Molten Steel

[bonavada]

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.

Tell me about it. In the late seventies, as a lad, I worked in a local scrapyard. My main job was melting down scrap aluminium in a furnace and pouring the melt into an ingot mould wheel. It was an old type furnace with a clay plug and you had to be sharp at it. God help me if any water got in the moulds even a little sweat would splutter it. This is one of the reasons I doubted Chris' molten steel in the first place. Thousands of tons of water were poured on that pile. If molten steel was such common knowledge the deliberate ingress of water would have been the last thing a fireman would use. Just another angle C7 will handwave away.

BV

 

[Christopher7]

First of all, thank you for a straightforward post devoid of insults.

I bring it up because it's a clarification of a point. I'm agreeing with you. It's very difficult to work out what you mean for a lot of people, therefore I'm merely making sure that people understand the claim.

OK - so if I get this correct you are saying that in order to cut the beams with thermite, a greater quantity of liquid metal is produced than that cut by a thermal lance. A thermal lance will cut through beams leaving a far smaller amount of liquid steel than thermite as well as a lower liquid steel temperature.

Not a lower temperature but the small amount solidifies very quickly.

No, I'm trying to ascertain how much liquid steel was produced and how quickly it would cool.

There's no way for us to know how much other than there was enough to be dipped out by the buckets of excavators, there were different pockets being found over the course of weeks and molten steel was found under all three buildings.

Why would anyone spend so much time and go to so much trouble just to find reasons to not believe something?

It's no trouble at all - it takes me minutes to write and/or provide papers that support or contradict a statement. That's the benefit of knowledge and experience.

Why are you trying to write off all the witnesses who said there was molten steel?

So we have now established that it is tons of liquid steel that were produced from thermite cutting.
If a thermal lance will do the job very efficiently and leave little liquid metal then we are left with thermite cutting that produces a far greater quantity (most likely due to it's inefficiency compared with a lance). Is that right?

Inefficiency?
Thermite was developed by the military I believe. [correct me if I'm wrong] The military has a lot of very advanced stuff they don't talk about. There is no way for us to know the state of the art as to the different types of thermite and applications they have developed. Any speculation as to what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

Have you got comparisons that show the difference in liquid steel produced by a thermal lance and thermite when cutting any quantity of steel? This would show that thermite produces more liquid.

No

Surely the minimal amount of liquid steel produced by thermite would be roughly the amount generated by cutting beams on the various floors of the towers. (plus some of the liquid iron generated via the thermite reaction).

As I said above, any speculation on what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

If we assume that all the beams needed to be cut via thermite were on numerous floors then how did all of the liquid steel from some or all of these floors manage to join up to form tons of liquid steel?

We should not assume how or where or how much thermite was used.

Since the physical evidence was destroyed, [which is in and of itself evidence of a cover-up] we must do the best we can with what we have.
We are left with a few photos and videos that escaped the purge and the statements of the witnesses.

The evidence for the existence of molten steel is the video of tons of molten steel falling from WTC 2, a photo of a glob of molten steel in the crab claw and the witness statements.

For many people, this is sufficient evidence to establish that there was molten steel in the debris piles. For others it is not. That is to be expected, but the fanatic desire to discount the video, the photograph and witness statements is just an attempt to protect the government from being exposed as lying about the existence of molten steel.

It's one thing to say you don't necessarily believe all the witnesses. It is quite another to try to disprove it and berate anyone who does believe the witnesses.

 

[Christopher7]

This is one of the reasons I doubted Chris' molten steel in the first place.

My molten steel?

Thousands of tons of water were poured on that pile. If molten steel was such common knowledge the deliberate ingress of water would have been the last thing a fireman would use.

They would use water to cool the pile but not directly on molten or red hot steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY​

The only known possible explanation for the intense fires 6 weeks later is that molten steel was keeping those fires fires going.

If you have another explanation state what it is, otherwise stop badmouthing people for believing there was molten steel.

 

[Christopher7]

I said the smoldering debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel. You know that.

Then you need to show the rate of cooling!

Get serious. I can only point out that the smoldering combustibles and the insulating qualities of the pulverized debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel.

 

[Dog Town]

The only known possible explanation for the intense fires 6 weeks later is that molten steel was keeping those fires fires going.

If even possible, you have it back wards! Nothing new for you...

 

[Toke]

Since the physical evidence was destroyed, [which is in and of itself evidence of a cover-up] we must do the best we can with what we have.
We are left with a few photos and videos that escaped the purge and the statements of the witnesses.

 

[Christopher7]

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

It's not slander, if anything it would be libel. And anyway the joke was directed at you not Fireman O'Toole

libel: defamation

How is a defamation not a violation of rule 12?

(if he exists)

Now you doubt his existence?


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.

Wrong.

I pointed out that the smoldering combustibles and the insulating qualities of the pulverized debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel.

 

[Christopher7]

If even possible, you have it back wards! Nothing new for you...

Thermite is the only known possibility.

You don't have another explanation.

 

[ravdin]

Thermite was developed by the military I believe. [correct me if I'm wrong] The military has a lot of very advanced stuff they don't talk about. There is no way for us to know the state of the art as to the different types of thermite and applications they have developed. Any speculation as to what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

So let me get this straight.

You are resting your case of the WTC building collapse as a controlled detonation based on thermite (the only way, presumably, that witnesses would report molten steel at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11). However, you admit here that you don't understand the properties of the material that was allegedly used. In other words, you're making it up.

You're peeing on your own feet, C7. Stop inventing facts to support your theories.

 

[Christopher7]

So let me get this straight.

Doubtful

You are resting your case of the WTC building collapse as a controlled detonation based on thermite (the only way, presumably, that witnesses would report molten steel at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11). However, you admit here that you don't understand the properties of the material that was allegedly used. In other words, you're making it up.

Not exactly. You got this part wrong:

You are resting your case of the WTC building collapse as a controlled detonation based on thermite (the only way, presumably, that witnesses would report molten steel at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11). However, you admit here that you don't understand the properties of the material that was allegedly used. In other words, you're making it up.

 

[funk de fino]

Thermite was developed by the military I believe. [correct me if I'm wrong] The military has a lot of very advanced stuff they don't talk about. There is no way for us to know the state of the art as to the different types of thermite and applications they have developed. Any speculation as to what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

You were not in the military, I was. Your claim is false. We had worse stuff than the civvies. The civvies develop it for us.

You are speculating on fantasy equipment while saying you will not speculate to avoid inconvenient questions. You are a hypocrite.

 

[funk de fino]

Since the physical evidence was destroyed, [which is in and of itself evidence of a cover-up] we must do the best we can with what we have.
We are left with a few photos and videos that escaped the purge and the statements of the witnesses.

It was destroyed after it had been fully inspected by demo teams, public officials and forensic investigators at the staging sites and Freshkills.

None of them report previously molten steel blobs.

How could the govt purge broadcast footage and private stuff that is on youtube that debunks your CD nonsense? How could they purge every photo? You just make up stuff about them concealing evidence when you could have payed for some of it. The jokers at Gages group could pay for this instead of the silly architects convention where they will be laughed at.

 

[Christopher7]

You were not in the military, I was. Your claim is false. We had worse stuff than the civvies. The civvies develop it for us.

Well, there you have it. An anonymous poster on a rather biased forum says the military doesn't have state of the art thermite technology.

 

[Minadin]

Unless they have thermite that burns without emitting sun-like, radiant light, what is your point?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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. They need not be as hot as the molten steel, they only need to raise the temperature of the debris significantly. Think of the pulverized debris as a blanket and the smoldering combustibles as turning it into an electric blanket.
.

The reason that nobody bothers to grasp this concept is that it's irrelevant. Let's try framing your argument in logical terms.

P1: Molten steel was observed weeks after the collapse.
P2: No process other than the thermite reaction is capable of producing molten steel.
C1: Therefore, a thermite reaction was present prior to the collapse.

We are disputing P2, so you need a line of argument that supports it. At present your line of argument is:

P3: Thermite is capable of producing molten steel.
P4: I know of no other process capable of producing molten steel.
C2: Therefore, no process other than the thermite reaction is capable of producing molten steel.

C2 is automatically invalid, as this is simply an argument from ignorance. At this point your line of argument could simply be dismissed as fallacious. However, many of us have tried to point out a counter-argument:

P5: Some process must have been present that could maintain the steel temperature above melting point.
P6: Such a process is capable of releasing heat at temperatures above the melting point of steel.
P7: The thermite reaction cannot take place over a timescale of several weeks.
C3: Therefore there was an unknown process going on in the rubble pile which released heat. This may have been capable of melting steel.

Your reply to this is that the unknown process may not have been capable of melting steel. This is not equivalent to a claim that it cannot have been capable of melting steel.

Therefore, your argument from ignorance has been shown to be fallacious by the counter-argument that there is a thermal process known to have existed of whose nature you are ignorant. Your counter-claims about the limitations of this process are automatically rendered invalid by the undisputed fact that you are ignorant of its nature and details.

In simple terms, your argument concerning the unknown heat source in the pile is "I don't know what it was, but I know in detail what it can and can't have done." This is patently absurd.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

It was destroyed after it had been fully inspected by demo teams,

Source?

public officials and forensic investigators at the staging sites and Freshkills.

NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

None of them report previously molten steel blobs.

That does not mean there were none.

How could the govt purge broadcast footage and private stuff that is on youtube that debunks your CD nonsense?

The ones we see are the ones that survived the purge.

How could they purge every photo?

They didn't, just 6,900 photos and 6,882 video clips.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004VisualDataCollectionandAnalysis.pdf

You just make up stuff about them concealing evidence when you could have payed for some of it.

You are ignoring the insanity of the necessity to go thru the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of these photos and videos.

The photos and videos should be given back to the owners so they can release them if they want to.

 

[bonavada]

Any speculation as to what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

Note that C7 does a great job of debunking himself here. His assertion (that thermite was used to destroy the towers) is pure speculation on his part, so therefore he must be, by dint of the above, "grossly uninformed"

We should not assume how or where or how much thermite was used.

Ruling out all valid questions as to it's alledged use on 9-11. Once again that puts all discussion here on the topic into the realms of speculation therefore C7 is "grossly uninformed"

we must do the best we can with what we have.
We are left with a few photos and videos that escaped the purge and the statements of the witnesses

If that is the case please stop continually using the "missing" "14,000 photos and videos" in your arguments.

The evidence for the existence of molten steel is the video of tons of molten steel falling from WTC 2, a photo of a glob of molten steel in the crab claw and the witness statements.

This is not evidence of molten steel, everyone knows it except you. There is an indication of very hot material there I agree, but not one iota of proof it is steel.

just an attempt to protect the government from being exposed

I live in Wales UK. What interest have I in protecting your government? I really don't give two flying ****s about Bush and Cheyney. I could do with a few bucks though, the exchange rate being what it is, a job as a sooper-seekrit desktop James Bond seems ever so appealing. As long as it doesn't interrupt my work with MI6 I mean Oxfam.

They would use water to cool the pile but not directly on molten or red hot steel.

That would be rather obvious. The point was however, would they continue dumping tons of water on the pile for weeks (as they did) in the full knowledge of the existence (or the possiblility) of highly reactive molten steel? I think not. Next!

​

The only known possible explanation for the intense fires 6 weeks later is that molten steel was keeping those fires fires going.

I thought it was the other way round? Ya know smouldering debris keeping the steel molten. You reverse quicker than a frightened nun in a brothel.

​

If you have another explanation state what it is, otherwise stop badmouthing people for believing there was molten steel.

I don't think I've badmouthed anyone here. I think you've led a sheltered life. Come with me next Sunday to watch Cardiff City vs The Mighty Swans then you might realise what "badmouthing" really is.

Toodle Pip

BV

 

[Christopher7]

Unless they have thermite that burns without emitting sun-like, radiant light, what is your point?

What is your point?

 

[Christopher7]

Note that C7 does a great job of debunking himself here. His assertion (that thermite was used to destroy the towers) is pure speculation on his part,

I will state what my position is, you will not. You do not speak for me.

My position is:
Thermite is the only known possible explanation for the molten metal.

That is not speculation. It is a statement of fact.

State another possibility or stop badmouthing people who believe thermite melted the steel.

 

[bonavada]

Thermite is the only known possible explanation for the molten metal.
That is not speculation. It is a statement of fact.

We all know where you got your "fact" from. I'd get a coloscopy, you must be all fact up.

State another possibility or stop badmouthing people who believe thermite melted the steel.

Misplaced Zippo's? Sun shining on tin-foil? Ooops forgot, speculation is taboo. Naughty. Naughty.

BV