Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

a temperature of 600°C was not sufficient enough to affect the microstructure of the steel.

This may seem difficult to you but it isn't.

[FONT=&quot]Based on microstructural analysis[/FONT] . . . . [FONT=&quot]no steel was . . . . [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]above 600°C for any length of time . . .

This only sets the upper possible limit. It does NOT say how hot the steel actually got.
[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

Yep - truthers misinterpreted due to lack of understanding and reading comprehension.

You accuse others of doing what you are doing.

 

[beachnut]

This may seem difficult to you but it isn't.

[FONT=&quot]Based on microstructural analysis[/FONT] . . . . [FONT=&quot]no steel was . . . . [/FONT][FONT=&quot]above 600°C for any length of time . . .[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This only sets the upper possible limit. It does NOT say how hot the steel actually got.[/FONT]

all the steel?

NOT

My fireplace gets to 800C and makes steel glow; i.e. molten. Seems you have way too much to learn and have failed for over 7 years to get 911 straight. Now you well into Bigfoot like delusionville.

 

[Sunstealer]

What part of "melted" don't you understand. He was referring to partially melted girders.
melted: change from solid to liquid state.
You are talking in circles to justify your denial.

[qimg]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6533/meltedbeamwtc7.jpg[/qimg]

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

So how do partially melted turn into rivers or digger bucketfulls? Partially. Learn what that means in context.

 

[Christopher7]

You still made a fallacy, like it or not. I believe some witness may have seen molten metal or beams or girders that looked as if they had been melted. I do not believe any of them saw large quantities of molten steel 6 weeks after. This does not mean they are liars, just mistaken

Please All those people were mistaken and you know better? You are effectively calling them liars.

Care to get a flight to Singapore and come and look at my desk?

An airplane is made of aluminum because weight is a critical factor. In a steel framed building, not so much. Office furniture is made of steel, not aluminum.

And were those the same one FEMA tested?

FEMA did not test for explosives. Furthermore, they ignored the fact that the chemical signature indicated thermite.

"NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily been conclusive."
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

I am not talking about NIST. Try again. I am talking about the team at the sorting site. The process that Brent Blanchard witnessed, verified and ducumented.

Does he say he witnessed the steel being tested for explosives?
Source?

The sorting site was not the WTC. Abolhassan Astaneh said he saw melted [turned into liquid] girders at the sorting site.

Again, I am not talking about NIST or what happned at the WTC.

Correct, you are changing the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid that Abolhassan Astaneh said he saw melted [turned into liquid] girders.

This is a fact! Deal with it. Stop running away from it.

 

[Christopher7]

So how do partially melted turn into rivers or digger bucketfulls? Partially. Learn what that means in context.

You guys are a never ending stream of dumb questions, double talk and misinterpretation.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So, I see in the quotes (I have this "genius" on ignore) that C7's pulling out the old "no steel over X-degrees" argument. As if it's never been presented before.

1. Here's what Chris leaves off from his citation of NIST's report:

   It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of the general conditions in the core.

   
   NIST is not trying to say that temperatures did not exceed 600 degrees anywhere else in the towers. They specifically, explicitly state that they're not. Rather, they're saying that for the specific core columns referred to in the paint analysis, those columns did not exceed 250^oC. Repeat: It was not a general statement about the intensity of the fires elsewhere; that is laid out in NCSTAR 1-5. Reading comprehension, plus the extire context of the statement is necessary to understand what the NIST report is really saying; selective quotation for the purpose of misrepresenting the gist of the NIST report is, simply put, dishonest. Bottom line: NCSTAR 1-3, pg 101 is not the definitive word on the temperatures all the steel reached in the tower fires prior to collapse. All that was was a mention of what that particular column was exposed to.
   
   
2. If someone really wants to make the argument that the paint analysis proves the fires didn't exceed a certain temperature - it doesn't, but given that this is what this particular fantasy peddler is claiming, we'll run with this argument - then that person has just falsified the whole notion of thermite. Thermite burns hot enough to melt steel. If the truther tries to claim that the steel showed no signs of exceeding 600^oC - or 250^oC - then the truther has just demonstrated that thermite could not have been used. Saying the upper limit was well below the burning point of thermite pretty much eliminates its use, yes?
   
