Merged So there was melted steel

[Grizzly Bear]

I wasn't saying that it doesn't. I meant literally what I wrote. Explain to me me how that law is applicable to 9/11.

As with your favorite law of physics - newton's law - it applies to everything that has physical properties.

I want to know exactly why he(or anyone) thinks it is applicable.

Because the ability of any molten steel to remain molten follows the law of thermodynamics. For it to remain at a certain temperature requires a heat source for example, which can maintain the temperature. If said heat source doesn't exist, the material cannot maintain that temperature. You carry on about how basic newton's laws are to the collapse of the towers, yet you ignore the basic principals of thermodynamics which directly affect whether your thermite could be a valid talking point.

 

[BStrong]

I've heard they did develop a steel eating variety, I just haven't seen the YouTube video to confirm.

Don't forget the metal munching moon mice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-Munching_Mice

 

[NoahFence]

They could have used Replicators... from Stargate

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I love this level of stupid. Does he actually think anyone is dumb enough to believe NIST would withhold the data if it ever got to court?

Well its possible they could cite national security and not have to show it in open court. There are procedures for handling such sensitive material.

 

[DGM]

Well its possible they could cite national security and not have to show it in open court. There are procedures for handling such sensitive material.

Yes but, the case would not fall apart. The issue would move to closed chambers where the matter could be resolved without violating "National Security". This would be a real problem in a "truther" court because they would not have any "Government interference".

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yeah?...and how many CDs in history were designed to not look like a CD, but the result of a plane flying into them? Therein lies the problem, it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned.

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

There is a point where you just need to pick up your ball and go home tmd. It appears you have reached that point: The first quote is a senseless attempt of "I know there is a conspiracy" and say anything to deflect acknowledgement of facts proving you wrong. Cognitive dissonance.

The 2nd is proof of that.

 

[tmd2_1]

You owe us a goal post. You moved the current one to far behind the horizon.

In other words: How does your reply aven adress the quoted post? How does it address the topic of this thread?
Answer: not at all.


So back to you: 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" (Insulation)?
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're not being deceptive again are you now Oystein? Here is the sequence:

I said this
"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 replied
"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?"

To which I simply said the question would Provide the numbers that back up your model. Gross: "No" This all started when it was stated the defense expert witness (Cole, Chandler) couldn't get away with their "propaganda" in court. I replied with how do you think the prosecution witnesses would do (Gross) with replies like that.

 

[tmd2_1]

As with your favorite law of physics - newton's law - it applies to everything that has physical properties.


Because the ability of any molten steel to remain molten follows the law of thermodynamics. For it to remain at a certain temperature requires a heat source for example, which can maintain the temperature. If said heat source doesn't exist, the material cannot maintain that temperature. You carry on about how basic newton's laws are to the collapse of the towers, yet you ignore the basic principals of thermodynamics which directly affect whether your thermite could be a valid talking point.

I'm not trying to ignore any laws. Is there any reason why the molten steel couldn't stay molten, because of insulation, and the heat being trapped?

 

[beachnut]

I'm not trying to ignore any laws. Is there any reason why the molten steel couldn't stay molten, because of insulation, and the heat being trapped?

Show us the math. BTW, the max temperature in the burning pile was below the melting point of steel. oops

 

[Oystein]

You're not being deceptive again are you now Oystein? Here is the sequence:

I said this
"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 replied
"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?"

To which I simply said the question would Provide the numbers that back up your model. Gross: "No" This all started when it was stated the defense expert witness (Cole, Chandler) couldn't get away with their "propaganda" in court. I replied with how do you think the prosecution witnesses would do (Gross) with replies like that.

I still don't see the verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court, and you didn't hilite anything. So my point stands, and no, I am not being deceptive at all. I also note that you are merely speculating as to what Gross' answer would be in court.

If anyone is deceptive here, it is you, by evading the questions and, more importantly, the topic of this thread which is: Why does molten steel after the collapses mean malicious deeds (other than plane crashes) before the collapses? You still have not provided any Reasoning by stating established facts and applying laws of science and logic.

