10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

Or people who simply do not have the technical savvy to identify a particular metal by sight alone and automatically associate with a term they're more akin to using. Certainly well within the realm of possibility...

 

[Christopher7]

Or people who simply do not have the technical savvy to identify a particular metal by sight alone and automatically associate with a term they're more akin to using. Certainly well within the realm of possibility...

Are you admitting that there was molten metal?

If not, what do you think all these people saw?

Two witnesses saw molten steel dripping from beams being pulled from the debris pile.

Are you calling them liars or idiots?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you admitting that there was molten metal?

If not, what do you think all these people saw?

The temperatures in the rubble pile were hot enough for certain types of metals to melt -- particularly metals like lead, and especially aluminum (which made up the cladding for both the twin towers). These temperatures as measured by NASA thermal images were however far below those required to literally melt steel, and the basis behind arguing thermite isn't working out.

Are you calling them liars or idiots?

I'm not quite sure why disagreeing with your contention regarding witnesses of these effects automatically qualifies that I am calling them either idiots or liars. I don't think they're either, and the question you set up is a false dichtomy. As a laymen if I understand the structures to have been built of steel, then in the lack of technical knowledge about the structure and with no accurate measure to determine the composition I fully expect there to be cases where identification could be mistaken as a result. I can immediately point out for example that I didn't understand that the facade of either tower was clad with aluminum until well after 9/11, generally if you aren't familiar with an aspect of construction, then you're at a disadvantage when asked to talk about it.

 

[Baylor]

If not, what do you think all these people saw?

Two witnesses saw molten steel dripping from beams being pulled from the debris pile.

Are you calling them liars or idiots?

No one is calling them anything.

It's just that until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

I think you can agree on that.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744&page=134

 

[Christopher7]

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?

Or people who simply do not have the technical savvy to identify a particular metal by sight alone and automatically associate with a term they're more akin to using. Certainly well within the realm of possibility...

It does not require 'technical savvy' to recognize that molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is steel.

Your refusal to accept the statements of numerous witnesses is pure denial.

 

[Christopher7]

It's just that until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

There is no science fact to support the official theory.

NIST did not explain how the Trade Towers collapsed.

There are two theories of what caused the collapses.

Only an new, independent investigation can establish the facts about the collapses of all three buildings.

The numerous witness statements establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there was molten steel in the debris piles. Their statements are reinforced by the photo of the orange to yellow glob in the crab claw.

 

[KreeL]

I believe Chris has a valid point. I remember an interview of some of the crew that was working in the sublevels saying that liquid steel was running down the channels and it was like a foundry. There is also some thermal photography taken well after the collapses showing extreme temperatures in all three sublevels of the destroyed towers.

If NIST wasn't down there investigating this very important phenomenon, then what were they doing?

 

[R.Mackey]

Chris does not have a valid point. There is no thermal imagery taken at any time that suggests melting steel temperatures, nor is there any evidence whatsoever save exactly three witness statements, none of which comes from anyone who examined, or was even trained to examine the molten material in question. No molten steel or previously molten steel was found during the cleanup. It simply did not exist. And even if it did, there is no possible narrative that molten steel fits into -- not explosives, not thermite, nothing.

NIST was not even authorized to investigate the collapses until October 2002, long after the site had been cleared. That's what they were doing.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris does not have a valid point. There is no thermal imagery taken at any time that suggests melting steel temperatures,

After further consideration I no longer consider the thermal images to be strong evidence of molten metal.

nor is there any evidence whatsoever save exactly three witness statements,

You know that there are over 20 witness statements so why are you lying about the number of witnesses?

none of which comes from anyone who examined, or was even trained to examine the molten material in question.

It does not require 'technical savvy' to recognize that molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is steel.

 

[stateofgrace]

I believe Chris has a valid point. I remember an interview of some of the crew that was working in the sublevels saying that liquid steel was running down the channels and it was like a foundry. There is also some thermal photography taken well after the collapses showing extreme temperatures in all three sublevels of the destroyed towers.

If NIST wasn't down there investigating this very important phenomenon, then what were they doing?

His does not have a valid point; if you do not believe me ask him. Ask him to valid it, ask him how thermite, that he claim was used to bring down the buildings somehow kept metal molten for weeks afterwards. Ask him to valid this point, I guarantee he will not, in the same way he will quickly bury the fact that molten metal was not just reported under WTC 1, 2 and 7 but was also reported under WTC 6.

So go ahead and ask Chris to offer a validation, I guarantee he will not. Or better still why don’t you validate his point and explain exactly how thermite can keep metal molten for days, if not weeks.Explain why molten metal was reported under WTC 6, was thermite used on this building also?

 

[Christopher7]

His does not have a valid point; if you do not believe me ask him. Ask him to valid it, ask him how thermite, that he claim was used to bring down the buildings somehow kept metal molten for weeks afterwards. Ask him to valid this point, I guarantee he will not, in the same way he will quickly bury the fact that molten metal was not just reported under WTC 1, 2 and 7 but was also reported under WTC 6.