   It's just mind-boggling that any conspiracy peddler would be so addled as to attempt to embrace thermite at the same time they try to say that tests showed steel didn't exceed a certain temperature. That's not merely oblivious, that's purposefully ignoring reality in order to forward a stance. Talk about an argument collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions!

 

[Christopher7]

My fireplace gets to 800C and makes steel glow; i.e. molten.

What part of "running" and "dripping" and "melted" don't you understand?

 

[phunk]

Calls for speculation which will be argued endlessly.
This is a diversion tactic.

No, it's not. It's your claim that mixing is impossible, do you mean any kind of mixing or some specific kind?

 

[Tandem Thinking]

Office furniture is made of steel, not aluminum.

Aluminum Office Chair

Aluminum Office Desk

Aluminum Computer Stand

Aluminum Vase

Aluminum Briefcase

Aluminum Lamp

Aluminum Shelves

Are you sure?

 

[boloboffin]

Wrong!

Thermite is the only known possibility for the molten steel.

There is NO scientific basis for the hypothesis that it was aluminum mixed with organic material.

Do not try to sidestep these facts by asking how or where or why thermite was used. No one knows and you know that. Deal with the known facts and don't ask for speculation.

There is no scientific basis for saying it was thermite. Aluminum mixed with organic material is a plausible explanation for the stream of molten material that came out of the corner of the South Tower. Another possibility is molten lead from the Uninterrupted Power Supply room that was in that exact corner on that exact floor. In fact, the UPS lead batteries sounds more plausible to me because of the sporadic nature of the flowing material. It's like batteries bursting and spilling out one by one.

Thermite is not a fact, not at all. Asking you for a workable hypothesis of how and where thermite was used is not sidestepping anything. On the contrary, it is the first part of the scientific process. By producing such a hypothesis, numbers can be put to it and it can be modeled. Modeling will give your notion scientific plausibility if it is in fact an viable alternative.

But we cannot do this work for you for one simple reason: it will never be good enough for controlled demolition advocates. Already you and other CD advocates decry the attempt that NIST made to model both thermite usage and hypothetical blast scenarios. It's a thankless job. At least NIST tried to come up with a scenario. You refuse to do even that. All of the CD advocates refuse to do this. You would rather hawk your fantasies than put them to real-world tests and analysis.

 

[Egil]

If I remember from my own investigation, Thermal Lances were used as part of the clean up process.

Now, I do not know the composition of the concrete but Barium Nitrate (what Jones claimed) is found in drywall (and probably sulfur as well which he also claimed). It is concievable Barium Nitrate may be part of the Concrete or the fireproofing binder (which structural steel would have) and sulfur perhaps.

I forget the burning temp of Thermite but Thermal Lances burn hot enough to melt rock and is capable of producing most of the material Jones claimed to have found.

Thermal Lances are usually packed with Iron rods but Magnesium and Aluminum rods are sometimes added.

 

[Christopher7]

So, I see in the quotes (I have this "genius" on ignore)

You have anything intelligent on ignore.

NIST is not trying to say that temperatures did not exceed 600 degrees anywhere else in the towers. They specifically, explicitly state that they're not.

That's a triple negative.

NIST did NOT say how hot the columns got in the 1-3 report.
Do you know if they said how hot the columns got anywhere?

Bottom line: NCSTAR 1-3, pg 101 is not the definitive word on the temperatures all the steel reached in the tower fires prior to collapse.

Some one here posted that report as if it proved something.

It does not say how hot the columns got.

Thermite burns hot enough to melt steel. If the truther tries to claim that the steel showed no signs of exceeding 600^oC - or 250^oC - then the truther has just demonstrated that thermite could not have been used. Saying the upper limit was well below the burning point of thermite pretty much eliminates its use, yes?

The beams NIST inspected did not show signs of thermite but they had less than 1% of the steel to inspect and stated that the what they had was not necessarily represenative of

NIST analyzed one of the two samples FEMA said needed further examination but they did not test for thermite nor did the explain the sulfur.

 

[Tandem Thinking]

NIST analyzed one of the two samples FEMA said needed further examination but they did not test for thermite nor did the explain the sulfur.

And was that sample found to have been exposed to temperatures above 600C?

 

[funk de fino]

Please All those people were mistaken and you know better? You are effectively calling them liars.

No you would be putting incorrect words into my mouth like a dishonest person who is a proven liar. They could not tell if it was steel.

If I am asked if a liquid is petrol or diesel just by looking at it and I get this wrong am I lying? These people could not specify if it was molten steel or metal.

An airplane is made of aluminum because weight is a critical factor. In a steel framed building, not so much. Office furniture is made of steel, not aluminum.

Not all parts of an airplane are made of aluminium. My desk is made of alluminium.

FEMA did not test for explosives. Furthermore, they ignored the fact that the chemical signature indicated thermite.

I never said they did. All the steel was inspected at the sorting site by forensic investigators public offiials and demo teams. None of them report molten steel. You do not know what tests were carried out. You could contact Brent Blanchard and the other guys he mentions but you won't.

Does he say he witnessed the steel being tested for explosives?
Source?

He says what I said and you cannot prove what tests were done. You could ask the people that he mentoons but as above you will not. You have been shown the claims before many times. The steel was forensically examined at the sorting site why was there no reports of this molten steel that had been dipped out?

None of them report molten steel blobs and the only strange pieces were put to one side. Correct? These are the ones FEMA and NIST looked at further.

Correct, you are changing the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid that Abolhassan Astaneh said he saw melted [turned into liquid] girders.

This is a fact! Deal with it. Stop running away from it.

No, you are incorrect again. I am saying that none of this previously molten steel was seen at the siorting site. Why is that? Your source is talking about the beams that NIST and FEMA looked at. Not molten steel.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST analyzed one of the two samples FEMA said needed further examination but they did not test for thermite nor did the explain the sulfur.

The sulfur was explained, you just handwaved it away out of ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[beachnut]

What part of "melted" don't you understand. He was referring to partially melted girders.
melted: change from solid to liquid state.
You are talking in circles to justify your denial.



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

The pdf you posted makes your thermite claims insane rants.

2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.

From the paper you posted; it make your ideas pure delusions. Why do you make massive mistakes like this?

 

[Christopher7]

There is no scientific basis for saying it was thermite.

Oh yes there is!
Thermite is the only known explanation for the molten steel.

Aluminum mixed with organic material is a plausible explanation for the stream of molten material that came out of the corner of the South Tower.

Oh no it isn't!
There is no precedent or scientific evidence that this can happen. It's pure speculation.

Another possibility is molten lead from the Uninterrupted Power Supply room that was in that exact corner on that exact floor. In fact, the UPS lead batteries sounds more plausible to me because of the sporadic nature of the flowing material. It's like batteries bursting and spilling out one by one.

Actually, power supplies are usually nickel-cadmium batteries because they are more reliable and last much longer. What is your source and how many tons of what metal were in those batteries?

Asking you for a workable hypothesis of how and where thermite was used is not sidestepping anything.

Yes it is.
It calls for speculation and results in endless argument.

On the contrary, it is the first part of the scientific process. By producing such a hypothesis, numbers can be put to it and it can be modeled. Modeling will give your notion scientific plausibility if it is in fact an viable alternative.

How's these for numbers?
Thermite burns at 2500°C.
Steel melts at 1500°C.
Office fires burn at 800-1000°C.

 

[Christopher7]

The pdf you posted makes your thermite claims insane rants.

Quite the contrary. The girder is partly melted.

From the paper you posted

He is repeating the unproven NIST assertion.

 

[beachnut]

...
Office fires burn at 800-1000°C.

That is the temperature of molten steel; it glows, I saw it yesterday in my fireplace, I put in steel pan, it glowed, which is molten, the thread title.

I also put in Aluminum, it melted and had coals in it and it glowed because the organic junk was in there. Why can’t you figure this out as you just talk other take action? Just think of all the things we don’t have time to look up for you to help you. This is sad, you have no clue that the rest of the forum is doing something else save a few minutes trying to inspire you to do more than regurgitate lies, hearsay, and fantasy from 911Truth.

I took typing in 1969, this took less than 5 minutes to type; albeit rushed and my usual bad. Hope you took typing and are not wasting valuable time on your failed delusions.

What keeps you from doing experiments to learn Jones thermite is the biggest nut case idea on 911 behind no planes, nukes, and beam weapons.

Sorry, but after 7 years you are wasting time while I cut down trees, teach school, cook dinner, mow the lawn, buy wines all over the place, and blog where ever I want.

You have delusions, and I have evidence you don't understand.

Thermite is behind beam weapons, nukes, and few other nut case ideas on 911.

Those pesky office fires weaken steel; WTC falls. Once again you have posted proof there was no thermite. darn