Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[ergo]

There is zero empirical evidence for molten steel.

This is incredible. How do you think the steel in the images above acquired their shapes?

Now, if your standard of evidence is simply that someone reports seeing molten steel, then you MUST accept that molten steel is fairly ordinary. Because we can produce many such accounts outside 9/11.

Your call. Either anecdotal reports are 'da bomb' and 'da troof', or they're not.

What bedunkers typically sweep under the rug on this topic is that qualified people reported this. Engineers, firefighters, metal workers. People who know what they're looking at.

Moreover, witness testimonies seem to be all 'da bomb' for you folks when you try to insist, every few months, that WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire, based on zero visual evidence and a handful of firefighter testimonies.

Empirical science shows that these fx are possible at temps of ordinary, standard fires.

Wrong. What you've done, and what bedunkers typically do to argue most points on 9/11 is, you've taken some data from the extreme edges of what's possible scientifically on almost any given 9/11 anomaly, and extrapolated "normal" behaviour from it, when in fact it's highly abnormal - requiring specific conditions that you merely hope might have been available on 9/11. And then you speculate. Speculation is not "empirical" evidence.

Just like your insistence that steel-framed highrises collapse from fire all the time. No, they don't. Outside of 9/11 we've only ever seen partial failure. We have never seen global collapses from fire, let alone from asymmetrical damage, let alone complete destruction in under 15 seconds, let alone two buildings in an identical fashion and a third one in a related fashion, in one day.

Defending the official story requires intellectual contortions of a magnitude that most credible scientists will not engage in. Real scientists recognize, when you have to stretch the truth that far, there's something very wrong with your theory. And the official story requires a whole connection of these stretched-beyond-credibility theories.

That's why you have so few people on your side using their real names. Outside of NIST, any time you get a qualified person defending your version of events, you also get equivocation or an expression of fairly serious doubt.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is incredible. How do you think the steel in the images above acquired their shapes?

Longitudinal compression while red hot. Not one piece of the steel "melted."

What bedunkers typically sweep under the rug on this topic is that qualified people reported this. Engineers, firefighters, metal workers. People who know what they're looking at.

And not a one of them calls those squiggles of steel "melted."

Moreover, witness testimonies seem to be all 'da bomb' for you folks when you try to insist, every few months, that WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire, based on zero visual evidence and a handful of firefighter testimonies.

Total horse crap. It would help if you learned the same dialect of English that the grown-ups are using here. A fire fighter looking at the existing photos of WTC 7 would call it "totally involved." Now stop quibbling.

 

[GlennB]

This is incredible. How do you think the steel in the images above acquired their shapes?

Crushed, obviously. Possibly after being softened in the fires.

Clearly none of them represents molten steel that has re-solidified.

Pehaps you have a different understanding of the word 'molten' than the rest of us?

 

[Christopher7]

On the floors that were hit by the aircraft and set on fire. The sheetrock had been blown off. All those exhaust products from the fires are going to go somewhere. Usually, they go up.

This is stuff that you can watch happening on the video from the event, assuming you know the first thing about structural fires.

It is a given that the elevator shafts were open on the floors where the planes hit but we are talking about the chimney effect noted in the letter. The elevator shafts above the floors where the planes hit were not breached. There was nowhere for the smoke and fire to exit so could be no chimney effect.

You failed to figure out the obvious. The smoke and fire went up thru the air ducts which open on every floor.

 

[DGM]

It is a given that the elevator shafts were open on the floors where the planes hit but we are talking about the chimney effect noted in the letter. The elevator shafts above the floors where the planes hit were not breached. There was nowhere for the smoke and fire to exit so could be no chimney effect.

You failed to figure out the obvious. The smoke and fire went up thru the air ducts which open on every floor.

Did you miss the broken windows on the crash floors?

 

[ergo]

Longitudinal compression while red hot. Not one piece of the steel "melted."

"Compression" while red hot, eh? How does that create the forms we see on the previous page?

And not a one of them calls those squiggles of steel "melted."

Actually, most of them do. That's why those quotes have been compiled.

 

[ergo]

Crushed, obviously. Possibly after being softened in the fires.

Oh, and now we have "crushed" steel, by Glenn B!

Sorry, this is a digression.

Too funny!

 

[Edx]

"Compression" while red hot, eh? How does that create the forms we see on the previous page?

Were these melted by thermite too Ergo?

 

[ergo]

Not even remotely the same, EdX.

 

[Christopher7]

Why has nobody come forward with a picture of even one gob of once-molten-now-congealed steel?

When we present one you refuse to believe it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395

You will now recite from the deniers playbook "But Voorsanger is an architect, what does he know?" He probably heard that from a qualified person but he doesn't have to be an expert to see that the meteorite is the result of melting steel, your denial notwithstanding.

 

[Sunstealer]

Ergo has just proven why use of the word "molten" is so unreliable in the case of the WTC disaster. He's used it to describe formed steel that was not in any liquid state (because it wouldn't retain it's form which you can clearly see even post deformation) yet claims exactly that just because he doesn't understand what happens to steel when it's heated. If only mankind had a science dedicated to this sort of thing we would know so much more

The trolling on this site is at levels I've never seen before.

 

[Sunstealer]

Not even remotely the same, EdX.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg[/qimg]

Use paint or another image manipulation software and use arrows to point to where you think the steel has melted in that photo. Also show your reasoning as to why you think it has in that area. I love the way the jpg is labelled notmeltedsteel too.

 

[Christopher7]

I've linked to both USA Today and 911myths stating there were breaches on multiple floors, meaning air from those floors was drawn into the shaft. I've linked this twice now. Here's 911myths, and here's USA today.

"Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes."

There were no breaches in the elevator shafts above the plane impacts so there could be no chimney effect.

"The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts."

This is speculation that gives amazing powers to the destructive powers of kerosene. He gives no sources. It's just the overactive imagination of a writer.


"Then I saw a fireball come down the elevator shaft and blew the elevator doors. The fireball came right at me; it was a really bright color.”

This guy has x-ray vision? If not, he could not see the fireball coming down the elevator shaft. Not to mention that the floor he was on was already on fire so it could not have been jet fuel that blew the doors off the elevator. It could only have been an explosive going off.


A survivor in the basement: “I saw a big bright orange color coming through the basement with the smoke ... A fire ball came shooting out of the basement door.”

I did the math:
10,000 gal of kerosene. About half burns up in the fireball or is soaked up by building contents.
That leaves ~5,000 gal divided by 40,000 sq ft = ~1 pint per sq ft.
That works out to about 12 1/2 gal down a 10'x10' shaft 1,000 feet high. That's 100,000 cu ft. The kerosene would have burned up long before it reached the basement. That fireball in the basement was NOT jet fuel.

 

[Christopher7]

Use paint or another image manipulation software and use arrows to point to where you think the steel has melted in that photo. Also show your reasoning as to why you think it has in that area. I love the way the jpg is labelled notmeltedsteel too.

Steel does not go from solid to liquid instantly. First it looses its shape. This is called slumping and that is what we see in the photo, not compression.

 

[Edx]

Not even remotely the same, EdX.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg[/qimg]

Doesnt look like it was molten to me, it looks compressed. You see all that twisted steel in the pictures? Now imagine them being compressed over weeks and weeks and weeks. Thats what happens to steel when it gets soft and it gets soft way before its melting point.

 

[Christopher7]

Doesnt look like it was molten to me, it looks compressed. You see all that twisted steel in the pictures? Now imagine them being compressed over weeks and weeks and weeks. Thats what happens to steel when it gets soft and it gets soft way before its melting point.

Great photos. What is the source of those photos? What kind of building and what was in it?

Molten is when something starts to loose its shape under force of gravity. That lightweight steel framework you posted was technically molten when it bent like that.

 

[000063]

"Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes."

There were no breaches in the elevator shafts above the plane impacts so there could be no chimney effect.

Prove it.

"The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts."

This is speculation that gives amazing powers to the destructive powers of kerosene. He gives no sources. It's just the overactive imagination of a writer.

You mean these sort of accounts, linked on the 911 myths page? Also, incredulity.

"Then I saw a fireball come down the elevator shaft and blew the elevator doors. The fireball came right at me; it was a really bright color.”

This guy has x-ray vision? If not, he could not see the fireball coming down the elevator shaft.

He's speaking ex tempore and you know it. There's a difference between reaching conclusions you based on evidence but didn't see personally, (explosion in elevator shaft, fire on floors above, ergo the fire came down the elevator shaft) and being inaccurate. We both know the explosion went down the shaft, so you're just nitpicking.

Not to mention that the floor he was on was already on fire so it could not have been jet fuel that blew the doors off the elevator.

That doesn't follow. If a floor is on fire, a jet fuel explosion from the elevator shaft is impossible?

Call your local fire station or the nearest fire science department and ask them if it's possible, since you automatically gainsay Lefty and Tri. You won't, because you don't look for evidence if you think it might prove you wrong, like many Truthers.

It could only have been an explosive going off.

To what end? The elevator shafts were not critical structural elements. And why didn't this explosive kill him at that range, or cause hearing damage? A fireball has much different effects on people than an actual explosive, notably the lack of Barotrauma, which no Truther has ever been able to find significant evidence of on 9/11.

A survivor in the basement: “I saw a big bright orange color coming through the basement with the smoke ... A fire ball came shooting out of the basement door.”

