Molten Steel

[beachnut]

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.

Sorry, the whole building is there, to deny that is ignorance.

I cut down the ventilation on outflow and inflow air and my fireplace goes to 1600 degrees. Why is an oxygen-starved fire so hot?

You get worse as you keep spewing your own failed ideas on 911.

 

[Christopher7]

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

I did answer. No one can say for sure. This is just a cheap denial tactic.

P1: There was molten metal at the site weeks after the collapse. (This is disputed, but you claim it as proven.)

Several witnesses reported molten metal weeks and months after 9/11. You don't believe them.

P2: In the absence of an additional heat source, any metal melted at the time of the collapse must have solidified.

The debris in the pile was ignited by the molten metal.

C1: Therefore, there was an additional heat source capable of maintaining steel temperatures above melting point.

Correct

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.

Correct

P4: A heat source capable of maintaining temperatures above the melting point of steel is also capable of creating these temperatures.

Wrong. The heat source need only slow the cooling.

C3: Therefore, there was a heat source capable of melting steel that was not thermite.

Wrong

The only disputed point here is P1,

Wrong

if this is not assumed to be true then there is no evidence of any heat source capable of melting steel.

If you assume it is not true.

Therefore, there is no evidence for the presence of thermite at ground zero.

Circular logic.

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

This is a bunch of double talk based on your assumption that the witnesses were lying or mistaken. Your arrogance is exceed only by your ability to deny anything that disproves the OCT.

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.

I am simply stating what the witnesses said. You cannot accept that.

 

[Toke]

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

Didn´t know that one.
Just wanted to say that scaling matters for more than buildings.

I have seen farmers busy taking apart steaming piles of beets during the winter. I have ones left a large pile of fresh woodchips next to the compost grinder. The next morning it was all grey and myceliumly inside.

 

[Christopher7]

Pray tell C7 what makes you think that intergranular melting has never happened before? Why can only thermite cause it?

You intentionally misinterpreted what I said.

Mate you are speaking out your rear end. Stop spouting this BS.

This has never happened in a building fire before or since.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

This is an irrelevant diversion question.

Now you are back claiming that the girder in the photo was partially melted in the pile.

You don't believe Mr. Astaneh because you are in denial.

You try to make this about me. It isn't. It's about what Mr. Astaneh said.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Didn´t know that one.
Just wanted to say that scaling matters for more than buildings.

I have seen farmers busy taking apart steaming piles of beets during the winter. I have ones left a large pile of fresh woodchips next to the compost grinder. The next morning it was all grey and myceliumly inside.

Well what I meant was that heat is not the only mechanism that causes the sulfur to be liberated from the drywall. Although the mechanism between the examples I cited and your experience are based on similar mechanisms. Bacteria decomposes the material. I wasn't focusing on the heat component of the decomposition process but it does generate heat output as a byproduct. I'm not familiar with how much heat the decomposition process produces though, in the context of the debris pile however the chemical reaction would have the more notable and visible impact.

 

[Sunstealer]

You intentionally misinterpreted what I said.

Mate you are speaking out your rear end. Stop spouting this BS.

This has never happened in a building fire before or since.

That's not what any lurker or another reader will think because they have a reading comprehension greater than an 8 year old. The posts stand for themselves. You've been caught out and you don't like it. No you are making baseless assumptions (bolded) because you don't actually understand the cause of liquation/grain boundary melting/inter-granular melting or why grain boundaries melt preferentially.

It's hilarious to watch you dig your hole and then continue to frantically dig as you are questioned and shown to be wrong. Hint stop digging.

Here is evidence (that took less than 30 seconds to find) of liquation and eutectic penetration caused by a fire

http://www.metalconsult.com/articles/Evaluation of Fire Damaged Copper Wire.pdf

So C7 the liar strikes again. Why do you lie all the time C7? You must know you are going to get caught out on the technical matters so why do you do it? Stop lying be a man and apologise for the things you got wrong.

Apologise for,

getting the aluminium furniture wrong,
saying that only thermite causes inter-granular melting,
saying intergranular melting never happened in a fire before,

Stop getting all mixed up and provide a coherent, cohesive argument, rather than spouting nonsense that you know you'll be picked up on. Don't keep on moving the goal posts. It must feel awful to keep on getting owned like this so why don't you give it a rest.

 

[Sunstealer]

This is an irrelevant diversion question.

You don't believe Mr. Astaneh because you are in denial.

You try to make this about me. It isn't. It's about what Mr. Astaneh said.

I think C7 must be the world dogde-ball champion, ducking and diving all over the place.

He makes a claim and then when asked to clarify it he weaves and dodges. Unfortunately he just makes himself look like a fool and a liar. It would help if he didn't keep on making scatter-brained remarks that he can't back up. I don't know whether it's his MS paint skills that aren't upto scratch or he's hiding behind nonsense of a "diversion question" (whatever that is).

C7 the liar - stop making comments about items in photographs if you have no intention or lack the ability to back up your statement. It makes you look silly - stop with the claims if you can't spend 10 minutes doing the simplest of photo-manipulation to show us what you claim.

 

[Christopher7]

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 ...".

You are so in denial. Your assumption is incorrect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK8zVbUw&feature=player_embedded

Given that we have no physical evidence of molten steel from the pile

The evidence was destroyed.

and we know no theory of physics and chemistry that would show how that kind of temperature could be generated on the pile

Thermite.

and we don't have a single verifiable unambiguous statement by an eyewitness

Please
There are numerous credible witnesses.

 

[Christopher7]

Liquid steel in the rubble pile 6 weeks after the event is a myth.

No, it's a statement by an eyewitness.

 

[BigAl]

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.

In this post, C7 demonstrates ignorance of the equilibrium of heat creation and loss that sets the combustion temperature in any specific fire configuration.


Glenn Corbett, professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice * says there is absolutely nothing about the fires of WTC that support any sort of man-made demolition or thermite.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14
(Corbet starts 5 minutes into the audio.)
​

* Part of the City University of New York.

 

[Christopher7]

That's not what any lurker or another reader will think because they have a reading comprehension greater than an 8 year old.

You are assuming others are as stupid as you are.

Here is evidence (that took less than 30 seconds to find) of liquation and eutectic penetration caused by a fire

http://www.metalconsult.com/articles/Evaluation of Fire Damaged Copper Wire.pdf

We are talking about steel beams and girders, not copper wire.

 

[Christopher7]

Glenn Corbett, professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice * says there is absolutely nothing about the fires of WTC that support any sort of man-made demolition or thermite.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14
(Corbet starts 5 minutes into the audio.)
​

* Part of the City University of New York.

Link is to:
The NY Democratic Response to the Bush Speech

 

[phunk]

Link is to:
The NY Democratic Response to the Bush Speech

That's not the link he posted, he linked to a page with several audio segments and you just picked an irelevant one.

This is the relevant audio segment:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14/segments/85542

 

[Dog Town]

That's not the link he posted, he linked to a page with several audio segments and you just picked an irelevant one.

Yes, you would think someone was trying very hard to appear stupid. Sadly, I doubt it!

A comment from the correct link:
Barry from Manhattan,

For god sakes, The fire just weakens the metal it does't need to liquefy it. The weight does the rest. Truthers are ridiculous

 

[Sunstealer]

You are assuming others are as stupid as you are.

We are talking about steel beams and girders, not copper wire.

Yep, but you never stipulated that, you just made a blind assertion and hoped no-one would notice. Now that you've read that article you should know the answer toithis question.

What one thing is actually required to produce melting of a grain boundary? It's not thermite btw.

 

[Christopher7]

That's not the link he posted, he linked to a page with several audio segments and you just picked an irelevant one.

This is the relevant audio segment:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14/segments/85542

This is the link he posted and the program he said was there was not there.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14

Q: Can steel framed buildings just burn down?
A: Oh, most certainly Brian. It really happens all the time.

This is not true. There has never been a total collapse of a high rise steel frame building. There is only known partial collapse and that occurred over the space of an hour in a building that looked like a torch.

He continues: We know from witnesses including firefighters who were actually in the building that there was significant damage caused to building 7 by tower 1, the north tower, when it collapsed.

NIST has concluded that the debris damage was not a significant factor and WTC 7 would have collapsed without the debris damage.

Even the elevator cabs in the lobbies of building 7 were displaced outside their shafts because the debris that essentially fell into the building.

The debris damage did not penatrate far enough to dislodge the elevator cabs.
NIST did not explain how this happened. They left it out of the Final report because the only explanation for the elevator cabs in the hallway is a very large explosion.

 

[applecorped]

7 and a half years out and the stupid still burns.

 

[Christopher7]

Yep, but you never stipulated that,

I did not think it necessary to reiterate what were talking about. I did not allow for the fact that I am dealing with sophists who will misinterpret in order to make stupid assertions.

What one thing is actually required to produce melting of a grain boundary? It's not thermite btw.

"The hydrogen peroxide etch revealed good grain boundary"
"A sudden large current flow on the surface for a very short duration could explain the surface heating without causing more uniform thermal conditions through the wire cross-section.

The wire shorted out and you are engaging in sophistry.

We are talking about steel beams and girders, not copper wire that melted due to arcing.

ETA: There is no mention of intergranular melting as in the steel samples.

 

[twinstead]

7 and a half years out and the stupid still burns.

Yes it does. The bad part is the only place on Earth where the stupid even exists is on internet forums (turn your computer off, the 'truth' movement disappears) so we are subjected to said stupid.

C7, Heiwa, and other truthers on this forum, these intrepid 'seekers of truth' who declare that they are right and the scientific establishment is wrong, wouldn't last a day in any university or courtroom. They would be laughed out of the building, and they KNOW it.