Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

This is lottsa fun children but I've got to go now.

mañana

 

[Baylor]

This is lottsa fun children but I've got to go now.

mañana

Thank you for proving "thermite cutter charges" do not exist. You are one step closer to overcoming your denial.

 

[funk de fino]

Wrong!

NCSTAR 1-3C pg 232
6. No source for the sulfur was identified.

You're lying, it is mentioned and explained where it could have come from, examples are given.

Page 231.

You are a proven liar again.

 

[funk de fino]

Office fires burn at 800-1000°C.

Another lie, they routinely reach temps above that and I know for a fact you have been shown this previously.

 

[beachnut]

Is English your first language?

What part of "I don't know" don't you understand?

Even somebody like you with limited meaningfull mass between his ears ...

Finally your evidence is clear; you have nothing. Both of you.

But I love how you posted the conclusion that fire did it!

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdfhttp://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

Tell the truth, you failed to read this paper where there is no molten, or melted steel mentioned. It says fire did it.

 

[funk de fino]

The only known way to get sulfur into steel and cause intergranular melting is thermate.

That is another lie disproven by FEMA and NIST.

 

[funk de fino]

Right.

You don't have a clue what the state of the art is or was.

Your denial is based in personal incredulity.

You cannot accept the only possible explanation for the molten steel because that blows the OCT to which you are fanatically loyal.

Mark Loizeuax did and he says that thermite is a joke. It could not happen.

You do not have a slightest clue about the plastic range of a metal or what eutectic is do you?

 

[funk de fino]

Does this look melted to you?



Hands up who thinks this piece of high quality steel was melted.

 

[stateofgrace]

Demanding what I could not possibly know is a denial tactic.

Acetylene could not possibly be the cause of the molten steel.

The only possibility is thermite.

To deny that is just denial.

Did thermite also hurl hugh chunks of metal 600 feet ?

 

[stateofgrace]

Dumb answer. Acetylene cannot account for the molten steel falling from the south tower or the tons of molten metal being dipped out of the debris pile in the buckets of excavators.

let me get this straight.

You think that somebody went into not one , not two, not three but four ( remember the molten metal observed under WTC 6 ) fully occupied buildings in the centre of New York prior to Sept 11th and planted so much thermite that six weeks after it was ignited it was still active and keeping tons of metal molten ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Find me anywhere in the NIST report where temps exceeding 250C were noted.

show me where in the NIST report they found any steel subjected to more than 250c.............you said i was wrong above, show me where i was, kindly cite the passage in the NIST report..........

Anybody seen those goalposts lately?

NIST stated that the steel samples they analysed had not experienced temperatures above 250ºC. If you chose to interpret that as there being no mention of temperatures above 250ºC in the NIST report, then your interpretation is idiotic. If you chose to interpret that as a claim that no steel experienced temperatures above 250ºC, then your interpretation is simply wrong.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Name another or stop claiming that.

Chris, this is downright lying, plain and simple. He did name another, and you edited it out of your reply.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

show me where in the NIST report they found any steel subjected to more than 250c.............you said i was wrong above, show me where i was, kindly cite the passage in the NIST report..........

NCSTAR 1-3C - Page 232

between 700 and 800 deg C

 

[funk de fino]

Office furniture is made of steel, not aluminum
it.

Yet another false claim that has been proven wrong by another poster. Not having agreat day C7.

 

[leftysergeant]

The only known way to get sulfur into steel and cause intergranular melting is thermate.

No. Exposing it to hot sulphuric acid and steam will do that.

 

[buka001]

Christopher 7.

YOU claim the only possible means that steel can melt is by thermite. Therefore it is SOLELY up to you and your colleagues at the Truth Movement Inc. to prove that such a device as a "thermite cutter charge" does exist. You have had 7 plus years to develope this research. So therefore you have had plenty of time.

Please explain to us what a thermite cutter charge looks like. Please detail the size, weight and appearance of such a device. Include calculations of how much thermite or thermate would be required per column and how this influences the size of the device. Detail how such charges would be detonated. Indicate with references how many such charges would be required and where such charges would be needed.

After performing such calculations please describe how the building was rigged without any detection. Please detail this extensively. Please explain why no evidence of detonation cord was found around GZ.

Simple straightforward LOGICAL questions that need to be answered first, before anyone can claim that thermite cutter charges were used. Your theory cannot be at the point where you are debating molten steel, UNTIL you have adequately proved that thermite cutter charges exist.

If you prove that thermite cutter charges are possible, then the next step would be to prove the evidence of thermite.

Your theories are stuck until you prove that thermite cutter charges were used at the WTC.

Prove thermite cutter charges were used, then you may have a csae for debate. Until then all you say is hearsay, lies and speculation. The reason your movement cannot get off the ground is because you lack the foundation for your theories. The most basic logical step in your arguments would be to prove that thermite cutter charges exist, what they would look like, how big they are and how they were placed.

Your movement has not technically begun to debate. Starting in the middle without solid logical grounding has resulted in tons of rubbish science. AE4Lies has had plenty of time to develope a working hypothesis on thermite. MAnufacture a cutting charge and test it. Nothing has happened? Why? Surely if they felt so strongly of their convictions they would have done created a thermite cutter charge by now? A working charge for all too see holds greater value in the debate than a low res photo of a conglomerate of concrete and rebar (dubbed the "meteorite").

You see you cannot be debating about steel temperatures and fire temperatures if you have not proven your theory for what caused the temperatures and so on. You cannot debate about molten steel, if your reason for the alledged molten steel has not been proven.

Stop debating about molten steel. STOP right now and go and prove that thermite cutter charges are possible, they are practical and they could have been used in WTC without detection. Until then all you say is lies.

 

[buka001]

Oh C7 you claimed taht all office furniture was steel. Yet, evidence to the contrary has been posted (aluminium desk's chairs etc). What is your response to this? Care to comment? Care to concede you were wrong?

After considering that, pause for a moment and think why did you only belive all office furniture was steel. Why did you refuse to belive any other possibility? Why were you so close minded, ilogical and biased? You were shown to be blatantly wrong. There is absolutely NOTHING in the world that can be used to save you in that regard.

If you were so biased, close minded and ignorant about a simple concept such as office furniture material, is it possible that these same personal traits are hard at work in making you blind to real truthful scientific concepts that explain the events of 9/11 in a rational logical manner?

Ask yourself the question, if I was ignorant about office furniture material and refused to investigate the truth for myself (a simple google on aluminium office furniture would have proven this), am I doing the same about more pertinate themes about the events on 9/11?

Ask yourself is your personal biase, engineering and physics ignorance making you ignorant to the real truth on 9/11?

 

[GStan]

We are not talking about one eyewitness, there were many credible eyewitnesses and credible witnesses that said they were told of molten metal/steel.

Nice dodge. You have repeatedly claimed that we must either accept the eyewitness statements or we are calling them liars. Can one reject an eyewitness statement without calling them a liar? Can an eyewitness make a mistake about what they witnessed?

Either you believe that eyewitnesses, even experts, are capable of making mistakes, in which case your repeated false dilemma looks childish; or, you believe that eyewitnesses are not capable of making mistakes, in which case, well, that speaks for itself.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You're lying, it is mentioned and explained where it could have come from, examples are given.

Page 231.

You are a proven liar again.

Did Chris just try to claim the NIST report said there was no sulfur available from quoting the line that said the specific source was not identified? Did he really do that???

OMG...

In a building full of rubber and other organic material, he can't figure out where sulfur came from? In a building that had been standing for nearly 30 years and exposed to diesel and pre-80's emission standards gasoline engine exhaust, he can't figure out where sulfur came from? In a building full of computer CRT monitors, he can't figure out where sulfur came from? The sulfur source wasn't narrowed down; that's not the same as saying it was not present!

Jesus... folks, what we should be doing is pointing Chris at previous threads on the topic, threads where this was discussed a hundred times before.

 

[GStan]

Poor dumb old truthers

<snip>

Before you post your claptrap about witnesses/thermite/NIST etc, C7 - go and find one single person who will clarify their statement showing that liquid steel was present (that means you'll have to write to them and ask them). I'll donate £100 to the charity of your choice. Why not write to the firm in roundhead's post?

This is not happening. Been trying for more than a year to get Christopher to clarify quotes with sources. He will NEVER do it. He refused to contact firefighters about issues he had with their assessments of WTC7. He refused to contact Shyam-Sunder/NIST about issues he had with their original working hypothesis for WTC7 collapse. He will never contact anyone for clarification.

He knows in advance that he is not going get any answers that feed his fantasy. (Cause, ya know, they, the sources, are all just part of Them^TM.) It's more fun for him to just hide here and pretend that what he is saying is true; pretend that he is a hero fighting against a bunch of paid shills.