There was molten metal under 4 buildings. Thank you for informing me in about that. I have been talking about just the 3 that collapsed.

explain exactly how thermite can keep metal molten for days, if not weeks.Explain why molten metal was reported under WTC 6, was thermite used on this building also?

I don't know how the molten steel remained molten, only that it did. I do know that the only known explanation for the molten steel is thermite.

There were no concentrations of glass or aluminum in the debris pile because the aluminum cladding and windows were blown up to 600 feet in all directions. The amount of other possible metals was negligible and mixed in with hundreds of tons of other debris. The only metal found in quantity throughout the debris piles was steel.

Molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is molten steel.

The orange to yellow glob in the crab claw with metal dripping from the bottom is consistent with the color chart for steel temperatures.

This is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

You acknowledge that there was molten metal. Why can't you accept that it was steel?

 

[KreeL]

Molten aluminum is very easy to spot. Even for untrained eyes.

Mackey - thank you for welcoming me. I got tied up in the other thread and didn't want to appear rude.

As for the thermal imaging, there was definitely high heat present. Would you agree that the heat was more than ...say a normal demolition?

 

[stateofgrace]

There was molten metal under 4 buildings. Thank you for informing me in about that. I have been talking about just the 3 that collapsed.


I don't know how the molten steel remained molten, only that it did. I do know that the only known explanation for the molten steel is thermite.

There were no concentrations of glass or aluminum in the debris pile because the aluminum cladding and windows were blown up to 600 feet in all directions. The amount of other possible metals was negligible and mixed in with hundreds of tons of other debris. The only metal found in quantity throughout the debris piles was steel.

Molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is molten steel.

The orange to yellow glob in the crab claw with metal dripping from the bottom is consistent with the color chart for steel temperatures.

This is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

You acknowledge that there was molten metal. Why can't you accept that it was steel?

Chris let me be candid with you. I am more than happy to accept that the molten metal was steel, for the sake of argument. But this is where I differ with you. You have concluded that this molten metal is a produce of termite, it is the only explanation according to you. Then you have admitted that the fires were not hot enough to keep the metal molten; you have said that the fires were not hot enough to melt the metal. If this is the case, then it is impossible that molten steel was observed days, weeks after the event, even if it was produced by thermite. Do you not see the impossibility you are trying to argue? On one hand you say it was formed by thermite and on the other hand you say it was not possible for it to remain molten for this period of time.

You cannot juggle the two contradictory claims. Either one is correct or they are both wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris let me be candid with you. I am more than happy to accept that the molten metal was steel, for the sake of argument.

That is a backwards way of saying you don't believe there was molten metal.

But this is where I differ with you. You have concluded that this molten metal is a produce of termite, it is the only explanation according to you.

Correct

Then you have admitted that the fires were not hot enough to keep the metal molten

No

you have said that the fires were not hot enough to melt the metal.

Yes

If this is the case, then it is impossible that molten steel was observed days, weeks after the event, even if it was produced by thermite.

You guys keep using this same diversion.

There were reports of molten metal days, weeks and months later. Accept that. Deal with it.

To deny what the numerous witnesses said is just pure denial.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As for the thermal imaging, there was definitely high heat present. Would you agree that the heat was more than ...say a normal demolition?

Given that the building burned for seven hours before collapsing, and that the debris continued to burn for a period of weeks to months afterwards, it would be staggeringly unlikely for the heat not to be more than that seen in a normal demolition.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't know how the molten steel remained molten, only that it did. I do know that the only known explanation for the molten steel is thermite.

You really can't see the contradiction here, can you?

Molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is molten steel.

You have no basis for this assertion.

You acknowledge that there was molten metal. Why can't you accept that it was steel?

Because there's no plausible evidence that it was steel.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

You really can't see the contradiction here, can you?

There is none.

Molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is molten steel.

You have no basis for this assertion.

Why would you think that it was anything else?

You acknowledge that there was molten metal. Why can't you accept that it was steel?

Because there's no plausible evidence that it was steel.

Dude, molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is evidence of molten steel.

There is no plausible evidence that it was anything else.

 

[Christopher7]

Do you think the Chaplin is lying?

[FONT=&quot]"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw [/FONT]molten metal[FONT=&quot] trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Tripe[/FONT]

 

[BigAl]

Do you think the Chaplin is lying?

[FONT=&quot]"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw [/FONT]molten metal[FONT=&quot] trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Tripe[/FONT]

It's second hand, maybe third hand. When considered with all the other evidence we have, it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Christopher7]

It's second hand, maybe third hand. When considered with all the other evidence we have, it doesn't prove anything.

The fact that it's second hand information is not relevant. The Chaplin was not lying and his statement can be taken at face value.
When considered with all the other statements it reinforces those statements.