Merged So there was melted steel

[Orphia Nay]

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

Thanks very much!

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
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.

1st Rule of Conspiracism: Contradictory evidence just means that the evidence is fake or planted. The Conspiracy is even larger and more powerful than we thought.

2nd Rule of Conspiracism: Those who refuse to believe are either stupid, cowardly, or are part of the Conspiracy.

 

[ozeco41]

...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.

Actually, if you "cook off" ammo the cartridge case moves further than the bullet.

This person who I will not name tried playing formal tests of physics with AU/UK style 303 rounds - cordite propellant- circa 1956. Drilled a hole in the case. Extracted a piece of cordite. Laid round on a flat surface and lit the cordite with a match.

The bullet travelled a couple of yards. The case hit the fence ten yards the other way and bounced back.

Debriefing after the event suggested two reasons:
1) the weight of bullet similar to or more than weight of case. BUT
2) The propellant would be mostly burned after the case/bullet separated. And the case with much still unexpended "fuel" has a focussed rocket nozzle at one end.

So rocket action rather than initial imparted momentum.

I cannot remember:
A) Who the 15 yo young fellow was;
B) How he acquired the samples of .303 Mk vii ball;
C) Whether he was a military cadet;
etc etc

 

[Mark F]

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

So have I. In fact I used it just last week on a Truther who responded:

This is my final message to you as people with your ability to reason sicken me. Hopefully you will see the light.

 

[ergo]

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.

There are lots of pictures of melted and severely heat-deformed steel. There are numerous testimonials. There are the early media reports. There are the expert testimonials. There is the documented evidence of extreme heat on and in the pile.

What evidence or testimonials do you have to the contrary? Zip.

Why would you seek to deny it?

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?

Why do you need to think the witnesses are mistaken? Why do you not believe in melted steel in the WTC rubble?

And yes, this could end the thread if you'd just explain why you have such doubt about it - given zero evidence or testimonials on your side. Indeed, what knowledge or authority are you citing that would suggest there was no, or couldn't be, any melted steel at the WTC disaster site? I don't understand what your argument is, because you're not stating it.

 

[ergo]

A layperson could easily describe this as "molten steel"

I'm a layperson and I would call it melted aluminum, because it has an obvious aluminum colour and sheen to it. And because I've seen melted aluminum before, like many other laypeople have -- not to mention how many firefighters and ironworkers have as well. Duh.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933GswlHPoA&t=1m55s

 

[Orphia Nay]

So have I. In fact I used it just last week on a Truther who responded:

This is my final message to you as people with your ability to reason sicken me. Hopefully you will see the light.

You and your reason!

 

[JSanderO]

...
And yes, this could end the thread if you'd just explain why you have such doubt about it - given zero evidence or testimonials on your side. Indeed, what knowledge or authority are you citing that would suggest there was no, or couldn't be, any melted steel at the WTC disaster site? I don't understand what your argument is, because you're not stating it.

I don't accept it because I've not seen any bizarre shaped ingots recovered... and I would see no reason why or how they could be spirited away and kept from the evidence record.

One would and could expect very high temps as a RESULT of the collapse... creating a chemical soup, with water heat and pressure and fire. There are exothermic reactions out there and no reason to not consider the the collapse gave rise to them in places under the pile.

 

[NoahFence]

There are lots of pictures of melted and severely heat-deformed steel. There are numerous testimonials. There are the early media reports. There are the expert testimonials. There is the documented evidence of extreme heat on and in the pile.

What evidence or testimonials do you have to the contrary? Zip.

Why would you seek to deny it?




Why do you need to think the witnesses are mistaken? Why do you not believe in melted steel in the WTC rubble?

And yes, this could end the thread if you'd just explain why you have such doubt about it - given zero evidence or testimonials on your side. Indeed, what knowledge or authority are you citing that would suggest there was no, or couldn't be, any melted steel at the WTC disaster site? I don't understand what your argument is, because you're not stating it.

Can you cite a known controlled demolition that resulted in molten steel?

No?

kthxbai.

 

[ergo]

I don't accept it because I've not seen any bizarre shaped ingots recovered... and I would see no reason why or how they could be spirited away and kept from the evidence record.

What have you seen?

How do you know they weren't found?

 

[DGM]

There are lots of pictures of melted and severely heat-deformed steel. There are numerous testimonials. There are the early media reports. There are the expert testimonials. There is the documented evidence of extreme heat on and in the pile.

There are pictures of melted steel? Where?

I've seen evidence and reports of high temperatures, I don't doubt that.

What evidence or testimonials do you have to the contrary?

I heard a report of a fright train in a tornado report, strange no one came out to disprove that either.

Zip.

What would you expect, it's not really all that important how people describe things, especially if it really has no significance.

Why would you seek to deny it?

I don't care either way.

Why do you need to think the witnesses are mistaken? Why do you not believe in melted steel in the WTC rubble?

You only think I need this. I don't believe in ghosts or UFOs. I just don't think it's likely.

And yes, this could end the thread if you'd just explain why you have such doubt about it - given zero evidence or testimonials on your side. Indeed, what knowledge or authority are you citing that would suggest there was no, or couldn't be, any melted steel at the WTC disaster site? I don't understand what your argument is, because you're not stating it.

There's lots of evidence against it. I just ask for proof and can't believe anyone would bother covering it up (like you do). Why do you need there to be molten steel?

 

[LSSBB]

What have you seen?

How do you know they weren't found?

Why should anyone assume they were found?

 

[DGM]

What have you seen?

How do you know they weren't found?

For someone who claims it has no significance, you really seem to need it to be. You even go as far as to suggest there's a cover-up to hide its existence.

Why do you need these statements of "molten steel" to be true so bad as to make up a conspiracy to support the reports?

 

[NoahFence]

What have you seen?

How do you know they weren't found?

Molten steel proves controlled demo exactly as much as a puddle of melted chocolate.

Just so you know.

 

[jaydeehess]

What have you seen?

How do you know they weren't found?

Just as we do not know if the reports of molten steel in fires (and specifically in this fire) are true or not, we know only that no solidified , previously molten blobs of steel have been displayed as having been found and that there are NO reports that they were despite the hundreds of personell on site from day one.

However, if you wish to invent reasons why none have been displayed, other than that which would support the null hypothesis, feel free to let your imagination run rampant. Just don't expect people who use reason and logic to assume your paranoid fantasy to be more probable.

,,,,,,,,,, and then ,,,,,,,

There is that niggling issue of how molten anything in the rubble fires indicates anything as to the cause of the collapses in the first place...........??

 

[dafydd]

I'm a layperson

I would never have guessed.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually, if you "cook off" ammo the cartridge case moves further than the bullet.

This person who I will not name tried playing formal tests of physics with AU/UK style 303 rounds - cordite propellant- circa 1956. Drilled a hole in the case. Extracted a piece of cordite. Laid round on a flat surface and lit the cordite with a match.

The bullet travelled a couple of yards. The case hit the fence ten yards the other way and bounced back.

Debriefing after the event suggested two reasons:
1) the weight of bullet similar to or more than weight of case. BUT
2) The propellant would be mostly burned after the case/bullet separated. And the case with much still unexpended "fuel" has a focussed rocket nozzle at one end.

So rocket action rather than initial imparted momentum.

I cannot remember:
A) Who the 15 yo young fellow was;
B) How he acquired the samples of .303 Mk vii ball;
C) Whether he was a military cadet;
etc etc

Good point and quite obvious once thought through,,,, and not pertinent to the thrust of my post.

,, and to further the train of thought. It reminds me of being at the weather station , Mould Bay, in the mid-80's. We used to go out around the bergy bits in the bay with an old boat we found. At first we paddled until the mechanic found and restored a small outboard motor. Juuusssst in case we took along one of the old Canadian Forces rifles we had on base.
.303 Enfeild bolt action single shot. I figured that IF a polar bear did decide to check us out I was not pulling the trigger until I could I could count his teeth, and that is where I would aim. I figured on no second chances.

 

[tsig]

Molten steel proves controlled demo exactly as much as a puddle of melted chocolate.

Just so you know.

IIRC so does the absence of commodes.

 

[ozeco41]

Good point and quite obvious once thought through,,,,

...my interest excusable given the failures at basic physics I have been confronting on other threads.

... and not pertinent to the thrust of my post.

..I'm easily led astray.

Youa culpa Mea culpa.

My equivalents to your bears are about feral/wild pigs. But.....