lies and believe 911 truth.

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/wor...en_wtc_web.pdf
This one?
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publication...P05-screen.pdf
This one?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...ermal.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.p...63#post4452063
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7651964#post7651964

You fail to debate, you have no evidence to debate with.

 

[ozeco41]

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

That must rank as some sort of all time classic.


Comments about horses, leading and water should follow.

 

[Oystein]

Evade? What have I evaded? Look at Oystein, he's saying insulation in not a scientific law. Because he has nothing to say to what I wrote.

LOL
What science would that be?
Can you point me to a science book, or some other science reference, where I can look up a formal representation (you know, definitions, greek letters, math formulas) of this "law"?
Also, can you explain how you "used" this law, other than throwing the word "insulation" at me and expecting me to believe your intuition that using this "law" would result "steel still molten after weeks"?

You however have not answered how you think NIST would "do" perform on the stand. How you think their testimony would hold up. What do you think the jury would think of their answers. Would the judge even allow them the continue with their non answers. Would they be treated as hostile witnesses. Is that clear enough? Do you know what I'm asking? and of course I am talking about their not releasing the numbers, and their brilliant circular reasoning.

You are talking about answers, but I think you have not formulated the question.
I think we will find that the question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. But I can't be sure, because I don't know the question.
TMD, could you please pose the exact, verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court?

 

[Oystein]

Insulation, unreacted thermite reacting when it comes into contact with fire, substances slowing down the reaction of thermite, these aren't scientific laws?

No.
At least none that was taught to me in physics, chemistry or biology classes.
It seems you don't know what a law of science is.

Seriously what is your purpose for posting here, or anywhere? It's clear you have no interest in real debate.

My purpose is to teach you a lesson that that you badly need.

 

[Oystein]

Someone please explain to TMD (Since he it too much of a truther to talk to me) the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a very hot object will transfer it's energy away from itself to a cooler object, than a mildly hot object will.

You can even give this link. It explains the SLoT quite simpily, which will be perfect for him.

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

OMG.
We have a winner!

 

[GlennB]

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

In the face of this level of ignorance debate is futile

 

[triforcharity]

Did you omit a word or two in there somewhere, triforcharity?

I was drinking, what do you expect?

And yes, I did.

Let me rephrase it.

A very hot object will transfer it's heat energy to a cooler object much faster than a mildly hot object will.

Better???

 

[DGM]

Better???

Not if you apply the "Laws of Insulation".

 

[dafydd]

I was drinking, what do you expect?

And yes, I did.

Let me rephrase it.

A very hot object will transfer it's heat energy to a cooler object much faster than a mildly hot object will.

Better???

True. Put a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water outside in sub-zero temperature and the hot water will freeze first. I've never tried it but Stephen Fry swore it was true on the QI show.

 

[phunk]

Insulation, unreacted thermite reacting when it comes into contact with fire, substances slowing down the reaction of thermite, these aren't scientific laws? Seriously what is your purpose for posting here, or anywhere? It's clear you have no interest in real debate.

You do realize that when you slow down the rate that something burns, it doesn't get as hot, right?