Merged So there was melted steel

[Animal]

Lame.

I am well aware of char and its heat resistant ability.

But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?

How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?

So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?

MM

<Sigh> The same way the tree doesn't burn through here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
Ignorance is bliss the the troofer world

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not sure I would go that far. I think something along the lines of "irrelevant" would be more appropriate.

"Unless someone can come up with a logical connection, the presence of previously molten steel is irrelevant".


Better?

Sounds fair - but I'm working under the premise that in no controlled demo ever have we seen molten anything....

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So there was "melted" steel. what does it prove?

Well, they've already told us what it proves (inside job!); they just haven't told us why it proves what it allegedly proves.

 

[DGM]

Sounds fair - but I'm working under the premise that in no controlled demo ever have we seen molten anything....

True but, You're falling into the same "never before" trap we remind "truthers" of all the time? Always avoid the double standard (especially considering it's not needed).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your pics are nice but I need to see the original wideshot.

While you're at it, since you apparently take great pride in your photo scrutinizing ability, and given that you are so incredulous regarding paper surviving in purported close proximity to molten steel, how do you account for this famous 'go to' image image which Official Story advocates love to drag out?

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg[/qimg]

MM

As DGM started saying, the charring develops and insulates the wood raising it's resistance to the higher temperatures. This is a comparative graph taken from the website the image is from:

With exposed steel there's no such thing... so it weakens faster

 

[ozeco41]

I'm not sure I would go that far. I think something along the lines of "irrelevant" would be more appropriate.

"Unless someone can come up with a logical connection, the presence of previously molten steel is irrelevant".


Better?

Far better.

Us goodies are supposed to play fair, be honest and use correct logic.

It's the truthers and trolls who have their own version of logic, don't have to be truthful or fair.

So it's asymmetric warfare - fortunately our side is right.

 

[ozeco41]

True but, You're falling into the same "never before" trap we remind "truthers" of all the time? Always avoid the double standard (especially considering it's not needed).

See my previous comment - which was delayed in posting due to an interruption.

Just 'coz "they" use false logic it doesn't give us goodies open slather to follow their example.

 

[triforcharity]

Lame.

Yes, most of your posts are, but thanks for the heads up either way.

I am well aware of char and its heat resistant ability.

So why do you ask all these stupid questions?

But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?

Because the inside becomes insulated from the heat on the outside. Unlike those I-beams, which have no insulation, wood when burning creates it's own insulation.

Not to mention, but it appears like that wood beam could have been thicker at one point, based on the nails sticking out of it.

How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?

Because it didn't burn through enough.

So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?

MM

Try it youself. Try to stick paper in a kiln fired piece of steel. You tell me what happens.....

 

[The Platypus]

But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?

How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?

So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?

MM

In one second you are wondering why the wood didn't burn through from temperatures hot enough to bend I-beams.

And in the next second you then wonder why pieces of paper couldn't survive temperatures hot enough for molten steel, and be embedded within it when it resolidified and not completely burnt up.



And you don't see the problem there do you...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I was wondering about that too :\

 

[LSSBB]

In one second you are wondering why the wood didn't burn through from temperatures hot enough to bend I-beams.

And in the next second you then wonder why pieces of paper couldn't survive temperatures hot enough for molten steel, and be embedded within it when it resolidified and not completely burnt up.



And you don't see the problem there do you...

This says it all right there, twisting the argument just to not look wrong on a point, and sacrificing any consistency to his position.

 

[beachnut]

Lame.

I am well aware of char and its heat resistant ability.

But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?

How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?

So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?

MM

Why can't 911 truth answer it's own questions? 911 truth has no goal, no reality based claims. Paper burns at 450 C, it lights up. Your super-nano-thermite burns up before that, but molten steel is 1700 C, and would burn up all the paper. There is no melted steel.

The photo you lifted, is a propaganda on wood, and is kind of true. In a steel only frame building, failure comes quick in fire. But a structural wood building, will hold up better. This is why we have to insulate steel so it can last long enough to get out of the building. Steel buildings collapse quickly in fire when the insulation is compromised, as seen on 911.

Thermite is not very dense in heat energy, or energy at all. Using thermite to covertly destroy a building is Stupid. No wonder there is not thermite products in the WTC.

Your super-nano-thermite would all ignite a few minutes after aircraft impacts. What is your point? Why have you failed to make progress in 10 years?

Lame. ...
But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?
...
MM

This question, debunks all your claims of thermite. It is funny, your question debunks you and 911, on more than one level.

 

[NoahFence]

True but, You're falling into the same "never before" trap we remind "truthers" of all the time? Always avoid the double standard (especially considering it's not needed).

Yes and no....

Their version ignores key events like plane crashes. Mine doesn't.

 

[Miragememories]

In one second you are wondering why the wood didn't burn through from temperatures hot enough to bend I-beams.

And in the next second you then wonder why pieces of paper couldn't survive temperatures hot enough for molten steel, and be embedded within it when it resolidified and not completely burnt up.



And you don't see the problem there do you...

Sure do.

You guys can't read.

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

Lame.

I am well aware of char and its heat resistant ability.

But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?

How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?

So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?

MM

the wood in that pic was quite obviously the inner part of a laminated wood beam. Judging by the vaying lenths of the remaining fasteners it was several layers thick. It 'survived' only in as much as the inner core was still able to support a small part of the structure , the steel beams that succumbed to heat weakening and sagged over it.

You on the other hand wish to have us believe that a large volume of steel was actually molten, ie. above 1800 degrees C, and yet a piece of paper survived not only intact but not even toasted to the point where its not possible to read the script on it.

Do you really believe that these are equivalent?
You do see the problem here right?

In one pic we have a charred remanent of a thick wood beam that is all that is left after a fire that was hot enough to soften steel to the point that it could not remain horizontal;
and;
in the other we have, according to you, a picture of a solidified chunk of previously fully molten steel in which a piece of paper survived wholly intact.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sure do.

You guys can't read.

MM

No you cannot be serious.
Read my post comparing the two photos.

 

[Miragememories]

the wood in that pic was quite obviously the inner part of a laminated wood beam. Judging by the vaying lenths of the remaining fasteners it was several layers thick. It 'survived' only in as much as the inner core was still able to support a small part of the structure , the steel beams that succumbed to heat weakening and sagged over it.

You on the other hand wish to have us believe that a large volume of steel was actually molten, ie. above 1800 degrees C, and yet a piece of paper survived not only intact but not even toasted to the point where its not possible to read the script on it.

Do you really believe that these are equivalent?
You do see the problem here right?

In one pic we have a charred remanent of a thick wood beam that is all that is left after a fire that was hot enough to soften steel to the point that it could not remain horizontal;
and;
in the other we have, according to you, a picture of a solidified chunk of previously fully molten steel in which a piece of paper survived wholly intact.

Not equivalent.

Comparable.

Both the wood and the paper, highly combustible materials, survived what must have been exposure to significant heat.

We do not know what process the meteorite went through and at what time it picked up those scraps of paper.

All we know is the end product.

Oh yes, and an architect who observed the presence of previously molten steel.

Carry on.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not even comparable beyond the fact that both paper and glulam wood are combustible. The burn rate and extent of damage are in part determined by surface area, volume, and heat transfer through those properties. This "comparison" is going between single ply paper a couple millimeters thick to a 2 by 6 glullam beam. It's a stupid comparison in this case.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oh yes, and an architect who observed the presence of previously molten steel.

MM

You still have not answered the question of what skills you think an architect would have that are relevant to the subject at hand?

would you be as impressed if he was say a software engineer? airline pilot? Medical doctor? If not why not? They would all have as good an education in the relevant subjects ie essentially none.

 

[Miragememories]

You still have not answered the question of what skills you think an architect would have that are relevant to the subject at hand?

would you be as impressed if he was say a software engineer? airline pilot? Medical doctor? If not why not? They would all have as good an education in the relevant subjects ie essentially none.

Well what skills do you think an architect would be lacking?

If you were there examining the meteorite sheeplesnshills, what would you be doing that you think the average architect would not consider?

Grizzly Bear seems convinced that he didn't need to be there. That looking at a pic he has only partially sourced was sufficient.

Nah, he doesn't need to see with his own eyes, no touching, no magnets, why bother when you are convinced of your belief.

MM