Merged So there was melted steel

[The Platypus]

Please show evidence of other significant highrises being taken down by thermite. Hint: You won't find any, because it DOESN'T HAPPEN.

 

[carlitos]

Oh - that...

I just clicked back through the dialogue on "moon-sized field of rubble," and had a nice chuckle. But, even then, ergo ignored the question for a couple of pages and several repostings, before posting his stundi-licious reply. I'm endeavoring to ignore this type of argument, but I can see why some of you still engage. And, as noted, I really have enjoyed some of these 9/11 discussions as a great tool to learn physics, chemistry, etc.

 

[ergo]

Here's an example of evidence provided right in front of their noses, and our so-called "skeptics" outright deny it.

Here are the facts:

- There were many reports of molten steel, including by WTC lead engineer Leslie Robertson.

- These were not investigated.

- John Gross, lead investigator for NIST, several years after, denies there were any reports of molten steel.

 

[ergo]

Add to that this idea, started by 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory idiots, that office fires melted the structural steel.

What kind of picture do you get? Do you really think anyone here has a clue what they're talking about?

 

[Oystein]

You're kind of missing the point here. Oystein claims there were no reports of molten steel and that's why no one investigated. We know, in fact, that most reports of molten anything were reports of molten steel. POOLS of molten steel.

The John-Gross-video you link to includes several witness statements; every single one of them confirms that what these witnesses saw was NOT molten steel:
- 1:15 "molten steel running down the channel" - if the steel was molten, it would also melt and thus destroy the channel rails.
- 1:28 "melted boots ... it's still 1100 degrees...". 1100 degrees is far below the melting point of steel. Workers could not walk on melted steel to get their boots melted
- 1:45 "it's probably 1500 degrees" - that's more than 1000 degrees short of the melting point of steel
- 1:54 "it looked like an oven ... a bright bright redish orange color..." Red-orange glow is indicative of temperatures more than 1000 degrees below the melting point of steel
- 2:30 "NASA images..." these NASA images show temperatures far below the melting point of steel
So Gross would be right, and speaking with competence, if he declared after examination of the "best" witness statements that none produced any indaction that there was in fact molten steel.

Thanks for linking to a self-debunking video.

The reason why these were reported was because they're highly unusual.

You just say this, right? They seemed remarkable enough to the people making these statements, and yes, of course, working in the vicinity and above red-hot temperatures (but still very far from melting steel) is sure to leave a lasting emotional impression.

Please show us evidence of reports of molten steel in other significant highrises. Hint: You won't find any, because it DOESN'T HAPPEN. If firefighters routinely encounter pools of molten steel from highrise fires why would they comment on it re: the WTC? Why would Leslie Robertson comment on it?

Do firefighters routinely even encouter highrise fires?
Why would you demand to be shown such reporst from highrise fires, versus non-highrise fires?
All these reports of molten steel were fromn the debris pile after the collapse. Since, as truthers love to point out, no other highrises have completely collapses from fires and formed debris piles, it would be pretty stupid to compare only to other highrise fires, you know, those without debris piles, or wouldn't it?

 

[NoahFence]

Wow. The first few posts on this thread are unbelievable. Insulated debris piles full of dust produce hotter fires? No, wait, it's hotter-than-natural debris pile fires fed by air and/or hotter-than-natural air through the crushed, blocked, not-in-use subway system?

Rather than read 56 pages of ridiculous conjecture, can someone just fill me in?

9/11 idiots, including John Gross, spend how many years saying there was no molten steel, there was no molten metal. Now they admit (sort of, pending official acknowledgement) that there was but that it's common to find molten steel/molten metal in highrise fires? And/or that the molten metal is actually molten aluminum. (The stories change a fair bit )

1) Why didn't they just investigate it in the first place? Take pictures even?

2) Why does this sound so much like the "There was no free fall, dammit!!1!" argument?

3) Where is the evidence/reports of molten steel/metal in the most significant highrise fires of the last century?

4) If it's so common, why would 9/11 idiots spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11? (see question 2).

It's a real laugh sometimes reading the antics the Terrists-Done-It theorists have to put themselves through.

???

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Because Eric Lipton and James Glanz who agree with architect Bart Voorsanger that the one specimen contained molten steel, were not curious enough when they wrote their story back in January of 2002, to investigate that presence further.

Just four months after 9/11, when the existence of molten steel was still a commonly accepted belief, and the general public was unaware of theories about thermite or any other unusual possible causes.

