Molten Steel

[bonavada]

The combustible contents of the building.
[As if you didn't know]

So the burning contents of offices (the buildings) are capable of keeping steel molten? IE Riggs was right after all?

BV

 

[Sunstealer]

When steel rusts, it's an exothermic reaction. It gives off heat. The rule of thumb I learned in high school chemistry is that in general, there's a doubling of reaction rate for every 10 degrees F rise in temperature. So if the heat can't be drawn away fast enough, it leads to a thermal runaway. It gets hot, the reaction happens faster, it gets hotter, which makes the reaction happen faster...
I think it's possible that, in spots, unlikely as it sounds, the steel caught fire.

It's not unlikely. Steel will burn. Anyone who has experience of working with steel, such as a blacksmith, will know that it does. This is not new scientific knowledge, it's been known for hundreds of years. Reduction of Iron to Iron Oxide is an exothermic reaction.

The reason metallurgists were shocked by the wastage of the members examined was because they were looking at it from a pre-collapse point of view and not a post collapse one. Once they realised looked at it from the point of view of post collapse then it made much more sense.

* carried on from my last post - this is what sustains the temperature when a thermal lance is used. Once the steel is upto a certain temperature you no longer need fuel, all you do is keep blasting it with oxygen. The iron oxide melts and this is what cuts the steel.

 

[TSR]

You are talking to yourself.

.
Your response puts the lie to this statement.
.

It amazes me how no one here can grasp this simple concept. Combustibles smoldering in the debris pile will slow the cooling of the molten steel.

.
And your evidence for this is ... ?
.

They need not be as hot as the molten steel, they only need to raise the temperature of the debris significantly.

.
So now the debris itself is hot enough to keep the "steel" molten? Is there anyone you can mis-quote to support this new lie?
.

Think of the pulverized debris as a blanket and the smoldering combustibles as turning it into an electric blanket.

.
Got anything other than bald assertion to support your claim that the debris insulates the "molten steel" sufficiently to keep it molten for weeks?
.

 

[bonavada]

Something is wrong with that quote. By Jan 9, the pile was all but gone. I also can't find a source for Firefighter Joe O'Toole's quote. Since C7 quoted him, I assume C7 has a primary source for it. Riiight.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53997,00.html

• Jan. 9: One million tons of debris now removed from the site.
• Jan. 22: Crews lay the foundation for a ramp that will allow recovery workers to remove the last of the rubble. City predicts work will end in early summer.

Maybe O'Toole had a Tardis like Chris****era's Time Travelling Mohawks?


BV

 

[TSR]

Note that a thermal lance only melts a small amount of steel at a time and the steel solidifies as soon as the torch moves on in the cutting process.

.
The same as with therm*te. Your point?
.

It is ludicrus to claim that the molten steel observed by witnesses was the result of thermal lances.

.
As with therm*te
.

 

[BigAl]

I checked the source I had and it no longer works.
You are right about the 5 months being wrong and you will use that as a reason to deny O'Toole saw molten steel dripping from a beam. Interesting how evidence disappears. Most convenient for the government OCT.

You are right.

I won't consider accepting a quote unless I can read the full text from something close to a primary source. A document with "truth" in the title is not a primary source.

 

[bonavada]

I checked the source I had and it no longer works.
You are right about the 5 months being wrong and you will use that as a reason to deny O'Toole saw molten steel dripping from a beam. Interesting how evidence disappears. Most convenient for the government OCT.

​

BV

 

[Christopher7]

Link?

BV

New people come and ask the same questions that have been asked and answered many times in an effort to muddy the waters by reciting from Gravy's list of denial, diversion, defamation and doubletalk.

I'm not going to get on that merry-go-round again.

Google "witnesses,steel,9/11" and don't post the denial tripe from Gravy's handbook again.

Either you believe the witnesses or you think they are lying/idiots.
"Mistaken" is a euphemism for liar/idiot so don't even hand me that crap.

 

[Toke]

So you might just be mistaken?

 

[Christopher7]

Maybe O'Toole had a Tardis like Chris****era's Time Travelling Mohawks?


BV

Even the 9/11 "heros" as are not exempt from your slanderous insults.

You berate anyone and everyone who says anything to harm the OCT, even if they did not question the OCT. You insult is intentionally vague to give you wiggle room but the message is clear.

 

[Sunstealer]

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the [FONT=&quot]molten steel[/FONT]."

5 Months!! FFS I thought that 6 weeks was taking the piss, but 5 months! A temperature of approximately 1500°C for 5 months?

You have some amazing insulation and some very persistent fires to produce liquid steel after 5 months. I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Astounded that there could possibly be conditions that would keep steel liquid for that period of time. 3 1/2 times longer than you originally claimed!

Wow! Yowsers!

OK - we need to do some scientific testing because this is astounding.

What I propose is very simple: Get a small piece of A36 steel. Put it in a crucible. Put the crucible into a furnace. (all furnaces are insulated as much as possible). Set the temp for the maximum it will go to. Record the maximum temp.

Now lower the furnace temperature to 1500°C and see how long it takes. Now continue monitoring and reduce it to 1300°C and see how long it takes. At this point remove the steel if you can using tongs. What happens?

Continue the experiment to 1000°C. (approximately the temp for the Fe-O-S eutectic to form).

How long does it take?

This is a very easy experiment to perform and doesn't need state of the art equipment. Infact as long as you have a homemade thermocouple calibrated properly and a well insulated furnace then this is a piece of cake. Any company or university or other source that you could borrow the time/use of a furnace would do.

 

[ravdin]

Even the 9/11 "heros" as are not exempt from your slanderous insults.

That is a lie. I challenge you to find a post anywhere on this thread where your adversaries are defaming or otherwise insulting the Ground Zero workers.

You berate anyone and everyone who says anything to harm the OCT, even if they did not question the OCT. You insult is intentionally vague to give you wiggle room but the message is clear.

Actually, it's just you who is being berated here. When you can't provide evidence to back up your assertions, you blame the government. You dodge simple questions. So perhaps you need to think about your tactics. If you're really smarter and better informed than all of the rest of us, act the part. The tantrum you're throwing because we don't believe you makes your case all the more unconvincing.

 

[BigAl]

Even the 9/11 "heros" as are not exempt from your slanderous insults.

You berate anyone and everyone who says anything to harm the OCT, even if they did not question the OCT. You insult is intentionally vague to give you wiggle room but the message is clear.

You already slandered the firemen and other first responders and the enire 10s of thousands of people that worked on the cleanup of WTC.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4561253#post4561253​

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Tired denial question. Deal with the evidence that exists. It is enough to establish the existence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were no doubt witnesses. The government and media are not telling us. The govt. withheld the 500 first responder statements, including about 100 that heard explosions, until family members and the NY Times filed a FoIA request and forced them to release the incriminating evidence. Other than the NY Times, the media did not report this incriminating evidence. This is clearly a cover up on the part of the govt. and the MSM [main stream media].

The MSM will not show the implosion of WTC 7 because too many people will see that it is a CD.

So now C7 is implicating 3,000 firemen in a criminal cover-up of a crime that killed 340 of their friends.

 

[Sunstealer]

Either you believe the witnesses or you think they are lying/idiots.
"Mistaken" is a euphemism for liar/idiot so don't even hand me that crap.

Bollocks! You are setting up a false dichotomy. For crying out loud, why do you continue with that? All you are doing is trying to make the witnesses infallible.

You could easily clear this up by contacting the witnesses. Ask then what they saw, get them to describe it to you. Instead all you do is set up a false dichotomy in order to support your stance.

Ask them FFS - you've been given contact details so why are you so afaid to get in contact and clarify their statements?

Are you afraid that they might not support you?

I believe it is important to dispel any doubts in this regard, because I have had the honor of being contacted by some Ground Zero workers who assisted specialists in oxygen cutting (this is the technical name of the technique I will describe here), and I realized from their eyewitness reports that there is some confusion on the matter.

Their messages not only reported their direct experience but also mentioned "molten steel" quite often: this shows that even structural steel workers are not always fully familiar with the actual operating principles of the tools they use.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/05/technical-details-on-thermal-cutting-of.html

Yep, that's right folks - even people working thermal lances used the words "molten steel" inappropriately. These are people that do this kind of work as a job but they were mistaken. It's another nail in the coffin that exposes people who claim that witness statements of molten steel let alone liquid steel are infallible.

 

[bonavada]

Even the 9/11 "heros" as are not exempt from your slanderous insults.
You berate anyone and everyone who says anything to harm the OCT, even if they did not question the OCT. You insult is intentionally vague to give you wiggle room but the message is clear.

It's not slander, if anything it would be libel. And anyway the joke was directed at you not Fireman O'Toole (if he exists) Your quote is debunked. Kaput. No melted steel 5 months after 9-11.

Back on topic, Christoper7's Scenario..

You have now admitted a scenario whereby burning/smouldering office combustibles kept the steel molten for weeks after 9-11. It logically follows that, in that scenario, when office combustibles burn/smoulder, they burn/smoulder at sufficient temperature to melt steel. This scenario then, is a plausible explanation for any molten steel that may have been witnessed at GZ.


BV

 

[Christopher7]

It amazes me how no one here can grasp this simple concept. Combustibles smoldering in the debris pile will slow the cooling of the molten steel.

And your evidence for this is ... ?

It is self evident.
.

They need not be as hot as the molten steel, they only need to raise the temperature of the debris significantly.

So now the debris itself is hot enough to keep the "steel" molten? Is there anyone you can mis-quote to support this new lie?.

No. You are deliberately misinterpreting this statement so you can ask a sarcastic question and accuse me of lying. Pathetic.
I said the smoldering debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel. You know that.


.

 

[Sunstealer]

Then you need to show the rate of cooling!

 

[bonavada]

New people come and ask the same questions

New? I originally joined this forum long ago. I rejoined in 2006, months BEFORE you ever posted here.

Google "witnesses,steel,9/11"

The response above was in reply to a question of mine about the source for your "fact" that "insulating blankets" kept steel molten for weeks at GZ. I googled a few, more relevant, phrases and guess what? This is what I came up with:-

Your search - "insulating blankets" "molten steel" "world trade center" - did not match any documents

Tell you what, you try Googling "insulating blankets". Get back to me with any 9-11 gubbins wontcha?

BV

 

[BigAl]

It is self evident.
.

No. You are deliberately misinterpreting this statement so you can ask a sarcastic question and accuse me of lying. Pathetic.
I said the smoldering debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel. You know that. .

Please remember to factor in the cooling effect of all the water that was being poured on the pile to put out fires. Hitting underground molten steel with a fire hose has to be exciting.

There was lots of smoke and crap in the air but I don't recall anyone reporting a steam volcano from a spot that later turned out to be a mass of ex-molten steel.

 

[TjW]

It's not unlikely. Steel will burn. Anyone who has experience of working with steel, such as a blacksmith, will know that it does. This is not new scientific knowledge, it's been known for hundreds of years. Reduction of Iron to Iron Oxide is an exothermic reaction.

The reason metallurgists were shocked by the wastage of the members examined was because they were looking at it from a pre-collapse point of view and not a post collapse one. Once they realised looked at it from the point of view of post collapse then it made much more sense.

* carried on from my last post - this is what sustains the temperature when a thermal lance is used. Once the steel is upto a certain temperature you no longer need fuel, all you do is keep blasting it with oxygen. The iron oxide melts and this is what cuts the steel.

I wasn't claiming that it was new knowledge. The "unlikely as it seems" was aimed at C7, who I'm sure finds my conclusion to be bogus.