Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The molten steel is the evidence of thermite.
Molten Steel
- Thread starter thewholesoul
- Start date
- Status
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
So what? Finding molten metal of any sort on the pile isn't direct evidence of the cause of the collapse of any or all of the towers. People that know the science and engineering would still have to show by evidence and logic, any causal connection.
I'll deny anything not supported by physical evidence and science and engineering. Even first-hand statements by relevant experts is good if what we think they said can be confirmed that they have been quoted correctly and can answer follow-up questions for clarification.
So far, all the eyewitnesses we can find fail in one criteria or another.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Then you are claiming that there was a heat source capable of creating sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel, and that this heat source was not thermite. This is an inescapable conclusion of your belief that there was molten metal in the rubble pile weeks later. Sadly, you are incapable of perceiving this. This is because you're too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and praying out loud. You're using religious dogma as a substitute for thought.
There is no god but thermite, and Steven Jones is His prophet.
Dave
And repeat, super nano thermite, amen, while I pass out the Kool-aid brother.
super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen super nano thermite, amen
(chanting while suspending rational thought)
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
How many tons of thermite? How many tons of molten steel? Can you show me even 20# of actually molten steel? Just that much. 20#.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
You call someone a liar when they get something wrong. Such is not the case. It only becomes a lie when someone continues to say something after they learn that it is not correct. You are aware that I changed my position when I realized I was wrong. Therefore I was not lying.
You are lying because you know that I changed my position when I learned I was wrong and was therefore not lying when I made an incorrect statement.
In other words you are either a liar and a hypocrit, or a hypocrit and a liar. In either case, loose the phony sacntimonus crap.
You just deny everything out of hand.
Of course dear. You are so much more credible that a PhD with 20 years experience at a very conservative university. You ability to deny evidence out of hand is further proof of your superior reasoning.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
False. Molten metal is evidence of molten metal and nothing else. For it to have been created by thermite, then there has to be evidence of thermite. That doesn't exist. Since you cannot come up with any process that would keep the metal molten for months, you cannot claim that the same process did not melt the metal in the first place. Since it is a known FACT that thermite cannot maintain the temperature needed to keep metal in a molten state for months, it is ruled out.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Can you accept that the numerous eyewitnesses were telling the truth and they were not "mistaken" or using "similes"?
It doesn't get any clearer than this. Did you check this out?
The History Channel's "World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon"
Richard Riggs a Debris Removal Specialist that was doing the clean up.
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogru...eature=related
There was molten steel in the debris pile!
Deal with it!
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Why would a debris removal specialist know if a molten substance was steel? What training does he have that he knows it is steel?
You call someone a liar when they get something wrong. Such is not the case. It only becomes a lie when someone continues to say something after they learn that it is not correct. You are aware that I changed my position when I realized I was wrong. Therefore I was not lying.
You are lying because you know that I changed my position when I learned I was wrong and was therefore not lying when I made an incorrect statement.
In other words you are either a liar and a hypocrit, or a hypocrit and a liar. In either case, loose the phony sacntimonus crap.
You just deny everything out of hand.
Of course dear. You are so much more credible that a PhD with 20 years experience at a very conservative university. You ability to deny evidence out of hand is further proof of your superior reasoning.
Ask a trained aircraft accident investigator to close his eyes, tell him you have a solidified pile of molten metal; from an accident with a 767 crashing into a building at 470 to 590 mph and most the plane was confined to the building only large parts exited like an engine and parts of landing gear; now ask him what he thinks the metal is you are holding; he will say Aluminum. Darn, we have some 50,000 pounds of aluminum alloys in the WTC deposited by a 767 at high speed on fire with oxygen generators burning and fuel from the 767 and the office contents burning and you will get pools of melted aluminum. The most likely culprit for the sparks falling from the WTC would be Aluminum with organic compounds leaking from the side of the building where all the crushed plane, people, chairs, carpet, insulation, drapes, ceiling tiles, computer parts, plastic burning, paper, wood, and more are mixed in with the dropping sparks which actually appear to turn silvery Aluminum in color as they fall and cool.
No one planted thermite in the WTC in some plot that you can’t figure out let alone explain. The plot was too simple, you may of missed it.
Kill pilots
Fly planes into buildings
The terrorist plot is too simple. You have to have many people planting thermite in a public building with layers of security run by the very people who were killed; independent security consultants, the WTC port authority, the police, and the military are in on your perverted scenario of stupid ideas.
You prefer unknown idiots destroyed the WTC towers and killed people with tons of thermite. You don’t know who did it, but you trust Jones who made up the nut case insane idea to guide you. You have not gone to CNN to expose this plot and earn a Pulitzer Prize and fame. You are content to not read the OP sources and discover they are lies and hearsay and you rather push some insane thermite scam.
A Fired cold fusion physicist, fired because of his insane rant on 911. FIRED; oops, they let him retire or be fired.
Yep, a cold fusion physics who can't get momentum right is much better than me an engineer since 1974, a trained aircraft accident investigator, a trained pilot since 1973, someone who flew large jets since 1976 (300,000 pound jets), someone who has investigated and owned aircraft crash scene! Yep, I would go with the insane cold fusion physicist who made up thermite instead of a trained engineer, pilot, aircraft accident investigator with experience in large aircraft accidents. My My my 35 to 36 years experience are chump change compared to the insane rant of Dr Thermite have some chips with your Kool-aid Jones. (irony, the Kool-aid drinking came from another Jones)
I would choose the idiot spewing the thermite junk he made up FOUR years after 911 because he does not like the Iraq war. Can’t figure out the logic, but why not make up thermite to attack Bush; perfect logic as you make up lies. Good old Jones, he is very personable a nice guy, who would suspect he is a liar and has mislead you to follow him; guess you skipped physics, math, and agree with Jones on his failed momentum ideas.
Last edited:
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Chris debunks himself, again:
Quote:
"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=641
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
You did it!
I knew you would. This is truly entertaining. 
Let's try this just a few words at a time, OK?
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams"
The beams are made of steel.
melted means "change from a solid to a liquid"
Are you with me so far?
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
You did it!
Let's try this just a few words at a time, OK?
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams"
The beams are made of steel.
melted means "change from a solid to a liquid"
Are you with me so far?
So, is that a concession that you can not answer the questions that I presented to you?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
You did it!
Let's try this just a few words at a time, OK?
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams"
The beams are made of steel.
melted means "change from a solid to a liquid"
Are you with me so far?
Chris wrote for all to see:
"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=641
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten metal.
"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."
Your ability to misinterpret is quite accomplished.
It will take independent, verifiable tests to scientifically prove whether or not thermite was used.
The witness statements are another matter. They clearly establish the existence of molten steel in the debris pile.
The presence of molten steel in the debris pile can only be explained by thermite.
Therefore, the molten steel in the debris pile is evidence of thermite.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
False claim
Last edited:
You did it!
Let's try this just a few words at a time, OK?
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams"
The beams are made of steel.
melted means "change from a solid to a liquid"
Are you with me so far?
The Salvador Dali painting "The Persistence of Memory" is well known for its "melted watches". They droop over the edge of a block, over the limb of a tree, and over this weird organic form. Are those watches, if the painting were or real objects, "melted"? (I took the liberty of checking a few online descriptions of the painting; the words "melted" and "melting" are both used.) Can a liquid be suspended over a branch like these watches are?
The beams were indeed melted like Dali's watches are. They were plasticized, not liquified. This interpretation is consistent with both the physics of steel and with the eyewitness accounts. I can fully believe a witness saying that the steel "melted" in this sense, and that other metals (lead, aluminum, etc.) "melted" to liquid form. Both are common usages; it is no stretch to suggest that your witness descriptions meant nothing more than this. Even better, it is possible with what evidence we have of the temperatures of the fires, without the need to introduce fantastical quantities of slow-burning thermite that disappears completely after burning.
If you wish, C7, you could contact your witnesses and ask them if the "melting" they describe refers to plasticizing or liquifying. Until you do, my interpretation fits the data better.
So you see, I am not calling them liars. I am saying, yet again, that you are lying by presenting their words in a false context. Of course, my explanation does accept their words, and thus solves your little mystery completely. You have no other choice but to call me a denialist and keep lying.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
The fires got very intense and melted beams...ok yes I'm with you so far.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
No, Thermite does not last long.
It will take independent, verifiable tests to scientifically prove whether or not thermite was used. [/quote]
So you have no evidence of Thermite
Thermite doesn't last long enough. And you've already lied that there was molten metal in the meteorite.
No. Thermite doesn't last long enough and you agree that there were no tests done to establish the existence on molten metal or thermite.
No tests were done to establish the existence of molten metal or thermite. Thermite cannot account for molten metal hour, days, and weeks after the event. And you evaded providing any proof for your claim that there was molten metal in the meteorite or for the existence of any government scientists who said so.
Therefore, in your effort to maintain your fairy tale, you have completly contradicted and debunked yourself, Chris. That always happens to you 9/11 Deniers.
So, its time for you to admit you're wrong, Chris.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
C7 is a good case in point regarding terminology. He frequently mixes the words "metal" and "steel", without realising that metal includes material that is not steel. Nor does he realise that if temperatures are hot enough to melt steel or keep steel liquid then by default any material with a lower melting temperature must also be a liquid. It's not hard to work out is it?
He quotes people to back his claims, but when you ask him how, he just says, I didn't say that the witnesses did. He can't work out that just because a witness says something that it isn't necessarily true and that in order to find out the truth you need corroborating evidence.
He claims thermite is the only evidence to support liquid steel, but doesn't say how it got there, nor does he realise you'd need tons of the stuff to keep a significant quantity of steel liquid. It's obvious he doesn't understand the thermite reaction (equation), because he doesn't realise it's not sustainable over a long period of time.
Thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid over days/weeks/months in the rubble pile.
He quotes people to back his claims, but when you ask him how, he just says, I didn't say that the witnesses did. He can't work out that just because a witness says something that it isn't necessarily true and that in order to find out the truth you need corroborating evidence.
He claims thermite is the only evidence to support liquid steel, but doesn't say how it got there, nor does he realise you'd need tons of the stuff to keep a significant quantity of steel liquid. It's obvious he doesn't understand the thermite reaction (equation), because he doesn't realise it's not sustainable over a long period of time.
Thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid over days/weeks/months in the rubble pile.
Last edited:
- Status