Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
While you are at it, unlike the legions of obedient followers here in JREF, try and keep in mind that the 9/11 Truth Movement is largely composed of individuals who do not necessarily agree with anything more than a need for a proper 9/11 investigation.

MM
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the 9/11 Truth Movement is largely composed of individuals who do not necessarily agree with anything which resembles solid, tangible evidence that shoots down any of their conspiracy theories.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Ah touche'

I forgot they also believe a paint layer is going to melt through 4 inches of structural steel before the fuel source is exhausted... good times, good times...
Click to expand...

Not just that, Steven Jones claimed that nano super dupa thermite painted into steel turns it into a "high explosive". LOL!
 
Mostly for tmd2_1 but MM could take a swing if he likes.

Hi tmd2_1,

In the Opening Post of this thread, the Opening Poster stipulated melted steel for the sake of discussion. He said "there was melted steel." Let's not argue about it. Molten steel was all over the place at the WTC. Now...

How does molten steel fit into your theory of how the buildings were brought down? If thermite plays a role, please explain it.

For example:
  • There was thermite in the building
  • It ignited on certain floors
  • It weakened the supports
  • The buildings collapsed
  • Molten steel found after the collapses supports my theory because ______________.

I just thought I'd try to get the discussion back on track. Good luck.
 
Miragememories said:
Nano-thermite does not require the temperatures you argue.

MM
Click to expand...

A magnesium strip burns up to several thousand degrees Fahrenheit and it's the material of choice as a fuse to ignite thermite. Do you have information stating otherwise? If so, I'd like to see it.

Essentially, by etymology the prefix nano describes a unit of measurement that's extremely small (usually a factor of 10-9). It's basically regular thermite "made smaller".


Miragememories said:
While you are at it, unlike the legions of obedient followers here in JREF, try and keep in mind that the 9/11 Truth Movement is largely composed of individuals who do not necessarily agree with anything more than a need for a proper 9/11 investigation.
Click to expand...
True; there's a few "truthers" that don't support the controlled demolition theory, or the no plane theories for shankesville/wtc/pentagon. In those few cases, they're more concerned with using their time to point out legitimate concerns like government incompetence which likely made the states less prepared to slow, or otherwise prevent the attacks from happening. It's only fair to state that it's typical of the controlled demolition proponents to argue that unreacted thermite must be the culprit behind any molten steel after the collapses had already taken place. Tmd's suggestion that the reaction could have been slowed, is itself anomalous to that typical rhetoric. I'm keenly aware that not every "truther" supports the same theories; as you know, some are a lot crazier and out of this world compared with our respective "benchmarks."
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Nano-thermite does not require the temperatures you argue.
Click to expand...

Apart from 9/11 CT sites and reports this fact seems remarkably difficult to track down. Do you have a source?

Non-CT sites report that nano thermite is easier to ignite than regular thermite (using electrical discharges and the like) but this doesn't translate to "ignites at a lower temperature". For example, paper ignites at ~230°C, but a shredded newspaper will ignite much easier - and burn to completion more readily - than a rolled-up newspaper.

However, the moment this nano thermite powder gets mixed with concrete dust this advantage is lost, negating any suggestion that nano thermite in the debris pile might ignite at a lower temperature.

eta: Los Alamos are developing electrically-activated super-thermite matches which "resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge." source
 
Last edited:
I kinda thought the court idea was cute.

If I was on trial for murdering a family and burning their house down and my lawyer came in and said, "I've got it. We will talk about the molybdenum."

I'd probably ask what he's on about.

"They found a slag of molybdenum in the basement rubble. No one knows how it got there. Therefore you must be innocent!"

I'd fire that lawyer.
 
carlitos said:
Hi tmd2_1,

In the Opening Post of this thread, the Opening Poster stipulated melted steel for the sake of discussion. He said "there was melted steel." Let's not argue about it. Molten steel was all over the place at the WTC. Now...

How does molten steel fit into your theory of how the buildings were brought down? If thermite plays a role, please explain it.

For example:
  • There was thermite in the building
  • It ignited on certain floors
  • It weakened the supports
  • The buildings collapsed
  • Molten steel found after the collapses supports my theory because ______________.

I just thought I'd try to get the discussion back on track. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I already have several times. I laid out how I would have done it...why there would be molten steel etc...
 
tmd2_1 said:
I already have several times. I laid out how I would have done it...why there would be molten steel etc...
Click to expand...

You have 192 posts in this thread topic. I have read most (but not all) of them. I haven't seen that. Could you or someone else link me to your theory? Thanks.
 
carlitos said:
You have 192 posts in this thread topic. I have read most (but not all) of them. I haven't seen that. Could you or someone else link me to your theory? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It's not much of a theory. He says the therm*te was diluted with something that slowed it down and there was insulation.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I already have several times. I laid out how I would have done it...why there would be molten steel etc...
Click to expand...

Not in any way that makes sense in terms science, reason, or actually explaining it. There is a major discrepency between the cause and effect.
 
Miragememories said:
For anyone who has doubts about the observations of molten and/or red hot metal in the WTC Ground Zero debris piles, I suggest you seriously watch this presentation;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc

MM
Click to expand...


You must be new here. Nobody doubts that there was molten METAL in and around the WTC sites. There are plenty of metal that melts well below 1800 deg. F. that would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC.

However, nobody to date has been able to prove any kind of STEEL (You know, the stuff that melts around 2800 deg. F, and is made of Iron and Carbon) was melted.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
"Thermite requires a magnesium strip burning at extremely high temperatures just to ignite, and the mixture has to be done right to react at all. Even if it were present in any form you have the mixture compromised by a collapsed building, you have no ignition source, and no temperatures high enough to ignite the products. Not a single paper you can cite addresses this, period."
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
"Nano-thermite does not require the temperatures you argue."
Click to expand...
GlennB said:
"Apart from 9/11 CT sites and reports this fact seems remarkably difficult to track down. Do you have a source?

Non-CT sites report that nano thermite is easier to ignite than regular thermite (using electrical discharges and the like) but this doesn't translate to "ignites at a lower temperature". For example, paper ignites at ~230°C, but a shredded newspaper will ignite much easier - and burn to completion more readily - than a rolled-up newspaper.

However, the moment this nano thermite powder gets mixed with concrete dust this advantage is lost, negating any suggestion that nano thermite in the debris pile might ignite at a lower temperature."
Click to expand...

from the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham Paper said:
"When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite."
Click to expand...
from the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham Paper said:
"As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 ˚C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 ˚C) but very likely a form of super-thermite."
Click to expand...

You fail to explain the relevance of your burning newspaper with regard to the question of nano-thermite's ignition temperature.

I fail to see how mixing nano-thermite with concrete dust will alter its ignition temperature?

MM
 
triforcharity said:
You must be new here. Nobody doubts that there was molten METAL in and around the WTC sites. There are plenty of metal that melts well below 1800 deg. F. that would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC.

However, nobody to date has been able to prove any kind of STEEL (You know, the stuff that melts around 2800 deg. F, and is made of Iron and Carbon) was melted.
Click to expand...

Three things are required when you watch that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc

1) Open your eyes.

2) Open your ears.

and most importantly,

3) Open your mind.

MM
 
carlitos said:
You have 192 posts in this thread topic. I have read most (but not all) of them. I haven't seen that. Could you or someone else link me to your theory? Thanks.
Click to expand...


Posts 838 846 962 and 1025 of this thread are good posts to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom