Merged So there was melted steel

[Travis]

*looks at watch* *waiting*

 

[ergo]

"The massive six-alarm blaze caused by a construction accident, melted steel girders"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=6750,802662&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

"Fire broke out at a paint warehouse on the city's north side turning the building into a pile of melted steel girders"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=6621,6980086&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

"A fire of an unknown origin melted steel beams and kept about 100 firemen busy most of Saturday morning"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=2862,6424815&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

" A raging fire fed by magnesium night illumination flares swept ... thick, choking smoke and flames so hot that they melted steel girders"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=6272,3675441&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

" One of them said flames reached nearly 60 feet high and melted steel frames"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=5170,4552199&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

" Fire- swept through the Haunted Castle attraction at the Six Flags ... The search through the melted steel and charred wood continued"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=3741,3271382&dq=fire+melted-steel&hl=en

" Despite the semitrailer truck crashing into an irrigation canal and catching fire to the point it became a twisted ball of melted steel, the driver was able to escape serious injury, Butler said."

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120405/A_NEWS/204050320/-1/NEWSMAP

" Millo said the fire was so intense it melted steel roof beams. Firefighters from Echo Hose, Pine Rock and Huntington fire companies fought the blaze."

http://www.firefightingnews.com/article.cfm?articleID=21171

" Now, much of the place is reduced to piles of charred property and melted steel beams.
More than 400 people lived at Grandview Palace."

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Former-Browns-Hotel-Destroyed-147939585.html

There are hundreds and hundreds of such reports in as many fires.

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

 

[Dog Town]

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

Because, no physical evidence?

LOL!

 

[dafydd]

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

I know that this is a waste of time, but what would that imply? Fire, metal. Think carefully.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

I didn't know you can mix aluminum and iron in that way. Looking it up just now I found references to 80:20, 50:50 and 46:25 mixtures, but I haven't found specs for those various alloys, nor can I think why one would want them. I'm out of my knowledge zone on that.

Anyway, I also found reference to flammability of iron in bulk, which I would have thought nearly impossible without massively increased surface area (ie, steel wool) or highly oxygenated environments, but apparently in WW2 tanks would sometimes burn up. But another thing to consider is the massive amount of molecularly bound sulfur and oxygen in gypsum drywall; apparently, actively oxidizing hot iron is aggressive enough to suck the oxygen out of other substances, and adding sulfur to the stew doesn't hurt things at all.

Suddenly I'm willing to consider the possibility that the accidental smelter created in the WTC rubble might have created both bloomery (nonmelted) iron clusters as well as molten zones in the few available air channels through the pile.

None of the above leads me to conclude that the 9/11 event had any suspicious activity, though. Rather it leads me to view civilization en gros as a radically concentrated enriched ore plume.

It's a simple reality that combining two metals will lower the melting point of the metal which is higher (if the melting points of the metals are different of course).

Consider the experiment done by a poster here a year or so ago where he created iron microspheres using steel wool and a bic lighter. Now think about what forms steel could be found in within the rubble pile. There would be everything from copious amounts of steel dust from the initial construction to steel dust created by friction during the collapse to large structural shapes such as the boxed perimeter columns and everything in between.

As you've pointed out, chemical reactions within the rubble pile could also influence how and why steel would melt under such conditions. Frank Greening hypothesised that, I believe, HCl would affect a lowering of the melting point of steel and that the creation of HCl within the rubble pile was highly likely.

And again, this all took place within an insulated enviroment where there was a constant input of heat energy versus a low degree of heat loss.

It's not unreasonable to expect that molten steel was produced but at lower temperatures than would be required under pristine conditions such as a lab or a foundry and that the argument summarized as "molten steel therefore nefarious intent" is nothing more than fallacious nonsense.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

I don't see much for doubt. I do see quite a few asking, "so what?".

John Gross could be the biggest liar on the face of the earth and where would that get you?

And who cares if John Gross watched cherry picked "truther" videos showing a fire fighter talk of "rivers of molten steel" from well after the event. I would rather he stick to science and ignore the white noise of the uninformed.

His job was to produce a report which reflected the most probable cause for collapse initiation. Reports of molten steel from weeks later are irrelevant to that task as as I and others have repeatedly shown, these reports are quite common.

So I will join others by asking, so what?

What is your point?

When you've arrived at the top of the mountain only to find a handful of dirt, what then?

 

[Mark F]

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

For the millionth time, for the purposes of this conversation we are granting you molten steel at the WTC. Please stop evading and answer the question that has also been posed a million times;

Why should we care if there was molten steel at the WTC? What does this mean?

No more evasions, please. Just answer the damn question.

 

[NoahFence]

Are there? So why doubt melted steel in the WTC rubble?

We don't doubt it.

There were tons of it. Rivers of it even.

SO WHAT?

^^
That's your cue.

 

[carlitos]

So all discussion of the technical reasons for "no melted steel' is off topic troll feeding.

Sí, correcto.

 

[ergo]

I don't see much for doubt. I do see quite a few asking, "so what?".

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could you suggest what meets the criterion of "serious" in this thread?

Where:
1) the given premise for discussion was "There was melted steel"
2) The OP question was "What would be the consequences" given that starting premise.

So all discussion of the technical reasons for "no melted steel' is off topic troll feeding.



.

In any serious discussion, when debate hangs up at one detail one can , in all seriousness, agree to consider the point moot and move past it. In this way if, later on, the point can be shown to have great import as to its veracity or not it can then be revisited.

Such is the case here. SINCE debate has hung up on existance or not , of the molten steel, we can declare the point moot (having been argued already) and move past it. In this way, if a mechanism can be demonstrated in which molten steel in the rubble is shown to be of great significance in the larger question of how the three of the WTC structures collapsed, then its existance can be revisited.

That is, IMNSHO, would define the topic as 'serious'.

Better?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

Well, since that was the premise of the OP I am glad we can finally agree on it.

Now, moving on, of what significance to the larger question, of the cause of the collapse of three of the seven rubblized WTC structures, is the existance of the common occurance of molten steel in the fires within that rubble?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

We're three thousand and thirty posts into the thread. Even I have conceded the point. Now, can you please address the OP question:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?

Or, to reiterate the more simplified version that has been asked of you roughly every fifth post, "So what?"

 

[Mark F]

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

And once again he evades the question.

One more time, with feeling: SO WHAT? Why do we care if there was molten steel at Ground Zero?

In future I propose that all posts in this thread begin and end with that question and contain nothing else until it gets answered.

 

[beachnut]

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

Like the question, so what does it mean; you have no idea what the thread is about, why they say, "So there was melted steel".

It follows 911 truth can't explain what melted steel would mean if there was melted steel, since 911 truth does not understand the OP. 911 truth experts have not supplied why melted steel means an inside job in a form that can be parroted and repeated by the cult followers who have faith the melted steel means something.

911 truth has failed to make progress, the cult members don't know how to answer questions. 12 years of "good enough for me" is the best 911 truth has. Childish replies, claiming victory, but unable to answer the OP, not able to explain why melted steel means anything. No math, no physics, only talk of woo which they say is "good enough for me". Armed with nonsense, there will be no answers from 911 Truth Lies.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And once again he evades the question.

One more time, with feeling: SO WHAT? Why do we care if there was molten steel at Ground Zero?

In future I propose that all posts in this thread begin and end with that question and contain nothing else until it gets answered.

Problem is, he now can, and probably will, go on another forum and say "the guys at JREF admit there was melted steel".

Hans

 

[thedopefishlives]

Problem is, he now can, and probably will, go on another forum and say "the guys at JREF admit there was melted steel".

Hans

Yeah, but to be honest, that doesn't matter very much. For all we know, there very well may have been molten steel in the pile. The important thing is that ergo and his compatriots refuse to step up and tell us why the presence of this molten steel is so important. What is its significance, ergo? SO WHAT?

 

[NoahFence]

No answer forthcoming.

Far, far too dishonest.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.

Uh huh...and?

Was your gotchya moment as pleasurable as you expected?

 

[jaydeehess]

Problem is, he now can, and probably will, go on another forum and say "the guys at JREF admit there was melted steel".

Hans

That is quite probable. However, if that bit of out of context parsing is what it takes to move discussion forward, I for one will not be bothered by it.

In fact, if it will move the discussion to the next level (the one called for in the OP) I will reiterate, for purposes of quoting to other forums;

I have had an epitome. I , jaydeehess, a poster on JREF do hereby declare that the eyewitness testimony of having seen molten steel in the rubble of the WTC complex is compelling evidence of the existance of molten steel.