Merged So there was melted steel

[dafydd]

OK any uncooked lurkers out there....let us know if TMDs myth is making any sense to you..................anyone?.............no?.................chirp..........chirp.......


.

Silence.

 

[NoahFence]

Right of course there was no CD. I've told you before my concern is not with you, but with those who may be "raw" to this subject. It's clear nothing I say or what anyone says on this matter will not separate you from your dogma. So I would expect you to say nothing different.

There's a reason for that, kiddo.

EVERYTHING you say is so wrong, it's not even funny anymore.

 

[GlennB]

Right the reality of this thread (and almost certainly the real reality) is that there was molten steel. The reality also is no one (given the official) story seems to have an explanation for it. Also did you see that ASSE document I referenced? Temperatures up to 2800F

And did you bother to check the link (given to you twice now) in which it is explained how the IR equipment on the helicopters was in no way suited to making such a measurement?

 

[jaydeehess]

Generally speaking, in this thread there have been theories offered as to why there would be molten steel, as a result of something other than the official story. By and large it appears that molten steel is unexplained in the official story, other than that it just had to be the result of the planes flying into the building. Complete blind faith, unbelievable really.

FTFY so that it is readable.

As pointed out several times now, your answer to the uninvestigated cause of unconfirmed molten steel is to assume the presence of an unknown and unconfirmed substance.

Explain to me how this is a better explanation than the presence of a hydrocarbon (known to exist in great quantities) fueled combustion (known to have been occurring) environment that was insulated to the point of dissipating less heat than it was producing thus driving the temperature up?

 

[tmd2_1]

And did you bother to check the link (given to you twice now) in which it is explained how the IR equipment on the helicopters was in no way suited to making such a measurement?

You mean the stuff that Mackey wrote? Yes I read it. That is his opinion.

I thought I addressed this already though. The ASSE seemed to accept it, so much so they put it in a publication. Certainly you're not insinuating that the ASSE publishes things they don't believe to be accurate? Even if it is not a technical article per say.

Also the premise of this article is that there was indeed molten steel, so one would expect, and in fact there would have to be temperatures that high. With that premise, this thread is attempting to make the case that molten steel would not indicate that something other then the official story is true. With this in mind, why do you feel the need to fight so strongly against these temperatures? They would have had to have been that high?

Could you kindly address these points.

 

[jaydeehess]

And did you bother to check the link (given to you twice now) in which it is explained how the IR equipment on the helicopters was in no way suited to making such a measurement?

Has he ever acknowledged that the ASSE article he quotes is in no way a technical papaer and that the mention of 2800 F is only made in a passing remark?
Has he ever attempted to find out where the ASSE got that figure from or how it was derived?
Has he ever acknowledged that this was not a measurement that was done by the ASSE in the first place?

no, no and no!
Has he acknowledged that his attempt to derive the underground temperature was so bad it was worse than simply wrong?

no!

Has he ever explained how molten metal actually fits into a mechanism (using science, engineering, reason, and logic) by which the buildings were brought down? (the subject of the OP if I am not mistaken)

NO!

Has he proven hinself to be woefully bereft of any technical savvy or knowledge?

YES!

 

[DGM]

Also the premise of this article is that there was indeed molten steel, .

What article? Not the ASSE one you linked.

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought I addressed this already though. The ASSE seemed to accept it, so much so they put it in a publication. Certainly you're not insinuating that the ASSE publishes things they don't believe to be accurate? Even if it is not a technical article per say.

Its not a technical article in any way shape or form, let alone 'per say'.
You parsed ONE sentence from a human interest story. IF you wish to persue the 2800 F underground temps then its up to you to find out where the ASSE spokesman was getting that figure from. You have not only utterly failed to do so, you have continued to make excuses rather than even attempt it.

Also the premise of this article (you mean this thread?)is that there was indeed molten steel, so one would expect, and in fact there would have to be temperatures that high. With that premise, this thread is attempting to make the case that molten steel would not indicate that something other than the official story is true. With this in mind, why do you feel the need to fight so strongly against these temperatures? They would have had to have been that high?

