Merged So there was melted steel

[triforcharity]

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

I wanna know how the **** that works.........

 

[Edx]

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

MM

He is not an expert in what metals melts in fires - thats what relevant - and I have shown that fire experts have reported fire melting steel in other fires. If experts in what melts in fires can incorrectly say fire melted steel, then so can a non expert.

So if they were wrong, how can you so aggressively claim that this time on 911 Voorsanger was right even if we have so many reasons to think he isnt? Such as the unburnt paper. (and yes id also love to know how to have steel melting temperatures and not set paper on fire)

 

[triforcharity]

Because it's an appeal to false authority, der.

 

[Miragememories]

"That is truly idiotic Edx.

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

"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?"

You are really raving here.

I make no claims about his general beliefs regarding 9/11.

He gave his professional opinion about that WTC debris specimen containing previously molten steel and that is what I made reference to.

"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."

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

Which may be the flippant approach you might take when giving your opinion in front of a huge TV audience, but I have no reason to believe that Bart Voorsanger would be so unconcerned about his professional self respect.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

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

MM

Does Voorsanger's profession specialize in the determination of whether or not steel is molten?

 

[Miragememories]

"Yes fire does burn paper 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."

"I wanna know how the **** that works........."

I thought you were an expert on fires?

That you even supposedly taught the subject?

Well you just think about it awhile.

Under what conditions can paper exist in the presence of molten steel, but not catch fire?

A five year old should be able to handle the question, but maybe I am asking too much of you?

MM

 

[Edx]

You are really raving here.

I make no claims about his general beliefs regarding 9/11.

I know?

He gave his professional opinion about that WTC debris specimen containing previously molten steel and that is what I made reference to.

And claiming that he cannot be wrong.

Not only is he not an expert in what melts in fires, i showed you that there are an almost endless amount of examples can be given of people saying fire melted steel in other fires in various ways, but that actual experts in what melts in fires have made the same incorrect statement that fire melted steel in other fires.

The point is, you have no reason to claim there was molten steel because this guy said it on 911.

Which may be the flippant approach you might take when giving your opinion in front of a huge TV audience, but I have no reason to believe that Bart Voorsanger would be so unconcerned about his professional self respect.

I have read a lot of newspaper articles where people talk about fire melting steel, so apparently yes people do incorrectly say that fire melted steel all the time. How he said it is no different to how it is written in those newspaper articles you can read for yourself.

And you seem to think he is so incompetent he cant tell that the towers are obviously a demolition, yet so much of an expert he couldn't possibly be wrong about melting steel. Special pleading FTW!

 

[Edx]

I thought you were an expert on fires?

That you even supposedly taught the subject?

Well you just think about it awhile.

Under what conditions can paper exist in the presence of molten steel, but not catch fire?

A five year old should be able to handle the question, but maybe I am asking too much of you?

MM

Why don't you just answer the question? Currently your claim makes you look ridiculous, maybe you can make us all look ridiculous by answering the point.

How could there have been steel melting temperatures that didnt burnt the paper.

Go on, make us look stupid. We're waiting. In the picture you gave before severely charred wood supports steel beams that have sagged. You claim temperatures were involved that were MUCH MUCH greater than what would cause sagging steel, yet at the same time you require much less temperature to not cause paper to ignite. A massive contradiction in your conspiracy theory?... no surprise there then, just add it to the huge pile of others.

 

[DGM]

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

NIST didn't because they found no evidence of temps that high causing the collapse. I personally think if there was "molten steel" it would be just a local anomaly.

Now back to the OP, If it was there, how does it support an intentional demolition?

Remember MM. You are the one suggesting this means something sinister. You might want to consider explaining how? Until you actually show how this means what you hope it does, you will continue to get the respect you have to date,

 

[Robrob]

1) Truthers have a difficult time understanding the difference between "melting" and "softening to the point of losing structural integrity.

2) Truthers also seem to have a hard time understanding paper burns at a much, much lower temperature than steel softens/melts.

 

[Edx]

2) Truthers also seem to have a hard time understanding paper burns at a much, much lower temperature than steel softens/melts.

Apparently you can even set paper on fire by rubbing two sticks together but its probably just a lie the government told!!!!

 

[NoahFence]

That is truly idiotic Edx.

I dunno... saying that after implying that a 757 crashing into the side of a building isn't a notable event.

I just don't know.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please account for the necessary steel melting temperatures?

That's your burden.

 

[Oystein]

I thought you were an expert on fires?

That you even supposedly taught the subject?

Well you just think about it awhile.

Under what conditions can paper exist in the presence of molten steel, but not catch fire?

A five year old should be able to handle the question, but maybe I am asking too much of you?

MM

Just tell us straight, and show you know not the first thing about organic chemistry, and physical properties of the same.

 

[DGM]

Under what conditions can paper exist in the presence of molten steel, but not catch fire?

A five year old should be able to handle the question, but maybe I am asking too much of you?

MM

Your right, this is easy. Paper will not burn in the presence of molten steel as long as it doesn't get too close.

It's sort of like, "why did the chicken cross the street"?

To get to the other side

 

[BasqueArch]

The Ground Zero Cross- Crushed, torn metal is misdescribed below as “melted”.

The example below is one of a few where a description of “molten steel” can be compared to corresponding visual evidence.

A column with two original welded beams and torn bolted splice ends, column top torn bolted splice end 3 feet above the beams per plans, with a piece of the aluminum exterior column cover crushed over one of the arms is discovered and described as “melted together”.

(0:50) “This cross … melted together with the intense heat … heat literally melted them together…The piece of metal that draped over it was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms.”



A closer view of the cross


Had they found a melted structural steel blue Star of David, then I would have been impressed.

Molten metal - 30 tons of aluminum from each plane, plus approx. 236 columns aluminum covers x 110 floors (12’ high) x 100 lbs each = 1,300 tons of aluminum covers= 1,330 tons minimum of aluminum per tower (2,660,000 lbs, not counting other sources of aluminum such as glass framing, furniture) exposed to melting temperatures (1220F, 660 C) in the pile as well as melting plastic (carpets, fabrics , computers) can result in the reports (not photographed) of melted materials.

Test of burning aluminum and water.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fvitenskap-og-teknologi%2F1.7793083



Evidence that what people often describe as melted (liquefied) is not (but softened, crushed, deformed) and that molten material can be aluminum and plastic.

 

[Edx]

Test of burning aluminum and water.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fvitenskap-og-teknologi%2F1.7793083

Good find!

I also notice that the metal melted glowing which CTists claim cannot happen unless its steel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

metalurgy, simple knowledge of the melting point of steel and the ignition point of paper. You know SCIENCE. Architecture is not a science its an art.

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

I'd study the steel to see if it actually looked like it had be molten and puddled (it doesn't) and I'd see what was direct in it or adjacent to it to see it that material showed signs of being exposed to the very high temperatures
involved and then if I was in any doubt at all I'd take sample of the material and either section the "meteorite" or core it to see its internal structure.

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.

eyes? well what do you think a photo does? Touching????? really, what do you think touching it will do? magnets? So did your architect use a magnet on areas that look like they were puddled metal (as opposed to the very obvious sheet metal and rebar. If you can't show that he did then why should Mr Bear have to do so?

Most of the "evidence" the twoof movement ever offers is pictures and their interpretation of them.....why should that be ok for them but not for Mr bear????

 

[Miragememories]

"Yes fire does burn paper 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."

"Why don't you just answer the question? Currently your claim makes you look ridiculous, maybe you can make us all look ridiculous by answering the point.

How could there have been steel melting temperatures that didnt burnt the paper.

Go on, make us look stupid. We're waiting. In the picture you gave before severely charred wood supports steel beams that have sagged. You claim temperatures were involved that were MUCH MUCH greater than what would cause sagging steel, yet at the same time you require much less temperature to not cause paper to ignite. A massive contradiction in your conspiracy theory?... no surprise there then, just add it to the huge pile of others."

I am staying on topic Edx.

Earlier, I presented a hypothesis for melting steel in deep hotspots within the WTC debris pile.
The answer to your question was clearly provided there and in other responses.

Molten steel does not mean burning steel.

Molten steel only requires exposure to the correct amount of sustained ambient heat.

The combustion of paper, burning, requires the presence of the correct amount of sustained ambient heat plus sufficient oxygen.

In a hermetically sealed hot pocket, at some point pieces of the paper, could have become uncovered from under a cover of insulating dust but after the ambient oxygen had been consumed.

But, I am not suggesting that the paper cannot be broken down. Depending on the circumstances behind its heat exposure, the paper can eventually suffer pyrolysis. It could char, it could decompose into gases, even possibly release some oxygen from its organic composition and allow some minor partial combustion.

Referring to the WTC debris specimen that Bart Voorsanger investigated, it is quite possible that the areas of apparently protruding paper were once covered by a heavy layer of mostly non-organic, concrete or gypsum dust which provided protection, initially from combustion, and later from pyrolysis.

Certainly it would not be too surprising to expect that those "meteorites" once had some dust coverage which debris removal workers had no reason to keep in place. There is little evidence of any remaining dust in the specimen photos.

But there is evidence of significant paper charring in the images Grizzly Bear provided.

Continually falling red chip-laden dust would still ignite at 430+ C temperatures and release heat.

If more heat is generated than dissipates in the pocket, then the ambient temperature will continue to rise.

Unless the process is broken, at some point in time, the melting temperature of steel will be reached, but unless sufficient ambient oxygen becomes available, the paper will not be able to combust.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>....

hehehehehehe