Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
"Okay Edx.

What sustained temperature is required to melt structural steel?

Are structural steel melting temperatures an expectation in steel-framed highrise fires?"
Click to expand...
Edx said:
"Still missing the point on purpose I see... It is expected that people will report fires melting steel in other fires.

I've shown you them, you ignored all of it completely, after exclaiming how bad I was for not backing up what i say with sources. So why is it abnormal on 911? It isn't, its expected to see people reporting molten steel just as its expected for people to report "explosions".

Now, there is the other point that you also don't understand. That even if there was some molten steel there is another explanation for it, one which you still refuse to understand. But whatever, you can't even accept that temperature hot enough to melt steel is going to burn paper, maybe you should look up what temperature paper burns at. It doesn't take much to set paper on fire!"
Click to expand...

Dodge much Edx?

Were my questions too confusing?

If melting steel was a normal expectation in steel structure highrise fires, then over the years, we would have seen a helluva lot of collapses.

Interestingly, prior to 9/11 there was not one documented modern steel-structured highrise collapse due to fire.

So I think there is good reason for my ignoring your sourced bs quotes from amateur observers.

So what is your problem with answering my questions to you Edx?

Yes fire does burn at a much lower temperature than is required to melt steel.

But, steel can still melt under conditions that will not allow paper to burn.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Dodge much Edx?

Were my questions too confusing?

If melting steel was a normal expectation in steel structure highrise fires, then over the years, we would have seen a helluva lot of collapses.

Interestingly, prior to 9/11 there was not one documented modern steel-structured highrise collapse due to fire.

So I think there is good reason for my ignoring your sourced bs quotes from amateur observers.

So what is your problem with answering my questions to you Edx?

Yes fire does burn at a much lower temperature than is required to melt steel.

But, steel can still melt under conditions that will not allow paper to burn.

MM
Click to expand...

call for perfection logical fallacy. we know of many steel buildings that have collapsed due to fire
 
Miragememories said:
But, steel can still melt under conditions that will not allow paper to burn.
Click to expand...

Anoxic conditions, yes. Though the paper would very rapidly be reduced to virtually pure carbon, crumble away, and not be recognisable as paper at all.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Im still waiting for MM to explain why it matters that people said there was molten steel on 911, when plenty of people have said the same thing in plenty of other fires.
Click to expand...
You're having a discussion with a conspiracy who's argument is a gigantic Dunning Kruger effect. The concept of building studies and professionals being subjected to the same flaws as laymen is non-existent in the conspiracy universe. It's an extremely paranoid thinking methodology...

The same way of thinking makes it impossible for them to address something like the OP which makes leaps and bounds to partially conform to it....
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Dodge much Edx?

Were my questions too confusing?

If melting steel was a normal expectation in steel structure highrise fires, then over the years, we would have seen a helluva lot of collapses.
Click to expand...


Not confusing since I am saying that there was no molten steel.

What about that do YOU not understand?

What I am saying is that plenty of people in other fires describe molten steel, that is a fact and I have proven that to you but you ignore it anyway.

Did fire really melt the steel in all those other fires? No, probably not. They still said it though which shows it is a common statement for people to make when they see melted metals and distorted steel from fire.

The fact that you latch onto the same statements on 911 and claim they HAVE to mean there was molten steel and therefore thermite, shows once again your love of special pleading.


So I think there is good reason for my ignoring your sourced bs quotes from amateur observers.
Click to expand...

Endless "amateur observations" talking about how fire melted steel. You do realise that right?

Still, a firefighter is far more of an expert than an architect in what metals melts in fires. They actually teach firefighters what metals melt and Ive shown you that as well. Yet... I can still find firefighters and fire professionals talking about fire melting steel. Wrong again MM. Now lets watch you move some of those goal posts some more!



" That truck type has several compartments, each holding about 5,000 gallons" said Birmingham Fire Chief Eugene Rouveyrol. "It must have been burning at at least 5,000 degrees to melt those steel bridge girders", added the chief"
"Rig Fire Burns Hole In Bridge"
-- Youngstown Vindicator - Dec 3, 1977




"What apparently drove residents to risk life and limb was dense, acrid smoke that filled the building and flames "so hot they melted steel," [Fire Commissioner Raymond] Orozco said."
4 DIE IN HIGH-RISE FIRE
-- Chicago Sun-Times - January 18, 1996




"Temperatures in the buildings mist have reached at least 1000 degrees to melt the steel beams that supoorted the roof, Lexington County Fire Coordinator Louis Seyle said"
- Heavy Damages In Boat Manufacturing Company
-- Newberry Observer - Jun 18, 1984






But, steel can still melt under conditions that will not allow paper to burn.
Click to expand...


Prove it. :rolleyes:

You thought you did it before, but of course the wood was still burnt and the steel wasnt melted. It doesn't take much to do what is in that picture to steel, it also doesnt take much to set paper on fire but you demand MUCH higher temperatures than what would be required just to cause steel to sag like that.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
You're having a discussion with a conspiracy who's argument is a gigantic Dunning Kruger effect. The concept of building studies and professionals being subjected to the same flaws as laymen is non-existent in the conspiracy universe. It's an extremely paranoid thinking methodology...

