Molten Steel

[Grizzly Bear]

Hogwash. There is no president or scientific evidence that sulfur from wallboard can be freed in a high temperature environment. They use wallboard for fireproofing!

And it decomposes when it is exposed to sufficient temperatures, but high temperatures aren't the only mechanism. There are also many challenges with disposing of the wallboard once it's no longer being used. I gave you links some time ago, but you were so busy thinking of your next red herring that you ignored them not once, but twice.

Source

Traditionally, the waste, regardless of its source has been disposed of either in landfills or through incinerators.

However, there are a number of problems with these forms of disposal. The moist anaerobic conditions of landfills allow bacteria to reduce the sulfate component of gypsum to hydrogen sulfide gas, carbon dioxide, and water. Hydrogen sulfide gas at low concentrations is noxious, and at higher concentrations can be dangerous.

 

[Christopher7]

And it decomposes when it is exposed to sufficient temperatures,

But it does not release the sulfur at high temperatures.

There are also many challenges with disposing of the wallboard once it's no longer being used. I gave you links some time ago, Source

Silliness. That's in a landfill in a moist anaerobic [no oxygen] environment over a long period of time.
"if action is not taken and gypsum drywall is allowed to anaerobically decompose in landfills hydrogen sulfide gas production will continue to be a problem."

 

[Minadin]

God forbid you should hear the truth but . . . . . . the physical evidence was destroyed.

ETA: there was solidified molten steel in the "meteorite".

There was paper in the 'meteorite'.

 

[Christopher7]

There was paper in the 'meteorite'.

The paper was carbonized.

 

[Christopher7]

Voorsanger: Talking about the 'Meteorite'
"Molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395

The melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500°C (3272-4532°F)
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

Steel melts at 1500°C (2732°F)
Temperatures had to exceed 1800 (3272°F) to melt the concrete.
Thremite heated the steel to ~2500°C (4532°F) and that is what melted the concrete.

 

[funk de fino]

God forbid you should hear the truth but . . . . . . the physical evidence was destroyed.

After it was inspected and no-one involved reports previously molten steel blobs. There is no evidence for previosuly molten steel.

ETA: there was solidified molten steel in the "meteorite".

Proof? And we wont take anyones word for it especially when the photos prove this is not the case.

 

[funk de fino]

The paper was carbonized.

You dont know what that means obviously.

Are you going to retaract your false claim about me yet? I have asked a few times, you keep ignoring it.

I never claimed that NIST carried out tests for explosives yet you claimed I did.

 

[Christopher7]

After it was inspected and no-one involved reports previously molten steel blobs. There is no evidence for previosuly molten steel.

They did not inspect all the steel and they were looking for structural pieces form the impact zone. The molten steel that was dipped out by the buckets of the excavators that Mark Loizeaux talked about were probably kept separate.

ETA: there was solidified molten steel in the "meteorite".

Proof? And we wont take anyones word for it

The proof is in my last post. Temperatures had to exceed 1800°C to melt the concrete. Steel melts at 1500°C.


FWIW
It must have been someone else that said NIST tested for explosives. I've been waiting for a post without an insult so I could answer.

 

[TheRedWorm]

God forbid you should hear the truth but . . . . . . the physical evidence was destroyed.

ETA: there was solidified molten steel in the "meteorite".

Wow! One of the biggest contradictions I have ever read, and in the span of one post! You even edited the post specifically to contradict yourself, amazing! But since there was molten steel in the meteorite, please link to to the analysis done by a reputable lab that confirms this.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But it does not release the sulfur at high temperatures.

It does in fact... if temperatures are high enough, however I don't personally think temperature was the primary driving force behind the decomposition process that allowed for the release of the sulfur components.

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/recycling/gypsum.pdf

Above 1450oC, material can decompose and release sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of carbon

Silliness. That's in a landfill in a moist anaerobic [no oxygen] environment over a long period of time.
"if action is not taken and gypsum drywall is allowed to anaerobically decompose in landfills hydrogen sulfide gas production will continue to be a problem."

Well C7, you had a building full of furniture, food, computers, machinery and all sorts of other crap sitting there for 8 months. A good portion of that time spent pouring water to douse the fires and to commence with cleanup. ANd that volume of pulverized gypsum wallboard. That debris pile wasn't homogeneous, I wouldn't be at all shocked if this were a dominant mechanism. So no... it's not "silliness".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Steel melts at 1500°C (2732°F)
Temperatures had to exceed 1800 (3272°F) to melt the concrete.
Thremite heated the steel to ~2500°C (4532°F) and that is what melted the concrete.

