Merged So there was melted steel

[Boot2TheHead]

Gotta love the irony of the guy naming himself after the step in the logical process that's just too hard for him.

 

[jaydeehess]

Bedunkers don't seem to understand their own logic, even though it's been explained to them several times in this now melting pot of a thread which has no official topic because it contains several different threads.

The only forum I know of where strict adherence to an OP is followed is BAUT. That said, just follow the main thrust of the thread and ignore diversions. Simple huh?

If there is nothing significant about the presence of melted steel in the WTC pile, then no thread needs to exist on this subject. Just like no thread exists on the subject of burnt paper at the WTC. No need to ask further questions about it.

I for one, have stated this too many times to remember its number.

If there is something significant about melted steel at the pile, then it's obvious that no appropriate investigation was done of it, because no credible explanation has yet appeared in the literature as to how temperatures in the pile reached the point at which steel melts. My rough timeline on the official and bedunker responses to the subject of melted steel at the WTC in fact shows that there is much doubt about melted steel, and several different attempts to dismiss it.

You say 'if' yet you make no attempt to describe what that significance is or even if it is unusual.
Your starting point on possible significance resides solely on the reports of molten steel, yet reports of molten steel have been shown to be quite common in large fires. No attempt has been made to show that these reports of WTC rubble fire molten steel is any more significant than other reports.

Finally, if there was no melted steel at the pile, which I suspect is the true thesis of our dishonest bedunkers here, this has never been properly established. We still see attempts (failed) by bedunkers in this thread to explain away steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion, and a persistent refusal to accept the fact of molten steel at the WTC as anything but a working hypothesis. This tells me you don't accept the fact of molten steel at the pile, so the question of "so what" does not interest me. If it interests you folks so much, WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER IT?

When you can start answering your own questions and make plausible attempts to explain melted steel at the pile, then this thread can continue. Until then, it's just junk posts as usual. I have better things to do.

The entire arguement from a further POV is that these structures were brought down by some form of deliberate demolition. One aspect of this is for truthers such as yourself to point to molten steel in the rubble and claim it somehow illustrates such deliberate demolition.
Previous to this thread the debate was concentrated on whether or not the molten steel existed. This thread seeks to address the more central further argument of controlled demolition and asks how molten steel actually would fit into such a scenario.
Instead of addressing this point you choose to pout that our allowing the possibility of molten steel is not sincere. Why is it important, to the question of how molten steel fits into the central thesis of 911truth of controlled demolition, whether or not molten steel existing is accepted by us? It is entirely immaterial to the questions posed in the topic of this thread.

So you can continue to balk at taking 'yes' for an answer because of some juvenile pout, or you can address the question of how molten steel would fit into that central thesis of 911 truth.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Sounds good.

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

So molten metal in the rubble pile is good enough for you? In what application does this "good enough" cause you satisfaction?

 

[beachnut]

Gotta love the irony of the guy naming himself after the step in the logical process that's just too hard for him.

She has no idea what the tread is about.

 

[000063]

Gotta love the irony of the guy naming himself after the step in the logical process that's just too hard for him.

I recently found a Tumblr that was "Take a second to think" or something like that. The post in question was them saying that, gosh, they'll love to rebut someone else's wrong argument, but they weren't really sure if it'd be worth it.

There's another one that had the username STFU Hypocrites. She's known for, IRL, responding to someone trying to talk about men's high suicide rate by literally singing at the top of her lungs about how little she cared. The funny thing is that minutes earlier (or later), she was reading an article claiming that feminists like her care about men's issues.

/off topic

 

[Sunstealer]

Gotta love the irony of the guy naming himself after the step in the logical process that's just too hard for him.

It's more likely to be "ogre" spelt backwards. An ogre is a monstrous or cruel person. Synonymous with the word troll.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

She has no idea what the tread is about.

Who's on first?

 

[jaydeehess]

Correcting my auto-correct.....

The only forum I know of where strict adherence to an OP is followed is BAUT. That said, just follow the main thrust of the thread and ignore diversions. Simple huh?

