• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debating about WTC 7.

Unfit4Command

Muse
U
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
730
WTC 7 is by far my weakest subject when dealing with CTs, the Pentagon is probably my strongest since I've spent the most time researching the attack.

I'm still more educated about WTC 7 than the average truther, I've read the FEMA report and the 40 or so page slideshow by NIST, but I still have trouble debating the subject with people since the investigation isn't finished yet.

Anyways, a few days ago I joined a debate about WTC 7 at a forum I've been a member of for a while, just not very active.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/14222-new-september-11th-conspiracy-video.html

There are a few claims that I've never seen before until this debate, some being:

"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure. Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1832ºF, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge." -Journal of Metals Magazine, Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

"Steel beams in the debris pile of WTC 7 appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures" Dr. Barnett -New York Times

I'm not sure where exactly to look in order to find some counter examples to these quotes. I've read "Iron Burns!" on Debunking911 and that article has some useful info but I still haven't found exactly what I'm looking for about the molten metal in the rubble piles.
I'm just really bad at the molten metal arguments. There's no evidence of Thermite use which is where most of the molten metal claims came from as far as I know, but they're still so common! What would the point of setting off explosives in the basement of the WTCs be when they collapsed from the impact zones?! Even WTC 7, the demolition set up would have been severely damaged by the debris impact and fires..

It's also always a pain to reply to the building fires that didn't cause collapse. Several of the fires resulted in a few floors collapsing, but never the whole structure like WTC 7 did. Each of the buildings in the examples have different construction than WTC 7 and didn't encounter the damage WTC 7 did prior to the blazes, but that's never a good enough reply for the CTs.

I'm starting to get really sick of Seeing "American Free Press" as a source of information.

And finally, my biggest problem with the WTC 7 debate. Larry Silverstein making a profit! I know he didn't, but I can't find any really good sources of information. And I keep founding conflicting numbers when dealing with how much money he got in insurance because of the destuction of the WTC site, and how much the rebuilding will cost. I just know that the new WTC 7 was about $700,000,000.

Thanks for any help you can provide :)

Also, in the last post he mentioned the Pentagon...idk if I want to start an debate about that as well but I really want to see his evidence against a plane striking the Pentagon.
 
The issue you raise here is not one of molten steel. Notice that the JOM/Barnett paper says the sulfidated steel may have approached 1832 F. That's nearly 1,000 degrees below its melting point.

If the truthers want to claim that there was molten steel at WTC 7, they're going to have to back that up with evidence. I am aware of none. Nor am I aware of any CT producing evidence that temperatures in the piles couldn't have reached the melting point of steel, from the fires feeding on the almost unimaginable amount of fuel there. Ask them: what's the maximum temperature that could have been reached in the piles? Demand that they show their sources for their claims. They won't be able to do so.

Temperatures in portions of the piles were at least hot enough to melt other metals, such as aluminum. For example, in the WTC parking garage, burned-out cars were sitting in hardened pools of their aluminum wheels. I don't think the CTs will claim that the conspirators were sneaking around there, putting thermite on car wheels.

I have a paper about WTC 7 at 911myths.com. Here's the portion about the WTC 7 insurance claims:

Silverstein reaps huge insurance profit on WTC 7?

What about an insurance motive? Professional conspiracist and radio host Alex "New World Order” Jones claims that Silverstein walked away with a profit of $500 million after building 7’s insurer, Industrial Risk Insurers, paid its $861 million policy!

This shouldn’t need to be said, but the fact that IRI didn’t dispute the $861 million claim should make it perfectly clear that Silverstein didn’t “admit” to destroying his building.

And lest you think that IRI’s management somehow benefited by turning a blind eye to Silverstein’s “crime,” consider that IRI did contest Silverstein’s lawsuit over his Twin Towers insurance claim.

No. Insurance companies have a funny way of making sure that insured parties don’t destroy their skyscrapers, collect the claims, and drive into the sunset with a truckload of cash. A clause in Silverstein’s WTC 7 policy required him to begin rebuilding within two years, and lenders required that the new building have as much square footage as the old (and they complained mightily when the plans came up short in that department). The cost of the new building? Over $700 million.

Hey, that still leaves Silverstein with a tidy profit of around $161 million, right?

No. There was the small matter of the existing $489.4 million mortgage, which Silverstein paid off with the insurance settlement, leaving him with a shortfall of $328 million heading towards construction of the new building.
The City of New York, desperate to see rebuilding begin downtown, saved Silverstein a bundle in financing costs by offering over $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, which the Bank of New York guaranteed.

That move gave Silverstein and his backers the freedom to do something unheard of in recent New York real estate history: start construction of a skyscraper without a major (or minor) tenant on board. And when the building opened in 2006? Still no major tenants. In May, WTC 7 finally got its first possible major ten-ant when Moody’s Investor’s Service signed a nonbinding letter of intent to occupy 15 floors. More recently, other sizable tenants have signed on.

Sources: “Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times, January 16, 2003. “7 World Trade Center Gets a Major Tenant” Official World Trade Center Site The Building Everyone Will Date But No One Will Marry
 
Gravy said:
The issue you raise here is not one of molten steel. Notice that the JOM/Barnett paper says the sulfidated steel may have approached 1832 F. That's nearly 1,000 degrees below its melting point.