Why isn't the concrete melted in either artifact then if temperatures exceeded such peaks? The rebar used for increasing the concrete's tensile strength certainly seems unaffected in both cases by such extraordinary heat.

The paper was carbonized.

Carbonized with readable text?

 

[Christopher7]

Wow! One of the biggest contradictions I have ever read, and in the span of one post! You even edited the post specifically to contradict yourself, amazing! But since there was molten steel in the meteorite, please link to to the analysis done by a reputable lab that confirms this.

Why do you guys ask for things you know don't exist?

Mr. Voorsanger said:
"Molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

Brian Williams said:
"This formation is really four separate stories of the World Trade Center, compressed, compacted, incinerated — exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth."

Both men were told by somebody that the 'meteorite' was fused together from extreme heat. Brian exaggerated but he did not make that up.

 

[funk de fino]

They did not inspect all the steel and they were looking for structural pieces form the impact zone. The molten steel that was dipped out by the buckets of the excavators that Mark Loizeaux talked about were probably kept separate.

Thats not what Brent Blanchard says. Are you calling him a liar? What pieces were not inspected by the forensic examiners and demo teams at the sorting site?

Why did they put aside pieces like the corropded beams like sample 1 and 2 abut not any molten blobs of previously melted steel? That is not logical.

The proof is in my last post. Temperatures had to exceed 1800°C to melt the concrete. Steel melts at 1500°C.

You did not show proof. You showed someones claim there was steel in that "meteorite". What is their proof it contained molten steel?

FWIW
It must have been someone else that said NIST tested for explosives. I've been waiting for a post without an insult so I could answer.

Is that a retraction of your false claim? I have posted this question a few times with no insults, did you just ignore them?

You dont know what carbonized means do you?

 

[BigAl]

Why do you guys ask for things you know don't exist?

Mr. Voorsanger said:
"Molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

This is actually evidence against molten steel. At molten-steel temperatures the concrete would have turned to dust.

This is just sloppy speaking, experts do that sometimes, and someone, C7, reading more into it than it deserves. Everything has to be evaluated against all the statements and evidence and science.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Brian exaggerated but he did not make that up.

Note the casual way that Christopher7 is happy to assert that sometimes experts exaggerate. However, when his predetermined conclusion requires that their statements must be literally true, anybody else making the same assertion is calling them liars.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

The paper was carbonized.

Which means it wasn't exposed to molten-steel temperatures.

Chris, you have not responded to my post of yesterday that asks about the video of the orange object

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574054#post4574054

In response to Chris's post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4572391#post4572391​

[URL="http://img383.imageshack.us/...hack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

Chris; The video of this short clip of the crane lifting some object appears to have the same source as your picture (URL above) that has the WTC tower and the color temperature scale and the crane.

You claim that what is in the right side is molten.

Watch the video and listen carefully to the words. Compare the picture to the video and decide for yourself it they don't have the same source.

Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY​

Nowhere does the guy in the hard hat descibe anything that would support the claim of molten steel.

Someone that uses the word, "Truth" edited the video because he doesn't want us to see what the grapple picked up.

We know damn well that if this or any other video showed dripping metal, it would be all over the Twoofer Youtube videos. Clearly no such video exists.


Does anyone know what this video clip is from? I'd like too see it. I bet it becomes obvious that the orange thing isn't liquid steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Why isn't the concrete melted in either artifact then if temperatures exceeded such peaks? The rebar used for increasing the concrete's tensile strength certainly seems unaffected in both cases by such extraordinary heat.

There is more than one 'meteorite'. Look at the 'meteorite' in the two videos. It is a different shape and composition than the one with the rebar.
Note that at 2:19 in the MSNBC video there are 2 other 'meteorites' in that room. All three look like rocks as does the one in the other video.

Carbonized with readable text?

That is what Brian Williams said. He did not make that up either. Look close. There are just little scraps of carbonized paper that are readable. I have seen this before in house fires.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14788613#14788613

 

[BigAl]

You have not a clue what you are talking about.

You seem to be an expert in not having a clue.

You showed lack of knowledge of the measurement of sound pressure levels and what the Decibel scale is.

You showed lack of knowledge of basic physics when you confused something called "Patrick Law" with Plank's law and your cut and paste science showed that you are not thinking about what you are pasteing as long has it has keywords that you think makes your point.

Patrick's Law of Black Bodies
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4568967#post4568967
​

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, you have not responded to my post of yesterday that asks about the video of the orange object

Yes I did #3254

 

[Christopher7]

This is actually evidence against molten steel. At molten-steel temperatures the concrete would have turned to dust.

Go back and read post #3265 and this time click on the link for the melting point of concrete.