Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
You know, pockets well insulated by all that tightly packed pulverized dust I previously referred to.

Pockets that may have contained fires, but after running out of sufficient oxygen, were extinguished but retained combustion level temperatures.

Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.
Click to expand...

Please show proof that the pockets were well insulated from oxygen.
 
LSSBB said:
Please show proof that the pockets were well insulated from oxygen.
Click to expand...

His theory also assumes that the dustr was sufficient in thickness on top of the rubble to choke off oxygen. It would also require that it be thick enbough in the subway tunnels to do the same.

Oddly enough smoke was rising from underground establishing that there was a method by which particulate matter and combustion gasses could escape the hot volumes underground thus establishing the opposite, that air could also reach the underground by the same or similar paths.

MM envisions thermite laden dust (of a concentration not seen in any sample, he just wishes it into being) flowing into the hot spots much like sand in an hour glass.

An 'hour glass' that measures its sand out over weeks but in sufficient quantity to supply enough heat to melt and keep molten, some quantity of steel.
 
jaydeehess said:
MM envisions thermite laden dust (of a concentration not seen in any sample, he just wishes it into being) flowing into the hot spots much like sand in an hour glass.

An 'hour glass' that measures its sand out over weeks but in sufficient quantity to supply enough heat to melt and keep molten, some quantity of steel.
Click to expand...

 
Miragememories said:
Until you and/or others can disprove the red chip findings of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe paper by Dr. Harrit et al, my theory stands on those findings. They have concluded the material is thermitic and to be so, it must be self-oxidizing.
Click to expand...

Painted thermite can't warm a witch's tit.

.....A finding of nanothermite in all the known WTC dust samples would require an acceptance of its existing for the sole purpose of aiding in the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

It is logical to believe such pre-planned thermitic activity was still occu rring when global collapse was initiated for each of the three towers.

It is also logical to assume that during the collapse, which was shown to exhibit an incredible amount of pulverization, a great deal of thermitic material did not get ignited and was also pulverized into dust.

.....
Since the most effective means of demolition, would require the largest concentrations of the nanothermitic material to be placed at the core, it is reasonable to expect the greatest concentrations of the thermitic red chips would be focused in the pulverized debris pile at the core base.

Tests on dust samples known to have come from those locations would be of great interest.

MM
Click to expand...

Only in the kingdom of the Red Queen is it more logical and reasonable to believe thousands of Americans conspired undiscovered to kill thousands of others than that Al Qaeda flew the planes into the towers.
 
Miragememories said:
Do you have difficulty understanding English?

Why would you ask such a stupid question after I just finished acknowledging that Official Story supporters accept crashing aircraft and fire as the sole explanation for the collapses?

MM
Click to expand...


MM yet again you bust the irony meter..........:rolleyes: this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad........who asked you about what putative Official Story supporters accepted??????? You were asked if YOU doubted there were planes and fires. Do you or do you not???? simple question that requires a simple one word answer, yes or no.
 
Miragememories said:
Oh?

I thought you had a major disbelief about the degree of pulverization that occurred?

My theory about the sustained high heat levels and the relationship to melted steel, requires a couple of things.

It requires a very dense, oxygen-depriving dust debris field, and it requires an abundance of the red chips.

MM
Click to expand...

And since there was neither we can safely discount that one can't we.......:D
 
Miragememories said:
Are you suggesting that fires cannot be smothered?
Click to expand...

In this sort of fire, yes its almost impossible. Thats why they are hard to fight.

If you had bothered to follow this thread, you would not be wasting time on questions that have already been addressed. My theory primarily addressed the enduring hotspots well below the surface of the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.
Click to expand...

like the ones in any landfill or similar fire?

You know, pockets well insulated by all that tightly packed pulverized dust I previously referred to.
Click to expand...

Soooooooo, you think thermite was insulating more thermite???? is that it? and just what exactly would stop all that thermite cooking of in seconds?

Pockets that may have contained fires, but after running out of sufficient oxygen, were extinguished but retained combustion level temperatures.
Click to expand...

just like landfill fires? oh wait they don't go out do they?

Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.

In the case of the thermitic red chips, 430 C would achieve this.
Click to expand...


right, so a couple of seconds maybe a minute later when that all reacted what then? what kind of mechanism can constantly feed unreacted thermite dust to a surface hot enough to ignite it. We already know that the dust acted as a fire retardant on the surface so why would it ignite any place else??? and why would it NEVER ignite where anyone can see it doing so...........is shyness another magic characteristic for your sooper nanny thermnight?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
However once WTC 2 did defy the back of the napkin estimation that it could withstand an aircraft impact it was much more probable that its twin would do the same. Perhaps you'd care to give the estimation by the fire chiefs about the probability that WTC 1 would collapse after having witnessed WTC 2 having done so? Perhaps you'd care to reiterate the call to evacuate all personnel from WTC 1 at that time?
Perhaps you'd care to give the reason why the NYFD called for an exclusion zone around WTC 7 at least equal to its height if they felt that there was no danger of collapse.
Click to expand...



Even the claim that the collapses was totally unexpected isn't entirely true. The FDNY on-site commander ordered the evacuation of WTC1 before the collapse of WTC2 based solely on the evidence of failing structural integrity in the lobby.

Meanwhile, the NYPD aviation unit observing the buildings from the air observed the bowing of the exterior walls and determined that a collapse was imminent.

That's two totally independent determinations by first responders who were actually there that the buildings were at risk of structural failure, both derived from evidence of a gradual deterioration of the structure's integrity, and both irrefutably ruling out explosives as a cause for the collapse.
 
Miragememories said:
... Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.

In the case of the thermitic red chips, 430 C would achieve this.
...
MM
Click to expand...
Thermite does not ignite at 430, paper does.

What a load of junk! The fact is the lack of oxygen is why the fires persited for weeks. Thermite burns quickly, and fires lasting weeks proves it was not thermite. You keep proving you are full of nonsense.

In my wood stove, if I let the fire have lots of oxygen, the wood burns quickly, and the heat goes up the chimney; if I restrict the flow of oxygen the wood burns slowly, the wood stove temperature rises to over 1,000 F, and the wood load burns for 8 hours, instead of 20 minutes. In the debris pile, fires were burn with little air for weeks.


The contents of the WTC towers would burn with more heat energy than 80,000 Tons of Thermite. What is the thermite for? You know why NIST says

NIST says the heat energy of the jet fuel was insignificant (don't tell that to the people burned to death by the jet fuel), and this is due to the fact the office fires in the WTC towers were 7 to 9 times the heat energy of the jet fuel. The jet fuel was equal in heat to 315 tons of Thermite in each jet, this is call insignificant.
HOW MUCH Thermite is in your delusional version of 911 events? Make my day, define how much thermite was used. Show your work, show the math; Please.

Thus we have the heat energy of the contents of the WTC burning could be equal in heat energy to over 44,000 Tons of Thermite. Why would you bring thermite to an office fire?

The insane part of themite comes when you realize there is zero evidence of thermite at the WTC. No lumps of iron, zero evidence. How did you get your TONS of Thermite to disappear? Does your fantasy stop at the claim, or can you explain the thermite scam from start to finish?

Using thermite to do in the WTC towers would be discovered on 911, and during cleanup if you were slow. To cover-up using thermite would mean thousand of people would be in on it at the clean up level. Thermite is as dumb as nukes, and beam weapons. Why is thermite the choice? Because Jones can do thermite demonstrations in front of people and with his nice talk, fool people who insist on being fooled with thermite lies. Jones can't demo a nuke, and Jones can demo a beam weapon, but saying a beam weapon destroyed the WTC is easier to see as being insane, the thermite seems to fool people who don't know jet fuel has ten times the heat energy; Thermite is not rich in energy, a big reason we don't use themite in our cars; office contents beat thermite in heat energy.

... to weaken steel, an office fire would be sufficient. The jet aircraft on 911 delivered 66,000 pounds of jet fuel to the WTC. Those 33 Tons of Jet fuel burn and release the heat energy of 315 tons of Thermite. The terrorists brought the heat energy of 315 tons of Thermite using 33 tons of jet fuel. Why would you bring thermite to weaken steel when you already have the fuel needed in place. NIST says the jet fuel, the jet fuel fires were insignificant compared to the office fires. To equal the heat energy of the office fires you have to bring over 2,200 to 2,800 TONS of thermite. How did you get it in the building? To equal the possible heat energy in the contents which could burn after the collapse added to the fires before, you need over 44,000 TONS of thermite.


It has been 10 years. When will you find evidence to backup your fuzzy claims? Where is the melted steel? Where are the products of all that themite? Tons of melted iron, were is it? When will you tell someone, like 60 minutes, 20/20, etc. Why is Jones not on 60 minutes? Because he is a nut on 911 issues, just a crazy old guy, like me, but he is more personable, people believe his crazy claims; albeit less than 0.01 percent of all engineers. If you were an engineer, you wouild be a 0.01 percent-er.

Who was sprinkling the thermite on the fire for weeks?
 
triforcharity said:
That a molten metal of some unknown makeup is not so easy to identify, especially to an untrained eye.

We've been through this before.
Click to expand...

A steel beam is identifiable.

triforcharity said:
It could appear that something was dripping, even if in reality it wasn't, and was just sparks, or embers of something else.....
Click to expand...

This method could be applied to any eyewitness account:

"It could be appear that <blank> but it could have just been <blank>."

But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.
 
tempesta29 said:
A steel beam is identifiable.



This method could be applied to any eyewitness account:

"It could be appear that <blank> but it could have just been <blank>."

But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.
Click to expand...

A "steel beam, glowing red hot" is many hundreds of degrees below the melting temperature of steel - in degrees Fahrenheit even more than a thousand degrees too cool to be "dripping molten at its end".

Do you understand that?
 
jaydeehess said:
His theory also assumes that the dustr was sufficient in thickness on top of the rubble to choke off oxygen. It would also require that it be thick enbough in the subway tunnels to do the same.

Oddly enough smoke was rising from underground establishing that there was a method by which particulate matter and combustion gasses could escape the hot volumes underground thus establishing the opposite, that air could also reach the underground by the same or similar paths.

MM envisions thermite laden dust (of a concentration not seen in any sample, he just wishes it into being) flowing into the hot spots much like sand in an hour glass.

An 'hour glass' that measures its sand out over weeks but in sufficient quantity to supply enough heat to melt and keep molten, some quantity of steel.
Click to expand...

My bolding. This just about sums it up.

For MM, the mere existence of "a theory" is good enough. It's some comfort to him maybe? That "the theory" should contain a grain of sense is not a requirement.
 
GlennB said:
My bolding. This just about sums it up.

For MM, the mere existence of "a theory" is good enough. It's some comfort to him maybe? That "the theory" should contain a grain of sense is not a requirement.
Click to expand...

And even though he exempts himself from such common requirments of "making sense" and "having evidence", even though he is totally free to spin his yarn to any direction and length he could wish for he still falls short of even addressing the core of this thread: Is there a method demolition that at the same time accounts for all observations before and during collapse, and explains molten steel a long time after collapse? MM is ominously silent on the demolition part. Why would such humongous amounts of the thermite that was, it seems, intended to be burned befoire the demolition, be still around keep burning weeks later? Every pound of thermite that burned weeks later did not do anything at all to help with the demolition. Are we to believe that the perpetrators were spectacularly wasteful? With nano-thermite supposedly being high-tech stuff, who would afford to pack tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds of it in total vain and leave it unreacted and do nothing useful?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
A "steel beam, glowing red hot" is many hundreds of degrees below the melting temperature of steel - in degrees Fahrenheit even more than a thousand degrees too cool to be "dripping molten at its end".

Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

Somebody has already spotted it, but red hot steel it too cold to melt. Hell, it's only just hot enough to be workable.

Find yourself a picture of a steel mill somewhere on the interwebs. Check out a rolling mill as an example, and see what colour steel needs to be to be rolled. Check also a steel pour from a Bessemer/Basic Oxygen furnace - now that's how hot and what colour steel is when it's melted and dripping.
 
tempesta29 said:
But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Except when the report is read by people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to metal-then it becomes unclear. It's that whole "people who know what they are talking about" thing that you folks keep forgetting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom