Molten Steel

[GlennB]

But Dave, thermite is the only possibility. Your non answer confirms that there is no other possibility.

Dave, have you any idea how silly that statement is?

Dave, . . . . . I have figured out what it was.

No

Why do I find this disturbingly similar to HAL losing its marbles in 2001 ?

 

[BigAl]

Wrong! I said thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place and I don't know how it stayed molten for 6 weeks.

Unless we have a specific sample of previously-liquid steel from the pile in our hands to examine, all discussion of how long it stayed molten and by what means is pointless and hypothetical.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, . . . . . I have figured out what it was.

That was your reply to the comment that you can't figure out what kept the steel molten

Wrong! I said thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place and I don't know how it stayed molten for 6 weeks.

So now you haven't figured out what it was.

Chris, as long as you're unable to figure out how the steel stayed molten for six weeks, then you don't know what heat sources were present in the rubble pile, and what temperatures they were capable of generating. As long as you don't know that, then you can't prove that there wasn't something going on other than thermite that could melt steel. It doesn't matter what it was; if there was molten steel, there must have such a process present. As long as you don't know what it was, you can't make informed claims about what it could and couldn't do.

And, of course, the reason I keep coming back to "If there was molten steel", is that you still haven't proved even that. You've simply given some anecdotal evidence that some people thought there was molten steel present, and repeated your own interpretation of a couple of photographs.

So what you have is an unproven assertion that, if true, wouldn't prove your central claim. You're two broken links short of a chain of evidence.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Yup. Thankfully they could all see right from the getgo that notions of CD/explosives were total crap and they didn't waste any time on them. Good on them.

Yep, nothin' like eliminating an inconvenient possibility to save time and money.

NIST actually gave this as a reason:

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily* have been conclusive.

*Inherent in this phrase is the affirmation that the tests might have been conclusive.

About 100 witness said they heard explosions. This clearly establish the possibility of explosions but NIST hand waved and ignored them. They concluded:
"these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact zone."

You guys don't have a problem with any of that but a reasonable person and/or a critical thinker would.

You-all are critical of everything but this reasoning by NIST.

 

[bonavada]

I don't know how it stayed molten for 6 weeks.

If you "don't know", when you wrote about the "smouldering debris" and the "insulating blanket" keeping the steel molten, you must have been speculating. Right? So you finally admit you're <C7>uninformed<C7>

Thank you for your honesty in debunking yourself.

BV

 

[BigAl]

About 100 witness said they heard explosions. This clearly establish the possibility of explosions but NIST hand waved and ignored them. They concluded:

"explosions", whether caused by man-made explosives or steel hitting the ground isn't evidence of thermite or liquid steel.

The towers were collapsed by metaphor, simile and hyperbole.

The is no witness that reports explosions consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition of a WTC building.

There is no video that shows the sounds and image of a man-made demolition of a WTC tower.

 

[Christopher7]

That was your reply to the comment that you can't figure out what kept the steel molten So now you haven't figured out what it was.

Very good Dave. You got that part right. Now try to wrap your mind around the other part.

Thermite is the only thing that could have melted the steel in the first place.

 

[lapman]

That is another non answer Dave.

What melted the steel if not thermite?

It issue is not whether or not thermite can melt steel. It's about the quantities of steel that were reported days/weeks/months after. Even with your "slow cooling" theory, thermite could not create the quantities that were reported without somebody noticing. You have yet to provide proof that there were large quantities of molten metal created prior to collapse. The relatively minute quantity of molten metal that came out of one window of one tower is not proof of anything.

 

[BigAl]

Very good Dave. You got that part right. Now try to wrap your mind around the other part.

Thermite is the only thing that could have melted the steel in the first place.

In the first place, we need to have a sample of ex-liquid steel to examine. If it ever existed, it escaped the eye and sieves of 5,000 people that sorted through the rubble multiple times.

Until we have a sample, determining how long it stayed liquid is pointless and hypothetical.

 

[funk de fino]

About 100 witness said they heard explosions. This clearly establish the possibility of explosions but NIST hand waved and ignored them. They concluded:
"these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact zone."

You guys don't have a problem with any of that but a reasonable person and/or a critical thinker would.

You-all are critical of everything but this reasoning by NIST.

Yet NIST still looked at all this testimony and also reinterviewed some of those who made the claims of explosion sounds and still came to concusion the CD claims were junk. Now why did they bother to reinterview? Why are none of those supposed witness coming forward now and saying they have been whitewashed?

 

[funk de fino]

Very good Dave. You got that part right. Now try to wrap your mind around the other part.

ha ha

 

[bonavada]

Bingo!
We have yet to establish the existence of molten steel. Until we establish that, discussions of how it was "kept molten" are hypothetical and pointless.

This is a question I would like answered. Is it plausible that conditions might be such that steel would/could have melted in the pile?

This must have been covered in this thread before. A link would be appreciated. The forum search function ist sheisser.

BV

 

[GStan]

Yep, nothin' like eliminating an inconvenient possibility to save time and money.

To whom is it inconvenient and how? (Are you presuming to know in advance what they would have found had they conducted this testing?)

NIST actually gave this as a reason:

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily* have been conclusive.

*Inherent in this phrase is the affirmation that the tests might have been conclusive.

Correct. The tests might have been conclusive that no explosives were used. But since there was no evidence of explosives and no reason the buildings could not have collapsed without them, they didn't even need to go through the exercise.

About 100 witness said they heard explosions. This clearly establish the possibility of explosions but NIST hand waved and ignored them. They concluded:
"these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact zone."

Yes. They heard explosions. Explosions = things exploding. Explosions =/= explosives. Other things explode beside explosives.

You guys don't have a problem with any of that but a reasonable person and/or a critical thinker would.

You-all are critical of everything but this reasoning by NIST.

 

[Christopher7]

"explosions", whether caused by man-made explosives or steel hitting the ground isn't evidence of thermite or liquid steel.

Absolutely brilliant!

The towers were collapsed by metaphor, simile and hyperbole.

Dam, and all this time I thought it was Winkin, Blinkin and Nod.

The is no witness that reports explosions consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition of a WTC building.

Wrong!

There is no video that shows the sounds and image of a man-made demolition of a WTC tower.

That is a matter of opinion.
Here is the opinion of a high school physics teacher:
North Tower exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

South Tower Coming Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

 

[Dave Rogers]

Very good Dave. You got that part right. Now try to wrap your mind around the other part.

Thermite is the only thing that could have melted the steel in the first place.

A question, Chris. The answer may seem obvious, but bear with me.

Do you know of anything other than thermite that can melt steel in large quantities outside a foundry?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

This is a question I would like answered. Is it plausible that conditions might be such that steel would/could have melted in the pile?

Not a chance.

Do you know of anything?

No one else has come up with anything.

 

[GStan]

Absolutely brilliant!

Dam, and all this time I thought it was Winkin, Blinkin and Nod.

Wrong!

That is a matter of opinion.
Here is the opinion of a high school physics teacher:
North Tower exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

South Tower Coming Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

Explosions are off topic. (Thermite does not explode anyway.)

This thread is about tons of imaginary liquid steel and the lack of evidence thereof.

 

[Christopher7]

A question, Chris. The answer may seem obvious, but bear with me.

Do you know of anything other than thermite that can melt steel in large quantities outside a foundry?

Dave

To be a little more specific, there is nothing else that could have created the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

 

[BigAl]

Absolutely brilliant!

Dam, and all this time I thought it was Winkin, Blinkin and Nod.

Wrong!

That is a matter of opinion.
Here is the opinion of a high school physics teacher:
North Tower exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

South Tower Coming Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

What is missing is the SOUND of EXPLOSIONS. There are no silent demolition explosions. None of the of thousands of people that were close to the towers report explosions loud enough and timed to be reports of man-made demolition.

Besides, explosions do nothing to support your claim of liquid steel in the pile.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To be a little more specific, there is nothing else that could have created the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

That's not an answer. Do you know of anything other than thermite which could have melted steel in the WTC debris piles?

I know the answer may seem obvious, but there's a point here.

Dave