ozeco41
Philosopher
Whether there should or should not be molten steel is of no consequence.
There was none.
End of discussion.
Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
There was none.
End of discussion.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Are they sure it was there or do they just believe it? There are many examples of reports of "molten steel" outside of 9/11, do they believe they are all evidence of "thermite"?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
It was not proven to exist. It has been shown that REPORTS of molten steel are common in large structure fires. These reports are either TRUE or FALSE.
Those are the only two choices, right?
If those reports from other fires are TRUE, then molten steel is common in structural fires and the claim that there should not be any is proven false.
If those reports are FALSE then it shows that false reports are common and absolutely begs the claimants produce physical evidence of the existance of molten steel. To that end, and given that the claimants are assuming large quantities of molten steel, there should be large re-solidified blobs of steel in evidence.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Should or shouldn't is a point that first requires illustration of existance. Witness testimony is known to be unreliable and in this case it can be easily shown that similar REPORTS are common in other structural fires. Therefore, if the reports are to be accepted as true they must be corroborated by other means. THAT has NOT been done.
Cue "meteorite", that supposed resolidified blob of steel with paper and other hydrocarbon materials embedded in it.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
no! Molten concrete, look its running on top of concrete, so it must be molten concrete.
stevemcqueen
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 22
well guys here's his response.
Yes I believe there was molten steel at the WTC .site. Why not?
Presumably you are now going to direct me to one of the many debunking sites that keep springing up. There are far too many to read , but i really have read a few . The problem is these sites themselves are contradictory .
But broadly speaking they broadly fall into 3 main categories
A , Complete denial there is any molten steel because fire cannot reach high enough temps. ( john gross Nist etc) . Meaning the buildings collapsed without temps hot enough to melt steel but was the result of expansion and warping simultaneously shattering the joints. ( contradicting B and C )
B Acceptance of molten steel , but it was caused plane impact and raging fiires , meaning that simple fire can reach temperatures capable of melting steel thus causing a collapse. ( contradicting A and C)
C Reactions underground after the collapse . Meaning that the molten steel appeared "after" the buildings collapsed and so was not a factor in the
collapse( contradicting A and B ? )
So it seems the debunkers can't agree which is the true debunking theory , because to accept any option you needs to dismiss the other 2. If you accept A then B and C become false etc etc.
Are there any other debunking theories that don't fall broadly into the 3 I've stated ? If so please direct me to it , but of course it will probably have to contradict A,B,and C.
Yes I believe there was molten steel at the WTC .site. Why not?
Presumably you are now going to direct me to one of the many debunking sites that keep springing up. There are far too many to read , but i really have read a few . The problem is these sites themselves are contradictory .
But broadly speaking they broadly fall into 3 main categories
A , Complete denial there is any molten steel because fire cannot reach high enough temps. ( john gross Nist etc) . Meaning the buildings collapsed without temps hot enough to melt steel but was the result of expansion and warping simultaneously shattering the joints. ( contradicting B and C )
B Acceptance of molten steel , but it was caused plane impact and raging fiires , meaning that simple fire can reach temperatures capable of melting steel thus causing a collapse. ( contradicting A and C)
C Reactions underground after the collapse . Meaning that the molten steel appeared "after" the buildings collapsed and so was not a factor in the
collapse( contradicting A and B ? )
So it seems the debunkers can't agree which is the true debunking theory , because to accept any option you needs to dismiss the other 2. If you accept A then B and C become false etc etc.
Are there any other debunking theories that don't fall broadly into the 3 I've stated ? If so please direct me to it , but of course it will probably have to contradict A,B,and C.
http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.co.uk/
How about asking how the fire fighters managed to dip their hands in molten metal and why they would be searching for survivors in a pool of molten metal
Why would they place cutter charges at the base of the towers when they collapsed from the top down ?
Where can you see any molten metal in the meteorite ?
Ask for any photographic evidence of pools of molten metal.
Surely it's down to him/her to produce evidence of the claim ?
stevemcqueen
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 22
he posted a video that I can't but if you type this into youtube it will come up.
Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11
Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE&feature
Well I didn't see any molten metal.
Perhaps he could pinpoint where it can be seen ?
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi Steve, I think the general consensus around here is that the fires in the Towers reached temperatures maxing out at 1400-1800 degrees F, and that any molten metal was probably aluminum, lead or other metals that melt in that range. There was talk about molten steel early on from engineers and architects who were not metallurgists; some of those people have either retracted what they said or said they didn't have the requisite knowledge to assert molten steel with any authority. John Gross at NIST said he didn't know of any molten metal, which I accept as a true statement of what he did and did not know at the time that video of him was made. He may not have known about molten metal, but so what? It was never shown to be relevant to the collapse initiation process. So almost all of us would agree with (A): no significant amounts of molten steel.
Animal
Master Poster
This part is true
You then jump to a false conclusion.
Melting point of steel +/- 2500°F
However, per the AISC Manual of Steel Construction "At 1000°F, the yield strength of the carbon steels are approximately 70 percent".
Fires such as those found in the WTC will reach 1300-1500°F within 45 minutes.
Is there was no melting steel, B is moot
Is there was no melted steel, C is moot
Since no three of your "choices" are factual, your entire post is moot.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
My personal opinion is, and always has been... who cares if molten metal was present? Truthers have unable to make the proper links between building collapse mechanisms and the molten metal reports. If they cannot do that, then it matters nil if they can even establish that thermite was there. Nothing found or analyzed points to anything other than a combination of impact structural damage and fire as the culprit for collapse initiation.
Did firefighters ever find failure mechanisms that involved a full melting of the columns? Did anyone inside the towers during the evacuation report seeing bright thermitic reactions whilst inside the stairwells? Did anyone report searing heat emanating from within the stair core on the way down?
Perhaps this individual should explain where the connection is. I see none even under his assumptions that the molten metal cannot exist any other way than for an external heat source. That there is no corroborating evidence that the thermite was even present is enough to suggest that conspiracists are splitting hairs...
As it is... he is using what he thinks are suspicious elements but they have n connections to give them meaning... that is incompatible with further debate... though that's unlikely to stop him from "trying"
Did firefighters ever find failure mechanisms that involved a full melting of the columns? Did anyone inside the towers during the evacuation report seeing bright thermitic reactions whilst inside the stairwells? Did anyone report searing heat emanating from within the stair core on the way down?
Perhaps this individual should explain where the connection is. I see none even under his assumptions that the molten metal cannot exist any other way than for an external heat source. That there is no corroborating evidence that the thermite was even present is enough to suggest that conspiracists are splitting hairs...
As it is... he is using what he thinks are suspicious elements but they have n connections to give them meaning... that is incompatible with further debate... though that's unlikely to stop him from "trying"
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Those are the key points - actually the same single key point.
There was no CD THEREFORE it would be irrelevant even if there had been 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte OR pools of molten whatever at ground zero.
We only see these pointless debates for two reasons:
1) Truthers using "arse about logic" presuming that they can build a CD hypothesis on the foundation of one or more of these disconnected context less anomalies. They cannot; AND
2) Willingness of debunkers to accept the burden to disprove the anomalies.
It has been fun...pointless fun insofar as it is irrelevant to explaining WTC collapses.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
ozeco41
Philosopher
It's taken second place to troll feeding for the last year or so. Reasonable given that most of the explaining has been done.Explaining the collapses would not be part of this subforum................
BTW the "rats leaving sinking ship" phenomenon is interesting. Notice that ergo, CM, MM have been conspicuous by their absence - a couple of visits by one of them. T Sz also absent tho' in his case he has gone wandering into forums which are less challenging.
I've been tempted to suggest that we discuss the OP in this thread. But staying "on topic' is not likely to get much support - and the OP questions were answered way back.
Last edited:
stevemcqueen
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 22
Thanks everyone, its funny to see them ignoring the sensible posts put forward but replying to the posts by people who arent very knowledable. Someone called one of the posters naive and they lived in a bubble because they believe the evidence.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Hey Chris,
To be precise, John Gross was addressing 'molten steel', not molten metal per se. He did say he knew of no eyewitnesses and no samples of molten steel.
Both statements could be factual, and the latter is certainly a fact - there is no sample of molten steel known. He may not have seen the firefighters reporting molten steel.
He also asked to be shown evidence if it existed, which I think is reasonable. So far nobody has produced it!
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Thanks everyone, its funny to see them ignoring the sensible posts put forward but replying to the posts by people who arent very knowledable. Someone called one of the posters naive and they lived in a bubble because they believe the evidence.
Classic hand wave rebuttal. "2+2=4." "Yeah, that's what they want you to think - the official story, etc..."
Operative word highlighted.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
No one here is interested in what amounts to a religious belief. We here operate on what the evidence shows and there is no evidence of molten steel at the WTC site.
Witness reports? Absolutely not good enough, see my previous posts concerning this.
Misrepresentation of what led to collapse aside. There is no physical or documentary evidence of molten steel. To believe that there was then is akin to a religious belief.
There is an outside chance that large structural fires can melt steel. It has been reported in other large structural fires. If correct in those other fires then it could be correct in this case. However if true in other fires then if its Also true in this case it illustrates that it is simply not unusual.
Also an outside chance of being true, see above re: reports from other fires.
YES! What am I , chopped liver?
No truther has ever produced a remanant of the supposed large pools of molten steel. The pictures of red hot yet still solid and recognizable sections of structural steel is NOT evidence of liquid steel.bthe 'meteorite' is not, cannot be, a remanant of previously liquid steel since it has embedded in it , materials that can not possibly not burn away had they been surrounded by liquid steel.
Reports of molten steel are absolutely not good enough since the same reports occurred with respect to other large structural fires.
Last edited: