Merged So there was melted steel

tmd2_1 said:
Yes I have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about which is why I asked the questions of you the way I did to get the results that we see here.
Let me address the slowed down thermite reaction first. I would suggest the best (if not only) way to determine the results typical debris at the WTC would have on the reaction time and power of thermite is through experiment. Sure it will decrease the power, but enough not to be able to melt steel? I don't know, experiment will tell.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!
You don't know!

Is that idea of slowed-down thermite reaction part of the Reasoning that I have been asking about many dozend times now, and which also at the heart of the OP?
  • If YES, then we now know that you DON'T have this Reasoning complete, and no chain of logic connects "molten steel" with "malicious ading to the towers", and that's the end of your participation in this thread.
  • If NO, then I suggest we drop this line of inquiry as it is only a distraction fromn the OP and the thread topic and will not lead us to the answer we are seeking.

tmd2_1 said:
Now on to your paper. A clear example of the tactics used here. You wrote facts (and they are correct)
Click to expand...
You might take this as an example: Try to use correct facts yourself!

tmd2_1 said:
that would make it seem like thermite's power is trivial. We all know what burning paper is like, and can compare that to steel. But when put under the slightest bit of scrutiny (which I did)...
Click to expand...
Where?!??! :D

tmd2_1 said:
...it falls apart, and the facts become meaningless.
Click to expand...
Bare-assed assertion.

tmd2_1 said:
You use them to try and influence "raw" newcomers, and perhaps those just lurking or searching. People that perhaps do not have a strong background in science.
Click to expand...
People like you? :D

tmd2_1 said:
So we have and admission that paper would not melt steel, and we know thermite will.
Click to expand...
You just showed you did not understand my argument. At. All.

tmd2_1 said:
I trust this will be the last we hear on paper's energy density. I will simply refer back to this post.

Perhaps I shouldn't accuse you of doing this, but it sure seems this way to me.
Click to expand...
yadda yadda.
 
DGM said:
Like yourself?


Wait, where did you pull this "admission" from? Given the right conditions paper would do a much better job.

I know he has me on ignore but, I had to spotlight this bit of dishonesty.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Quite to contrary I have no one on ignore. You never know who might make a good point, and I would miss it if I had that person on ignore. In regards to admission here is what Oystein said "Yes, burning paper would not be powerful enough to MELT the steel of the erect towers BEFORE collapse. So what? No one claims paper should be able to do that..." You can sort out whatever details with him.
 
Oystein said:
Hear, hear!
You don't know!

Is that idea of slowed-down thermite reaction part of the Reasoning that I have been asking about many dozend times now, and which also at the heart of the OP?
  • If YES, then we now know that you DON'T have this Reasoning complete, and no chain of logic connects "molten steel" with "malicious ading to the towers", and that's the end of your participation in this thread.
  • If NO, then I suggest we drop this line of inquiry as it is only a distraction fromn the OP and the thread topic and will not lead us to the answer we are seeking.


You might take this as an example: Try to use correct facts yourself!


Where?!??! :D


Bare-assed assertion.


People like you? :D


You just showed you did not understand my argument. At. All.


yadda yadda.
Click to expand...

My slow burning thermite is a hypothesis, it would need to be subjected to experiment, simple as that.


I understood your argument fine, in fact you pretty much admitted you had no argument when you said that paper couldn't melt steel.

yadda yadda? Now that's an argument.
 
TMD, Oyst didn't say that paper couldn't melt steel. He said that paper wouldn't melt the steel in an upright, assembled tower, before it collapsed.

Meaning, it would get to a temperature of failure (buckling) before it reached a state of molten steel.

Plain and simple.

It would take quite a bit of paper to melt steel. In fact, you couldn't do it with just a pile of paper. You would need some kind of forced induction setup to do it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
My slow burning thermite is a hypothesis, it would need to be subjected to experiment, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Thermite's been demonstrated many times already. There's no such thing as a slow burn thermite, and no, there is no ignition source present in the debris pile so melted steel or no melted steel, thermite cannot be a cause.

@tri, my understanding is that as far as paper vs thermite, the major difference isn't as much the stored energy being higher in one, but rather the rate of energy release. No?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Thermite's been demonstrated many times already. There's no such thing as a slow burn thermite, and no, there is no ignition source present in the debris pile so melted steel or no melted steel, thermite cannot be a cause.

@tri, my understanding is that as far as paper vs thermite, the major difference isn't as much the stored energy being higher in one, but rather the rate of energy release. No?
Click to expand...

Sure there can be...look at this simple home video. My hypothesis is debris(pulverized concrete) could have been mixed with unreacted thermite, slowing down the reaction time. If you look you will see more demonstrations of slower burning thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs
 
tmd2_1 said:
By in large I answered this when I answered Oystein. But of course a third party does not absolve the party in question (in this case AQ) in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, it certainly does(in this case). I mean the buildings just happened to be rigged?

Even if you follow with this logic...that there was some other party involved somehow...it still changes the official story which is AQ was solely responsible for the acts of that day.
Click to expand...
You are one confused person. Sure I can identify all the ambiguities of your gobbledegook. I choose not to. If you ever wish to seriously and honestly discuss the legal aspects just say so in a post.

Meanwhile it seems that the legal points I made were clear enough to satisfy most other members. Put in the simplest form the points I have raised and which tm2_1 chooses to ignore or misinterpret are:
  • tmd2_1's basis of proposed defence is wrong in law.
  • All contributors to causing death can be equally guilty of murder.
  • The prosecution is unlikely to call Gross because his evidence is irrelevant to the charge of murder.
  • Events which happened after the multiple deaths cannot be causal in those deaths therefore are not relevant to the trial of the charge of murder.
  • If Gross was called by the prosecution he is unlikely to be asked in "examination in chief" about any of the topics tmd2 wants to question him over.
  • The reason being that you are not allowed to cross examine on matters not adduced in the process of examination in chief.
  • The prosecution would not be silly enough to leave one of its witnesses exposed to the sort of questions tmd wants to ask no matter how much wishful thinking tmd2 displays on the Internet.
Plus a couple not stated so far:
  • No matter how silly the "reasoning" which tmd tries to use in these posts such silly reasoning would not prevail in court.
  • Any attempt to put someone forward as an expert witness in the American legal jurisdictions would face serious examination in a form of mini-trial as to whether the person was acceptable TO THE COURT as an expert witness.
  • None of the likely truther heroes have the qualifications to pass the test. Most of the probable official witnesses to technical facts would pass the test easily. And there is nothing that tmd2 can do to change that. False arguments on an Internet forum are not the test. The test is in the cold realities of a US court of law.

If anyone other than tmd wants further details just ask. My training is in Australian law so I may not know the details of US Court procedure - the law is very similar, the practice has local variations.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Thermite's been demonstrated many times already. There's no such thing as a slow burn thermite, and no, there is no ignition source present in the debris pile so melted steel or no melted steel, thermite cannot be a cause.

@tri, my understanding is that as far as paper vs thermite, the major difference isn't as much the stored energy being higher in one, but rather the rate of energy release. No?
Click to expand...


Yes, and no.

Think of it this way.

Say something burning gives off 10kj of energy per minute of burn time.

Even though something burns for 6 seconds at a much higher temperature, it only produces 1kj of heat energy. But, if something can burn for 1 minute, even with the lower temperature, it will produce 10kj of heat energy.

But, thermite is not my speciality. So, I COULD be wrong on this.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Sure there can be...look at this simple home video. My hypothesis is debris(pulverized concrete) could have been mixed with unreacted thermite, slowing down the reaction time. If you look you will see more demonstrations of slower burning thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs
Click to expand...

LOL, the steel can did not melt. oops

The sand melted, keeping the steel can from melting. There goes your melted steel down the drain. You could not debunk 911 truth better, and you were trying to support 911 truth insane claims. This is like a science comedy act, you posting stuff and failing to understand what you posted. You posted the 2,800 F hearsay, and failed to acknowledge your mistake, and now you debunk melted steel.
911 truth is self-debunking nonsense. encore


3SiO2(s) + 4Al(s) → 2Al2O3(s) + 3Si(l)

3Fe3O4(s) + 8Al(s) → 4Al2O3(s) + 9Fe(l)

Some of the sand may of reacted with the Al. Melting the sand took away the heat. This was funny, what do you have next? You bring hearsay one day, now you show ways to not melt steel. How will you top this?
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
My hypothesis is debris(pulverized concrete) could have been mixed with unreacted thermite, slowing down the reaction time.
Click to expand...

In which case the thermitic reaction would be bound to transfer heat to the concrete debris, thus reducing the heat available to be transferred to the steel.

The problem with your hypothesis is that it requires you to have your cake and eat it.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
@tri, my understanding is that as far as paper vs thermite, the major difference isn't as much the stored energy being higher in one, but rather the rate of energy release. No?
Click to expand...

There is also the absolute temperature that can possibly be achieved to consider (the - theoretical - adiabatic flame temperature, which assumes no heat losses). Thermite reaches higher temperatures than everyday fuels, plain and simple.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Sure there can be...look at this simple home video. My hypothesis is debris(pulverized concrete) could have been mixed with unreacted thermite, slowing down the reaction time. If you look you will see more demonstrations of slower burning thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs
Click to expand...

At 1:05 minutes, the guy touches the glowing blob. That's about 1 minute after the reaction started. Listen to the sound and tell me: Is that stuff molten or solid?
Answer: It is solid less than one minute after the reaction took place!

So now we have experimental proof that slow-burning thermit cannot be reseponsible foor molten steel weeks after it startet reacting.

This ends our debate here.
 
Oystein said:
...You just showed you did not understand my argument. At. All....
Click to expand...
...and that was a scientific argument.

He is even worse on matters of law because:

The bits of law posted by me are simpler than the bits of science; AND
He shows less understanding.

Simple factual stuff like you are not allowed to ask the prosecution witness any question you want to ask.

And the (slightly) more complicated reason being it is up to you to present your case (the defence case in this example) NOT to present it via manipulation of the prosecution's witnesses. BTW the same rule applies in favour of the defence. The prosecution are not allowed to manipulate defence witnesses. Naturally tmd did not see that aspect.

Or some probably more basic stuff like he claims to put doubt on the "Official Story"
...no way. The so called "Official Story" would not be before the court. As far as the court is concerned it does not exist. The only facts the court recognises are the facts put before the court as evidence.

Quite simple stuff really BUT no amount of wishful thinking and silly Internet debating tricks would have any impact in a court of law.

And it was tmd who put his scenario in court and chooses to leave it there despite several warnings from me.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
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?
Click to expand...


Surely worthy of a stundie. Just when you think they can't get any dumber.....:rolleyes:

TMD........think rate of reaction and what are the resultant compounds
And who is "we"? Are you saying all twoofers are as dumb as you?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom