Merged So there was melted steel

[dc1971]

Did I ever say "bulk amounts"?

And what in your mind constitutes a bulk amount?

And why wouldn't there be a "bulk" amount?

Truthers like to repeat the mantra of "pools of molten metal" when trying to "debate" the "official version", do they not?

So...

In your opinion (and I'm sure you have an open and honest one), would you not equate "pools" with "bulk"??

DC

 

[dc1971]

This thermitic material is laboratory engineered and atypical.



You make a poor case for discounting the thermitic nature of those chips.

I look forward to seeing your peer-reviewed paper that debunks those findings. Until that time, your opinion remains singularly yours.

MM

What makes you so sure that Neils Harritt's paper was peer reviewed?

 

[DGM]

Posts 838 846 962 and 1025 of this thread are good posts to see it.

Let me help:

You clearly are, it's what you always do. I laid out exactly what would happen, and you know that's what would happen. Any neutral observer can see this.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be interested in evidence and theories is not interested in the Toronto hearings. That is perhaps the best place of yet, to get this type of information from the side you oppose yet you have no interest in it.

Want to know what I think may have happened? This is speculation on my part. I'd say there was some thermetic material placed at the impact zone of the planes. They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance, and I think you can see why have thermite would aid in this. This would explain why molten steel appears to be pouring out of the South tower before collapse. Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse. The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives, or nano-thermite. The demolition was clearly over-engineered, as they had to make sure it came down. Could not afford it not to. But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..etc..to give a more accurate theory. The point is that if there was molten steel found(as there almost assuredly really) it should not have been there.

Any neutral person can see what you are trying to do. The courtroom setting I laid out is what would happen and you know it. Except the amounts of molten steel and when it was found would all be known so defense experts could refine their theories.

Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it. In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

Yes often when you are trying to figure out how something happened, it is a good idea to ask yourself how you would have done it. That's exactly what I did with 9/11. I don't believe 2 airplanes and fires brought down those towers so I ask myself what would I do to make it look like they did. Which would have been the objective. I am going to copy and paste two posts of mine from this thread, that shows exactly how I would have done it. Now of course I don't go into the detail of where I would place every explosive..etc. That would take an awful long time to figure out, and I would probably need help. That would seem to be too difficult a job for one person to do.

"Want to know what I think may have happened? This is speculation on my part. I'd say there was some thermetic material placed at the impact zone of the planes. They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance, and I think you can see why have thermite would aid in this. This would explain why molten steel appears to be pouring out of the South tower before collapse. Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse. The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives, or nano-thermite. The demolition was clearly over-engineered, as they had to make sure it came down. Could not afford it not to. But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..etc..to give a more accurate theory. The point is that if there was molten steel found(as there almost assuredly really) it should not have been there.



Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it. In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced."

As I said I believe what I wrote it a plausible answer. In short, there are three items to take into consideration. Un-reacted thermite. reacting as fire approaches it. An insulated environment keeping the heat trapped, and not allowing the steel to solidify. Some substances got added to the unreacted thermite during the collapse slowing down the reaction.

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

I bet you won't "get" why I did that for you.

 

[NoahFence]

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

Was there or was there not countless tons of metals OTHER than steel present?

A) Tons of metal other than Steel
B) Only steel

Please reply with A or B only.

 

[Demo Expert]

[/QUOTE]Miragememories

Three things are required when watching the videa

1) Open your eyes.

2) Open your ears.

and most importantly,

3) Open your mind.

MM[/QUOTE]

I think if you want us to come to the same conclusion as you, when watching this video, then your mantra should be

1) Open your eyes.

2) Open your ears

and most importantly

3) Empty your mind.

I loved the fact that a video showing paper, embedded in the melted steel meteor, came up as one of the related videos on Youtube

 

[Demo Expert]

Sorry duplicate post

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Seriously?
How many people do you think doubt molten metal and red hot metal in the rubble?
I never have. I've seen it coming from a car fire, certainly did not doubt that the rubble of 220 offices could do it.
However I believe the thread reffered to molten steel, a much more specific material.

 

[carlitos]

Let me help:

Thanks. It's not much of a theory, I'll give you that.

We have thermite on the core columns - how did it get there? how would it melt columns horizontally? why didn't anyone see the blinding white-hot flashes?

We have thermite in the pile, reacting as fire reaches it, again no reports of white-hot flashes as presumably pounds and pounds of thermite are ignited for ... weeks later?

We have molten metal which would have presumably found its level in the bottom of the "bathtub." - who removed this giant pool of solidified steel? where did it go? why no photos?

He also mentions conventional explosives. Dude, explosives explode. Loudly. If they helped the building fall down, that means they had to explode loudly just before the collapse. That did not happen on 9/11.

 

[Dog Town]

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

Yet, ANOTHER thing that has been esplained to you! You don't understand! The list is long.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What makes you so sure that Neils Harritt's paper was peer reviewed?

Based on what I've seen and read of his work, I'm not so sure that's the problem. His conclusions show that the materials he tested are not thermite, but that doesn't stop him from claiming it's therm*te or nano-thermite. He's plowing a circle with a square.

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

Thankyou for the clip Mirage, it was an excellent video. If I may, I'd like to make a few comments just so Gage can "polish" the video's credibilty.

• At 0:52, he forgot to smudge some of that flame to look more like melted, running steel. Remember, when you're trying to convince complete gullibles, you need the graphics savy to to do it properly
  
• Gage should also be more consistent with his labeling. This video is supposed to be about fooling the uneducated into believing that there was 3,000oF melted steel in the debris pile. This means he's shouldn't be distracting his viewers with alternating descriptions like "molten metal" and "molten steel" in the same video; that might make someone mildly skeptical notice the lie more easily than desired. For example, the title of the video is "9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts". Now, refer to 0:59 of the video time slider and you shall see that Gage now uses the term molten metal underlined in his own presentation for emphasis.
  
  Since you, or rather you and your colleagues + professionals think other metals like aluminum, lead or otherwise + laymen eyeballing, mistaken identification of metals, and such are out of the question and you want those details left out, it's probably not a good idea to mention them. This is deception rule 101 of course.
  
• Now 2:09, or course is perhaps the biggest evidence of the compulsive lie that Gage might want to consider excluding. As you know, the... "meteorites" are not solid rocks of pure solidified steel once pooled in a single area. They're actually concrete, and concrete is pretty much everywhere we walk, there's not too many intelligent people that don't know what concrete is.
  
  Lets also not forget 2:39, which claims "aluminum does not rust"... Mr. Mirage, the big hunk in the bottom right picture is not a solid mass of aluminum, it is concrete flooring. The rust is from the steel reinforcement. It kind of oxidizes when exposed to high levels of heat and humidity and hostil site conditions for extended periods of time. THis includes that from the corrugated metal flooring used in the composite system rusted and that rust was transferred to the concrete. And yes, this happens all the time outside of the WTC debris pile: http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/37306/rust in concrete 2.jpg
  
  So don't start anything about oh "how there's no way for the rust to get onto the concrete floor slabs in the debris pile. Just a tip for future reference on yourself since you're the one who fell for it. A skeptical person will see through this lie in an instant as I did. Maybe you can suggest that Gage removes any reference to the meteorites, it makes his deception look sadistically childish and trivial.
  
• At 4:19, we have that famous photograph of the crane lifting melted steel into the air at night. He should have his graphic artist, whoever it was that did the work originally adjust the exposure and f-stop readings to make it look a little more realistic. Fakery doesn't get much more obvious than a lack of familiarity with photographs and camera settings. Remember, you want skeptical people to fall for this melted steel scenario; it's no fun if it's easy to spot.
  
  Here are some examples of what real photo shots look like of melted steel in a low light environment.
  
  Too high of an exposure and the light emitted by the steel will overblow the highlights and reduce visible detail, a slow shutter speed in the same conditions will make details of the light source more visible but the background objects will lose detail and be washed out by the lighting. And these visual details are affected equally by the f-stop value.
  
  
• 7:49 rehashed the idea of thermite having it's own oxygen source and burning under water... except as I've brought to you already mr Mirage, the time period of 3 months is well beyond the scope of time that any thermite can burn, period. And you have no ignition source, or way to maintain the proper mixture required to make the thermite react. I'm not a chemist MM, but being that thermite requires a pretty accurate mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder in whatever form you claim it takes, I've heard of no feasible way to keep that cocktail precise after a whole skyscraper falls on it, keeping in mind, this same collapse was so violent according to you and your colleagues that it completely obliterated tons and tons of concrete into a fine powder.

There's more of course but the key to successful coercion of a gullible audience is to make your pet lies a little less obvious... Otherwise it was an excellent video...

Now in all fairness I ripped it a new hole, however you did ask people watch it, as opposed to blowing it off and ignoring it. I do hope you, your colleagues, and your professionals will take some of the tips I've provided to heart. If you have any comments regarding my harsh criticism, like explaining why the examples I cited as lies and errors of fact are actually the contrary, now would be a good time to tell me why I should give leeway to a group making the CD argument. If you think my withering criticism, is not fair, now would be a good time to explain why.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Thankyou for the clip Mirage, it was an excellent video..."

You are welcome.

MM

 

[DGM]

You are welcome.

MM

Perfect demonstration of what "truthers" do best.

 

[GlennB]

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

MM

It doesn't, it affects its ability to maintain self-sustaining combustion.

Even if - and we've seen zero evidence thus far - nano/super thermite actually does have a lower ignition temperature than regular thermite, having it mixed 1:20 with concrete dust will negate any benefit of the lower ignition point. It will probably go out. Even if it doesn't then most of the heat generated by the 5% thermite will go towards heating the concrete dust.

It cannot preferentially heat any steel in its vicinity, over the long periods of time we're discussing. The concrete dust - by your own definition - is much more adjacent and finely-divided than the steel.

 

[Miragememories]

I expect you are feeling ignored about now, so I'll address some of your points Grizzly. If you could resist the temptation to be facetious, I would have addressed more of what concerned you.

"Here are some examples of what real photo shots look like of melted steel in a low light environment."

Absolutely useless link. Very sloppy on your part. Try again.

"...7:49 rehashed the idea of thermite having it's own oxygen source and burning under water..."

You disagree?

"...the time period of 3 months is well beyond the scope of time that any thermite can burn, period...."

Well no. Thermite can burn indefinitely if the supply is constantly replenished.

"...And you have no ignition source..."

Well no. We have well known hotspots that persisted for over 3 months. Laboratory testing has shown that the red chips will ignite at ambient temperatures of 430 C.

"...or way to maintain the proper mixture required to make the thermite react.."

?? Nano-thermite requires only the correct ambient temperature to react (ignite). I have no idea what this proper mixture is that you are requiring?

"... I'm not a chemist MM,.."

That is quite clear. Thank you for the clarification.

"... thermite requires a pretty accurate mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder.."

Too funny.

It would not be thermite or nano-thermite, if it was not a substance composed of the proper mix and size of iron oxide and aluminum powder.

"... I've heard of no feasible way to keep that cocktail precise after a whole skyscraper falls on it.."

That is news to me. I was unaware that dropping stuff on thermite would result in the neutralizing effect of separating its iron oxide and aluminum components. I'm sure the manufacturers will find this revelation quite disturbing.

"... keeping in mind, this same collapse was so violent according to you and your colleagues that it completely obliterated tons and tons of concrete into a fine powder..."

According to me and my colleagues?

If that was a gentle collapse Grizzly Bear, I'd hate to see your idea of a violent one.

So you disagree that there was tons and tons of concrete pulverized into a fine powder?

Feel free to explain where all that dust came from and where I can find the images of tons and tons of concrete floor slabs etc.

"... There's more of course but the key to successful coercion of a gullible audience is to make your pet lies a little less obvious... Otherwise it was an excellent video......"

Yes I agree. You really need to pay closer attention to your presentation. Your bs is way too obvious.

"... I do hope you, your colleagues, and your professionals will take some of the tips I've provided to heart......."

Oh, I'm sure we will. It is very heart warming to see the pathetic nature of the criticism laid against such a revealing video.

"... If you think my withering criticism, is not fair, now would be a good time to explain why........"

Withering?

Amusing would be a more accurate a description.

I think it was a fair representation of the mentality exhibited by most of the official Story supporters here.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ya know mirage, ya complain about not getting your lies seriously dissected and then when you get substance ya blow it off the same way you accuse others of doing. And you was saying what about mature discussion? Too funny

 

[carlitos]

"...the time period of 3 months is well beyond the scope of time that any thermite can burn, period...."

Thermite can burn indefinitely if the supply is constantly replenished.

That's awesome. Maybe one of the chemistry types could do the math to figure out how much thermite would be needed to burn "indefinitely" or continuously for three months. Bonus points if someone could estimate how bright the flash would be. Visible from space, probably? I'm also thinking about the logistics of "replenishing" thermite in a smoldering debris pile?

 

[Miragememories]

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

"It doesn't, it affects its ability to maintain self-sustaining combustion...."

As long as there remains a source of unspent nano-thermite and an exposure to ambient temperatures of 430 C or greater, the thermitic material will continue igniting.

"Even if - and we've seen zero evidence thus far - nano/super thermite actually does have a lower ignition temperature than regular thermite, having it mixed 1:20 with concrete dust will negate any benefit of the lower ignition point. It will probably go out. Even if it doesn't then most of the heat generated by the 5% thermite will go towards heating the concrete dust.

It cannot preferentially heat any steel in its vicinity, over the long periods of time we're discussing. The concrete dust - by your own definition - is much more adjacent and finely-divided than the steel."

Well you have seen no evidence because you are sitting in a chair looking at a computer monitor.

On the other hand, scientists with the proper tools and access to WTC dust have obtained the necessary evidence.

It does not matter what ratio you mix nano-thermite to concrete dust, it will still ignite when exposed to an ambient temperature of 430 C or greater.

The ignition will create heat.

The dust was not pure concrete.

It was a mix containing the pulverized remains of the buildings it once represented.

The fact that nano-thermite should absolutely not have existed in the WTC dust in any amount, but did, clearly indicates that its existence was purposeful and therefore existing in quantities sufficient to achieve said purpose.

Given that its logical purpose was to cause the failure of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 supporting columns, it is reasonable to assume that the successfully observed collapse of those structures caused an indeterminate amount of this thermitic material to suffer a disrupted ignition and thus get pulverized as dust in the ensuing collapse.

The debris pile below said collapse should contain the highest concentrations of this unspent thermitic material.

Hotspots deep in the debris pile would provide a steady source of ignition heat for this thermitic dust as it was continually disturbed during the months of debris excavation.

If the temperatures in these hotspots achieved steel melting levels, than the steel would melt.

Now if you think there is another reason why we had months of metal melting heat in that smothering pile of dust Glenn, I'd be interested in hearing it?

MM

 

[beachnut]

As long as there remains a source of unspent nano-thermite and an exposure to ambient temperatures of 430 C or greater, the thermitic material will continue igniting.
...
MM

nano-thermite does not ignite at 430 C, paper does. The Jones paper debunks itself, the reason it was in a vanity journal, where you pay to publish your work.

Has Jones proved the US caused the earthquake in Haiti, his other insane claim? How much thermite does it take in your fantasy? Got some numbers?

 

[alienentity]

100's of thousands of tons of materials, some of it combustible. There is irrefutable evidence that this material existed in the towers, and there is irrefutable evidence that there were fires prior to and following the collapses.

There is no such evidence for ANY kind of thermitic material, before, during, or after collapse.

Molten metals are not evidence of thermitic materials
Paint chips which decompose at the temp of paint binder is not evidence of thermitic material
Iron-rich spheres are not produced only by thermitic materials. They are therefore not a 'proof' of thermitics either, anymore than the particular speed of a collapse is 'proof' of explosive CD.

Any more dumb questions?

 

[alienentity]

Has Jones proved the US caused the earthquake in Haiti, his other insane claim? How much thermite does it take in your fantasy? Got some numbers?

Actually Jones has quietly backed away from that position, having discovered that radio waves don't have the ability to penetrate far enough into the earth's crust.

But he cleverly co-opts Nikola Tesla as 'proof' that machines can cause earthquakes, citing a device that Tesla claimed was tested on a particular building - it apparently used soundwaves to cause the building structure to resonate and destabilize. Of course, this isn't an earthquake, but Jones claims it is.
He's wrong again - nothing new in his career.