Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
It is not necessary to explain HOW it was done, the eyewitness statements are enough for a reasonable person to accept that there was molten steel in the debris pile.
There is other evidence which you also deny.
Click to expand...

Nope. There is indeed NOT enough evidence for a reasonable person to accept there was molten steel in the debris pile. Your histrionics on an internet forum aside, until I hear it from REAL experts you'll pardon me if I am a little dubious of you and your hero Jones.
 
twinstead said:
Nope. There is indeed NOT enough evidence for a reasonable person to accept there was molten steel in the debris pile. Your histrionics on an internet forum aside, until I hear it from REAL experts you'll pardon me if I am a little dubious of you and your hero Jones.
Click to expand...
If you deny all the statements of the eyewitnesses, you are in denial.
 
Christopher7 said:
He saw melted girders at the WTC
and when steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.

That's pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...

If you accept that as your definition of "molten", then any house fire is hot enough to melt steel and no thermite is required to explain the verbal reports of "molten steel" on the pile at WTC.

As I posted a couple days ago, sloppy English is the most probable explanation of reports of "molten" steel at WTC. The child's game of "telephone" shows how verbal reports can get inflated in the retelling.

There is no physical evidence for liquid steel (or solidified liquid steel) in the pile, and that is the definition of "molten" needed to argue for the existence of thermite. If you say some video exists, you have to produce it. If you can't, then it is just another urban legend.

BTW: You are a sloppy reader. Astaneh is speaking mostly about the bridge collapse. You have conflated his statement about the bridge with is WTC comment.
 
BigAl said:
There is no physical evidence for liquid steel (or solidified liquid steel) in the pile, and that is the definition of "molten"
Click to expand...
Please, :D read the statements again. :cool:
Watch for words like "dripping", "dipped out" and "running". These words indicate a fluid is involved. ;)
 
Christopher7 said:
Dude! Thermite melts steel. Nothing else could melt steel in a debris pile.
Click to expand...

Thermite can't keep steel hot for weeks, therefore it isn't a known explanation even if there was molten steel. It's the absence of any plausible explanation, including thermite, that makes anecdotal evidence of molten steel so implausible.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
Dude! Thermite melts steel. Nothing else could melt steel in a debris pile.
Click to expand...
Baseless speculation - stop shouting this unless you can show us how. Just because you say it is so doesn't mean you have shown us how.

How did the thermite get into the debris pile? Why wasn't it dispersed over a wide area thereby making it ineffective? How much thermite is required to keep a digger-bucket full of liquid steel liquid for weeks?
 
BigAl said:
BTW: You are a sloppy reader. Astaneh is speaking mostly about the bridge collapse. You have conflated his statement about the bridge with is WTC comment.
Click to expand...
Here's the whole paragraph:

Abolhassan Astaneh: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

He is saying the the girders in the overpass should not be described as molten because they only lost their strength ans sagged. He then noted a case where the girders had melted [turned to liquid] to show the difference.
 
Christopher7 said:
Please, :D read the statements again. :cool:
Watch for words like "dripping", "dipped out" and "running". These words indicate a fluid is involved. ;)
Click to expand...

Please show us a a single quote from someone that said something like "I saw dripping steel", a first-hand eyewitnesses. We will take it from there.

Astaneh doesn't use any words like "liquid" to describe what he saw at WYC.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Thermite can't keep steel hot for weeks, therefore it isn't a known explanation even if there was molten steel. It's the absence of any plausible explanation, including thermite, that makes anecdotal evidence of molten steel so implausible.

Dave
Click to expand...
You can't figure out how the steel remained molten, therefore, it didn't.
 
Christopher7 said:
Mr. Voorsanger said there was molten steel in the meteorite.
Click to expand...

You said Voorsanger got his information from "government scientists" but it turns out you have been lying about that.


If you hand wave that off, you are in denial. There is no reason to doubt his word.
Click to expand...

Voorsanger is an architect you claimed was told what to say. But you can't provide the source of what he was told to say. You have no evidence of molten metal in the meteorite and you keep lying about it.

Why do you think lying helps your case, Chris?
 
Christopher7 said:
You can't figure out how the steel remained molten, therefore, it didn't.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that steel remained molten or even molten in the first place. If found, a solidified pool of steel would be in the museum, just like the "meteorite" is.

There is no report of the massive slag that is a byproduct of a thermite reaction, either.
 
Christopher7 said:
You can't figure out how the steel remained molten, therefore, it didn't.
Click to expand...

Chris, you can't figure out how the steel remained molten, you're just pretending you can. Your argument is that thermite is the only explanation despite the fact that it isn't an explanation. The only explanation anyone's presented that's consistent with the laws of physics is that the reports of molten steel were inaccurate. That is the only consistent explanation for the reports of molten steel in the rubble pile.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
You can't figure out how the steel remained molten, therefore, it didn't.
Click to expand...

Basically, yes, for an educated value of "you".

There is no hypothesis or theory for how molten steel could remain in that state for days or longer in the pile. Adding "thermite" doesn't change that.

There is no evidence for molten steel.
 
Christopher7 said:
It doesn't happen that fast.

Dump some dirt or sand in the bed of a truck and hollow out a place for it.

You are hand waving Mark Loizeaux statement. He doesn't have a problem with admitting there was molten steel, why do you?
Click to expand...

Chris - one final point (a repeat of a previous post, really) and I'll leave you with the last word as far as any dialogue with me is concerned.

Why would any recovery worker choose to remove molten steel from GZ with an excavator bucket? Why not wait for it to cool and solidify? It's so much safer and more convenient to remove it that way, especially when working in this kind of environment :

GZrebaretc.jpg


And please don't repeat any of your usual stock phrases. Please try to address this point.
 
Christopher7 said:
Here's the whole paragraph:

Abolhassan Astaneh: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

He is saying the the girders in the overpass should not be described as molten because they only lost their strength ans sagged. He then noted a case where the girders had melted [turned to liquid] to show the difference.
Click to expand...
If he saw the melting of girders, why didn't he see the bright light of ignited thermite?
 
BigAl said:
Please show us a a single quote from someone that said something like "I saw dripping steel", a first-hand eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
"the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

"a steel beam being lifted . . . . was dripping from the molten steel."

"molten metal dripping from a beam"

"molten steel running down the channel rail"


Astaneh doesn't use any words like "liquid" to describe what he saw at WYC.
Click to expand...
What part of "melting" don't you understand?

Don't bother with the semantics BS, it's a very lame diversion tactic and it doesn't wash.

There was molten steel in the debris pile. This is established by the numerous highly qualified witnesses.

Deal with it or look like an idiot trying to deny it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom