Merged So there was melted steel

Shouldn't have been there, wouldn't have.... the OP assumes it was. It premises that indeed truthers are correct that molten steel and thermite were in the piles.

In this thread the movement is assumed to have proof that a conspiracy was afoot to demolish the towers.

Can they now show that the the molten steel that's not to be, and the thermite exotics were what brought the towers down?

Pretty simple idea if you ask me; all that's left to prove is whether or not the presence of these exotics is what actually caused the collapse.

Can anyone do this?
 
OCaptain said:
do you think firefighters can identify melted steel from melted aluminum or melted iron or melted copper from just looking at it?
Click to expand...

I think they're in a better position to judge than anonymous Internet posters. They've seen what fires can and cannot do. They've seen how metals melt in fires and what kinds of quantities are normal, and can extrapolate from that. I think if numerous firefighters are talking about seeing pools of molten whatever, melted beams, beams red hot, beams dripping with molten something, beams fused with other beams or debris, then it's something to take seriously. I don't think any of us here are in any position to say that their accounts must be "mistaken" somehow, and I don't know why so many of you here think you can.
 
GlennB said:
I strongly believe that reports of molten steel revolve around other metals being misidentified and/or people being naturally loose with their use of the word 'molten' (like Voorsanger) and/or (possibly) exaggerating for dramatic effect.
Click to expand...

Really? So all these people are wrong?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl was wrong when he said here: "... it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
 
Last edited:
Magic didn't melt materials

A) The Ground Zero Cross- Crushed, torn metal is misidentified 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


“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Click to expand...

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 interior glass aluminum framing, aluminum door 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 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, bent) and that material molten by known fire temperatures can be aluminum,copper and plastic.

 B) In underground coal fires temperatures can reach 1,700 C.
And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Of course you could argue that there are too many stories to be “explained away”, that there’s no way fire alone could account for all these reports. But if so, what about these?
Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm

RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Only “molten metal” and debris, but if that phrase is good enough in Keith Eaton’s testimony, why not here? Does this show that thermite was planted in Building 6, too? Or could it be that the fire was enough, after all?
Click to expand...
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

C)Appeal to Magic
Oystein said:
This theory is a multiple appeal to magic.

First of all, you fantasize about a "steady supply of un-ignited dust" - as if there was a mechanism that continually moved just the right amount of solif fuel to the hotspot, over the course of weeks, without interrruption. This in a chaotic, but largely steady debris pile. That's wishful thinking. buddy. Your magic: Dust is solid and liquid at the same time, and it moves wherever it's needed all by its own!
Secondly, you wish for nanothermite to do exactly what it is designed NOT to do: To burn slowly. The whole point of nano-sizing thermite is to make it burn a lot faster than regular thermite! Your magic: You make nano-thermite burn fast and slow at the same time!
Thirdly, there is a dissonance between keeping the hotspot just above 430°C, and having it hot enough to melt steel. Which is it? Your magic: The nano-thermite fire is fairly cool and extremely hot at the same time!
Fourthly, and that's what kills your theory: You want nanothermite, with its measly energy density of 1.5 kJ/g to keep burning and staying hot for weeks. This defies even the simplest considerations of thermodynamics. Even the best insulation in a debris pile could not do that, unless you have absolutely ridiculous amounts of the stuff at your disposal. Your magic: Little energy turns into great heat - You create energy out of nothing!
In short: With thermite, no matter how you turn it, you can't have it both ways: Burn it slowly over the course of weeks, and make it melt steel in the process.

I guess you will reject the points I raised, because you have zero understanding of the chemical physics and of thermodynamics behind them. You certainly don't have the faintest clue about why thermite can melt steel in the first place. You never grasped what energy density means, and how it relates to your problems. It is only because the science involved here is utterly foreign to you that you can, and must, believe in magic.

Clarke's third law applies to you, Miragememories: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Fire and insulation are, like falling things, technologies too advanced for you. You don't know where their science ends and your magic begins.
Click to expand...

~~~
​
1) We know that crushed, torn, bent metal can be misidentified as “melted” (liquid) as in the Ground Zero Cross, so that some reports of melted steel may be crushed, torn, bent, deformed metal.

2) We know that liquid steel, aluminum, copper, plastics can't be identified by sight alone, so that some reports of melted steel may be molten aluminum, copper, plastics which liquify at lower temperatures than steel.

3) We know that steel melts ~ 1,500 C and that in confined underground fires where heat builds up over time, temperatures can reach ~1,700 C, sufficiently explaining naturally occurring molten steel if any.

4) We know that molten metal and molten debris was reported under WTC 6 just as under the Towers and that this proves that molten materials at WTC have a natural explanation or that this building must be added to the Conspiracy.

5) We know that thermite in any form is unnecessary to explain any molten materials and impossible to have maintained materials in a liquid state over a period of two months.
 
Last edited:
So BasqueArch, you're arguing two premises at the same time?

1) The numerous reports of melted, molten, fused steel were likely incorrect.

2) Still, it's possible that steel melted under those conditions.

If it's possible that steel did melt under those conditions, enough to form molten rivers and pools, why would you argue that all the evidence that this occurred must be wrong? Do you understand why your arguments aren't that persuasive?
 
ergo said:
1) The numerous reports of melted, molten, fused steel were likely incorrect.
Click to expand...

Yes, likely incorrect just like the endless examples of the same kind of reports in other fires.

2) Still, it's possible that steel melted under those conditions.
Click to expand...

Thats because it is possible, though unlikely. A furnace is simply a well insulated fire.

You dont even have a theory for why there would be melted steel there. You decide to claim reports of melted metal and steel are abnormal when they are not.
 
Edx said:
Yes, likely incorrect just like the endless examples of the same kind of reports in other fires.
Click to expand...


So, Ed, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl was wrong when he said "... it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

He didn't see melting of girders in the World Trade Center?
 
ergo said:
If it's possible that steel did melt under those conditions, enough to form molten rivers and pools, why would you argue that all the evidence that this occurred must be wrong? Do you understand why your arguments aren't that persuasive?
Click to expand...

Why were none of the solidified pools reported? Did no one notice or are they in on it too? You have to admit, this would be noteworthy.
 
Edx said:
You dont even have a theory for why there would be melted steel there. You decide to claim reports of melted metal and steel are abnormal when they are not.
Click to expand...

Wait. You're saying that the reports are mistaken, but that melted and molten steel are not abnormal in fires.
 
ergo said:
So, Ed, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl was wrong when he said "... it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

He didn't see melting of girders in the World Trade Center?
Click to expand...

Probably not, just like all the other people in other fires i already showed you that said they saw melting girders. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
Why were none of the solidified pools reported? Did no one notice or are they in on it too? You have to admit, this would be noteworthy.
Click to expand...

I agree. Why weren't they? Where are the pictures of the solidified molten aluminum?
 
ergo said:
Wait. You're saying that the reports are mistaken, but that melted and molten steel are not abnormal in fires.
Click to expand...

Sigh

  • Yes the reports are mistaken, they probably did not see melted steel. Neither on 911 nor in the endless examples I gave you when people said it about other fires.

  • Melted metals is expected in fires. Yes. Many metals will melt in fires.

  • If there was melted steel, there are certain conditions that could cause steel to melt in such a fire and it is conceivable that the WTC rubble pile could potentially have fulfilled such conditions in certain areas. As I said, a furnace (where you can melt steel) is just a well insulated fire.

  • You have neither shown that we have reason to think there was melted steel from super high temperatures, nor a theory as to how that would be possible with thermite to create the effects you say were observed.
 
Last edited:
[uote=ergo;7853969]So BasqueArch, you're arguing two premises at the same time?

1) The numerous reports of melted, molten, fused steel were likely incorrect.
I've provided evidence of one report where the claim of molten steel and molten aluminum, and where this evidence can be examined and proves as I said that some, not all, others are likely to be wrong also.

2) Still, it's possible that steel melted under those conditions.
Yes in a natural fire, unaided by thermite, if underground temperatures reached 1,500 C, which we don't know, but natural evidence shows it is possible by fire alone.

If it's possible that steel did melt under those conditions, enough to form molten rivers and pools, why would you argue that all the evidence that this occurred must be wrong? Do you understand why your arguments aren't that persuasive?
You don't read good. I do not argue that steel did not melt, I can't know this by visual accounts alone. The melted material may have been aluminum, copper, plastics. fire temperatures below 1000 C would have caused this. I argue that if steel did melt, it was from natural causes, not thermite.
My arguments are persuasive to those that place reason above faith.[/uote]

I'm disappointed that you've disowned your Sephardi Laplander Cher signature I gave you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7658316#post7658316
You know that ergo spelled backwards is ogre.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
:eye-poppi


Wow.

And your expertise supercedes Astaneh-Asl's how?
Click to expand...

Dude read your own quote:

it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

Maybe the guy quoted him did not quote him accurately and did not put the word "no" in the last sentence. Because he just got done explaining that there was NO melting of steel girders, so is not accurate to say that steel melted, because he says no steel melted. The entire point he is making is that there was no melted steel so why would he then say that it did and contradict his entire point? It makes absolutely no sense. This is obviously a misquote.

Maybe also consider that he doesn't agree with you. How can he be such an expert to know that steel was definitely melted, but also too stupid to not know that only thermite is responsible? Sorry ergo, but he cant be an expert and an idiot at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Maybe the guy quoted him did not quote him accurately and did not put the word "no" in the last sentence. Because he just got done explaining that saying there was NO melting of steel girders, so is not accurate to say that steel melted because no steel melted. The entire point he is making is that there was no melted steel
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

"No melted girders" where? Did you even look at the link? No, you didn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom