10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[Christopher7]

The end of his email response would appear to indicate otherwise:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,


Good point. I interpret the comment:
"Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation."
as referring to:
"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."

However, it is reasonable to interpret it as including the statement about the photos and videos.

However, any ideas why -- despite the clarity you assume he is providing -- he still disagrees with the contentions yourself and others in the truth movement put forward? Or do you just quote mine anything you can twist to support your contention and throw the rest under the rug? What do you consider these experts when they supposedly offer substantiation to your claims whilst not as well agreeing with the contentions you make?

"Quote mining" is stating relevant evidence found through research.
The existence of molten steel in the debris pile is established by numerous witnesses and the one photograph that survived the purge.

Are you still denying that there was molten metal in the debris piles?

Or are you just denying that it was steel?

 

[Christopher7]

I posted the above response on this thread as per your request:

existing thread like this one

 

[Sunstealer]

Is this your source for that info, Sun?

Yes it is. I've got text books too but it's far easier to do a quick search than copy out at length. Anyone who has spent any time working with different metals and alloys will see from experience that they have different colours at different temperatures, hell their melting points will give a hint.

Because of it's reflectivity, aluminum does not show different colors in lighted conditions. In a dark room, it glows different colors like other metals.

This is correct. You've also contradicted yourself with regard to colours but at least you've learnt something.

"Stuff" cannot mix with molten aluminum <snip>.

This is blatantly not true.

Aluminium is highly reactive and does not occur in the free state. You don't find pure Aluminium anywhere unless it's been refined by man, it's always found as a compound for the very reason of being highly reactive.

 

[Christopher7]

"Stuff" cannot mix with molten aluminum

This is blatantly not true.


Aluminium is highly reactive and does not occur in the free state. You don't find pure Aluminium anywhere unless it's been refined by man, it's always found as a compound for the very reason of being highly reactive.

By "stuff" I was referring to organic material that NIST and others have proposed was mixed with aluminum to make it glow orange yellow in daylight. This is a theory without president or proof. Furthermore, the airplane was scattered throughout several floors. The molten metal falling from the tower was definitely NOT aluminum.

You can cling to your denial if you like but the molten metal flowing out of the tower was at temperatures far above what office fires are capable of attaining, much less maintaining long enough to heat any metal to over 2000°F

 

[Bell]

Christopher7, help me out with your color chart, will you? Could you tell me how hot the object in the picture below is? I'd like to know. Thanks!

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, help me out with your color chart, will you? Could you tell me how hot the object in the picture below is? I'd like to know. Thanks!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RaOrchOImw8/R_Pza4FedEI/AAAAAAAAAWg/DZHsREPtBqA/s400/red%2Bsun.jpg

Relivance?

Are you denying that there was molten metal flowing out of the south tower as we see in the photo?

Are you denying that there was molten metal in the debris piles?

Or are you just denying that it was steel?

 

[Bell]

Relivance?

I'd like you to tell me - using your color chart - how hot the object in that picture is.

Are you denying that there was molten metal flowing out of the south tower as we see in the photo?

Did I imply that?

Are you denying that there was molten metal in the debris piles?

Did I imply that?

Or are you just denying that it was steel?

Did I imply that?

That's rich, blaming me for denying

 

[Christopher7]

Did I imply that?
Did I imply that?
Did I imply that?
That's rich, blaming me for denying

Dude, I asked 3 questions, I got 3 non-answers.

You won't even say whether or not there you accept that there was molten metal. Your responses indicate you do not but you lack the honesty to just say so.

 

[Christopher7]

They reveal a speculative maximum of around 1300oF which is a far cry from the temperatures required to literally get molten steel. Metals like aluminum, from the planes, and the WTC facades, cars buried in the rubble, and lead from computer hardware and other sources, etc generally have lower melting points than steel, and I wouldn't be all that surprised to find some quantities -- no thermite required.

The aluminum cladding and windows were blown up to 600 feet in all directions. The metals in the computers were mixed in with hundreds of tons of concrete, drywall, carpet and other furnishings. There were NO concentrations of these metals. The only metal in abundance in the debris piles was steel.




Those are surface temperatures 5 days later.
There were no surface fires after the first couple of days.


"Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11"
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Source:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

They are putting water on Hot Spot "A". Any fire would have been drowned. These surface temperatures can only be molten metal [at 4000°F +or-] buried under the rubble and heating it from underneath.

Mark Loizeaux was confident that the contractors he had worked with could recognize molten steel when they saw it. There are numerous other accounts of molten steel including 2 describing beams dripping molten steel as they were pulled from the pile.

There is a preponderance of evidence that there was molten steel under all three skyscrapers.
In a court of law, or before a grand jury, the witness would testify and we would then know.
That is why people are calling for a new independent investigation, with subpoena power.

 

[Bell]

Dude, I asked 3 questions, I got 3 non-answers.

You won't even say whether or not there you accept that there was molten metal. Your responses indicate you do not but you lack the honesty to just say so.

You made three assumptions, disguised as questions, that had nothing to do with my initial question. Which you still didn't answer. Talk about non-answer.

Using your color chart, can you tell me how hot the object in the above photo is?

 

[Sunstealer]

You made three assumptions, disguised as questions, that had nothing to do with my initial question. Which you still didn't answer. Talk about non-answer.

Using your color chart, can you tell me how hot the object in the above photo is?

He won't because if he did he would understand why his argument is wrong. Infact I'm pretty sure that he understands why his argument is wrong, but is too stubborn to admit it.

It's actually very easy to work out if there was liquid steel in the rubble pile.

First - in order for steel to become liquid it must be heated above it's melting point.

Secondly - that steel will lose heat energy through conduction and radiation (the pile was not a perfect insulator).

Thirdly - this loss of heat will bring the metal's temperature below the metal's melting point and therefore the metal will solidify.

Fourthly - in order for liquid steel to be present weeks after the collapse, the fires' temperatures must have been at or above the melting point of steel. There would have to be huge quantities of very well insulated liquid steel and high fire temperatures to maintain this over weeks and months.

If the fires' temperatures were above the melting point of steel then the fires would be capable of melting the steel anyway.

Therefore there is no reason to suspect an outside substance such as thermite, because the fires themselves are capable of doing the melting and then maintaining liquid steel.

Lastly - if there were significant volumes of liquid steel then we would expect to see large lumps of solidified steel in all manner of shapes, akin to solidified pig iron during the clean up. These large lumps would be very, very difficult to remove, because they would be extensive and far heavier than individual beams. They would need to be cut up. These objects would look very strange and would immediately draw attention from the workers which would lead to them being documented. There are no photos or eye-witness accounts detailing such odd structures that I am aware of. Is anyone else?

 

[Christopher7]

You made three assumptions, disguised as questions,

No, they are questions that you refuse to answer.

Do you believe all the people who said they saw molten metal or not?

Using your color chart, can you tell me how hot the object in the above photo is?

Your question was absurd and a diversion but since you keep asking:

The sun is not made of steel, therefore you cannot use a chart made by a blacksmith to measure the temperature of the sun.

However, you can get a reasonable idea of the temperature of steel because a blacksmith heated up a piece of steel and noted the different colors at different temperatures.

Your implication that the blacksmith chart is not a reasonably accurate guide to estimate the temperature of steel is unfounded.

 

[Christopher7]

It's actually very easy to work out if there was liquid steel in the rubble pile.

First - in order for steel to become liquid it must be heated above it's melting point.

Correct.
Office fires and debris pile fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

What can?

Thermite.

Unless you have another answer, you must accept the only known possibility.

 

[Sunstealer]

You are using circular reasoning.

Unless you can prove that the material in the photograph is steel then you cannot use the blacksmiths chart to estimate the temperature of the material. You cannot use a blacksmiths chart to tell you what material is in the photo just because the colours match.

Unless you prove that the material is steel you do not have a leg to stand on.

Secondly if you say office fires cannot be hot enough to melt steel then what was the source of heat in the rubble pile that kept the steel liquid?

If you say thermite keeps the temperatures hot enough then you are going to have to demonstrate

a) how the thermite reaction (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al₂O₃ + Heat) can sustain itself over a period of weeks

b) how much thermite there needs to be present for 1Kg of liquid Steel to remain liquid over a period of weeks.

There is no evidence that liquid steel was present in the rubble pile. There is no evidence of large solidified chunks of previously liquid steel being removed. Therefore I do not believe that liquid steel was present. Unless you can show evidence of liquid steel without using circular reasoning or second-hand statements from lay people then you've got nothing.

Secondly I understand the thermite reaction and how it is a very fast exothermic reaction that is not capable of sustaining high temperatures for any period of time. If thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid after 6 weeks and fires can't then the obvious conclusion is that liquid steel was not present.

 

[Bell]

Secondly I understand the thermite reaction and how it is a very fast exothermic reaction that is not capable of sustaining high temperatures for any period of time. If thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid after 6 weeks and fires can't then the obvious conclusion is that liquid steel was not present.

Obvious the firefighters and steelworkers continued to bring in therm*te and dump it in the depths of the pile.

 

[Sunstealer]

^ I like your style

 

[Bell]

Thanks!

 

[lapman]

If you say thermite keeps the temperatures hot enough then you are going to have to demonstrate

a) how the thermite reaction (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al₂O₃ + Heat) can sustain itself over a period of weeks

b) how much thermite there needs to be present for 1Kg of liquid Steel to remain liquid over a period of weeks.

There is no evidence that liquid steel was present in the rubble pile. There is no evidence of large solidified chunks of previously liquid steel being removed. Therefore I do not believe that liquid steel was present. Unless you can show evidence of liquid steel without using circular reasoning or second-hand statements from lay people then you've got nothing.

Secondly I understand the thermite reaction and how it is a very fast exothermic reaction that is not capable of sustaining high temperatures for any period of time. If thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid after 6 weeks and fires can't then the obvious conclusion is that liquid steel was not present.

We all know that C7 will run away from this. I've been asking him for any example of therm*te causing anything close to what is pictured. All I get is silence.

 

[Christopher7]

You are using circular reasoning.

Unless you can prove that the material in the photograph is steel then you cannot use the blacksmiths chart to estimate the temperature of the material.

You are using a Catch 22 denial tactic. The glob is clearly molten metal. There is no other possibility. It is consistent with numerous reports of molten steel including Mark Loizeaux's statement about molten steel being dipped out. Even if he did not see the photos and videos, although he probably did, and even if this is not the photo he was talking about, he is confident that there was molten steel. Your discounting him and everyone who saw molten steel is just pure denial.

Secondly if you say office fires cannot be hot enough to melt steel then what was the source of heat in the rubble pile that kept the steel liquid?

It is an established fact that office fires cannot melt steel. NIST has acknowledged this Why are you having a problem accepting this known fact?

You skip this inconvenient fact and ask how the metal stayed molten. This question ignores the FACT that there was molten metal reported months later.

There is no evidence that liquid steel was present in the rubble pile.
There is no evidence of large solidified chunks of previously liquid steel being removed. Therefore I do not believe that liquid steel was present.

Thank you for a direct answer.

However, it is pure denial. You are calling all the people who reported molten metal/steel idiots or liars. Who are you to say you know better than they?

 

[Christopher7]

We all know that C7 will run away from this. I've been asking him for any example of therm*te causing anything close to what is pictured. All I get is silence.

Thermite had not previously been used in a CD. That does not mean it could not be used in a CD.