• 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

Sunstealer hasn't posted here, dcdrac.

I have no burden of proof here. And you need to stop talking.
 
ergo said:
Using a materials science definition, I'm sure he is.

That's why I've asked him to produce some non-WTC evidence or documentation of structural steel piling on itself in a liquid fashion from compression only.
Click to expand...
And he offered to do so.

Did you not understand when he said he could post the properties of "A-36", or did you doubt he could?

Google could have prevented this post (from you)

ergo said:
Assuming he's talking about structural steel -- because that's what we're talking about here -- he is saying that structural steel is ductile at room temperature. Do you find that a credible claim?
Click to expand...

From this post, we have to assume you think it is not. Is this true?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Post 625, DGM.

(What's that definition of insanity again??)
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.

Why did you make this post if you agree with what he said?

ergo said:
Assuming he's talking about structural steel -- because that's what we're talking about here -- he is saying that structural steel is ductile at room temperature. Do you find that a credible claim?
Click to expand...

You agree, right?
 
I see no relevance at all to the presence of some molten metal to the attacks that lead to the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

Care to clarify what that relevance is?
 
Last edited:
you certainly do have a burden of proof you have raised in other threads that the presence of some molten metal has some relevance to the terrorist attack that lead to the destruction of the World Trade Centre, now the onus is on you to prove what if any relevance there is.
 
Dcdrac, tell me which statements, if any, you believe to be true:

a) reports of molten steel in the WTC pile are likely erroneous because building fires generally do not produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

b) the presence of molten steel in the WTC rubble would not be unusual.​

If option b was part of your answer, please complete the statement:

"The presence of molten steel in the WTC pile would not be unusual because _________________ ."​

and then you might actually be on topic. 'Kay?

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Using a materials science definition, I'm sure he is.

That's why I've asked him to produce some non-WTC evidence or documentation of structural steel piling on itself in a liquid fashion from compression only.
Click to expand...
This sentence makes no sense what so ever.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by:

"piling in on itself"
"liquid fashion"

What you appear to be trying to describe is something like buckling through axial compression at elevated temperatures. There is nothing to do with liquid in your photos. If the material had been liquid it would not have kept an identifiable form/shape after deformation.

You seem to have extreme trouble with understanding the difference between liquid and solid. You don't seem to understand that temperature changes the way in which metals behave under load whether that be compression or tension.


Oh and yes, here is your request for pictures of such buckling that are not sourced from the WTC.

picture.php
source - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020740306000622

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


Papers showing the exact behaviour you find perplexing:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263823100000483

http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1398936

Just because you don't understand and find the photos incredible doesn't mean that this is not understood.
 
ergo said:
Tell me what the first sentence in my reply at post #625 says.
Click to expand...
"Using a materials science definition, I'm sure he is".

That wasn't so hard, was it.?

You just proved this post as "trolling".

ergo said:
Assuming he's talking about structural steel -- because that's what we're talking about here -- he is saying that structural steel is ductile at room temperature. Do you find that a credible claim?
Click to expand...

Good job. :)

There is nothing left here to look at.
 
ergo said:
Dcdrac, tell me which statements, if any, you believe to be true:

a) reports of molten steel in the WTC pile are likely erroneous because building fires generally do not produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

b) the presence of molten steel in the WTC rubble would not be unusual.​

If option b was part of your answer, please complete the statement:

"The presence of molten steel in the WTC pile would not be unusual because _________________ ."​

and then you might actually be on topic. 'Kay?

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Why does he have to choose one or the other if both are true?
 
I have nothing to prove Ergo you do, you are the one who appears to believe that molten steel has some relevance to the terrorist attacks on 9/11
The onus is on you to prove this relevance if any
 
DGM and SUnstealer between them have provided plenty of evidence I have been trawling back and reading the entire thread.

So far nothing from you to provide any backing that molten metal of any kind proves anything
 
Sunstealer said:
This sentence makes no sense what so ever.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by:

"piling in on itself"
"liquid fashion"

What you appear to be trying to describe is something like buckling through axial compression at elevated temperatures. There is nothing to do with liquid in your photos. If the material had been liquid it would not have kept an identifiable form/shape after deformation.

You seem to have extreme trouble with understanding the difference between liquid and solid. You don't seem to understand that temperature changes the way in which metals behave under load whether that be compression or tension.


Oh and yes, here is your request for pictures of such buckling that are not sourced from the WTC.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=8097[/qimg]source - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020740306000622

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=8100[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=8099[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=8098[/qimg]

Papers showing the exact behaviour you find perplexing:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263823100000483

http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1398936

Just because you don't understand and find the photos incredible doesn't mean that this is not understood.
Click to expand...


Really neat pictures, thank you.
 
ergo said:
Dcdrac, tell me which statements, if any, you believe to be true:

a) reports of molten steel in the WTC pile are likely erroneous because building fires generally do not produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

b) the presence of molten steel in the WTC rubble would not be unusual.​

If option b was part of your answer, please complete the statement:

"The presence of molten steel in the WTC pile would not be unusual because _________________ ."​

and then you might actually be on topic. 'Kay?

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

The topic is:

Given that there was molten steel, what does that tell us about the buildings' collapse.

The topic is not "Was there molten steel"?

Continually asking people to prove the existence or non existence of the molten steel is a derail.
 
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