Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[beachnut]

That was Beachnut renaming the image. I certainly hope you're not getting your opinions from the names of jpegs.

You call bent steel subjected to office fires and the energy greater than 130 2,000 pounds bombs in the form of a collapsing buildings kinetic energy, melted. E=mgh. You are wrong, and your fantasy world can't handle it. You can't do physics, you can't recognize melted steel.

You don't know what melted steel looks like.
Your posted web page had photos of steel, bent, not melted.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg
This steel did not melt. You have a fantasy, you can't comprehend reality.

C7,

This photo is proof 911 truth will say anything about evidence without evidence to back the claim.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/2214/moltensteelincrabclawcr.jpg
could be wood (wood product), metal, could be steel with junk falling off, burning junk, like wood, coals, anything - 911 truth calls it melted steel and offers zero chemical analysis, only simile. All you have is, simile.

 

[Edx]

Actually, benzene was the accelerant in this one. And if you read from the first page, the girders apparently turned white hot.

okay, well theres lots more in my post and more still since I just bored copying and pasting links. Im sure you're smart enough not to agree with Chris on this..... right?

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not sure what to think of that image. It actually looks better as a close up, like you have here. It looks a little more fake farther away.


But why do these images not indicate melting?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcd.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111notmeltedsteelabcde.jpg


How realistic is it that these could be formed at the red-hot stage of steel deformation?

It's a matter of semantics. If a steel beam is folding, it is flowing, however slowly, so "technically" it's molten. But molten is normally used to describe metal that is visibly flowing or dripping.

 

[NoahFence]

Actually, benzene was the accelerant in this one. And if you read from the first page, the girders apparently turned white hot.

You choose 1 sample and try to pick on that. What a shock. get a new hobby

 

[ergo]

Okay, it is possible that they were just a bit cooler. Some of it shows cracking from stress.

I don't see cracking, and I'm suggesting that temperatures above red hot would be needed to cause the steel to gloop like that.

Astaneh-asl suggests the same in his oft-cited comment, comparing WTC steel (before the collapse, in this case) to Salvador Dali melted clocks: " -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

 

[NoahFence]

It's a matter of semantics. If a steel beam is folding, it is flowing, however slowly, so "technically" it's molten. But molten is normally used to describe metal that is visibly flowing or dripping.

There are simply no words in the english language to describe how stupid that was. I'll get back to that post after I learn a language with appropriate words.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't see cracking, and I'm suggesting that temperatures above red hot would be needed to cause the steel to gloop like that.

Astaneh-asl suggests the same in his oft-cited comment, comparing WTC steel (before the collapse, in this case) to Salvador Dali melted clocks: " -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

since when did he describes the steel before the collapse?

 

[beachnut]

I don't see cracking, and I'm suggesting that temperatures above red hot would be needed to cause the steel to gloop like that.

Astaneh-asl suggests the same in his oft-cited comment, comparing WTC steel (before the collapse, in this case) to Salvador Dali melted clocks: " -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
Good for you, you debunked melted steel again, and you don't have any idea how. Like the sixth sense, the move, but dead is clueless.

Actually, benzene was the accelerant in this one. And if you read from the first page, the girders apparently turned white hot.

Oops, jet fuel has more heat energy than benzene. Do you look up anything before you fall into the pit of ignorance, posting it.

 

[ergo]

It's a matter of semantics. If a steel beam is folding, it is flowing, however slowly, so "technically" it's molten. But molten is normally used to describe metal that is visibly flowing or dripping.

Yes, and we're not seeing fused metal in these images, I don't think. But I think the word "melted" is appropriate here, in the sense that the steel has deformed liquidly. It's not bent, and it's not mere warping. It is tripled up on itself like sheets of liquid chocolate.

eta: Or maybe I mean liquid fudge.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, and we're not seeing fused metal in these images, I don't think. But I think the word "melted" is appropriate here, in the sense that the steel has deformed liquidly. It's not bent, and it's not mere warping. It is tripled up on itself like sheets of liquid chocolate.

It weakened, severely, and deformed due to the weight it was supporting. That is obvious. Get a new hobby.

 

[beachnut]

It weakened, severely, and deformed due to the weight it was supporting. That is obvious. Get a new hobby.

He/She is defining damage due to fire, and wants to call it melted steel. ergo is the typical super-nano 911 truth Follower-Self-Debunker.

 

[NoahFence]

He/She is defining damage due to fire, and wants to call it melted steel. ergo is the typical super-nano 911 truth Follower-Self-Debunker.

You ever wonder if steven jones regrets making that stupid thermite
comment?

 

[Christopher7]

These people used the words "running", "streams" and "river" but you all have a playbook of reasons not to believe the preponderance of evidence that there was molten/melted steel/iron. You think know so much better than the people who were there.

[COLOR=#d8d7777]“When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled off a big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing.” –Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, speaking at Stanford University, April 2002[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#d8d7777]“Going below, it was smoky and really hot…The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.” — Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer, LERA [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#d8d7777]“The heat was so intense we encountered rivers of molten steel.” [/COLOR]-— NYFD firefighter, recorded in documentary film, “The First 24 Hours”

[COLOR=#d8d7777]“We descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.” —William Langewiesche, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#d8d7777]“You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.”—Philip Ruvolo, Captain, FDNY, documentary “Collateral Damages”, 2003[/COLOR]

“…in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” —William Langewiesche, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center

All quotes from AFTER the collapse and thus irrelevant to the cause of the collapse.

That is the kind of hand wave NIST does, like not looking for explosive residues because they don't expect top find any. You cannot assume that it had nothing to do with the collapse until the investigation is finished. A real investigation looks at all the evidence and considers al the possibilities. Molten metal weeks after the event is a clear sign of thermite.

This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile. That is why government loyalists vehemently deny all evidence of molten steel/iron.

 

[000063]

You got this from "Loose Change". I think your losing it.

His mind, the argument, or both?

...But I think the word "melted" is appropriate here, in the sense that the steel has deformed liquidly...

Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary.

 

[beachnut]

...
This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile. That is why government loyalists vehemently deny all evidence of molten steel/iron.

You have no evidence, and call bent broken steel melted. You are delusional.

 

[LSSBB]

Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary.

Adding that to my sig, it's great!

 

[Christopher7]

It seems that most of you have nothing better to do than post childish insults.

 

[000063]

That is the kind of hand wave NIST does, like not looking for explosive residues because they don't expect top find any.

Wrong. There was no evidence of explosives, and bomb-sniffing dogs had already been over the scene.

You cannot assume that it had nothing to do with the collapse until the investigation is finished. A real investigation looks at all the evidence and considers al the possibilities. Molten metal weeks after the event is a clear sign of thermite.

So there is no possibility it is not? Funny how all of the possibilities does not include the ones you don't like.

This is really what the iron spheres debate is about. There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres or molten steel/iron in the debris pile. That is why government loyalists vehemently deny all evidence of molten steel/iron.

Except that we're not. We think that the presence of molten steel is unprovable, and thus irrelevant until that changes. What with it being physically impossible to distinguish molten steel from any other metal or lots of other molten things by eye, even if one is a trained metallurgist. Doesn't matter if they were there or not.

We also think that the presence of iron microspheres does not necessarily indicate the presence of thermite. Can you find three posts in this thread that deny the presence of iron micospheres?

You've got nothing but unproven assertions that even your source disagrees with. Even if you disregard the letter, Lee and the Lee group do not think the iron microspheres were evidence of thermite.

It isn't ignoring the "technically" when the statement Basquearch quoted did not actually have "technically" in it. In fact, your second statement, about the beam "technically" being molten, is only valid if we accept your earlier statement about the definition of molten as true in the first place.

It is also incorrect, as several posts distinctly quoted the "technically" sentence.

Disprove the first statement, and the second is automatically incorrect. Since your first statement has been proven incorrect--and I'll bet you can't produce a single non-Truther that agrees with your definition of "molten"--whether the second had "technically" or not is irrelevant.

It's also rather hypocritical from someone who keeps ignoring me.

 

[beachnut]

You ever wonder if steven jones regrets making that stupid thermite comment?

I think his motives are political, Jones (seems like he) doesn't care if his claims are lies. Ends, justify the means.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It seems that most of you have nothing better to do than post childish insults.

And you have nothing better to do than post moronic bovine excreta.....