If the truthers want to claim that there was molten steel at WTC 7, they're going to have to back that up with evidence. I am aware of none. Nor am I aware of any CT producing evidence that temperatures in the piles couldn't have reached the melting point of steel, from the fires feeding on the almost unimaginable amount of fuel there. Ask them: what's the maximum temperature that could have been reached in the piles? Demand that they show their sources for their claims. They won't be able to do so.

Temperatures in portions of the piles were at least hot enough to melt other metals, such as aluminum. For example, in the WTC parking garage, burned-out cars were sitting in hardened pools of their aluminum wheels. I don't think the CTs will claim that the conspirators were sneaking around there, putting thermite on car wheels.
Click to expand...

I've already said that it wasn't molten steel to several CTs, they never listen because of a small amount of quotes that use "molten steel" to describe what they saw. Those are the sources I always get in debates, it's really annoying.

I actually wouldn't be very surprised if a conspiracy theorist were to say something along the lines of "Thermite was placed in the wheels of cars to make people believe that the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum." Is there a source for that though? I can't demand sources for info without providing them myself.

Thanks for the Silverstein, and molten metal info. Maybe I should just refer him to your paper...still wouldn't be good enough probably.
 
Adding to Silversteins bounty that day was the fact that until recently, the last 12 months or so, he was still paying rent on the site to the Port Authority
 
Unfit4Command said:
WTC 7 is by far my weakest subject when dealing with CTs, the Pentagon is probably my strongest since I've spent the most time researching the attack.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see Gravy has already been here. His paper on WTC 7 is a must read.

Unfit4Command said:
There are a few claims that I've never seen before until this debate, some being:

"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure. Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1832ºF, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge." -Journal of Metals Magazine, Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
Click to expand...
My comments about this, along with the original FEMA appendix that mentions it, is here.

To my knowledge, the jury is still out on exactly what happened here, but it is most definitely not due to "thermate." Anyone who suggests that is talking out of their hat. Whether it happened slowly over many years, or quickly in the fire, I don't think has been settled. It also doesn't appear to be a major factor in the building's collapse.

Unfit4Command said:
"Steel beams in the debris pile of WTC 7 appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures" Dr. Barnett -New York Times
Click to expand...
This one pops up all the time, that insufferable cur TruthSeeker1234 had to be corrected several times. Bottom line, there is no evidence for steel "evaporating," nor should there be, since the boiling point of steel is north of 2800oC. That's quite a warm day indeed, even in the tropics.

In any case, the best answer to arguments of melting / boiling / evaporating steel, is "what melting steel?" There simply isn't any evidence of it at WTC 7. None whatsoever.
 
Unfit4Command said:
I actually wouldn't be very surprised if a conspiracy theorist were to say something along the lines of "Thermite was placed in the wheels of cars to make people believe that the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum." Is there a source for that though? I can't demand sources for info without providing them myself.
Click to expand...
Right cheer:

William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.
Click to expand...
 
Gravy said:
Right cheer:

William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:
Click to expand...

Also, from the same thread I referenced above, you'll see a link to the DELTA report on the WTC fires. They estimated the chemical energy in the cars in the parking lot (gasoline) equal to twice the collapse energy of the buildings.

And much, much more chemical energy in the buildings themselves.

Hot enough to melt aluminum? Easily.

The amount of thermite you'd need to increase this by even a noticeable fraction would be measured in tens to hundreds of tons.
 
Metallic Aluminium reacts with the OH- ion in concrete, producing heat in a thermitic reaction. This reaction also produces hydrogen gas which itself burns well above the melting point of steel.

Those factoids are about the limit of my knowledge. Whether molten aluminium in close proximity to large amounts of finely-divided concrete could produce a self-sustaining fire hot enough to melt steel, I really don't know. Nor whether the hydrogen could burn in a non-explosive manner.

Any metallurgists here?

But the CTists addiction to thermite seems to run so deep that 'mere calculations' of the hundreds of tons needed to create pools of steel won't put them off. That would require both a grain of scientific insight and a reasonably open mind.
 
Unit4, you are unsure, that is great because as long as you are unsure you are thinking. But since you "ask for a debunk" you already reject any alternative way, which is a bad way of finding the real answer.
 
R.Mackey said:
Also, from the same thread I referenced above, you'll see a link to the DELTA report on the WTC fires. They estimated the chemical energy in the cars in the parking lot (gasoline) equal to twice the collapse energy of the buildings.

And much, much more chemical energy in the buildings themselves.

Hot enough to melt aluminum? Easily.

The amount of thermite you'd need to increase this by even a noticeable fraction would be measured in tens to hundreds of tons.
Click to expand...
I had forgotten about that DELTA report. Thanks!
 
einsteen said:
Arkan, I think that is sum ting c:) mpletely different.....apples and :) ranges
Click to expand...
No, it is not apples and oranges.

If the OP had been, "I'm debating a Flat-Earther and they are claiming X, has anyone debunked this claim before." it probably wouldn't have phased you. Like it or not, the EBC vs CFist stance is not a matter of choosing between two proposed theories that have not been tested and are on equal footing. Go read Shermer's article in SCIAM about "Wronger than wrong" if you still don't grasp it.
 
I decided to jump into the fun on this. This kid is borderline retarded and completely ignores anything that goes against his theories.
 
Doesn't the debunking ever become a tiresome effort?

The Deniers just keep ignoring the fact that their theories have been debunked an infinite number of times.
 
The Demon's Head said:
Doesn't the debunking ever become a tiresome effort?

The Deniers just keep ignoring the fact that their theories have been debunked an infinite number of times.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. I only do it when I am very, very, very bored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom