• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged So there was melted steel

jaydeehess said:
Well, they were in fact working the site. Did they have to avoid those areas that showed up as hotspots. You state that this temp of 1300F was recorded at the surface. Was it, or was it an estimated below surface temp? Yes, I know it was an IR reading. However, if people worked on those spots then they were not at 1300F on the surface.
Click to expand...

It would help if you could read the post I was referring to. Noah's "proof" that there were no steam explosions is that there would have been no one working on the pile in that case. I am pointing out to him that the pile was worked on even with 1,300 F hotspots on it.

In fact, you have no idea whether there were steam explosions or not. There were accounts of molten steel exploding when it was brought to the surface.

And no, people were not working on top of 1,300 F hotspots. :boggled:
 
ergo said:
It would help if you could read the post I was referring to. Noah's "proof" that there were no steam explosions is that there would have been no one working on the pile in that case. I am pointing out to him that the pile was worked on even with 1,300 F hotspots on it.

In fact, you have no idea whether there were steam explosions or not. There were accounts of molten steel exploding when it was brought to the surface.

And no, people were not working on top of 1,300 F hotspots. :boggled:
Click to expand...

,, and perhaps you should think about what molten steel implies.
As I mentinoed above:
apparently we have a hot liquid, molten steel, running to a low point in the rubble. Oddly enough we also have thousands of gallons of water being poured on the rubble which one would assume, would also run down to the low points in the rubble. But no steam explosions
Click to expand...

You are correct though, I should have said "no reports of underground explosions continuing for days after the collapses".

(ETA: or do you believe that no one would notice such steam explosions because they were under the rubble?)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
It would help if you could read the post I was referring to. Noah's "proof" that there were no steam explosions is that there would have been no one working on the pile in that case. I am pointing out to him that the pile was worked on even with 1,300 F hotspots on it.

In fact, you have no idea whether there were steam explosions or not. There were accounts of molten steel exploding when it was brought to the surface.

And no, people were not working on top of 1,300 F hotspots. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Hotspots are different from explosions.

I'll gladly work on an area with "hotspots". I'll avoid them like the plague. Explosions can't be avoided because you don't know where and when they'd be coming from.

again...


THINK

And I know why you avoid answering my questions. Because they don't contain technical jargon that you can (poorly) manipulate. They contain common sense. That is the Achilles heel of you conspiracy theorists. When confronted by it, you run like the wind.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Hotspots are different from explosions.

I'll gladly work on an area with "hotspots". I'll avoid them like the plague. Explosions can't be avoided because you don't know where and when they'd be coming from.
Click to expand...


Hint: they'd be coming from the hotspots.

THINK.
 
jaydeehess said:
,, and perhaps you should think about what molten steel implies.
Click to expand...

It's not I who needs to think about this. It was the 9/11 bedunker movement that spent years trying to falsify or outright deny reports of molten steel in the rubble. Now that you realize you can no longer do that, the tactic has switched to "So what??" Lol.

This shows you understand the significance of the presence of molten steel in the pile. Otherwise you would not have spent so much time trying to deny it.


You are correct though, I should have said "no reports of underground steam explosions ..."
Click to expand...

Now you're starting to post with accuracy. And since you put so little stock in eyewitness accounts anyway, you really have nothing here, do you?
 
ergo said:
It's not I who needs to think about this. It was the 9/11 bedunker movement that spent years trying to falsify or outright deny reports of molten steel in the rubble. Now that you realize you can no longer do that, the tactic has switched to "So what??" Lol.

This shows you understand the significance of the presence of molten steel in the pile. Otherwise you would not have spent so much time trying to deny it.




Now you're starting to post with accuracy. And since you put so little stock in eyewitness accounts anyway, you really have nothing here, do you?
Click to expand...

If it matters so much, then tell us what you think the molten metal means. Are there other demolitions that burn for weeks and have molten metal in the debris pile that we don't know about? Or are you arguing about a detail that doesn't matter in the slightest?
 
kid meatball said:
If it matters so much, then tell us what you think the molten metal means. Are there other demolitions that burn for weeks and have molten metal in the debris pile that we don't know about? Or are you arguing about a detail that doesn't matter in the slightest?
Click to expand...

Nah, he's just doing the typical truther dishonesty thing.
 
ergo said:
It's not I who needs to think about this. It was the 9/11 bedunker movement that spent years trying to falsify or outright deny reports of molten steel in the rubble. Now that you realize you can no longer do that, the tactic has switched to "So what??" Lol.
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof of temperatures hot enough to melt steel?

No?

Sorry. No molten steel. It's that simple.

Supposed positive visual identification of "molten steel" is proved to be incorrect because temperatures needed to melt steel did not exist.
 
NoahFence said:
The one with the firefighters peering into the abyss, or the one with the molten steel not melting the steel equipment it's attached to?

:D
Click to expand...

A quantum superposition of both, until you observe it, in which case it becomes whichever one you don't observe.
 
ergo said:
It's not I who needs to think about this. It was the 9/11 bedunker movement that spent years trying to falsify or outright deny reports of molten steel in the rubble. Now that you realize you can no longer do that, the tactic has switched to "So what??" Lol.
Click to expand...
Really? While I have doubted the existance of molten steel, for reason that have been posted here so many times, I do not believe that I have ever tried to deny reports of molten steel in the rubble. I do recall that for at least a few years now I and others have asked along the lines of;"so what if there was, what does it indicate?". To a resounding silence for the most part.
One would think that the question is insignificant.

This shows you understand the significance of the presence of molten steel in the pile. Otherwise you would not have spent so much time trying to deny it.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: (deserves no better response)


You are correct though, I should have said "no reports of underground steam explosions ..."
Click to expand...
Now you're starting to post with accuracy. And since you put so little stock in eyewitness accounts anyway, you really have nothing here, do you?
Click to expand...

Really? More specious arguementation?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that 'rivers' or 'streams' of molten anything (steel, aluminum, fire fighter's water) must, in the earth's gravity well, proceed to low spots in the rubble,,,ie. "underground'".
Given that such places are "underground", if an explosion occured there just how would one make the determination that it was a steam explosion? You are of the ilk that assumes that sounds described as 'explosions' must be considered as having occured due to high explosives. Yet here we have a situation which should have produced quickly expanding water vapour, ie. steam explosions, and if they were to have occured, in an unseen area under the surface of the rubble, you guys would have been all over this as proof of 'left over' explosives.

I know of no reports of such explosions though,,,,,,, do you?
 
NoahFence said:
The one with the firefighters peering into the abyss, or the one with the molten steel not melting the steel equipment it's attached to?
Click to expand...

I think we can support the idea that any time the surface rubble was removed to allow FF water to reach the hotter areas of the rubble fires that there could have been steam explosions. Material need not be at 1800 F to create such explosions, 700-800 F would suffice, and under certain situations even lower temps would do so.
BUT BUT BUT
Let's describe the situation for ergo as simply as possible;
Water was being poured upon the rubble pile for weeks, iirc, and now we consider what would occur with any liquid in the rubble.

It will, no matter if its water, oil, or molten steel, continue to flow until it reaches a place where it can no longer move down wards. Simple, huh?

OTOH, fires in solid material can occur with a covering rubble that diverts water away from it.

THUS we have the situation in which it can be expected that while fires can create hotspots that water sprayed on the surface cannot reach, this water will have a high probability of ending up in the same low spots in the rubble as any flowing molten steel. However that apparently did not happen.



ETA: and now we await the next ergo exercise in parsing
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom