OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

Here, I made a video:

Forgive the crappy computer voice.








Edx said:
Here's a bunch of examples of people using the word "bomb" and "explosion" and "blast" not referring to any form of explosive.

Gary Craig lives near the main entrance of County Stadium, the Brewers' current home. "It was like TWO BOMBS going off. It was like TWO EXPLOSIONS," Craig said.
[Source]

A scary S.F. BLAST under streets... An underground EXPLOSION in downtown San Francisco frightened hundreds of office workers .... she was on the 12th floor of a building overlooking the intersection, which is near Market Street, when "the whole building shook."
[Source]

At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled EXPLOSIONS could be heard in the building... EXPLOSIONS could be heard within the building and authorities cordoned off a zone some 500 metres in diameter in case it should collapse.
[Source]

Again, NONE of these refer to bombs.
Click to expand...
 
Yet in the end you have multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing steel beams melting. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet in the end you have multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing steel beams melting. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
Click to expand...
Citations required.

You also claimed multiple eyewitnesses hearing bombs, which you had to retract. I don't trust your ability to keep from conflating eyewitness reports with your interpretation of them.
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet in the end you have multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing steel beams melting. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
Click to expand...

Yes okay move onto the next line of quote-mines. :rolleyes:

BTW - Explosives have nothing to do with melting steel.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
And who claimed they did? Certainly not I, unless you can quote me to the contrary.
Click to expand...

The point is that you can talk all day about people hearing explosions, but if there also melting steel that wouldn't be loud. Thermite is not an explosive. Themate is not an explosive. Nano thermite is not an explosive.

You do understand that explosions and melting steel claims are totally separate right?
 
Edx said:
The point is that you can talk all day about people hearing explosions, but if there also melting steel that wouldn't be loud. Thermite is not an explosive. Themate is not an explosive. Nano thermite is not an explosive.

You do understand that explosions and melting steel claims are totally separate right?
Click to expand...

I think tempesta29 is one of these new-fangled 'hybrid' demolition believers. Dunno if Gordon Ross (he of the failed engineering calculations) started it, but according to him there was therm?te at the outside corners and explosives in the middle and <blah blah and endless guff and stuff>.

Hope that helps :)
 
Again, the presence or lack thereof of molten steel is a red herring. It explains nothing. Truthers present it as evidence of...something. Debunkers refute it because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. But it's a pointless exercise.

@tempesta29--

Questions for you:

What is the melting point of steel?

What is required to maintain the localized high heat that would keep steel molten for several weeks?

What do you propose could have met these requirements at Ground Zero?
 
chipmunk stew said:
Again, the presence or lack thereof of molten steel is a red herring. It explains nothing. Truthers present it as evidence of...something. Debunkers refute it because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. But it's a pointless exercise.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. We aren't arguing against molten steel because we think the presence of it would somehow contradict the "official story", but because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. There is NO other vested interest in not accepting there was molten steel.

I have no idea why truthers argue for it. It does nothing to further their argument.
 
Last edited:
That's a common misconception amongst truthers. They think the molten steel makes the official story impossible, therefore their "theory" is right. (creationism anyone?) But I'll be playful and accept that the molten steel is incompatible with the OT. If the eyewitnesses were able to see the steel dripping, wouldn't they also notice that the beams had been cut? Why wouldn't anyone report the presence of these unusual cut beams that were dripping? One could speculate that they were sworn to secrecy. But then why would they say anything about the steel to begin with???
 
twinstead said:
That's a good point. We aren't arguing against molten steel because we think the presence of it would somehow contradict the "official story", but because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. There is NO other vested interest in not accepting there was molten steel.

I have no idea why truthers argue for it. It does nothing to further their argument.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why I am enjoying this thread so much.

Therm*te (and I believe I was the first to introduce the asterix into this word as a clever substitution of terms. I'll try and prove that.)

Anyway, thermite, -mate or nano as a knownchemical substance cannot keep steel liquid hot for weeks. It cannot account for the alledged phenomenon, which is molten steel. You and I both agree on this;

Tempesta, however, has cleverly appealed to magic in order to bypass therm*te's known limitations. He proposed an unknown "black-ops" substance that could explain why there were elevated temps, and liquid steel. He most likely does not have any information about this substance. However, this does not mean that the substance does not exist. It would be an extremely naive position to think that all that exists is only what is known.

Tempesta's story then, is no different from any far-fetched fairytail, and is certainly not evidence of any conspiracy.

So then, for me anyway, its just the vague speculations of one anonymous person on the internet, and has zero effect.

/end rant
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
That's a good point. We aren't arguing against molten steel because we think the presence of it would somehow contradict the "official story", but because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. There is NO other vested interest in not accepting there was molten steel.

I have no idea why truthers argue for it. It does nothing to further their argument.
Click to expand...

There are many accounts of molten steel at ground zero, including some who saw steel beams melting.

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.
Click to expand...

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
Click to expand...

http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.
Click to expand...

So months after 9/11 there is still immense heat coming from this rubble? Why? These were office fires isolated to select floors. Only in the North Tower did fire even spread beyond its crash zone. Why are temperatures so hot deep in the sub-levels? I don't recall a fire ever existing there. This isn't a foundry; it's a pile of rubble, the overwhelming majority of which never experienced fire and the surface of which was sprayed with water constantly. People did see molten steel. A melting steel beam is molten steel. It's a shame I have to point that out.
 
triforcharity said:
Again, we've gone over this.

Where these people trained in any aspect of metalurgy?

Yes

No
Click to expand...

If I see a steel beam melting then I know that a steel beam is melting. Apparently being redundant is necessary on this forum.

chipmunk stew said:
Again, the presence or lack thereof of molten steel is a red herring. It explains nothing. Truthers present it as evidence of...something. Debunkers refute it because it doesn't meet good standards of evidence. But it's a pointless exercise.

@tempesta29--

Questions for you:

What is the melting point of steel?

What is required to maintain the localized high heat that would keep steel molten for several weeks?

What do you propose could have met these requirements at Ground Zero?
Click to expand...

Obviously temperatures were initially very extreme and those temperatures persisted, perhaps due to insulation.
 
tempesta29 said:
So months after 9/11 there is still immense heat coming from this rubble? Why? These were office fires isolated to select floors. Only in the North Tower did fire even spread beyond its crash zone. Why are temperatures so hot deep in the sub-levels? I don't recall a fire ever existing there. This isn't a foundry; it's a pile of rubble, the overwhelming majority of which never experienced fire and the surface of which was sprayed with water constantly. People did see molten steel. A melting steel beam is molten steel. It's a shame I have to point that out.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, that's pretty funny. Let me get the logic: fires (massive) were on certain floors of the towers; the towers collapse, carrying the fires and millions of lbs of unburnt flammable materials down into a dense pile several stories deep.

And the fires wouldn't burn any available materials because........???

Oh yes, they started on certain floors, so naturally they'd only burn materials which originated on those floors. Riiiiiiight.

And according to your amazing interpretation, water sprayed on the debris piles would reach EVERY BURNING AREA inside the piles; there could be no protected areas or voids which the water wouldn't reach.
And this is because........????


This is good stuff, real comedy.

ps, where are your pictures of melted steel beams, where are the cooled pools of alleged melted steel in the debris that was removed from GZ? That would constitute real evidence, but for some strange reason you don't seem to have any.... go figure!
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
Yet in the end you have multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing steel beams melting. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
Click to expand...

I come back from vacation and see this resurrected?

To directly respond: No, you do not. The only person that is actually on record and having invoked both beams (specifically "girders") and "melting" is Astaneh-Asl. And in his case, not only do we know that one of those citations was a mistaken mash-up of his statement juxtaposed with an entirely different observation (read this post from 2008 for details about what I mean), and we know the other was a reference to eutectic corrosion occuring from a sulfidation attack. Or in other words, a chemical process, not outright steel melting. Which has been discussed over and over and over again.

You simply have zero - repeat, zero - evidence of steel beams having been molten to the point of liquification. If I'm wrong, provide the references.
 
Oh, wait, I see one reference provided above. The supposed steel beam that was pulled while molten. Go to this page and scroll down until you see an image of that exact phenomenon:

http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Then go back to your own reference:
'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said.
Click to expand...

Yes, "Fuchek", i.e. "Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn." (from that same article). Sorry, no. One: There is zero in that article that shows any effort on his part to verify that what he was saying was indeed "molten" steel. Two: Again, refer to the above link's photo. Three: He's directly contradicted by Astaneh-Asl who did indeed describe "melting", but who's observations were eventually identified as being a chemical erosion. Astaneh-asl reports no liquefication of steel.

You forget: The steel was recovered. View NCSTAR 1-3C for details. There are even pictures. Go through them and identify the "melted" beams for us.

Bottom line: Instead of thinking that off-the-cuff observations are definitive, rather than honest yet unverified opinions contradicted by later evidence, you need to look at that latter evidence.

You really need to read the entirety of that above link. You're trying to cover ground that's already been covered. Again:
http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom