Merged So there was melted steel

[JSanderO]

Oil floats on water and can be on fire on the water... There were hundreds of cars in the parking garage... all had oil... and fuel in them.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oil floats on water and can be on fire on the water... There were hundreds of cars in the parking garage... all had oil... and fuel in them.

True, so add in the factor that even in the lowest spots of the rubble, fires could still occur at least until these volatile liquids were expended.

However, the subject is the final resting place of the supposed rivers of molten (liquid) steel, which should be the same place as all that water that was going onto the rubble pile.

 

[George 152]

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?

And 'molten' steel doesn't stay molten when removed from the heat source.
Where was all that fuel that kept the steel molten?

 

[jaydeehess]

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 might add that I, and iirc, a few others of the debunker ilk, have put forth scenarios for which a natural blast furnace effect could raise temps enough to melt steel.

This would involve fuel being pre-heated before combustion, by adjacent areas on fire, and a funneling effect on incoming air, coupled with the insulating factor of the rubble keeping the area from losing heat other than up its 'chimney'.

The example was put forth of a woodstove chimney fire. Unburned volatiles condense and build up in the chimney but stay hot due to the wood fire in the stove box. This build up can ignite however and burn much hotter than the original woodfire partly because it begins drawing air in faster which is preheated as it passes the stove box wood fire. Such fires can burn through stainless steel chimneys. The SS chimneys are rated to with stand a fire for 1 hour. If you have had a chimney fire you are required by fire code, to replace the chimney.

So, far from ergo's sweeping claim that the debunker community has spent years trying to falsify or deny that molten steel is possible, it should be noted that in truth (what a concept) , the debunker community just wants to examine the subject. Having done so we come to the conclusion that one cannot conclude either way, that steel was in liquid form or not.

That said one then moves onto the question that begs asking.
So what if there was molten steel?

 

[jaydeehess]

And 'molten' steel doesn't stay molten when removed from the heat source.
Where was all that fuel that kept the steel molten?

According to one, and the only so far as I can recall, truther theory on this;
'left over' thermite was scattered in the rubble and, as the rubble was shaken by overhead heavy equipment, among other factors, would be slowly dropped down into the hot spots where it ignited and continued to heat those areas.

Sort of a thermite feed conveyor.

 

[Sunstealer]

There were accounts of molten steel exploding when it was brought to the surface.

This is one of the most stupid comments I've seen from the truthers. Ergo - if you can't see why it's stupid then you've lost all grasp on reality.

How hot is liquid steel? How were the workers on the rubble pile managing to bring liquid steel to the surface? Were they pumping it out? Oh hang on they were dipping it out with excavator buckets weren't they.

I'd love to know how these workers were removing liquid steel in temperatures above 1500°C. lol.

What's more you've shown perfectly why the word "molten" is completely ambiguous and cannot be taken to mean liquid. You yourself have made the mistake of referring to molten to mean liquid, when it's clear that anyone referring to molten steel being removed and exposed to air is describing hot solid steel reacting quicker when exposed to greater oxygen content.

This is shown in school to children around the age of 12 in science classes. If you had ever had the benefit of being taught elementary science you'd have seen this experiment.

Here are lots of videos showing reactions with pure oxygen and not air (21% O₂) Not one of them shows liquid steel.

http://www.youtube.com/results?q=ir....14.14.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.ii450CZiFGI

 

[Sunstealer]

Funny how several of the reports mention explosions when the molten beam ends are brought to air.

Oops, there you go again, misconstruing what the word molten means in this context.

A beam, by definition is solid because the word "beam" describes a shape. (You cannot have a liquid beam). Therefore, if you are using the word molten to describe it then you cannot ascribe the word "liquid" to the word "molten". It must mean something else.

You are proving, using your own words, that liquid steel was not observed. Instead people were describing solid material with the word molten to mean "glowing brilliantly", which will be at temperatures far below the melting point of steel.

Your own statement is proving you wrong.

 

[Mark F]

Sort of a thermite feed conveyor.

Ummmmm, thermite!

 

[jaydeehess]

There is another thread lately in which the OP askes if it is established that molten steel existed in the rubble fires.

Given that this has now been discussed about as much as it can be it, many debunkers have now asked the truther participants of that thread the question that begs asking and is in fact the title of this old thread.

So have at it again,,,, anyone?

 

[ozeco41]

That key question that truthers don't like:

"So what?"

It kills all these molten steel topics AND all the thermXte and dust topics.

Molten steel or thermXte dust are only truther attempts to claim CD by unexplained anomalies. OR to be more accurate - by anomalies that they the truther(s) cannot explain.

They don't need explaining unless there is a case for CD. AND there has never been a claim for CD that meets prima facie standard or in lay person talk that is a "case requiring an answer".

So most of the activity on those threads is troll feeding. Given that the "food" is old and has been rotten for years there could be a civil claim in tort (negligence) if the stale troll food causes heath problems for the trolls.

I'm not sure of the "duty of care" leg of the proof. What used to be called "proximity" obviously proven. And responsibility for the "negligent act" of knowingly feeding stale food to trolls clearly lies with self identified debunkers. So proving the tort should be no problem.^#
All we need now is a seriously sick troll who has eaten the rotten old troll food. Given this could be US legal jurisdiction it could become a "class action". Scots persons don't have that privilege. AU sadly now has, Dunno about UK however I diverge too far.... (And there don't seem to be many Scottish, Aussie or Pommie/Welsh/NI trolls )

Other than that - which probably belongs in a legal area of the forum - there is nothing worthy of discussion.


IMNSHO





PS # Nearly forgot - we could plead in mitigation "contributory negligence".

 

[NoahFence]

And 'molten' steel doesn't stay molten when removed from the heat source.
Where was all that fuel that kept the steel molten?

Thermite, doncha know?

 

[dropzone]

Ergo, you are on my ignore list so I probably won't see your reply, but this is a one-way conversation, like a dad schooling his naive and ignorant son, where any backtalk only earns the kid a dopeslap upside the head.

Sometimes your betters know more than you. Always, when it's an area of their expertise and your ignorance. We all have areas of ignorance and this is one of yours. A wise man would have realized this fourteen pages ago and gone off to learn something before continuing to display his ignorance. Bernard Baruch once said that "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." You are spreading your opinions, which are nonsensical to anybody who knows the slightest thing about molten metal, as facts, but because they are plainly wrong, even without engineering training or experience in a foundry (mine was aluminum: less blindingly hot than steel but similarly temporarily liquid--after removal of the heat source we're talking seconds or minutes, not weeks), you are not entitled to such an idiotic opinion. Especially after people have wasted page after trying to educate you.

And by the way, why the heck DOES it matter that the steel remained molten for an unnaturally long time? Is this supposed to be some sort of Hanukkah miracle for Truthers?

ETA: Okay, you may have used an atypical definition of "molten." Clarity also doesn't seem like one of you strong suits. Doesn't change anything, because it's hard to keep steel glowing hot for more than a very little while. We go from "seconds to minutes" to, um, "seconds to minutes," just more of them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ergo.. since you're "not married" to thermite can you explain what molten steel proves when it's been found an extremely long time after the buildings collapsed. I understand you like "schooling bedunkers" but a little clarification will help. This is only the dozenth time the question's been raised. Shall we make it the lucky #13?

 

[ehcks]

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?

If there were explosions caused by liquid steel and water, there wouldn't just be eyewitness accounts. There would be people in the hospital and even morgue for horrific steam burns. Were there any?

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Robrob
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.

How do you know it's not chromium that melted and then solidified?

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by ergo
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.

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.

Mythbusters to the rescue! Here's what happens when molten iron (from thermite!) touches ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6cMmk8LZgQ
Thermite may not be an explosive in itself, but it sure as can be reacts explosively with ice!

If a "river of molten steel" were to touch the vast quantities of water that were pumped into the pile, you'd get something like what happens when ice builds up on the edge of the crater of certain volcanoes, and then drops in.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Mythbusters to the rescue!

Redwood: you're using the Youtube tags the wrong way. Quote my post to see the right way.

 

[ergo]

Sometimes your betters know more than you.

Lol.

Sorry, didn't catch the rest of what you said.

 

[ergo]

"So what?"

I don't have a problem with "so what". As long as we can agree on the likelihood, given the evidence and the numerous testimonials, of molten steel in the pile.

We can end the discussion here if you want.

 

[Redwood]

Redwood: you're using the Youtube tags the wrong way. Quote my post to see the right way.

Thanks!