Molten Steel

[boloboffin]

Of course not silly.
The girder partially melted in the pile.

Do you know of any experiments to reproduce what happened?

NIST didn't do any. They didn't even analyze the partially melted beam from WTC 7

No, but the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who currently have possession that beam, did analyze it. One of the instructors appears in the recent BBC documentary of Building 7. The damage to the beam, according to their tests, was from conditions under the Pile. Period.

 

[Dave Rogers]

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

OK, let's have a go at that.

It is impossible for thermite to have kept steel molten for several weeks at ground zero, as Christopher7 has repeatedly admitted. Therefore, either there was another mechanism (however improbable) capable of creating and maintaining the temperatures required to melt steel, or all the reports of molten steel were in error (however improbable this may seem). Neither of these requires the presence of thermite for a self-consistent hypothesis, therefore there is no evidence of thermite at ground zero.

Impossible eliminated, improbable truth determined, and no thermite needed.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

No, but the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who currently have possession that beam, did analyze it. One of the instructors appears in the recent BBC documentary of Building 7. The damage to the beam, according to their tests, was from conditions under the Pile. Period.

Would you post their report please.
Also the name and date of the BBC documentary and URL if there is one.

Thank you.

 

[Christopher7]

OK, let's have a go at that.

It is impossible for thermite to have kept steel molten for several weeks at ground zero, as Christopher7 has repeatedly admitted.

The question is not how it stayed molten but rather what melted the steel in the first place.

If not thermite, then what?

Therefore, either there was another mechanism (however improbable) capable of creating and maintaining the temperatures required to melt steel,

Name a possibility or stop making that claim.

 

[tsig]

The question is not how it stayed molten but rather what melted the steel in the first place.

If not thermite, then what?

Name a possibility or stop making that claim.

Fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The question is not how it stayed molten but rather what melted the steel in the first place.

The question of what kept the steel hot is the question you're repeatedly trying to avoid answering. The reason you're trying to avoid answering it is not that you can't - although it's true that you can't - but because your entire aim in all this is not to find out what happened, but to manufacture evidence for thermite. This question is the one that exposes the fact that your argument for thermite requires that there should not be a complete hypothesis.

It's really quite simple, and everyone but you can see it. Let's construct the chain of logic.

P1: There was molten metal at the site weeks after the collapse. (This is disputed, but you claim it as proven.)
P2: In the absence of an additional heat source, any metal melted at the time of the collapse must have solidified.
C1: Therefore, there was an additional heat source capable of maintaining steel temperatures above melting point.

P3: Thermite cannot release heat over a period of several weeks.
C2: Therefore, there was a heat source capable of maintaining steel temperatures above melting point that was not thermite.

P4: A heat source capable of maintaining temperatures above the melting point of steel is also capable of creating these temperatures.
C3: Therefore, there was a heat source capable of melting steel that was not thermite.

The only disputed point here is P1, and if this is not assumed to be true then there is no evidence of any heat source capable of melting steel. Therefore, there is no evidence for the presence of thermite at ground zero.

Unless you can point to any fallacies in this chain of reasoning, you have no argument for thermite.

If not thermite, then what?

Name a possibility or stop making that claim.

By asserting that there was molten steel at ground zero weeks after the collapse, you are the one making the claim, however much you want to pretend that you aren't.

Dave

 

[Sunstealer]

This intergranular melting has never happened before or since except as the result of thermi[a]te. What you are proposing is speculation, not science

What absolute rubbish! When you make statements like this it only shows you up as a fool. And because you are a fool no one takes you seriously.

Pray tell C7 what makes you think that intergranular melting has never happened before? Why can only thermite cause it? Mate you are speaking out your rear end. Stop spreading the BS and instead actually learn something.

Examples:

http://www.twi.co.uk/content/jk21.html
http://www.hghouston.com/x/24.html
http://www.tcreng.com/case-study/failure-investigation-analysis-case-study.shtml
http://www.olympusmicroimaging.com/ApplnMetal.aspx
http://www.china-weldnet.com/English/information/II-1535-04.htm

I can even provide photos from my own direct experience, namely overheating of an aluminium brazed joint during the manufacture of a waveguide.

Stop making the BS statements because I will pull you up on it everytime and expose you as an ignoramus.

So either admit your mistake or I will refer to you as a liar until you do.

 

[Sunstealer]

How many mistakes can one put in one paragraph? Christopher is going for a record.

My university engineering education, dusty as it is and my avocational metalwork knowledge tells me that Christpher is making stuff up as he types.

He certainly is. He keeps highlighting anything to do with liquid or melting, but doesn't understand the metallurgy. He's trying to link grain boundary melting and eutectic formation with melted girders (and then thermite of course). Unfortunately C7 has no understanding of scale even though it's been pointed out to him. He can't get it into his head that these grains are very, very, small (on the nanometer scale) and therefore the grain boundary is even smaller! So any liquation is going to be extremely small and anyway the resulting liquid is not going to flow out of the steel because that's impossible. Thinking of melting in the traditional everyday experience and applying it to this situation is farcical.

 

[Sunstealer]

Of course not silly.
The girder partially melted in the pile.

Woah! Hold on there pal! You were asked to show which parts of the girder sow signs of melting but refuse to do so and hand wave it away.

Now you are back claiming that the girder in the photo was partially melted in the pile. Stop it. Either show us how you know this for that particular girder or shut up about it. Blimey talk about inconsistency.

 

[BigAl]

TESTIMONY of MOLTEN STEEL


8 A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

Ah, a twoofer perennial and my favorite. Listen to the words carefully. Nobody says "I Saw..." and the clip is edited so tightly that I have to assume that the words that preceded the audio were words like "Did you hear what that idiot said ...".

I don't know what film this is from. I want to see it The film certainly identified the firemen or the firehouse but that was edited out. The "Truth Movement" doesn't want me to see the film or contact the firemen. I can only assume the worst for Twoofer claims of molten steel.

Given that we have no physical evidence of molten steel from the pile and we know no theory of physics and chemistry that would show how that kind of temperature could be generated on the pile and we don't have a single verifiable unambiguous statement by an eyewitness, you can post all the unconfirmed and second-hand cites you want and it is proof of nothing.

 

[Sunstealer]

Liquid steel in the rubble pile 6 weeks after the event is a myth. It's only perpetuated by those who need to believe a crackpot conspiracy. Unfortunately they have picked something that is impossible.

Dave Roger's post above hits the nail on the head. If we assume liquid steel was present and the fires weren't hot enough then you have to add a source. We know that source can't be thermite because thermite burns too quickly and cannot sustain the required temperature over a 6 week period. That means something other than thermite was present as the source. No-one has ever said what that can be. Truthers can't work it out. Liquid steel present after 6 weeks debunks thermite. It's quite funny really.

 

[BigAl]

Would you post their report please.
Also the name and date of the BBC documentary and URL if there is one.

Thank you.

I suspect you won't understand the words or the sentences they are used in.
You will parrot them if you think they support your claim of thermite and you will dismiss them without any logic if they don't support your fantasy.

 

[funk de fino]

I suspect you won't understand the words or the sentences they are used in.
You will parrot them if you think they support your claim of thermite and you will dismiss them without any logic if they don't support your fantasy.

I particularly love the obvious disgust and contempt that Loizeaux and Nigro have for truthers.

Its a great Documentary.

 

[twinstead]

I particularly love the obvious disgust and contempt that Loizeaux and Nigro have for truthers.

Disgust and contempt at something disgusting and contemptible ROCKS!

 

[Egil]

Twoofers deserve the disgust and contempt.

 

[tsig]

He certainly is. He keeps highlighting anything to do with liquid or melting, but doesn't understand the metallurgy. He's trying to link grain boundary melting and eutectic formation with melted girders (and then thermite of course). Unfortunately C7 has no understanding of scale even though it's been pointed out to him. He can't get it into his head that these grains are very, very, small (on the nanometer scale) and therefore the grain boundary is even smaller! So any liquation is going to be extremely small and anyway the resulting liquid is not going to flow out of the steel because that's impossible. Thinking of melting in the traditional everyday experience and applying it to this situation is farcical.

It was therminte induced chemical phase changes that led to the eutectic formation wth the resultant grain boundary melting. This of course produced massive amounts of heat in the form of temperature that kept the pile molten.

If you look at a sample of the steel under an electron mictoscope you can see the wrd "thermite" etched in the steel by the reaction as is characteristic of themate demolitions.

 

[buka001]

Christopher 7 are you going to respond to the fact that aluminium furniture does exist and you were VERY wrong with your biased, ignorant assumptions?

Will you then consider that maybe you are also wrong about more complex issues such as metallurgy, engineering and physics? You were so quick to believe your delusions over a simple concept such as furniture materials, how does your biased reasoning deal with physics and engineering?

 

[Christopher7]

Fire.

Well ventilated office fires burn at 1000°C. Fires in a debris pile would be oxygen starved and would not burn anywhere near that hot.

 

[Toke]

Did you hear the bit about sulfur from plaster walls and other sources, reacting with steel in the pile.
It looks like corrosion and makes wafer thin egdes. It also produce heat.

There is also a issue of scale with piles of stuff.
A beet on its own will not spontanius boil.
A big pile of them covered for the winter, will sometimes boil in the center.
(it´s something about fermentation/rotting and inability got get rid of the heat)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4497813&postcount=1348
anaerobic decomposition is known to create a similar effect...