Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

No, we don't.

The premise of the OP is that there Is molten steel, why are you helping derail the thread?

I am discussing the OP at the same time, if you notice.

Unless you put the whole thing in perspective as I am trying to, its really an even more pointless argument than it already is. We already saw what happens when you don't with TMD and MM.

 

[Robrob]

Ok, I am going to have to plead ignorance on what I am about to post. It seems like it should be a given, but, as stated before, my education stopped after high school heh.

Since, not if, there was melted steel due to extremely hot fires, wouldn't that melted steel also cause other steel to melt? It seems dumb to ask once I read it, but I'm going to anyway.

Not that I am equating wood to steel, but when you throw more wood on a fire it burns and burns quicker. I was just curious if SOME of those characteristics would transfer. If steel was melted, if that steel would retain so much heat it could transfer it on, etc, etc.

I understand your points however what this topic is doing is serving as a soapbox for the Truthers who have looooong insisted there was "molten metal" at the WTC to explain what it is they think "molten metal" indicates.

It's just cutting to the chase, which is why none of them will answer.

 

[Travis]

Yep. this is the "for argument's sake" thread. Interesting none of the CT types have been able to follow up on that point. It's almost as if their entire argument is based on claiming things without having a logical explanation for the who/what/when/where/why.

This is exactly why I started this thread. This entire molten steel thing just looked like it was a good example of Truthers looking for unusual things and stating they help their case without ever laying out why they help their case.

It's like saying Mike Doe is innocent of murder because of the strange Olmec head in his basement without ever explaining how the Olmec head is related to the murder at all.

In this case molten steel needs to be connected with a MIHOP scenario to have any relevance. Then it needs to be proven that the only way it can exist is through that MIHOP scenario. Otherwise it is just a strange, but irrelevant, novelty. Like the Olmec head in the basement.

 

[Robrob]

It's like saying Mike Doe is innocent of murder because of the strange Olmec head in his basement without ever explaining how the Olmec head is related to the murder at all.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ignoring the fact that this question has already been answered several times...

It was? In a manner that is based in sound science? how did I miss that?

 

[Oystein]

So here is your question in a nutshell.

Why is it more likely that it's a result of some thermitic action than a furnace effect?

No, that is only one small sub-part of the question, but I'll let that pass for the moment.

I don't have the knowledge to answer that.

Thanks for admitting this. Your post and your participation in this thread ought to have stopped right there, unless you'd go only on to kindly ask us to educate you.

But what answer are you hoping for here?

Well, an explanation that accounts for the whole time interval from buildings standing unscathed through collapse through post collapse to the time weeks after the collapse when, supposedly as per the OP, molten steel was observed. You need to explain how the same agents that you think caused the collapse also caused steel to be molten weeks later, through means that would not have existed in the collapse scenario that NIST describes.

If someone tells you that active thermitic compounds were found in WTC dust, you're just going to say "No they weren't!" and then we're back to a number of other idiotic threads on this forum.

One has to question the intelligence of people who insist on answers they have no intention of accepting.

Saying "active thernitic compounds were found" is not an answer to the question. It neither answers how the collapse was initiated, nor does it answer how steel was molten wees later, nor does that non-answer address ther problem of what happened in the weeks in between.

All this quite apart from the fact that, in reality, no active thermitic material was found - that paper is garbage, it's conclusions total Non Sequiturs.

Your time would be better spent answering how a furnace effect could be created in a debris pile which received an estimated 4 million gallons of water in its first 10 days alone.

No. There is no need to explain every quirk. Especially since it is not us who in fact assume there was molten steel. You are the ones who are convinced there was molten steel, so you need to have an explanation for that; we are here for the moment only granting you your conviction - we don't actually share it. The burden of proof is squarely on you.

 

[Oystein]

So let's sum up the thread so far:

1) The reports of melted steel didn't really mean melted steel. They meant melted other metals or steel that wasn't really melted.
...

Already false, and a derail.

This thread assumes as a given that there was molten steel.

Stop the derailing. Answer the OP.

 

[Oystein]

Another way to sum up is:

There was no melted steel in the debris pile.
...

Again, you start out wrong.

Again, we assume in this thread, there was molten steel. Full Stop. Period.

Explain it!

 

[Oystein]

No we have to make it clear that its still unlikely that there was melted steel, the point being that even if there was it wouldnt have to point to thermite, which is what this thread IS about. Not pointing this out is giving them to much credit.

And besides, that is what this thread has been about. It may not have been the OP, but that is what this thread has been about.

Too subtle. I, too, wish you would drop it. Let's give them as much molten steel as the can gather.

They still can't explain it.

This will be clearer the more liberally we grant then all the molten steel in the world.

 

[Oystein]

Ok, I am going to have to plead ignorance on what I am about to post. It seems like it should be a given, but, as stated before, my education stopped after high school heh.

Since, not if, there was melted steel due to extremely hot fires, wouldn't that melted steel also cause other steel to melt? It seems dumb to ask once I read it, but I'm going to anyway.

Not that I am equating wood to steel, but when you throw more wood on a fire it burns and burns quicker. I was just curious if SOME of those characteristics would transfer. If steel was melted, if that steel would retain so much heat it could transfer it on, etc, etc.

No, you are completely wrong. Burning and mere heat transfer are very different in how they change temperature. Burning infuses ever more heat into a system.

You don't really believe that a small amount of steel would melt more steel, and then more steel, untill all the steel has melted? Would a drop of molteb streel melt a ton? Obviously not.

When molten steel meets solid steel, the two exchange temperature - the hot liquid cools, the cooler solid heats up, and they meet somewhere in between. If the solid was near melting point already and the liquid was well above melting point, then the solid might melt, too, but if the solid was cool, the liquid will much more likely solidify.

And that's the whole problem here: You can't keep steel molten for a long time, because it will meet cooler materials everywhere and thus cool down till it gets solid. It loses more heat by radiation, even without contact. So to keep steel molten for weeks on end, you need to add heat by burning stuff more or less continually for weeks on end. Could thermite do that? Short answer: No - it burns too quickly, or not at all, and it contains much too little energy per mass unit.

 

[tsig]

Your opinion is unqualified and thus total garbage.

It is nothing more than the reflection of a desperate ego clinging to a hope that some Leclede primer paint might be discovered.

MM

Since we're granting you there was molten steel , rivers, lakes and streams of it, what does that prove?

 

[DGM]

Since we're granting you there was molten steel , rivers, lakes and streams of it, what does that prove?

That's why they need a "new investigation". This has never happened before after the collapse of two 110 story buildings, therefor Bush/Cheney had to have something to do with it.


Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

(I hope this helped with your understanding)

 

[plague311]

No, you are completely wrong. Burning and mere heat transfer are very different in how they change temperature. Burning infuses ever more heat into a system.

You don't really believe that a small amount of steel would melt more steel, and then more steel, untill all the steel has melted? Would a drop of molteb streel melt a ton? Obviously not.

When molten steel meets solid steel, the two exchange temperature - the hot liquid cools, the cooler solid heats up, and they meet somewhere in between. If the solid was near melting point already and the liquid was well above melting point, then the solid might melt, too, but if the solid was cool, the liquid will much more likely solidify.

And that's the whole problem here: You can't keep steel molten for a long time, because it will meet cooler materials everywhere and thus cool down till it gets solid. It loses more heat by radiation, even without contact. So to keep steel molten for weeks on end, you need to add heat by burning stuff more or less continually for weeks on end. Could thermite do that? Short answer: No - it burns too quickly, or not at all, and it contains much too little energy per mass unit.

Alright, that makes sense. Hence why I ask LoL.

 

[triforcharity]

Your opinion is unqualified and thus total garbage.

MM

Says another unqualified nobody. Just like your architect that you keep trouting out like he's some kind of authority on metallurgy.

 

[twinstead]

Your opinion is unqualified and thus total garbage.

It is nothing more than the reflection of a desperate ego clinging to a hope that some Leclede primer paint might be discovered.

MM

Well. Then find some real experts, and ask them their opinions. Go down to your local university and take a poll. Are you afraid to find out what the rank-and-file real experts think, or have you already rationalized in your mind why the vast majority of them will disagree with you?

 

[Miragememories]

Since we're granting you there was molten steel , rivers, lakes and streams of it, what does that prove?

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

That's why they need a "new investigation". This has never happened before after the collapse of two 110 story buildings, therefor Bush/Cheney had to have something to do with it.

Therefor?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Alright, that makes sense. Hence why I ask LoL."

Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Well. Then find some real experts, and ask them their opinions. Go down to your local university and take a poll. Are you afraid to find out what the rank-and-file real experts think, or have you already rationalized in your mind why the vast majority of them will disagree with you?"

The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

They have been found.

We know what they think.

It is your masked (nun's habit), non-experts, making unsupported declarations based on their wishful thinking that I have a problem with.

MM

 

[DGM]

The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

They have been found.

We know what they think.

It is your masked (nun's habit), non-experts, making unsupported declarations based on their wishful thinking that I have a problem with.

MM

And this has what to do with this thread? Anything to escape the fact you can't show that "molten steel" has no effect on the "official story".