I did the math:
10,000 gal of kerosene. About half burns up in the fireball or is soaked up by building contents.That leaves ~5,000 gal divided by 40,000 sq ft = ~1 pint per sq ft.
That works out to about 12 1/2 gal down a 10'x10' shaft 1,000 feet high. That's 100,000 cu ft. The kerosene would have burned up long before it reached the basement. That fireball in the basement was NOT jet fuel.

How about something being set on fire and plunging into the basement? Like, perhaps, an elevator?

And who says that particular explosion was even from the jet fuel, instead of the lots of other things that got set on fire all over the place? Do you have anything that actually supports the highlighted portions, or are you just speculating based on your math? Such as an opinion from someone versed in fire science?

Was it an explosive that blew up in the basement? An explosive in a shaft with an elevator crashing? Or was it on the elevator itself? Who planted it? How might it have been it triggered? Remote, wire, both? If remote, how was it done in the middle of a steel tower where even the firefighters had trouble operating? And why did it go off long before the towers fell?

Bottom line; multiple breaches on multiple floors, giving the fires at the crash sites plentiful sources of air, even if, hypothetically, explosives were responsible for said breaches. Your hand-waving actually introduced more problems for your theory, such as it is.

 

[Edx]

Great photos. What is the source of those photos? What kind of building and what was in it?

Molten is when something starts to loose its shape under force of gravity. That lightweight steel framework you posted was technically molten when it bent like that.

Uuuuh no.

In that case you just debunked yourself, you dont need impossibly high temperatures to make metal "molten".

You can make "molten steel" in a normal camp fire if you use your definition.



Steel loses half its strength at 650°C. Apparently you call this "molten". wow.

 

[Oystein]

Molten is when something starts to loose its shape under force of gravity.

Great. I consider doing a short personal video where I "melt" steel with my arse. No, not by farting extremly hot gasses. Simply by sitting on it and letting gravity do the rest.

Do I have to?

 

[beachnut]

Oh, and now we have "crushed" steel, by Glenn B!

Sorry, this is a digression.

Too funny!

A web page created by an idiot, shows you bent steel that was in an office fire and says melted steel and you jump, you post, you repeat lies. The steel is not melted. The steel failed in fire, and was messed up while hot due to E=mgh, which is physics and your moon size debris pile of woo can't comprehend, steel, physics, fire, and reality.

The ability to recognize melted steel may be like an ability to do physics; impaired.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
A good indication why you think this web site by a paranoid conspracy theorists show melted steel.
http://federal23.wordpress.com/

Only a troll posts a web page that debunks their claims. The page you posted is delusional claptrap; better copy it, as soon as the idiot figures out reality, the page will be gone. The sources cited, debunk your implication of thermite. You make self-debunking posts, and you don't know it, and you don't care as you post stupid claims based on vaporized delusions.


This is not melted steel.
http://federal23.wordpress.com/ Better get a copy, when this the idiot who posted the references to debunk you wakes up to reality, the page will be gone. The many entries debunk your claims.
This is not melted steel.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteela.jpg
It has been in the largest office fire in history, but it did not melt.

This steel is not melted, it failed. The same!@

Not even remotely the same, EdX.

[URL]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg[/URL]

You don't know what melted means, kind of like your failure in science. You failed, if you call this melted steel. It never got hot enough to melt. You are gullible.

The photos on this web page are not melted steel, they are photos of steel that was hot, proof the fires in the WTC did it. There is no sign of thermite damage. http://federal23.wordpress.com/

If you had proof of thermite, you would have a Pulitzer Prize. It really is that simple. You have on proof, you have lies, hearsay, and delusional opinions. You don't live in a real world, you think posting at JREF is more than typing practice; and you are wrong. Troll on great physics guru for 911 truth, unable to connect the dots, because you have no dots to connect.

"Extreme temperatures" were required to "volatize and vaporize lead". These were words RJ Lee used. Then in their Very Clear explanation to Ron Wieck they also speculated about "blast-furnace-like" temperatures, reminding us of the speculated "chimney" effect of the core structures.

Why would they bother with that if iron reduction processes can create these same microspheres with as little as 900 C ?

Experts say the things seen in the dust are due to the office fires at the WTC towers, and you can't comprehend it.
If all else fails, the mineral wool used at the WTC made before 1970 has lead already on it.
You are debunked by your own post, and history of mineral wool. A double fail for you, which you can't comprehend, so you troll on. At least read NIST so you can quote-mine and cherry-pick some new nonsense.

Lead in Mineral Wool Insulation
"Mineral wool insulation manufactured before 1970 has been found to have lead particles. According to industry sources, lead slag is no longer used in the manufacture of mineral wool, although lead can be ... http://www.haz-map.com/leadfact.htm http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_v/otm_v_3.html

Used on the first how many floors?