Merged So there was melted steel

[DGM]

It is fun to watch the lengths ergo will go to avoid stating how any of this supports a "truthers" belief.

Could it be it doesn't and they only use it to continue the argument with no hope of progress?

 

[LSSBB]

So you're equating beliefs about angels in heaven with reports of melted steel in the WTC rubble? Why?

Would you similarly doubt reports of burnt carpet or dismembered bodies? Would that be akin to claiming there were unicorns in the pile?

By reports, are you speaking of eyewitness accounts?

 

[ergo]

I've said before I'm not married to the nanothermite hypothesis.

But this thread is not about thermite. It's about the presence of melted steel in the WTC rubble. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Given the number of reports of melted steel in the pile, the evidence of extreme temperatures - both at surface and beneath - and the absence of any evidence or testimonials to the contrary, why would 9/11 bedunkers doubt the reports of melted steel, and spend so much time trying to seed doubt about it?

 

[ergo]

By reports, are you speaking of eyewitness accounts?

Reports include eyewitness accounts, yes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are there eyewitness reports anywhere that legitimately raise doubts about the presence of melted steel at the WTC?

Not my concern, not anyone else either... People saw what they say and they are either verified or the aren't. You've gone through extreme lengths to assume they've been verified despite the lack of verifying evidence.

Lots of information about 9/11 is not availabl to the general public.

Why would you need the reports corroborated?

If that's your complaint it's not good enough. Use the information that IS available... you found dozens of reports from weeks after the collapse, yet you seem to have incredible difficulty finding similar reports from the same day, or during the event. You haven't looked at any testimony from the people who actually survived the collapse while still inside the buildings... Why are you concerned about information availability? There's plenty of it, make use ad make your case go on... stop stalling

Do you have any scientific basis upon which to doubt reports of melted steel at Ground Zero?

We have specific basis that even if it was thermite, you can't draw a proper link to it's contribution to the collapse. You haven't specified how thermite would activate spontaneously after several weeks without an ignition source, or how it could burn uninterrupted for that length of time... there is no known documentation showing failure of the columns through heat cutting... Do you think that might be problematic to your "theory"? Aren't you interested in verifying?

So you don't believe there was melted steel at the pile?

The question is, if we take that at face value, how does it prove a collapse caused by it? Does anything exist that corroborates it? You'll find something if so...


This whole issue is about what? 10 years old... as old as the conspiracy itself? I think it's your turn to explain what you believe the evidence is in detail and/or how whatyou've stated as evidence already makes the case. Do tell... I'll help you....


You have a bunch of witnesses that reported molten/melted steel/metal... between 3 weeks and 9 weeks after the buildings fell.... let's assume for giggles it's all pointing to a grand conspiracy... Now, to what extent does this support the jump to "thermite cut steel inside the buildings after planes crashed into them causing collapse and progressing them?"

Let's go a step further... I'll even give that these guys somehow got it all packed in without being noticed by anyone and it was all ready for ignition. How many people reported seeing a bright fireworks display inside the towers when they werr hit by the aircraft and set ablaze? How many people who called 911 while trapped above the impact zones reporting bright sparks and glowing metal running through the floors? How many people reported burns because they ran into a white hot spark stream?

I'll bet that after granting all the unlikely conditions you'll just blow the question off and not answer it...

 

[LSSBB]

Reports include eyewitness accounts, yes.

Is that all the reports include, or do they also include corroborating evidence, like photos, coroner reports, physical samples, and so on?

 

[beachnut]

Lol. "Source" unavailable information. That's bedunker thinkin' for you.

Baby talk and no source. Not surprised you can't list or source your claims. Like the physics you have, total nonsense. This is the best 911 truth has, followers who repeat without end lies, and support the lies calling people baby names. The best, 12 years of lies and failure.

I've said before I'm not married to the nanothermite hypothesis.

But this thread is not about thermite. It's about the presence of melted steel in the WTC rubble. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Given the number of reports of melted steel in the pile, the evidence of extreme temperatures - both at surface and beneath - and the absence of any evidence or testimonials to the contrary, why would 9/11 bedunkers doubt the reports of melted steel, and spend so much time trying to seed doubt about it?

What was the temperature, and source the temperature.

You can't source anything, or give a number for the temperature. big fail, and baby talk are coming

No sources, no numbers. Standard nonsense from 911 truth.

 

[LSSBB]

Baby talk and no source. Not surprised you can't list or source your claims. Like the physics you have, total nonsense. This is the best 911 truth has, followers who repeat without end lies, and support the lies calling people baby names. The best, 12 years of lies and failure.

Hey, it keeps people talking. Or is that the only point?

 

[Spanx]

Nobody else has problems understanding this, but you seem to, so why don't you do some research?

It's looking like you are the only one having a problem understanding this

Here is some research for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0kWya_oVC8&feature=youtube

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've said before I'm not married to the nanothermite hypothesis.

In that case I have to wonder why then you consider the reports so significant. I honestly don't care what you think was most likely but I think it would benefit you to actually figure out what it is you think the evidence points to... You'll get no convictions for anything otherwise...

 

[DGM]

I've said before I'm not married to the nanothermite hypothesis.

Fair enough. (although I've never actually seen anything even approaching a hypothesis)

But this thread is not about thermite. It's about the presence of melted steel in the WTC rubble. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Again, fair enough. Just out of curiosity, in that case would you support it being moved out of "conspiracy theories" and into something else?

Given the number of reports of melted steel in the pile, the evidence of extreme temperatures - both at surface and beneath - and the absence of any evidence or testimonials to the contrary, why would 9/11 bedunkers doubt the reports of melted steel, and spend so much time trying to seed doubt about it?

This is the problem. Besides the eyewitness reports there is no evidence of molten steel. You keep saying there is but in reality there is not.

If you want to believe there is, fine. For me, I think the witnesses were mistaken (not that it matters).

Does this end the thread?

 

[Robrob]

This is the problem. Besides the eyewitness reports there is no evidence of molten steel. You keep saying there is but in reality there is not.

If you want to believe there is, fine. For me, I think the witnesses were mistaken (not that it matters).

I agree. When a layperson describes something as "molten steel" there is no way to tell what they actually saw. Was it still liquid or previously a liquid now a solid? Was it actually steel or was it some other metal?

Not to mention, the ability of an unshielded person to stand close to a 2750°F "pool of molten steel" is slim to none.

A layperson could easily describe this as "molten steel" when it is actually a previously melted and now solidified aluminum car rim.

How much aluminum do you think there might have been in a modern skyscraper full of ceiling tile supports, wiring, computers, telephones, etc...

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Reports of "molten steel" from other fires, going back to the 1908 destruction of the Parker Building by fire (which involved a major internal collapse), present a real problem for Truthers.

Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I'm a fool, but if I were a troofie, I'd have done in-depth interviews with anyone who claims to have witnessed molten steel at the Twin Towers, years ago.

Why?

Let's run through a scenario, shall we? You're trying to achieve your big dream of an independent investigation of 9-11, and you've found a newly-elected, earnest, open-minded Congressman or Senator who is receptive. (In a few years, you'll be finding Representatives who were just kids in 2001, and don't have very good memories of 9-11.) You show him this YouTube which has been circulating for years amongst the truthers.

You then show him this YouTube and explain how that's molten iron pouring from the building and it can't be aluminum because aluminum is silvery:



Now, he's really getting interested, and tells you to come back in a few days. Success at last!

You come back a few days later, and the Representative tells you that he did a quick bit of research and found out that the firefighter in the YouTube video is Phil Ruvolo, now retired, and that he contacted him.

Mr. Ruvolo said that in that video, he was using a double present narrative, that what he actually saw was solidified metal that had dripped down, he doesn't know if it was actually steel, it wasn't even in the Twin Tower rubble, but was underneath WTC 6, that no truther had ever contacted him for clarification, and that he thinks truthers are idiots, and he especially resents them for misrepresenting what he was saying.

The Representative also contacted a metallurgist and a fire science engineer.

The metallurgist explained that molten aluminum can indeed be yellow, as seen in this YouTube:

The fire science engineer explained that reports of "molten steel" are common in fires, but not one has ever been verified. Instead, witnesses were describing red-hot solid metal, or steel that had sagged or bent, but not melted, or metals other than steel that had melted.

The Representative tells you that he's not going to waste his precious time fishing through the rest of Truther Lore looking for gold coins in a garbage dump, that he considers the matter closed, and please don't contact him anymore.

It slowly sinks in that you have blown the opportunity of a lifetime, and that you are a complete idiot because you never did any research other than watching YouTube videos.

Is that a good enough reason?

 

[The Platypus]

1st of all, It's well known that eyewitness reports are not totally reliable. Especially in chaotic situations.

2nd of all, 9/11 cult followers are not even going on just the witness reports, they are going with quotemines spoonfed to them, which twist the reports totally out of context.

9/11 cult followers see no need to verify anything, because they are happy to just go along with what they are told to believe. And to think, they call everyone else sheeple...

 

[Dog Town]

Fair enough. (although I've never actually seen anything even approaching a hypothesis)

We so...need an extended index finger tapping on tip of nose, repeatedly smilie (emoticon)! Can anyone make that?

 

[Orphia Nay]

OK, this is new to me, but an old, old story of "molten" steel from conventional fires - Sherman's neckties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_neckties

Sherman's neckties were a railway-destruction tactic used in the American Civil War. Named after Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army, Sherman's neckties were railway rails destroyed by heating them until they were malleable and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees. Since the Confederacy had limited supplies of iron, and few foundries to roll the rails, this destruction was very difficult to repair. They were also called Sherman's bow ties,[1] Sherman's hairpins or Jeff Davis hairpins.
The neckties were created in accordance with an explicit order from Sherman in his Atlanta Campaign, dated July 18, 1864:

“ ... twisting the bars when hot. Officers should be instructed that bars simply bent may be used again, but if when red hot they are twisted out of line they cannot be used again. Pile the ties into shape for a bonfire, put the rails across and when red hot in the middle, let a man at each end twist the bar so that its surface becomes spiral."

http://marygilmartin.wordpress.com/...eckties-american-civil-war-1861-1865-georgia/

 

[Animal]

OK, this is new to me, but an old, old story of "molten" steel from conventional fires - Sherman's neckties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_neckties



http://marygilmartin.wordpress.com/...eckties-american-civil-war-1861-1865-georgia/

[qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Twoof/sherman-necktie-bent-copy_zpse60dfbdf.jpg[/qimg]

I have been using this clip for years to debunk claims by troofers that the steel would conduct the heat away before the steel would lose strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

 

[carlitos]

Let's run through a scenario, shall we? You're trying to achieve your big dream of an independent investigation of 9-11, and you've found a newly-elected, earnest, open-minded Congressman or Senator who is receptive. (In a few years, you'll be finding Representatives who were just kids in 2001, and don't have very good memories of 9-11.) You show him this YouTube which has been circulating for years amongst the truthers.

You then show him this YouTube and explain how that's molten iron pouring from the building and it can't be aluminum because aluminum is silvery:



Now, he's really getting interested, and tells you to come back in a few days. Success at last!

You come back a few days later, and the Representative tells you that he did a quick bit of research and found out that the firefighter in the YouTube video is Phil Ruvolo, now retired, and that he contacted him.

Mr. Ruvolo said that in that video, he was using a double present narrative, that what he actually saw was solidified metal that had dripped down, he doesn't know if it was actually steel, it wasn't even in the Twin Tower rubble, but was underneath WTC 6, that no truther had ever contacted him for clarification, and that he thinks truthers are idiots, and he especially resents them for misrepresenting what he was saying.

The Representative also contacted a metallurgist and a fire science engineer.

The metallurgist explained that molten aluminum can indeed be yellow, as seen in this YouTube:

The fire science engineer explained that reports of "molten steel" are common in fires, but not one has ever been verified. Instead, witnesses were describing red-hot solid metal, or steel that had sagged or bent, but not melted, or metals other than steel that had melted.

The Representative tells you that he's not going to waste his precious time fishing through the rest of Truther Lore looking for gold coins in a garbage dump, that he considers the matter closed, and please don't contact him anymore.

It slowly sinks in that you have blown the opportunity of a lifetime, and that you are a complete idiot because you never did any research other than watching YouTube videos.

Is that a good enough reason?

 

[LSSBB]

It slowly sinks in that you have blown the opportunity of a lifetime, and that you are a complete idiot because you never did any research other than watching YouTube videos.

I doubt anything will sink in, that would take a level of self-awareness not exhibited in the Truthers remaining in this forum. Instead, the representative will be deemed to have been either "in on it" himself, ala Obama, or have been forced by the powers that be to not acknowledge the Truther wisdom, ala Ron Paul.

 

[jaydeehess]

I have mentioned before that in the late'70's I helped clean up after a friend's family cabin burned to the ground when a forest fire ran through the area. The cabin contained several firearms and I discovered the remains of a .22 cal rifle. It looked OK other than the stock had burned away completely. In my innocence I asked if it could be repaired. The owner told me that the steel was ruined, changed due to the heating. Sure enough I then found that I could bend this rifle barrel, with my bare hands, into a 'U' until the ends passed each other. ,,,,, and this was days after the OK was given to go into the area, everything was stone cold.
Larger items, such as bedframes , were twisted, bent, garbage. Nails that were not bent could be bent by one hand. The cabin had no plumbing, nor electrical, so no melted copper, but aluminum pots had disappeared

No evidence of thermite or explosives (there may have been bullet holes in nearby trees from ammo cooking off but the trees were as absent as the timbers that the cabin had been constructed of.