So please stop derailing this thread with this nonsense about Gross. You know, intentionally derailing threads is against your Membership Agreement. I shall report your next attempt at derailing the thread. Understood?

Just answer the old question: Why does molten steel after the collapses mean malicious deeds (other than plane crashes) before the collapses? The answer requires Reasoning by stating established facts and applying laws of science and logic.

 

[tmd2_1]

All of what you say is not established as factual, is not derived at using scientific laws, and are not used in a proper logical chain of reasoning. You just say random things that happen to pop into your mind.

Sure, insulation does exist; insulation makes sure that heat cannot escape. Well, HOW MUCH HEAT was released by which reaction inside what insulated volume, and how much of what materials did it heat up? If you understood the science behind these concepts, you'd understand that
- in perfect insulation, burning paper will heat up steel much more than thermite woul
- thermite as diluted as you think it might have been would not melt steel at all due to its very low energy density
- Slowly burning thermite likewise only works against its ability to melt steel at all

Next, it is far from certain that thermite will react when it comes into contact with fire. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite, For example, quite often a gas flame, such as you get on an ordinary cigarette lighter, is not enough.

Also, you are woefully lacking in details about this thermite mixed with something unknown to give it any property you wish to imagine you need for your lunatic "theory".

Lastly, apart from you not proving that your theory works at all, all those pieces of debris from a train wreck of thought do nothing to establish that ONLY thermate diluted with whatever to make it melt steel slower could explain molten steel after the collapses.

Can you prove what you said about paper?

All of what I said is truthful, you can disagree that it didn't actually happen, but is truthful.

The last part of your post (below) makes no sense. So now I have to show ONLY thermate can do it? I mean that's absurd. Aliens could have done it using technology we don't know about yet. Can you prove this isn't true? You can't, but of course it is extremely unlikely. What I stated is what I believe could be an explanation of what was observed. In my opinion it seems to be the best fit, but it doesn't mean it is the only explanation. I do believe however that a natural furnace occurring seems highly unlikely, a point you've agreed to in the past.

"Lastly, apart from you not proving that your theory works at all, all those pieces of debris from a train wreck of thought do nothing to establish that ONLY thermate diluted with whatever to make it melt steel slower could explain molten steel after the collapses."

 

[Oystein]

I'm not trying to ignore any laws. Is there any reason why the molten steel couldn't stay molten, because of insulation, and the heat being trapped?

What material would that insulation consist of, tmd?

Edit: *delete* - we cross-posted

 

[beachnut]

What material would that insulation consist of, tmd?

Edit: *delete* - we cross-posted

I was trying to think of a material thermite would not melt. ... our 911 truth JREF supporter/follower has no clue thermite reacts fast, slower than explosives, faster by orders of magnitude than office contents.

 

[tmd2_1]

I still don't see the verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court, and you didn't hilite anything. So my point stands, and no, I am not being deceptive at all. I also note that you are merely speculating as to what Gross' answer would be in court.

If anyone is deceptive here, it is you, by evading the questions and, more importantly, the topic of this thread which is: Why does molten steel after the collapses mean malicious deeds (other than plane crashes) before the collapses? You still have not provided any Reasoning by stating established facts and applying laws of science and logic.

So please stop derailing this thread with this nonsense about Gross. You know, intentionally derailing threads is against your Membership Agreement. I shall report your next attempt at derailing the thread. Understood?

Just answer the old question: Why does molten steel after the collapses mean malicious deeds (other than plane crashes) before the collapses? The answer requires Reasoning by stating established facts and applying laws of science and logic.

Report me for what? Defending my position? I brought up the court of law to show how it may play out in court, He attacked what would be the defense expert witnesses I said you(not you) have a lot of nerve given the prosecution witnesses. Again he was talking a global sense so my reply was in a global sense.

Of course you don't want Gross talked about, because you know how he would do on the stand. You know how it sounds. You don't want that out there

Your threats have no affect on me. I see nothing that I have done as a breach in agreement.
Do you see the ridiculousness of what you wrote? You ask me for a verbatim question(for Gross), only to later say, you'll report me if I keep going on about Gross. Well report me if you will the question would be "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?" Now I don't know what the answer would be, but given the track record, they haven't released anything.