Could you kindly address these points.

The main dispute here is that you are showing that you are ready and willing to parse heresay evidence to bolster your own position.

YOU have never explained, using math, science, engineering and logic, how molten steel, should it be assumed to have been present, indicates a mechanism by which the structures wee brought down.

You have been asked this many times and so far your answer is always (and I paraphrase) "if molten steel is in the rubble then something other than the 'official story' caused the towers to come down".

We are asking about that something. We get nothing from you on that.

 

[jaydeehess]

What article? Not the ASSE one you linked.

tmdspeak for this thread, if I don't miss my guess.

 

[jaydeehess]

The sawdust illustration was meant to show that a combustible could smother rather than fuel a fire under the right circumstances.

However a 'combustible' would 'smother' a fire by cutting off oxygen. Your supposed thermite would have no requirement for oxygen and it would still ignite if brought up to the ignition temp such as by contact with, as per your contention, anything at all that is above 430F.
WHY do we not see any indication of this dust flashing off as it settles on other fires?

No where was it suggested as a practical fire suppression method.

No, its a matter of relating this to a heavily thermite laden dust. Such a material would make a horrible fire suppression material as it would ignite whether or not the oxygen is cut off.

WHY do we not see any indication of this dust flashing off as it settles on other fires?

I'm so happy you had an opportunity to reminisce about your childhood.
........
The rest of your post appears to be a hypothetical discussion with yourself going off on an unrelated tangent--posing your own questions and then imagining the answers.

Ah the 60's.

MM

Glad you liked the anecdote.,

However it , and anything concerning sawdust, has zero relevence to your thermite impregnated dust and its ability to supress fire.
If you get a bonfire going well then dump a cubic yard of sawdust on it all at once then yes the fire will go out. Dig down to the level of the original bonfire though and it will immediatley re-ignite because its still hot enough to ignite the fuel, it just had lost its oxygen supply. Re-establish that supply before the coals of the original fire cool(a slow process under a yard of sawdust) and it re-ignites.

Your supposedly thermite laden dust would have no such impediment. Thermite coming into contact with anything above its ignition temp will ignite, sending more heat into the dust, igniting more thermite,,,,,,in a manner not unlike the ignition of sawdust (or flour dust) hanging in the air. This was not seen to occur at all!
Instead the dust acted soley as a fire supressor, cutting off oxygen to already burning fires.

There is another way to establish if Harrit et all did not find thermite in the dust.
Place it in a vacuum chamber with an electric arc device. If it ignites and burns without the presence of oxygen then it is self oxidizing. Simple huh? If it does not ignite it is NOT thermite.

 

[GlennB]

You mean the stuff that Mackey wrote? Yes I read it. That is his opinion.

Uh, he goes into great technical detail as to why the IR equipment cannot accurately measure (even remotely accurately) under those circumstances, so it amounts to much more than "his opinion". Have you followed up the science involved?

Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion merely "his opinion"?

Newton's laws just "his opinion"?

Ohm's Law "his opinion"?

"The earth is an oblate spheroid" just my opinion?

Stuff does not become true just because you say it, tmd2_1. And I think this gets to the essence of your problem ... you think every "opinion" is of equal value and you can't tell the difference between opinion and scientific fact.

Oh, and by the way, if I had £1 for every point of mine - and many others' - you have failed to address then I could buy a new car, so please don't patronise me with your juvenile demands for answers.

 

[GlennB]

However a 'combustible' would 'smother' a fire by cutting off oxygen. Your supposed thermite would have no requirement for oxygen and it would still ignite if brought up to the ignition temp such as by contact with, as per your contention, anything at all that is above 430F.

Yes, it's this simple. There are various ways of extinguishing a fire and one of them is to remove its oxygen supply, a means not available in a thermite fire.

If this "thermite-laden dust" were capable of igniting at all then it would continue to combust.

 

[jaydeehess]

Uh, he goes into great technical detail as to why the IR equipment cannot accurately measure (even remotely accurately) under those circumstances, so it amounts to much more than "his opinion". Have you followed up the science involved?

Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion merely "his opinion"?

Newton's laws just "his opinion"?

Ohm's Law "his opinion"?

"The earth is an oblate spheroid" just my opinion?

.

I once went through the math and physics to explain and illustrate why dust on the Moon would fall faster than it does on the earth despite the Moon's having 1/6th the gravitational pull.

I was then told that my exercise was without merit because I was using data and formulae supplied by NASA!

In tmd's case he assumes that anything anyone says and calculates is 'opinion' and is thus as worthy of being considered true as any he draws forth from a warm, damp and dark place.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, it's this simple. There are various ways of extinguishing a fire and one of them is to remove its oxygen supply, a means not available in a thermite fire.

If this "thermite-laden dust" were capable of igniting at all then it would continue to combust.

,,,,,,,,,, and create a giant white fireball over the WTC site. (if the amount of thermite dust that bill smith envisions were true)

 

[Sabretooth]

So why not encourage him to keep posting. Do you think he's helping their cause? Obviously, no one here is trying to change his mind.

Ahh...touche'

It's just funny to come into this thread a couple times a week or so and see that he still is blathering on about the same nonsense. 30+ pages of him repeating the same drivel.

It's kind of disappointing. This is all that the truth has left, eh?

 

[DGM]

Ahh...touche'

It's just funny to come into this thread a couple times a week or so and see that he still is blathering on about the same nonsense. 30+ pages of him repeating the same drivel.

It's kind of disappointing. This is all that the truth has left, eh?

I understand completely. My point has always been, Let them dig their own hole (even if we have to show them where). As long as they don't fall into the bigotry/hate trap (*), I don't put them on ignore.



* tmd2_1 is tip-toeing down that line with the "AQ is not capable" but, I don't think he's aware he is.

 

[tmd2_1]

FTFY so that it is readable.

As pointed out several times now, your answer to the uninvestigated cause of unconfirmed molten steel is to assume the presence of an unknown and unconfirmed substance.

Explain to me how this is a better explanation than the presence of a hydrocarbon (known to exist in great quantities) fueled combustion (known to have been occurring) environment that was insulated to the point of dissipating less heat than it was producing thus driving the temperature up?

Well there appears to be some evidence of thermite...red gray chips..etc, and that would melt steel. What you and others suggest does not seem possible.

 

[tmd2_1]

Uh, he goes into great technical detail as to why the IR equipment cannot accurately measure (even remotely accurately) under those circumstances, so it amounts to much more than "his opinion". Have you followed up the science involved?

Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion merely "his opinion"?

Newton's laws just "his opinion"?

Ohm's Law "his opinion"?

"The earth is an oblate spheroid" just my opinion?

Stuff does not become true just because you say it, tmd2_1. And I think this gets to the essence of your problem ... you think every "opinion" is of equal value and you can't tell the difference between opinion and scientific fact.

Oh, and by the way, if I had £1 for every point of mine - and many others' - you have failed to address then I could buy a new car, so please don't patronise me with your juvenile demands for answers.

Thank you for not responding to my points in any way shape of form.

 

[tmd2_1]

I understand completely. My point has always been, Let them dig their own hole (even if we have to show them where). As long as they don't fall into the bigotry/hate trap (*), I don't put them on ignore.



* tmd2_1 is tip-toeing down that line with the "AQ is not capable" but, I don't think he's aware he is.

Yes digging a hole...ahh if you only knew just how funny that statement is coming from most of the "debunkers" here.

 

[DGM]

Yes digging a hole...ahh if you only knew just how funny that statement is coming from most of the "debunkers" here.

How is it funny? Can you explain how your "thermite" was able to produce more heat energy than is theoretically possible with the thermite reaction. Please be specific, I will understand.(no Youtubes please).