<<snip>>

The entire arguement from a truther POV is that these structures were brought down by some form of deliberate demolition. One aspect of this is for truthers such as yourself to point to molten steel in the rubble and claim it somehow illustrates such deliberate demolition.
Previous to this thread the debate was concentrated on whether or not the molten steel existed. This thread seeks to address the more central truther argument of controlled demolition and asks how molten steel actually would fit into such a scenario.
Instead of addressing this point you choose to pout that our allowing the possibility of molten steel is not sincere. Why is it important, to the question of how molten steel fits into the central thesis of 911truth, that of controlled demolition, whether or not molten steel existing is accepted by us? It is entirely immaterial to the questions posed in the topic of this thread.

So you can continue to balk at taking 'yes' for an answer because of some juvenile pout, or you can address the question of how molten steel would fit into that central thesis of 911 truth.

Molten steel in the WTC rubble indicates what, exactly, about the mechanism of the collapses seen for WTC 1,2 and 7?
If no one at AE911T has pursued this, then why not, given a decade plus of claiming a thermite charge demolition?

 

[Robrob]

Molten steel in the WTC rubble indicates what, exactly, about the mechanism of the collapses seen for WTC 1,2 and 7?
If no one at AE911T has pursued this, then why not, given a decade plus of claiming a thermite charge demolition?

Not only that, they have yet to even explain what it is they think they mean by "molten steel." Is it a glowing hot puddle of liquid metal (kind of hard to stand near)? A once liquid, now solid silvery mass (sort of like melted aluminum wiring)? Or a once stable now slightly softened girder (as in the photos)?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not only that, they have yet to even explain what it is they think they mean by "molten steel." Is it a glowing hot puddle of liquid metal (kind of hard to stand near)? A once liquid, now solid silvery mass (sort of like melted aluminum wiring)? Or a once stable now slightly softened girder (as in the photos)?

Whichever one suits them at the time of course.

For the purposes of this thread it seems to be a pool of liquid steel but Ergo has used "steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion" so it's hard to tell.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Whichever one suits them at the time of course.

For the purposes of this thread it seems to be a pool of liquid steel but Ergo has used "steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion" so it's hard to tell.

Exactly -- I've seen other threads where I-beams that were obviously bent during the kinetic collapse have been pointed to as "melted."

 

[jaydeehess]

Whichever one suits them at the time of course.

For the purposes of this thread it seems to be a pool of liquid steel but Ergo has used "steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion" so it's hard to tell.

The hilited phrase makes no real sense. I tried it out just now with corn syrup and simply cannot get it to 'fold'. I suspect less viscous fluids to be even less prone to 'folding'.

Now, if one were to consider extremely viscous substances, more plastic than fluid, one could do that. WRT steel that would indicate much lower temperatures and folding would be a function of both temperature and load( both static and dynamic)

BTW, where is ergo lately?

 

[BasqueArch]

.............

BTW, where is ergo lately?

or MM
​

 

[dafydd]

BTW, where is ergo lately?

He's had his attention fix.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Now, if one were to consider extremely viscous substances, more plastic than fluid, one could do that. WRT steel that would indicate much lower temperatures and folding would be a function of both temperature and load( both static and dynamic)

Precisely. Many times people have brought forth images of WTC beams that are folded and bent "like cooked spaghetti" as if that proves something specific about the heat. I don't know for a fact that's what ergo was talking about, but it seems to fit with the usual offerings.

 

[Sunstealer]

It's telling that no truther can give any reason as to why liquid steel in the rubble pile is any indication of foul play.

And in other news..................

 

[Robrob]

Precisely. Many times people have brought forth images of WTC beams that are folded and bent "like cooked spaghetti" as if that proves something specific about the heat. I don't know for a fact that's what ergo was talking about, but it seems to fit with the usual offerings.

Given that steel loses the majority of its structural integrity at temperatures well before it turns to liquid, I suspect that's what happened.

It's telling that no truther can give any reason as to why liquid steel in the rubble pile is any indication of foul play.

And in other news..................

All CT have the same MO. Point to something (they think is) unusual and shout "conspiracy!" The greater the CT's lack of knowledge, the greater number of "unusual" things they can point out.

 

[Criteria]

I’m not aware of any WW2 incendiary bombs using thermite. As far as I know, the only use of thermite in WW2 was in grenade form.

The main active ingredient of the incendiaries used in the Dresden raid would have been white phosphorus. As for "pools of molten metal", we know that people use the term very loosely, whether to mean red-hot metal, metal that's reached some kind of softening point, metal that is currently liquid, or metal that was at some previous time molten. It seems fairly clear from this quote that the metal wasn't molten at the time the bunkers were re-opened; why would it be said that the uncommonly high temperatures were "testified to" by melted cooking utensils, when if they were still liquid the uncommonly high temperatures could simply have been measured?

Aluminium cooking utensils were of course very common in the 1940s, so the temperature may have been no higher than about 700ºC here in any case. So, no thermite, and temperatures accessible to a normal hydrocarbon fire. It seems to me that the results of the Dresden bombing are completely irrelevant here.

Dave

Well Dave I guess there are a few things you do not know.

http://www.archive.org/stream/Apocalypse1945TheDestructionOfDresden_44/Dresden_1995_djvu.txt

I'd be more inclined to believe someone who wasn't David Irving. Holocaust deniers are despicable liars and worthless scum, and they tend to be rather worse than incompetent at research, so if his unsupported word is all you have then I don't consider it worth anything at all.

Do you have any sources written by people who deserve to be members of the human race?

Dave

I just came across this unanswered question while researching the thread archives.

In his book, THE LONGEST NIGHT, 10 - 11 May 1942 Voices from the London Blitz, Gavin Mortimer wrote about the use of thermite in incendiaries.

“A solitary incendiary bomb was a straightforward piece of ordnance. In size and shape it resembled the truncheon of a London policeman, and its 1 kg weight was also similar. A British Government handbook at the start of the Blitz described an incendiary bomb as ‘designed to give an intensive combustion at a high temperature by burning the body of an electron which is ignited by the ‘thermite’. To the average slum dweller in Stepney or Southwark, it was all gobbledgook. All they knew was that for a few moments an incendiary bomb burned very brightly and with a strange ‘psss-psss-psss’ sound.” pg.110

“And as the [German] crews of KGr100 prepared for take off shortly after 10 p.m. most of their aircraft carried in each of their eight bomb chutes four ‘breadbaskets’. Four breadbaskets in one chute equalled 144 single incendiary bombs. Multiplied by eight, each Heinkel that taxied down the grassy L-shaped runway at Vannes was carrying 1,152 incendiary bombs.” pg.111

“But what the handbook hadn’t described in any great depth was the incinerating qualities of just one incendiary bomb. For approximately fifty seconds it burned at 2,500C as the thermite priming produced its own oxygen. When this fantastic heat had melted and ignited the main magnesium component of the bomb it continued to burn for twenty minutes at temperatures of 1,300C.”
pg.146-147

Consider your question answered Dave!

 

[GlennB]

I just came across this unanswered question while researching the thread archives.

In his book, THE LONGEST NIGHT, 10 - 11 May 1942 Voices from the London Blitz, Gavin Mortimer wrote about the use of thermite in incendiaries.

“A solitary incendiary bomb was a straightforward piece of ordnance. In size and shape it resembled the truncheon of a London policeman, and its 1 kg weight was also similar. A British Government handbook at the start of the Blitz described an incendiary bomb as ‘designed to give an intensive combustion at a high temperature by burning the body of an electron which is ignited by the ‘thermite’. To the average slum dweller in Stepney or Southwark, it was all gobbledgook. All they knew was that for a few moments an incendiary bomb burned very brightly and with a strange ‘psss-psss-psss’ sound.” pg.110

“But what the handbook hadn’t described in any great depth was the incinerating qualities of just one incendiary bomb. For approximately fifty seconds it burned at 2,500C as the thermite priming produced its own oxygen. When this fantastic heat had melted and ignited the main magnesium component of the bomb it continued to burn for twenty minutes at temperatures of 1,300C.”
pg.146-147

Consider your question answered Dave!

"by burning the body of an electron"?

What the hell does that mean and what does this have to do with 9/11?

 

[Oystein]

"by burning the body of an electron"?

What the hell does that mean and what does this have to do with 9/11?

Elektron, with a "k" in the middke, not a "c", is the German name for a family of magnesium alloys. Think 90% Mg, 9.5% Al, 0.5% other metals. Used to build aircraft (Zeppelins), race cars and engines, it can also be ignited by a thermite charge and then burn as Criteria's copy&paste describes.

Source for example:
http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/

Has nothing to do with 9/11 of course. Elektron or thermite incendiaries tend to burn for stretches of time well measured in minutes - much too long to make suitable for "controlled" demolition, much too short to account for "molten metal" hours, days, even weeks after the collapses.
But Dave Rogers asked for evidence thermite was used in WW2, and Criteria found some. Fair enough. Question answered.