The same way of thinking makes it impossible for them to address something like the OP which makes leaps and bounds to partially conform to it....
Click to expand...

Particularly amazing is that the guy MM claims CANNOT BE WRONG when he said there was melted steel (even though there was unburnt paper there), MM also doesnt care whether the guy actually agrees with him or not.

So he will happily say this guy is an expert that cannot be wrong only to the point where he can say there was this molten steel, anything his expert says after that or believes doesnt matter. I dare say that if this guy said he didnt really mean there was melted steel or there probably wasnt in retrospect, and/or thinks truthers are insane, MM would just say he is in on it or just an idiot like apparently the rest of the scientific and engineering community are that dont take truthers seriously... but he would still say that his original statement about the melted steel was correct because he is an expert.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
"I seem to remember some planes, large fires and very limited firefighting. (I expect you will ignore the fact that building 7 lost a lot of windows, a very important fire stop)."
Click to expand...

You are dodging DGM.

Please account for the necessary steel melting temperatures?

The NIST most certainly did not make a finding of such temperatures.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Steel structured highrises that completely collapsed due to fire prior to, and post 9/11?

Bring on the examples.

MM
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

Typical response, when all else fails, there is always your good old incredulity argument.

Had you been around at the time, I would love to have seen how you would have dismissed the single bomb used on Hiroshima. No doubt, prior to hearing about the nuclear technology employed, your incredulity would have made you believe that contrary to all reports, it had to have been an airborne armada.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If melting steel was a normal expectation in steel structure highrise fires, then over the years, we would have seen a helluva lot of collapses.
Click to expand...

You're doing that dishonesty thing again.

But, steel can still melt under conditions that will not allow paper to burn.
Click to expand...

I often feel that I have a winner in the Stundies, but that one may actually do it. Thanks! I might get a cookie.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Steel structured highrises that completely collapsed due to fire prior to, and post 9/11?

Bring on the examples.

MM
Click to expand...

Steel Structured high-rises that also got a 757 slammed into the side of them?


Bring on the examples.


More twoofer dishonesty. You can't talk about the fire and NOT talk about the airplanes. It makes you look like an idiot.

And what exceptional conditions might those be DGM?
Click to expand...


Oh. My. God.

You're in rare form.
 
Yea. Screaming fully-laden with fuel jetliners don't count as exceptional conditions.
 
Edx said:
"Particularly amazing is that the guy MM claims CANNOT BE WRONG when he said there was melted steel (even though there was unburnt paper there), MM also doesnt care whether the guy actually agrees with him or not.

So he will happily say this guy is an expert that cannot be wrong only to the point where he can say there was this molten steel, anything his expert says after that or believes doesnt matter. I dare say that if this guy said he didnt really mean there was melted steel or there probably wasnt in retrospect, and/or thinks truthers are insane, MM would just say he is in on it or just an idiot like apparently the rest of the scientific and engineering community are that dont take truthers seriously... but he would still say that his original statement about the melted steel was correct because he is an expert."
Click to expand...

That is truly idiotic Edx.

Why does someone's professional opinion have to come with a total acceptance of everything that professional believes in?

I am quite sure that when Bart Voorsanger gave his professional opinion that the WTC debris specimen contained molten steel, he did not realize that it might contradict the Official Story.

Danny Jowenko was in a similar situation when he agreed with the Official Story regarding the nature of the WTC Twin Towers collapses, but unknowingly disagreed with it, when he firmly concluded that WTC7 had to have been a controlled demolition.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Why does someone's professional opinion have to come with a total acceptance of everything that professional believes in?

I am quite sure that when Bart Voorsanger gave his professional opinion that the WTC debris specimen contained molten steel, he did not realize that it might contradict the Official Story.
Click to expand...

How was Voorsanger's profession as as an architect relevant to his opinion on whether steel was melted?
 
Miragememories said:
That is truly idiotic Edx.

Why does someone's professional opinion have to come with a total acceptance of everything that professional believes in?
Click to expand...

When you claim that he is expert enough to tell if theres melted steel, even if there's unburnt paper right there, but too idiotic or incompetent or dishonest enough to not know this means thermite had to be responsible or that the towers couldn't have collapsed from fire. Truthers claim it had to be a demolition and you can tell simply by watching the videos of the collapses, yet this expert architect cant tell? yet you're trying to use him to support you? Wow?


I am quite sure that when Bart Voorsanger gave his professional opinion that the WTC debris specimen contained molten steel, he did not realize that it might contradict the Official Story.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain he didnt put much thought into what he said at all.

Much like the ENDLESS examples of people saying fire melted steel in other fires, or when firefighters and fire experts also talked about fire melting steel in other fires even though they are trained about what metals melt in fires. If they can be wrong, so can someone who isnt even an expert in fire or what metals melt in fires.

Speaking of which you ignored that post. Why'd you do that? I was all excited to find out where you were going to move your goal posts to. /disappointment
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
How was Voorsanger's profession as as an architect relevant to his opinion on whether steel was melted?
Click to expand...

How does Bart Voorsanger's profession as an architect make his professional opinion that he observed previously molten steel irrelevant?

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom