Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

It's composed of materials with different melting points. Some of those constituents would melt well below the melting point of steel. In this case there may also have been many other materials and gasses mixed in with the rubble that could affect melting points.

You are in no position to second guess Mr. Voorsanger. He said there was molten steel in the "meteorite". He has inspected it up close. You have not.

It's not so much a question of concrete coming into contact with molten steel, though. The problem is that the truthers are essentially saying that this rubble was in an oven that was hot enough to melt some steel yet leave other steel of similar composition intact.

Mr. Voorsenger's comment about the antenna not melting clearly reveals that he knew "the internal fires within the center of the towers" were capeable of melting steel.

Curiously, the most obviously intact steel in these photos is not insulated by concrete. Remember that concrete/cement is used on steel as a fire insulator.

Molten steel would not necessairly melt all the steel in the "meteorite". You don't know the conditions that created the "meteorite" so you can't make any judgments about what is in it or why some of the steel isn't melted.

Aside from all that, the presence of unburned paper embedded in the rubble is a good indicator that it wasn't exposed to very high temperatures.

Your claim that the paper is 'unburned' is just plain silly. The paper was carbonized. The "meteorite" was "all fused by the heat into one single element".

You are claiming to know better than Mr. Voorsanger.
You don't.

You are pathetically grasping for reasons to deny the existence of molten steel.

 

[twinstead]

You are claiming to know better than Mr. Voorsanger.
You don't.

Why is it that you claim to know better than all the experts who don't find the collapses suspicious, and then have the nerve to chastise us about Mr Voorsanger?

 

[Mercutio]

Mr. Voorsenger's comment about the antenna not melting clearly reveals that he knew "the internal fires within the center of the towers" were capeable of melting steel.

A) No; your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You are very clearly claiming facts not in evidence. B) I note the past tense "knew"; does he still make this statement? I know I have asked you this before, but you have not answered yet.

You are really pounding on this drum a lot--if Voorsenger felt even half as strongly as you do about this, don't you think we'd have heard a bit more from him about it?

 

[Christopher7]

40,000 people assisted in the cleanup Christopher. yet not one of them produced photos of molten steel.

Not so.

Furthermore, the government is still withholding 7,000 photographs so don't claim that there are no more until we have seen them all.

Not one of them produced a sample of molten steel.

The "meteorite" contains molten steel and is therefor an 'example' of molten steel.

Now your molten "meteorite" has been debunked.

It's not my "meteorite". It belongs to the Port Authority and the person in charge of the recovery of artifacts said there was molten steel in the "meteorite".

You can say he was exaggerating, lying, mistaken or whatever but that's just denial. Very sad indeed.

 

[Christopher7]

Why is it that you claim to know better than all the experts who don't find the collapses suspicious, and then have the nerve to chastise us about Mr Voorsanger?

Do any of these experts deny that the "meteorite" contains molten steel?

 

[Christopher7]

A) No; your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You are very clearly claiming facts not in evidence. B) I note the past tense "knew"; does he still make this statement? I know I have asked you this before, but you have not answered yet.

You are really pounding on this drum a lot--if Voorsenger felt even half as strongly as you do about this, don't you think we'd have heard a bit more from him about it?

No, to question the Official Collapse Theory is vocational suicide.
We will not hear the truth on MSM.

His statements are clear and your repeated attempts to deny them are just more proof that you will deny anything that proves the existence of molten metal.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, to question the Official Collapse Theory is vocational suicide.

But hasn't Richard Gage already come forward to "question" it? Is he not still an "architect?" This reminds of of the old meme that firefighters wouldn't come forward because they're "afraid of being called names."

His statements are clear and your repeated attempts to deny them are just more proof that you will deny anything that proves the existence of molten metal.

At this point if the only answer you have to Voorsanger not pursuing the matter further is that his career is on the line, it's a rather poor excuse for an argument. Gage, as incompetent as he is doesn't seem to be afraid to "question" the "collapse theory," and he's yet to be reprimanded if he ever is to be.

 

[Furcifer]

You can say he was exaggerating, lying, mistaken or whatever but that's just denial. Very sad indeed.

You're off the charts on the irony meter.

Which element was he referring to?

 

[Christopher7]

At this point if the only answer you have to Voorsanger not pursuing the matter further is that his career is on the line, it's a rather poor excuse for an argument.

No matter how I answered that question you would write it off.

Your question is just a lame reason to deny what he said.

 

[Mercutio]

No, to question the Official Collapse Theory is vocational suicide.
We will not hear the truth on MSM.

His statements are clear and your repeated attempts to deny them are just more proof that you will deny anything that proves the existence of molten metal.

His statements "are" nothing; they "were" his statements, years ago. He no longer supports them, from what you admit here.

Ergo, no one is calling him a liar, since he does not believe the idiotic interpretation you place on his words from years ago; the only one lying here is you.

I agree, his statements are clear; they do not say what you claim they do, but they are clear. The fact that you need to selectively interpret them tells any reader that you are well aware that they do not support your claims.

Thanks for playing, C7; your own statements show you have nothing at all, and that you know this. You are a liar, and you lie knowingly.

 

[Gravy]

Christopher7 is once again unaware of the body of work produced by competent researchers in this field, none of whom have committed "vocational suicide."

Investigations leading to alternate tower collapse hypotheses, and critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists: FEMA/ASCE, Arup Fire, University of Edinburgh, Usmani, Torero, Lane, Cherepanov, Quintiere, Corbett, Mackey, Greening

 

[bje]

Voorsanger:
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

hyperbole: deliberate and obvious exaggeration

This is calling Voorsanger a liar.

Chris, you're really losing it. The only thing I call Voorsanger is an architect. Voorsanger is not the "government scientists" you claim said there was molten metal in the "meteorite."

Are you going to keep pretending you do not know the difference between two sets of people: an architect and "government scientists?"

What part of;
"The "scientist" remark was incorrect so I corrected it.

What part of we're not talking about Voorsanger BUT your "government scientists" do you still NOT understand, Chris?

How long are you going to keep playing your insidiously stupid games?

You stated clearly and FOR ALL TO SEE:

The man in the video said there was [previously] molten metal in the meteorite. He got his info from the government. You are looking at photos and saying you know better.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1036


The government scientists say there's molten metal in the meteorite. Yes, the govt. falsifies scientific documents but not this one. This one confirms molten metal and NIST doesn't deal with that.



I'm going with what the government says about the meteorite. Their data has been mostly accurate, it's their analysis that sucks. The meteorite is fused together by extreme heat. Compaction alone cannot make a solid chunk like that.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1054


This video clip is effectively government conformation of the existence of molten metal and extreme temperatures that fused the "meteorite" into a solid block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWws...eature=related

Now, Chris, WHO are your "government scientists" who claim there was molten metal in the "meteorite" and WHERE are their papers on the subject.

You are not dissembling well, Chris. Either produce the evidence from your "government scientists" or admit to everyone here that you do not have any such evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

His statements "are" nothing; they "were" his statements, years ago. He no longer supports them,
Ergo, no one is calling him a liar, since he does not believe the idiotic interpretation you place on his words from years ago

Please
You have no idea what he is thinking. You are just denying what you can't deal with.

I agree, his statements are clear; they do not say what you claim they do, but they are clear.

He clearly says there was molten steel in the "meteorite".

The fact that you need to selectively interpret them tells any reader that you are well aware that they do not support your claims.

This statement is also clear.
"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted."

He is clearly saying that if the antenna section had landed in the center of the towers it would have melted.

 

[bje]

You are in no position to second guess Mr. Voorsanger. He said there was molten steel in the "meteorite". He has inspected it up close. You have not.

Oh, Chris, you are dissembling so poorly it's embarrassing. This is what YOU claim:

The man in the video said there was [previously] molten metal in the meteorite. He got his info from the government.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1036

FROM WHOM did Voorsanger supposedly get his "info", Chris?

The government scientists say there's molten metal in the meteorite. Yes, the govt. falsifies scientific documents but not this one. This one confirms molten metal and NIST doesn't deal with that.

WHAT "government scientists", Chis? What are their NAMES, for God's sake?

 

[bje]

He clearly says there was molten steel in the "meteorite".

Voorsanger is an architect, not your "government scientists."

One of the oddest shapes is called the compression. It’s so valuable that it’s been locked inside a tent within the hangar. It looks like a meteorite and nobody knows which tower it came from says Charles Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the hangar and the Trade Center Site. Gargano says the compression is actually 4 stories that have been crushed into a jagged object four feet high.

GARGANO: This is metal that has been compressed again as the result of the collapse of these extremely tall buildings. And that is made up, composition of different materials steel, concrete and other materials and you can see how that was compressed.

Amazingly, it’s possible to make out individual objects. There are bathroom tiles, a pipe, and blackened pieces of paper carbonized by the heat. It smells like charcoal. Peter Gatt, who’s one of the preservationists here, points to the spine of what looks like a corporate report.

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/61201

Well, well, all that intact, unmelted metal, smelling like charcoal.

 

[bje]

You'd think Chris would make every effort to support his claims that "government scientists" said there was molten metal in the meteorite by providing the evidence right here.

Why is he wasting so much time?

 

[Mercutio]

Please
You have no idea what he is thinking. You are just denying what you can't deal with.

He clearly says there was molten steel in the "meteorite".

This statement is also clear.
"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted."

He is clearly saying that if the antenna section had landed in the center of the towers it would have melted.

Oh, Christopher7... your tense is showing.

"Says" there was molten steel? No. "Said" there was. The statement "is" clear? No. "Was", and even then, you are lying; your conclusion does not follow from his statement.

You are lying, C7. You know it. You are responsible for your statements; do not try to tell us that we are calling anyone else a liar. You are a liar, C7. You.

Are you calling me a liar? All I am saying is that you are lying, C7. And that is the truth.

Parsing out your statements is great fun--you are bending over backwards not to make any claims about what he would say today, because you know full well that he would not back you up. If you thought for a heartbeat that he would, you would have more than out-of-context, out-of-date, out-of-your-freaking-skull quotes. But you are lying. Knowingly, with agenda, lying.

 

[twinstead]

So nobody is willing to risk 'vocational suicide' to bring the 'real' mass murders to justice?

 

[Christopher7]

Mr. Voorsanger's statements are clear.
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

No they aren't. It's obvious he either had no clue what he was talking about (which I find hard to believe) or he was exagerating his statement for dramatic effect.

That is denial.

Proof positive that you will not accept any statement that confirms molten metal.

 

[stateofgrace]

You are calling Mr. Voorsanger a liar. You are calling the firefighters, contractors and structural engineers who reported molten steel liars. You will call anybody who reported molten steel a liar because you are in denial. You're pathetic desperation to deny the existence of molten steel leaves you no choice.

When you call the people in the Truth Movement names, you are actually describing yourself.

Mr. Voorsanger's statements are clear.
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted."


You are in no position to second guess him or call him a liar.

Do you deny molten metal was also found under WTC 6 ?

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)

Why was it there,Chris?

Is Kenneth Holden a liar?