Molten Steel

[SteveAustin]

You seem to be arguing both sides. Were the explosions loud enough to be heard or were they muffled?

You don't seem capable to undestand what someone is saying if this is what you are claiming

 

[SteveAustin]

How about housewives? Are they qualified?

Do you really not understand the concept of independent? Of someone not part of the investigation that supports the investigation? Or are you simply dodging this one because you cannot come up with anyone that does support it?

How's that "appeal to authority" coming along?

 

[tsig]

Is this thread giving anybody else a feeling of "Deja Vu All Over Again?".

(Tune=This is the Way We Wash Our Face)

This is the way we wash our socks
Wash our socks
Wash our socks
This is the way we wash our socks
Soap, Rinse, Repeat.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~srcpc/songs/076.htm(has a audio)

 

[Disbelief]

Just picked up on this.

The thermite reaction is Fe₂O₃ + 2Al --> Al₂O₃ + 2Fe -

So you are reacting two solid substances and getting one solid and one liquid product. There is no gas formed in that reaction and therefore no material is lost to the atmosphere (theoretically) so the weight must be equal on both sides. The idea behind thermite is that it contains it's own oxidant and it's this oxygen that used to combine with the Aluminium.

So after the reaction you will be left with solid alumina and liquid iron (plus 2 tons of liquid steel) and the overall weight won't change so the answer is 3 tons theoretically*.

The aluminium has been oxidised and the iron reduced - a redox reaction.

Stoichiometry.

Chemical g/mole

Fe₂O₃ 159.7
Al 26.98
Al₂O₃ 101.96
Fe 55.85

so 1 mole of thermite is (1 x 159.7)+ (2 x 26.98) = 213.66g

which produces

(2 x 55.85) =111.7g of Liquid Fe
(1 x101.96) = 101.96g of Alumina.

* In the real world you wouldn't expect 100% of the reactants to react, but mixing the powders well would maximise the yield, therefore you wouldn't get 100% reaction efficiency. Also bear in mind that not all of the heat of reaction will be consumed heating the Iron, Alumina and steel a proportion will be lost to heating the atmosphere, heating a container and the heat will also be conducted via the steel that's still solid.

We can work out how much steel a gram of thermite will melt for a given final steel temperature using a chemical thermodynamic method, but we need to assume 100% efficiency when doing it, which is in the real world obviously impossible.

For a real world scenario you have to make more assumptions than just assuming 100% efficiency. As we know certain people get rather uppity and think that assumption is doubletalk for making it up.

There are probably better was of doing it - do we have any thermodynamicists in the house?

Thank you for that bit of information. Now, all C7 and his buddies need to do to show a greater probability of thermite is to prove that weight of materials removed was greater than the weight of the towers and contents.

 

[BigAl]

No, you see I do not need to come up with an alternative scenario, that's not my job. All that has to be done is prove that there were errors/lies/etc.. in the OCT.

Having done this I am asking for a new independent, impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into what happened.

Asking me what I think happened does not support the OCT but simply dodges away from it.

Fine.

If you bring up molten metal or not-an-airplane to make larger case, your list of "relevant expert witnesses" will be very short and the number that pass any cross-examination without leaving the jury is hysterical laughter will be zero.

Your list of eyewitnesses to liquid steel will be zero based on what you have shown us so far.

The supply of expert witnesses for the other side will be endless and credible and able to withstand your cross-examination if they can keep from laughing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

you guys might want to go read that BBC blog I linked above. There was a guy there that kept arguing in favor of the OCT, and he was a big fan of this site. Yet none of his claims stood up to the light of day, and as quite a few people here do not like the way this debate is going (always saying get back on topic) and only want to concentrate on one tiny little topic (compartmentalizing the debate) maybe you could pick up there (on the BBC blog) where we left off here, just be sure to read the entire 2700+ responses first so we dont have to repeat anything.

I'm not asking you to repeat your argument, I am asking where -- if -- you agree with the areas I pointed out in that page I linked to. You seem to be confident that WRH is accurately representing the evidence it provides. Don't make me spoil this for you without you having the chance to clarify your position. This is -- unlike your earlier link sparring -- closer to the topic of this thread. And the author has as well made use of the same page.

I would contend that despite C7's alignment with your positions he knows what I am referring to about that sites credibility better than yourself

 

[Sunstealer]

Do you really not understand the concept of independent?

Do you really not understand the concept of "on topic"? Please stick to the topic at hand which is molten or liquid metal/steel at Ground Zero and take anything else to another thread(s).

 

[tsig]

Do you really not understand the concept of independent? Of someone not part of the investigation that supports the investigation? Or are you simply dodging this one because you cannot come up with anyone that does support it?

How's that "appeal to authority" coming along?

If mentioning housewives is an appeal to authority in your book, you have set the bar too low.

I think it was Heiwa that mentioned housewives as an authority so I just wanted to see if you agree with your engineering champion.

 

[beachnut]

No, you see I do not need to come up with an alternative scenario, that's not my job. All that has to be done is prove that there were errors/lies/etc.. in the OCT.

Having done this I am asking for a new independent, impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into what happened.

Asking me what I think happened does not support the OCT but simply dodges away from it.

You failed so far you have failed to present a single error in the factual story of how 19 terrorists did 911. Was the terrorist plot to complex for you to grasp 7 years ago. Seems the passengers on 93 figure out 911 in minutes and you have failed in 7 years. Why are you unable to come up with a rational scenario for your failed ideas on glowing steel?

You missed the investigations and studies? All independent, not one terrorist was compromising the investigations. So far you and 911Truth have failed to come up with one piece of evidence to support another investigation and you don’t understand the ones that were done so you make up ideas about glowing steel and you don’t gain the knowledge and sound judgment needed to understand the investigations and studies already completed; why? What keeps you from understanding 911? After 7 years you would think people would gain some education and skills to understand 911 but you are proof all you want to do is chant for a new investigation based on your opinion, based on hearsay, lies and fantasy. You don’t see it and you can’t produce a rational scenario because you lack evidence, even evidence for a new investigation. You have zero. What does glowing steel have to do with a new investigation?

 

[TexasJack]

Or maybe I read that page before

Then why don't you refute it with some kind of argument supported by facts? Making a blanket statement with no backbone doesn't carry any weight.

 

[GStan]

you guys might want to go read that BBC blog I linked above. There was a guy there that kept arguing in favor of the OCT, and he was a big fan of this site. Yet none of his claims stood up to the light of day, and as quite a few people here do not like the way this debate is going (always saying get back on topic) and only want to concentrate on one tiny little topic (compartmentalizing the debate) maybe you could pick up there (on the BBC blog) where we left off here, just be sure to read the entire 2700+ responses first so we dont have to repeat anything.

Yes, that can be frustrating when one's argument strategy is to try to fling as much poop as possible to see if they can get something to stick.

Get back on topic or start your own thread.

 

[GStan]

No, you see I do not need to come up with an alternative scenario, that's not my job. All that has to be done is prove that there were errors/lies/etc.. in the OCT.

Sorry. Coming up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence better than the prevailing narrative is exactly your job.

Having done this I am asking for a new independent, impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into what happened.

What errors/lies/etc. have you proven?

Are they related to liquid steel? Ya know, the topic of this thread?

Asking me what I think happened does not support the OCT but simply dodges away from it.

Correct. But asking you what you think happened does reveal that your reasons for dismissal of the prevailing narrative are drowning in ignorance.

 

[beachnut]

Unless of course they support the "Official" report right? Would you like me to link all the "appeals to authority" here on JREF to support the "Official" report.

Who was it a few days back on another thread that listed Bazant's entire educational and professional experience and then compared it to Heiwa's?

Where is the glowing steel smoking gun evidence for the new investigating?

Why are you able to find ATA so easy but you have no clue the people attacking Bazant’s model are stupid? There are examples of people attacking Bazant’s work in journals and they lost, so you better pick another case of ATA before you expose your ignorance on engineering. At least you only have 0.001 percent of engineers to use in your ATAs, so you can’t ATA as well as those with evidence can. But what does this have to do with glowing steel?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Unless of course they support the "Official" report right? Would you like me to link all the "appeals to authority" here on JREF to support the "Official" report.

Who was it a few days back on another thread that listed Bazant's entire educational and professional experience and then compared it to Heiwa's?

I realize that others here fall into the same trap. The fact that some posters here fail to apply logic rigorously does not somehow validate your argument, nor does it establish any level of credibilty for the PQ911 group. Fallacy is fallacy, and that characteristic is independent of the flaws of the people arguing either side. Most of the PQ911 "members" present fallacy. Bazant does not.

Regardless of whether people have made appeals to authority regarding Bazant, the fact of the matter is that his analysis holds up far better than Heiwa's; it's based more in the engineering principles of tall structures than Heiwa's fallacies. Look up Architect's responses to Heiwa for what principles Mr. Bjorkman violates in his posts, as well as Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey's, and others.

Furthermore, you've also failed to address the fact that any appeal to the PQ911 group is hollow. Again, regardless of whether anyone here commits logical fallacies in their arguments or not, the fact remains that the PQ911 list is either composed of individuals forwarding fallacious and invalidated claims (like Dr. Curtis), or of people whose stances are far removed from any conspiratorial hypothesis (like Ms. Schiavo's). If you want to elevate your argument, that is what you should be addressing.

And as icing on the cake: When people list Dr. Zdenek Bazant's experience and qualifications, at least many of them are doing it in addition to discussing the specifics of his works. You, on the other hand, made a most empty appeal to authority, devoid of anything other than a most cursory note of the cumulative argument (and one that fails, too; again, there are people listed in that group who do not address the NIST report in any form, and the ones who do restort to distortion and fallacy). Your presentation of PQ911 was basically "Here's a bunch of 'experts' against the NIST report". The saving grace of other poster's logical mistakes was that they at least also made note of Bazant's arguments and why they are sound. You, on the other hand... well, let's just say that you don't appear to have read the stances of many on the list you present as rebuttal. If you did, you'd realize how hollow the list as an authority really is.

 

[beachnut]

... All that has to be done is prove that there were errors/lies/etc.. in the OCT.

Having done this I am asking for a new independent, impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into what happened. ...

Done what? You have posted off topic, you have done zero but spew opinions and those are not justification for a new investigation.

You failed to prove that there were errors/lies/etc.

I think you need to explain the etc. You have failed to prove anything. Case close, back to the regular opinion show from Chris7 on glowing steel.

 

[SteveAustin]

You failed so far you have failed to present a single error in the factual story of how 19 terrorists did 911. Was the terrorist plot to complex for you to grasp 7 years ago. Seems the passengers on 93 figure out 911 in minutes and you have failed in 7 years. Why are you unable to come up with a rational scenario for your failed ideas on glowing steel?

You missed the investigations and studies? All independent, not one terrorist was compromising the investigations. So far you and 911Truth have failed to come up with one piece of evidence to support another investigation and you don’t understand the ones that were done so you make up ideas about glowing steel and you don’t gain the knowledge and sound judgment needed to understand the investigations and studies already completed; why? What keeps you from understanding 911? After 7 years you would think people would gain some education and skills to understand 911 but you are proof all you want to do is chant for a new investigation based on your opinion, based on hearsay, lies and fantasy. You don’t see it and you can’t produce a rational scenario because you lack evidence, even evidence for a new investigation. You have zero. What does glowing steel have to do with a new investigation?

So if I can come up with proof that one of the top "officials" lied about 9/11 will all of you admit there is reason to suspect all the rest of the evidence? After all in a trial when a witness is proven to have lied about one thing all their other statements are viewed as suspect.

Which would mean a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation is required?

Are we all agreed? If I can prove one lie?

 

[Toke]

How would you reconice a transparent investigation?

Does transparent mean understandable to truthers?

 

[GStan]

So if I can come up with proof that one of the top "officials" lied about 9/11 will all of you admit there is reason to suspect all the rest of the evidence? After all in a trial when a witness is proven to have lied about one thing all their other statements are viewed as suspect.

Which would mean a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation is required?

Are we all agreed? If I can prove one lie?

No. Unfortunately for the truth movement, that is not how science or logical reasoning works.

I am embarrassed to admit however that I am interested in the alleged "lie" you are baiting us with. Perhaps you could start a thread to discuss it.

 

[SteveAustin]

I am embarrassed to admit however that I am interested in the alleged "lie" you are baiting us with. Perhaps you could start a thread to discuss it.

Hehe, yes, it wasn't a very well camouflaged bait, and to be honest I was not trying to hide the baiting. BTW, it is not 1 lie, there are many, this one just came to mind recently because I've had to deal with it recently.

And yes, my intent was to start a new thread about it

No. Unfortunately for the truth movement, that is not how science or logical reasoning works.

And unfortunately yes, when a suspect (and just because you believe the OCT does not mean that the people viewed as suspects by the 9/11 truth movement are not suspects) is shown to have lied once all his testimony is viewed as suspect and needs re-examination.

 

[GStan]

Hehe, yes, it wasn't a very well camouflaged bait, and to be honest I was not trying to hide the baiting. BTW, it is not 1 lie, there are many, this one just came to mind recently because I've had to deal with it recently.

And yes, my intent was to start a new thread about it

I'll be anxiously waiting.

And unfortunately yes, when a suspect (and just because you believe the OCT does not mean that the people viewed as suspects by the 9/11 truth movement are not suspects) is shown to have lied once all his testimony is viewed as suspect and needs re-examination.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I can accept that if it is proven that a witness has lied, any testimony that witness has given should be viewed accordingly. However, the prevailing narrative of 911 is built upon the testimony of hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses, as well as analysis of physical evidence by hundreds, if not thousands of relevant professionals and law enforcement officers. You don't get to just dismiss all of that because one guy, or ten guys, or however many you have, lied. As I already stated, that is not how science or logical reasoning works.