I've been answering your "malicious deed (besides the planes)" question all through out the thread.

 

[Oystein]

Can you prove what you said about paper?

Easy.
Energy density of paper: ca. 15 kJ/g
Energy density of ideal thermite: ca. 4 kJ/g
Energy density of actual thermite: ca. 1.5-3.5 kJ/g

Energy released = heat. If released into a perfectly isolated volume (closed system), more heat means higher temperature.

Therefore, paper wins.

QED

All of what I said is truthful, you can disagree that it didn't actually happen, but is truthful.

No. Most of what you say is wishful thinking and imagination. That's why I always talked about established facts.

The last part of your post (below) makes no sense. So now I have to show ONLY thermate can do it?

Yes.
Or, well, ONLY "malicious act other than plane crashes". You seem to be awfully unsure of that thermite business, right?

I mean that's absurd. Aliens could have done it using technology we don't know about yet. Can you prove this isn't true? You can't, but of course it is extremely unlikely.

Ah! Hehe yes, now we are talking! It could be a lot of unlikely things, could it not? Aliens, kryptonite, thermite, furnace-like conditions maybe... We can't prove of any of these that that didn't happen, right? So we can't rule out some non-malicious event (other than plane crashes) - can we??

What I stated is what I believe could be an explanation of what was observed. In my opinion it seems to be the best fit, but it doesn't mean it is the only explanation. I do believe however that a natural furnace occurring seems highly unlikely, a point you've agreed to in the past.

Exactly. You chant your beliefs. Yours is really a religious exercise.
Yes, I said furnace conditions are unlikely ex ante - that is before ("ante" is latin and means "before") there is proof that molten steel was in fact present.
Thermite however is no explanation for molten steel after the collapses at all. If it were, I am sure you would by now have provided your reasoning and have addressed the obvious problems that both thermodynamics and the simple fact that any molten steel or thermite charge that may have been there before the collapse would have been dispersed and mixed with other material so much it could not have exhibited the kind of concentrated heat weeks after the collapses that bulk amounts of molten steel would represent.

 

[Oystein]

Report me for what? Defending my position? I brought up the court of law to show how it may play out in court,

Report you for intentionally derailing the thread.
This court scenario was okay as an approach to the OPm which is "if we assume there was molten steel, why does that mean CD?"
Your task is to explain here, or, if you prefer, in a court setting, how you would explain to a jury what you make of this supposed evidence that you say molten steel is.

Dragging in Gross and the FEA models NIST didn't realease has nothing to do with the OP. It would therefore be a derail. Don't do that.

He attacked what would be the defense expert witnesses I said you(not you) have a lot of nerve given the prosecution witnesses. Again he was talking a global sense so my reply was in a global sense.

Does anybody understand this gibberish?

Of course you don't want Gross talked about, because you know how he would do on the stand. You know how it sounds. You don't want that out there

I don't want to talk about Gross because that would be off-topic, and anything he would or would not say in court is total speculation. A nonsense issue really.

Your threats have no affect on me. I see nothing that I have done as a breach in agreement.
Do you see the ridiculousness of what you wrote? You ask me for a verbatim question(for Gross), only to later say, you'll report me if I keep going on about Gross. Well report me if you will the question would be "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?"

Okay. Now please explain how that question addresses the topic of this thread and is not off-topic. Or admit that it is off-topic and drop it.
Remember the topic of this thread: We are still waiting for your Reasoning that connects the premise "molten steel" with the conclusion "malicious deed, other than plane crashes"
So this question to Gross "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?" might be on-topic if any applicable answer (basically "yes, here they are" or "no, sorry") would lead you closer to finally writing down your Reasoning.

Now I don't know what the answer would be, but given the track record, they haven't released anything.

Since you admit that you don't know the answer Gross would give, what purpose do you have telling us the question? Why did you introduce Gross and the court and the question in this thread?

I've been answering your "malicious deed (besides the planes)" question all through out the thread.

That is an obvious lie.

 

[ozeco41]

...Since you admit that you don't know the answer Gross would give, what purpose do you have telling us the question? Why did you introduce Gross and the court and the question in this thread?

Just a couple of points from the legal perspective - fuller explanations if anyone wants them.

The first one is the killer for all of tmd2's recent posturings:
The base premise of tmd2_1's proposed defence is wrong in law. The involvement of a third party in acts which contribute to death does not absolve any of the parties who contributed to death from being guilty to murder. So the proposed defence doesn't even leave home plate!

Even if we pretend that he could proceed his scenario has Gross called as a prosecution witness.

• Why would the prosecution call Gross at all?
• What can Gross contribute to proof of murder?

Let's again pretend that Gross was called by the prosecution that means that tmd2_1 can only ask him questions in cross examination. And the questions can only be about, seeking clarity of, what Gross has said in evidence.

To ask questions about any post collapse factor - whether molten metal or anything else which occurred after the victims were dead the prosecution would have had to ask about those topics in the first instance.

• Why would the prosecution ask about events post the deaths?
• Why would the judge allow irrelevant testimony into court?
• And the question "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?" is almost certainly not valid for cross examination without a lot of lead in which tmd2 has not provided.

And the legal process does not operate like the scientific method. tmd2's scenario would run into closed doors at each of the points above where I had to pretend. And in a real court scene there would be many more.

 

[tmd2_1]

Easy.
Energy density of paper: ca. 15 kJ/g
Energy density of ideal thermite: ca. 4 kJ/g
Energy density of actual thermite: ca. 1.5-3.5 kJ/g

Energy released = heat. If released into a perfectly isolated volume (closed system), more heat means higher temperature.

Therefore, paper wins.

QED


No. Most of what you say is wishful thinking and imagination. That's why I always talked about established facts.


Yes.
Or, well, ONLY "malicious act other than plane crashes". You seem to be awfully unsure of that thermite business, right?


Ah! Hehe yes, now we are talking! It could be a lot of unlikely things, could it not? Aliens, kryptonite, thermite, furnace-like conditions maybe... We can't prove of any of these that that didn't happen, right? So we can't rule out some non-malicious event (other than plane crashes) - can we??


Exactly. You chant your beliefs. Yours is really a religious exercise.
Yes, I said furnace conditions are unlikely ex ante - that is before ("ante" is latin and means "before") there is proof that molten steel was in fact present.
Thermite however is no explanation for molten steel after the collapses at all. If it were, I am sure you would by now have provided your reasoning and have addressed the obvious problems that both thermodynamics and the simple fact that any molten steel or thermite charge that may have been there before the collapse would have been dispersed and mixed with other material so much it could not have exhibited the kind of concentrated heat weeks after the collapses that bulk amounts of molten steel would represent.

Indeed correct about the energy transfer. Perhaps you would like to explain why TNT has approximately the same has thermate 4.6 megajoules, gunpowder has about 3 megajoules, and wood has 16.2 megajoules. Yet TNT is used to blow things up, and not wood? I mean it's approximately 4 times the energy density. Can you explain to us all how it works. While you're at it, could you also explain why paper wasn't used to bring down these towers http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false and yet thermite was? Surely it would be easier to use paper right? We all would love to hear the answers to these questions.

Indeed look at the above, and who is the one practicing a religious exercise?

 

[DGM]

Oystein:
I would ask for his tuition payments in advance.

 

[NoahFence]

Indeed correct about the energy transfer. Perhaps you would like to explain why TNT has approximately the same has thermate 4.6 megajoules, gunpowder has about 3 megajoules, and wood has 16.2 megajoules. Yet TNT is used to blow things up, and not wood? I mean it's approximately 4 times the energy density. Can you explain to us all how it works. While you're at it, could you also explain why paper wasn't used to bring down these towers http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false and yet thermite was? Surely it would be easier to use paper right? We all would love to hear the answers to these questions.

Indeed look at the above, and who is the one practicing a religious exercise?

Paper was far more responsible for the collapse of the trade center towers than was thermite.

This is an iron-clad, indisputed fact.