Merged So there was melted steel

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Bart Voorsanger, Structural Engineer

According to Miragememories, he's an architect. Which one of you is correct?

 

[Edx]

The other thing about the apparent "blase" attitude of engineers, EdX, you're forgetting that the original official story tried to explain the melted steel. I've linked to this BBC article a lot, in which structural engineer Chris Wise "explains" why the steel melted, but he is not the only one in the profession who speculated on melted steel columns.

Good grief. The man says that fire caused the steel to melt, read the article! He makes the same error in the same way that other people and experts have made hundreds of other times before.

Remember?

" 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

Was Fire Chief Rouveyrol in on a conspiracy to "explain" the melted steel? Was that an inside job as well?

"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

Or this one. Was Fire Coordinator Louis Seyle covering up the use of thermite here as well? Trying to make it seem like fire melted the steel?

Chris Wise in that article you posted says that jet fuel melted the steel. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. ". So Wise either never really meant that steel actually melted, or he is not an expert or he is a liar and in on the conspiracy.

You say these people are experts enough to know theres melted steel, but they dont seem to have any idea that this is suspicious or points to something like thermite. They cannot be an expert if they are also incompetent at the same time! By definition, they are then not experts!

EDIT:

Oh and I am well aware that people like Chris Wise talked about melted steel before truthers started the meme that melted metal/steel = thermite. But articles of the sort you just posted (Chris Wise) was never suspicious, because as I told you, it is COMMON for people to say these exact things in other fires and so we expect to see the same things on 911. What he said is therefore not remarkable or abnormal. It is expected.

 

[Montag451]

Good grief. The man says that fire caused the steel to melt, read the article! He makes the same error in the same way that other people and experts have made hundreds of other times before.

Remember?



Was Fire Chief Rouveyrol in on a conspiracy to "explain" the melted steel? Was that an inside job as well?



Or this one. Was Fire Coordinator Louis Seyle covering up the use of thermite here as well? Trying to make it seem like fire melted the steel?

Chris Wise in that article you posted says that jet fuel melted the steel. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. ". So Wise either never really meant that steel actually melted, or he is not an expert or he is a liar and in on the conspiracy.

You say these people are experts enough to know theres melted steel, but they dont seem to have any idea that this is suspicious or points to something like thermite. They cannot be an expert if they are also incompetent at the same time! By definition, they are then not experts!

EDIT:

Oh and I am well aware that people like Chris Wise talked about melted steel before truthers started the meme that melted metal/steel = thermite. But articles of the sort you just posted (Chris Wise) was never suspicious, because as I told you, it is COMMON for people to say these exact things in other fires and so we expect to see the same things on 911. What he said is therefore not remarkable or abnormal. It is expected.

Did you not know the definirion of a truther expert is anyone who agrees with them?

 

[A W Smith]

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."

?
he saw but he didn't photograph it?? WHY??

 

[ergo]

Chris Wise in that article you posted says that jet fuel melted the steel. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. ". So Wise either never really meant that steel actually melted, or he is not an expert or he is a liar and in on the conspiracy.

It would help if you could read before opening your pie-hole. I provided the proper quote for you right here. How many mistakes is that you've now made in this one thread alone?

EdX, you need to stop talking like you know more than structural engineers, and a whole bunch of other folks, about what they saw or their opinions of what they saw. You don't know more. You know much, much less.

 

[GlennB]

It would help if you could read before opening your pie-hole. I provided the proper quote for you right here. How many mistakes is that you've now made in this one thread alone?

EdX, you need to stop talking like you know more than structural engineers, and a whole bunch of other folks, about what they saw or their opinions of what they saw. You don't know more. You know much, much less.

In which Wise is quoted as saying : "There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. The columns would have melted ..."

Which is clearly wrong, so Edx is correct. Wise has made a mistake of some kind, either in his knowledge of fire temps/steel's melting point or in his useage of the word "melted".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

In which Wise is quoted as saying : "There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. The columns would have melted ..."

Which is clearly wrong, so Edx is correct. Wise has made a mistake of some kind, either in his knowledge of fire temps/steel's melting point or in his useage of the word "melted".

I love it when twoofers debunk themselves like that. Reading for comprehension must have been another class they slept through..........

 

[Edx]

It would help if you could read before opening your pie-hole. I provided the proper quote for you right here. How many mistakes is that you've now made in this one thread alone?

EdX, you need to stop talking like you know more than structural engineers, and a whole bunch of other folks, about what they saw or their opinions of what they saw. You don't know more. You know much, much less.

Sorr ergo, I gave you the quote.

But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. - CHRIS WISE

Chris Wise said that in that exact article you posted that jet fuel melted the steel. Even the quote you posted he is talking about how fire weakened and then melted the steel.

Exactly what do you think Chris is saying? Exactly what is the point of you quoting this article?

If he really thinks that fire and jet fuel melted the steel, and he doesnt actually mean something else when he says melts, then EVIDENTLY is not much of an expert in what melts in fires and you cant use him as an appeal to authority to prove anything at all.

 

[plague311]

It would help if you could read before opening your pie-hole. I provided the proper quote for you right here. How many mistakes is that you've now made in this one thread alone?

EdX, you need to stop talking like you know more than structural engineers, and a whole bunch of other folks, about what they saw or their opinions of what they saw. You don't know more. You know much, much less.

Bolding is mine. I'm sorry, this is a legitimate question.

Ergo, this might be known by others, or you might have stated it before, but what exactly is your background? I mean as far as experience\knowledge in the fields of structural engineer, controlled demolition, fire prevention\fighting, or aviation?

I am not trying to be rude, pretty much. I will be the first to say I have absolutely 0 education in any of these fields. I am just curious as to your knowledge so I know how much stock to put into what you say. Also, if you make claims to people stating that they shouldn't talk like they know more than other people than why do I see you do it all the time?

 

[tsig]

I don't know, DGM, why don't you ask him. Right now I'm just trying to establish that there were many, many credible reports of melted or fused steel, molten steel, rivers and pools of molten metal in the debris.

This seems to be a real cognitive block for you guys.

Pics or it didn't happen.

One picture of a block of congealed steel would solve this.

 

[ergo]

Sorr ergo, I gave you the quote.

But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. - CHRIS WISE

Chris Wise said that in that exact article you posted that jet fuel melted the steel. Even the quote you posted he is talking about how fire weakened and then melted the steel.

The ACTUAL quote. From the ACTUAL ARTICLE:

The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

Hyman Brown said it. GOT IT NOW??

 

[ergo]

Ergo, this might be known by others, or you might have stated it before, but what exactly is your background? I mean as far as experience\knowledge in the fields of structural engineer, controlled demolition, fire prevention\fighting, or aviation?

Your question is irrelevant. I'm not pretending to know more than the engineers and other eyewitnesses about what they saw, or what conclusions to draw from it. EdX is.

 

[Oystein]

Is my perception right that pretty muchg everybody is currently arguing if, and the reasons why, there was or wasn't molten steel? Then all of you is simply off-topic.

I don't understand this.

The OP and the title of this thread make it clear: We assume there was molten steel. PERIOD.
If you want to argue that there wasn't molten steel, this thread is not for you. Get out of it and instead go to an appropriate thread.

Please demand that ergo answer the OP: Why is molten steel weeks after the collapse evidence of a malicious intent to destroy the towers? You must stop arguing the validity of reports of molten anythings, accept as premise of this thread that there was molten steelm and press truthers to fill the huge gap between that premise, and their conclusion of - well whatever they conclude. Of intentional demolition.

Why do you allow truthers to set the agenda and dance around a topic that is NOT the thread's topic? Why do you waste your and everybody's time with foolish debate?

Do not present them with facts.
Do not explain what really happened.

Just let them hypothesise away, and keep asking the question: What does it prove? What's your theory? What's your reasons?

 

[ergo]

The OP and the title of this thread make it clear: We assume there was molten steel. PERIOD.
If you want to argue that there wasn't molten steel, this thread is not for you. Get out of it and instead go to an appropriate thread.

Fair enough. I'll start a new thread.

 

[plague311]

Your question is irrelevant. I'm not pretending to know more than the engineers and other eyewitnesses about what they saw, or what conclusions to draw from it. EdX is.

No, my question isn't irrelevant. Several experts, (NIST reports, Popular Mechanics, among several other papers) have proven that WTC fell due to planes hitting them at 500+ mph, loaded with gas that started fires weakening the steel and causing them to collapse.

Am I wrong? Have or have not peer reviewed papers by experts in their field proven that this is a sound theory as to what happened?

So just by stating that their is a conspiracy, which you firmly believe, is saying that you know more than engineers. Once again, I would like to know your knowledge in these fields to find out if your abilities hold any weight.

Am I misinformed in thinking that the temperatures, as a result from the fires and the time it burned, were not enough to melt steel?

 

[Oystein]

Fair enough. I'll start a new thread.

Why?
I am sure we already have several threads that discuss reports of "molten" whatevers. All the answers have already been given.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why?
I am sure we already have several threads that discuss reports of "molten" whatevers. All the answers have already been given.

He hoping that one day the answers will be different and then he won't have to face the reality that he is stupid and/or ill educated and/or insane........its kind of sad really. Being dumb and not even knowing it must be tough.
Some of us get to College etc and pass exams, get and hold meaningful jobs that show us that we are smart, well educated and successful but what does a sad soul sitting in Moms basement do? Blame "them" for why they are failures or face up to the reality that its themselves that are responsible.

 

[Edx]

The ACTUAL quote. From the ACTUAL ARTICLE:



Hyman Brown said it. GOT IT NOW??

Sorry yes, that quote about jet fuel was from someone else... and so what? My point is still exactly the same and Chris still said what I said he said about fire melting steel.

It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning... "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

-
CHRIS WISE

So Chris thinks fire destroyed the buildings and melted the columns.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire

-
Hyman Brown

So Hyman thinks that jet fuel fires would have melted the steel.

They both say that fire and jet fuel melted the steel.

And.... you think this means what? What could you possibly be taking away from this?

• Are they experts or are they incompetent?
  
  
• Are they in on a conspiracy and trying to convince people of something you think unqualified amateurs easily understand can't be true?
  
  
• Why don't they see anything strange or suspicious about melting steel?
  
  
• In fact, why do they seem to think fire easily melts steel?
  
  
• Why is it they talk about melting steel and beams in the exact same way as can be found in hundreds of other occasions in other fires?

 

[beachnut]

The ACTUAL quote. From the ACTUAL ARTICLE:



Hyman Brown said it. GOT IT NOW??

Yes, you are saying fires destroyed the WTC. Fire and gravity. Your "evidence" says fire and gravity did it.

 

[twinstead]

Sorry yes, that quote about jet fuel was from someone else... and so what? My point is still exactly the same and Chris still said what I said he said about fire melting steel.



-
CHRIS WISE

So Chris thinks fire destroyed the buildings and melted the columns.




-
Hyman Brown

So Hyman thinks that jet fuel fires would have melted the steel.

They both say that fire and jet fuel melted the steel.

And.... you think this means what? What could you possibly be taking away from this?

• Are they experts or are they incompetent?
  
  
• Are they in on a conspiracy and trying to convince people of something you think unqualified amateurs easily understand can't be true?
  
  
• Why don't they see anything strange or suspicious about melting steel?
  
  
• In fact, why do they seem to think fire easily melts steel?
  
  
• Why is it they talk about melting steel and beams in the exact same way as can be found in hundreds of other occasions in other fires?

It pretty much shows just how ludicrous this entire line of debate is. When "so what?" is all it takes to shut down somebody in a debate, maybe it's time to rethink ones position. Just sayin', ergo.