Metallurgy is not a specialty in architecture MM. I have a Master's Degree in Architecture, and to expand on Animals' remark, forensically identifying metals that have been crumpled and melted by various on-site conditions is not among the materials we are taught or learned. If you're that desperate to cling to professional titles you should at least select an authority that is relevant.

All your hand waving and dodging fails to change the point that you have nothing but hot air to back up your feeble investigation and unsubstantiated conclusions.
MM

Yet again, your excerpt gave confirmation to exactly what I had pointed out all along; the "meteorites" are compressed floor slabs. Something you couldn't figure out on your own even when referencing the words of people who were on-site.

Now if you want to discuss molten steel and continue asserting their opinions are correct without proof, then you need to understand why they haven't investigated something so nefariously unusual in the samples which you claimed they recognized. You obviously think they were correct in observing melted steel, do you think they are correct in coming to a conclusion in which fire initiated a progressive collapse despite something so obviously unusual?

 

[NoahFence]

You don't read very well.

John Gross denied reports of molten steel, even though one of those reports was from Leslie Robertson himself.

Translation for our Terrists-Done-It friends: Yes, there were reports of molten steel. John Gross says there weren't. Who's right?

You don't understand very well.

Lets say for the sake of argument any of your above post was accurate -

It doesn't matter.

None of it can be used to prove controlled demolition. Period.

 

[ergo]

The John-Gross-video you link to includes several witness statements; every single one of them confirms that what these witnesses saw was NOT molten steel:
- 1:15 "molten steel running down the channel" - if the steel was molten, it would also melt and thus destroy the channel rails.

Because molten steel can't be poured?

- 1:28 "melted boots ... it's still 1100 degrees...". 1100 degrees is far below the melting point of steel. Workers could not walk on melted steel to get their boots melted

Wow. What a clumsy strawman.

- 1:45 "it's probably 1500 degrees" - that's more than 1000 degrees short of the melting point of steel

Because this witness was measuring the temperature of the molten pool? With what?

- 1:54 "it looked like an oven ... a bright bright redish orange color..." Red-orange glow is indicative of temperatures more than 1000 degrees below the melting point of steel

And there can be no gradients in a heat pile.

- 2:30 "NASA images..." these NASA images show temperatures far below the melting point of steel

With the points you made above, I'm guessing you can't figure out why this might be.

So Gross would be right, and speaking with competence, if he declared after examination of the "best" witness statements that none produced any indaction that there was in fact molten steel.

You just said they didn't investigate. John Gross says there were no reports. So why would he investigate?

Do you understand anything of what you're posting?

 

[Oystein]

I just clicked back through the dialogue on "moon-sized field of rubble," and had a nice chuckle. But, even then, ergo ignored the question for a couple of pages and several repostings, before posting his stundi-licious reply. I'm endeavoring to ignore this type of argument, but I can see why some of you still engage. And, as noted, I really have enjoyed some of these 9/11 discussions as a great tool to learn physics, chemistry, etc.

Yep, even resurrected a little trigonometry here and algebra there ^^

See how ergo is now hanging his hat on a journalist's ill-informed, shot-from-the-hip mistake published on 9/13/2001, that assumed the twin towers had re-inforced concrete cores

 

[ergo]

Oystein, are you also saying that Leslie Robertson was wrong?

 

[ergo]

a journalist's ill-informed, shot-from-the-hip mistake

Still not reading too well.

.... said structural engineer Chris Wise.

... construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed

 

[Oystein]

Because molten steel can't be poured?

Not so well fromn steel gadgets.

Wow. What a clumsy strawman.

If assuming that the witness reported molten or melting steel is a strawman, then I'll gladly admit it is a strawman.
Also glad that you admit the witness did NOT report molten steel.

Because this witness was measuring the temperature of the molten pool? With what?

Which molten pool? The witness does not mention a molten pool.
But glad you admit a witness could be wrong with his reports about hot things.

And there can be no gradients in a heat pile.

Sure there could be. Maybe it's cooler further below.
Thing is: The witness did not report molten steel.

With the points you made above, I'm guessing you can't figure out why this might be.

The points made are all the same: The witnesses did not report actual molten steel. All except the first didn't even mention molten steel, or conditions that could produce molten steel. Instead they reported conditions that are best interpreted as involving temperatures where steel cannot possibly be molten.

You just said they didn't investigate. John Gross says there were no reports. So why would he investigate?

Because there were no reports that actually indicate the possibility of molten steel.

Do you understand anything of what you're posting?

I do. You do, too. You troll. I drink tea.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, are you also saying that Leslie Robertson was wrong?

Yes.

 

[Edx]

You're kind of missing the point here. Oystein claims there were no reports of molten steel and that's why no one investigated. We know, in fact, that most reports of molten anything were reports of molten steel. POOLS of molten steel.

The reason why these were reported was because they're highly unusual.

If its so unusual then why can I find ENDLESS examples where people have reported melted steel in other fires?


There are countless examples like this:



"The heat of the fire that erupted when the tanker crashed melted the heavy steel girders supporting the overpass, causing it to sag about 7 feet toward"
-Bridge repair rushed
Connecticut Post - NewsBank - Mar 27, 2004

A fire in a wrecked chemical truck Friday caused an estimated million damage by melting bridge girders
-Truck Fire Burns Hole In Bridge .
Youngstown Vindicator - Dec 3, 1977

The massive six-alarm blaze caused by a construction accident, melted steel girders on nearby construction projects
-Massive Fire Engulfs Several Blocks .
Boca Raton News -May 20, 2000


"PITTSBURGH - A spectacular general alarm fire, its heat so intense that it melted steel girders, has destroyed a vacant warehouse in the city's Strip"
-Spectacular Fire .
Gettysburg Times Aug 9, 1975


"The fire, fueled by the undersea oil and gas the crewmen worked each day to harness, burned so hot it melted the steel girders. First the derrick collapsed"
-
DISASTERS STRIKE WORLDS APART OIL RIG
Miami Herald - July 8, 1988


How about fire experts?


" 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


The NFPA 921 advises not to attribute melted metals to an additional incendiary (like thermite), they are also trained to know what metals melt in fires. It also says that other metals dripping onto steel can make it look like the steel has melted.

22.3.3 Solid Fuels. Investigators should not interpret the presence of melted
metals to be an indicator of the use of an ignitable liquid as an
accelerant, in the belief that only an ignitable liquid can produce
sufficiently high temperatures. Common combustibles
and ignitable liquids produce essentially the same flame temperature.
Melting temperatures given in handbooks and in
this guide are for the pure metal, unless otherwise stated. In
many cases, alloys are used rather than the pure metal. The
melting temperature of an alloy is generally lower than that of
its constituents. The actual composition of a metal part and its
melting temperature should be determined before any conclusions
are drawn from the fact that it has melted. Accidental
alloying may occur during a fire. For instance, zinc may drip
onto a copper wire or tube and form a brass alloy, which melts
at a lower temperature than copper. Likewise, molten aluminum
can drip onto steel sheet metal, which can cause the
appearance of melting of the sheet steel. Some properties and
uses of solid fuels are given in Table 22.3.3"

-
NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations: (Screenshot)

 

[ergo]

Not so well fromn steel gadgets.

So a river of molten steel would cut through everything in its path, and would only flow vertically downward, and you could not possibly have rivers of molten steel?

So you, Oystein, are saying that Leslie Robertson was wrong?

If assuming that the witness reported molten or melting steel is a strawman, then I'll gladly admit it is a strawman.

I think everyone can see here what you wrote.

Thing is: The witness did not report molten steel.

Thing is, others did.

The points made are all the same: The witnesses did not report actual molten steel.

Fact: There were many reports of molten steel, including from Leslie Robertson. Why are you denying what is a well-documented fact? Especially when, according to EdX, reports of molten steel are "not remarkable" for highrise office fires?

 

[ergo]

If its so unusual then why can I find ENDLESS examples where people have reported melted steel in other fires?

CAN YOU SPEAK UP A BIT??!!? I can't hear you...

Also, you seemed to miss the word "highrise".

 

[Edx]

CAN YOU SPEAK UP A BIT??!!? I can't hear you...

Also, you seemed to miss the word "highrise".

Wow. Seriously wow.

Why would it make any difference whatsoever whether it was in a highrise. Does a high rise not contain any metal? Why wouldnt people make the same incorrect statement that there was melted steel?

The fire experts I quoted not only think steel melted, but that fire melted it.

 

[ergo]

Yes.

So, our tea-sipping armchair theorist says that he knows more about what Leslie Robertson, lead engineer for the WTC, saw for himself in the debris pile at Ground Zero.

Interesting. And saved for posterity.

 

[ergo]

The fire experts I quoted not only think steel melted, but that fire melted it.

So you think the steel did melt at the WTC?