On the "melted steel"

[nicepants]

I keep seeing CTers use the "fire can't melt steel" strawman, and I'm getting a little sick of it.

1 - If this supposed "molten steel" existed beneath the WTC, this actually does NOT support the thermite theory, since the molten metal by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction is IRON, not steel.

2 - Was any of this molten metal tested to determine whether it was steel, iron, copper, aluminum, tin, or some combination thereof?

 

[Alt+F4]

In a follow up to this, could someone remind me who actually said they were an eyewitness to this "molten metal"? I seem to think that one of these people was a rescue dog handler.

Thanks.

 

[rwguinn]

I keep seeing CTers use the "fire can't melt steel" strawman, and I'm getting a little sick of it.

1 - If this supposed "molten steel" existed beneath the WTC, this actually does NOT support the thermite theory, since the molten metal by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction is IRON, not steel.

2 - Was any of this molten metal tested to determine whether it was steel, iron, copper, aluminum, tin, or some combination thereof?

[twoo-woo]Iron, steel, aluminum, titanium, lead--they're all the same thing, aren't they?[/two-woo]

 

[nicepants]

I keep seeing CTers use the "fire can't melt steel" strawman, and I'm getting a little sick of it.

1 - If this supposed "molten steel" existed beneath the WTC, this actually does NOT support the thermite theory, since the molten metal by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction is IRON, not steel.

2 - Was any of this molten metal tested to determine whether it was steel, iron, copper, aluminum, tin, or some combination thereof?

One more thought to consider:

Some people use the terms metal & steel synonymously. I would wonder if anyone actually clarified if the person simply meant molten metal, and assumed steel due to the large amount of steel present in the structure.

 

[R.Mackey]

There is no "molten steel." I'd settle for molten iron -- the two are pretty close, and iron melts at a slightly higher temperature.

Thermite creates at least 60 kg of molten iron for every ton of steel heated to melting temperature (this figure assumes 100% efficiency). Therefore if thermite contributed to a collapse, there would be large amounts of molten steel, and thus huge puddles and blobs afterward. There are none.

 

[CHF]

The fatal flaw in the "molten steel" argument is that is alleges that molten steel was at GZ for weeks after 9/11.

Thermite cools off far too quickly.

 

[~enigma~]

There is no "molten steel." I'd settle for molten iron -- the two are pretty close, and iron melts at a slightly higher temperature.

Thermite creates at least 60 kg of molten iron for every ton of steel heated to melting temperature (this figure assumes 100% efficiency). Therefore if thermite contributed to a collapse, there would be large amounts of molten steel, and thus huge puddles and blobs afterward. There are none.

And that 60 kg of molten iron require 120 kg of thermite. That my friends is an awfully large volume of thermite when you consider the flow Steven jones calls molten iron. If that flow was, based on the density and the volume we saw we are looking at about 16,000 lbs. of molten iron. That requires 32,000 lbs. of thermite. Anybody care to tell me what flowerpot that was hidden in...

 

[Alt+F4]

The fatal flaw in the "molten steel" argument is that is alleges that molten steel was at GZ for weeks after 9/11.

Thermite cools off far too quickly.

Yeah, has there ever been a real CD that resulted in the debris burning for weeks afterwards, despite a significant amount of rain?

 

[~enigma~]

Yeah, has there ever been a real CD that resulted in the debris burning for weeks afterwards, despite a significant amount of rain?

The truther answer to that simply would be has there ever been a CD of 2 110 story towers that you compare with?

If your going to disprove their stupidity, it can't be with anything open ended.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Anytime, anyone seriously quotes Rosie O'Donnell, they can be written off as an imbecile.

That and what everyone else said about molten steel/iron/etc.

I was talking to my civil engineer father one day about bridge collapses and damage that he's seen over the years. Some from stress, some from tanker trucks crashing and causing fire. He would use the term "Melted" steel in the sense of it was heated, lost it's form, and bent, causing all sorts of structural weakness.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The truther answer to that simply would be has there ever been a CD of 2 110 story towers that you compare with?

If your going to disprove their stupidity, it can't be with anything open ended.

It must be nice to believe in something so strongly that any proof otherwise can be easily dismissed without even thinking about it.

Such as those no planers who, when shown evidence of planes, say that the parts were planted there afterwards.

It's like discussing evolution with a closed minded creationist.

 

[Max Photon]

Mackey's muddled meme.

There is no "molten steel." I'd settle for molten iron -- the two are pretty close, and iron melts at a slightly higher temperature.

Thermite creates at least 60 kg of molten iron for every ton of steel heated to melting temperature (this figure assumes 100% efficiency). Therefore if thermite contributed to a collapse, there would be large amounts of molten steel, and thus huge puddles and blobs afterward. There are none.

What's with the Mackey Mouse thinking?


Why do you insist that if thermite was used, it was used to melt steel? It's like a disease.

Couldn't thermite have been used to heat-weaken steel? Hello!

NIST FAQ #12 says NIST researchers estimated that 0.13 lbs of thermite would have been required to heat 1 lb of WTC steel to 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

If demolition planners set about to minimize energy requirements, and heat-weakening worked, why would they waste energy melting steel?


One would almost think that you and STJ/Jones were working together to propagate the "thermite = cutting/melting" meme or emotionally-potent oversimplification.


THERMITE WAS NOT USED TO MELT OR CUT STEEL.

THERMITE WAS USED TO HEAT-WEAKEN STEEL.


Boy it hard to get a person to see that which they are paid not to see.


Mad Max

---

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Anyone just happen to have a link to the supposed testimony (or some other reference I can directly consult) from firefighters that's supposed to reveal that they directly witnessed molten steel in the basements of the towers? Part of me is thinking "misrepresentation", "misinterpretation", "word cherry picking", or some other divorcing from context that conspiracy fantasists normally do, but I want to view the same material they're taking that claim from before I draw my own conclusion. I know I can search 9/11 Transcripts for that info, but that's a lot of stuff to go through! And I have a real life to live.

I keep seeing the claim, but it's always unreferenced. My own memories are about the reports of molten metal pools found weeks to months after the collapse, which contraindicates thermite. Aside from the 9/11 Mysteries (and other) videos that showed the molten metal, assumably aluminum, flowing down the sides of the towers, I don't directly recall any actual testimony stating that it was directly witnessed in the buildings before the collapse.

If no one has any sources, I guess I can wade through the witness testimony myself [/grudging attitude ], but I admit, I'm hoping for a friendly assist from the gang here.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Mr. Photon, what is the use of heat weakening steel when there was already a raging fire going?

 

[~enigma~]

It must be nice to believe in something so strongly that any proof otherwise can be easily dismissed without even thinking about it.

Such as those no planers who, when shown evidence of planes, say that the parts were planted there afterwards.

It's like discussing evolution with a closed minded creationist.

You do know I am not a truther don't you Space Monkey?

 

[chippy]

NIST FAQ #12 says NIST researchers estimated that 0.13 lbs of thermite would have been required to heat 1 lb of WTC steel to 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

Don't you see a major problem with this fact? Each tower weighs 250,000 tons. I'll be generous and say that only 100,000 tons of the building were the structural steel (and that's probably extremely generous). So if you heated all of that, you'd need 13,000 tons of thermite, or 26 million pounds of thermite. A tenth of that is still 2.6 million pounds. A hundredth, 260,000 pounds. How on earth can you smuggle all of that into a building, or plant all of that secretly in a weekend or even a few weeks?

 

[HeyLeroy]

There is no "molten steel." I'd settle for molten iron -- the two are pretty close, and iron melts at a slightly higher temperature.

Thermite creates at least 60 kg of molten iron for every ton of steel heated to melting temperature (this figure assumes 100% efficiency). Therefore if thermite contributed to a collapse, there would be large amounts of molten steel, and thus huge puddles and blobs afterward. There are none.

A question I've asked many a troofer, to no avail:

Got Slag?

What's with the Mackey Mouse thinking?


Why do you insist that if thermite was used, it was used to melt steel? It's like a disease.

Couldn't thermite have been used to heat-weaken steel? Hello!

NIST FAQ #12 says NIST researchers estimated that 0.13 lbs of thermite would have been required to heat 1 lb of WTC steel to 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

If demolition planners set about to minimize energy requirements, and heat-weakening worked, why would they waste energy melting steel?


One would almost think that you and STJ/Jones were working together to propagate the "thermite = cutting/melting" meme or emotionally-potent oversimplification.


THERMITE WAS NOT USED TO MELT OR CUT STEEL.

THERMITE WAS USED TO HEAT-WEAKEN STEEL.


Boy it hard to get a person to see that which they are paid not to see.


Mad Max

---

Max Photon, can you tell us exactly who planted said thermite, when was said thermite planted, and exactly where was said thermite planted?

No speculation, please. Present your evidence.

 

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Max Photon
NIST FAQ #12 says NIST researchers estimated that 0.13 lbs of thermite would have been required to heat 1 lb of WTC steel to 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

Don't you see a major problem with this fact? Each tower weighs 250,000 tons. I'll be generous and say that only 100,000 tons of the building were the structural steel (and that's probably extremely generous). So if you heated all of that, you'd need 13,000 tons of thermite, or 26 million pounds of thermite. A tenth of that is still 2.6 million pounds. A hundredth, 260,000 pounds. How on earth can you smuggle all of that into a building, or plant all of that secretly in a weekend or even a few weeks?
__________________
http://911debunker.livejournal.com

Why do these fools keep saying things like "the temperature at which steel weakens substantially" as though it is a magic number, involving a step-function (or [don't hurt me] Quantum[/don't hurt me] change)--that it is perfectly Ok at 699 degrees C, but goes to 50% at 700C?
Look, loonies--It is a fairly linear decrease! It is continuous, not piecewise At 350C, we are down to 70-75%. At 500, 60% or so.
So, all the time things are heating up, load paths are changing due to increased flexibility in the heated areas. It ain't no sudden change...

 

[T.A.M.]

Max:

I am not really sure that Thermite/Thermate could JUST weaken steel? I am no chemist, but from every video of Thermite I have seen, it is pretty much an all or nothing event, where very quickly, the steel is MELTED, not just weakened.

TAM

 

[CHF]

Max, was the thermite used only at the exact area if collapse initiation?

I mean if thermite was used to generate heat to weaken the steel then why did it the heat only pull in on the exterior columns where the collapse began?