• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged So there was melted steel

Redwood said:
Funny, I don't see any signs of huge slabs of congealed iron anywhere in these pictures. (I'm sure that you, as a student of 9/11, are aware that there was a big ceremony when the last column was removed from GZ.) Shouldn't there at least have been nodules resembling iron-nickle meteorites all over? Did nobody save one as a souvenir? Or were these all confiscated by NWO agents?

Are you saying it diffused into the soil? As a retired chemist, I'd be fascinated to hear a theory as to how this is possible. :rolleyes: Here's a test for truthers: Take some thermite and drip the molten iron into various soils, and see how far it penetrates. This should be good. :rolleyes: I'd advise you not to try it with moist soils.
Click to expand...

You can see the blob on the bottom end of the column :D, the NWO didn't do a very good job of hiding that. Expecting truthers to be fooled by a bit of graffiti covering it up ;)
 
Redwood said:
Funny, I don't see any signs of huge slabs of congealed iron anywhere in these pictures. (I'm sure that you, as a student of 9/11, are aware that there was a big ceremony when the last column was removed from GZ.) Shouldn't there at least have been nodules resembling iron-nickle meteorites all over? Did nobody save one as a souvenir? Or were these all confiscated by NWO agents?...
Click to expand...
Good thing they were, or they might've accidentally sent it with the bits of the WTC they literally gave away.*

I don't think any truther has ever described how the MIBs would even find the evidence in the debris, much less secretly spirit it away from the most well-documented crime scene in human history.

*This is also a problem with many moon hoaxers. "The moon rocks were faked!" "Including the ones they literally gave and still give away and loan to people? The ones that have been stolen a few times and are passed around by private collectors? The ones no one's been able to fake in over forty years?"
 
lexicon008 said:
whos fault is that..i am not the one that investigated the site.
Is it my fault that they hand waved the witness testimony away and didn't look?
Is it my fault that the investigators from NIST looked at the meteorite and went Meh not worth testing. This by itself, according to NFPA guidelines at the time, indicates the possiblity of exotic accelerants or extremely high temperatures.
NIST didn't say that molten steel was possible but was in small quantities that could be explained away..they said there was no molten steel because the fires could not have reached sufficient temperature to melt steel.
Now when you have numerous people saying there is molten steel, whether they are right or wrong you cannot rule it out until you test can you? You can presume that it isn't there because it shouldn't be there but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
If you test and find it, then you need to explain it.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

Such reports are either true, in which case molten steel is common in large fires and thus inconsequential wrt to 9/11,(as far as being anomaly)
OR
Such reports are wrong/untrue in which case the existence of such in other fires indicates the unreliable, yet commonplace, nature of said reports?
 
jaydeehess said:
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

Such reports are either true, in which case molten steel is common in large fires and thus inconsequential wrt to 9/11,(as far as being anomaly)
OR
Such reports are wrong/untrue in which case the existence of such in other fires indicates the unreliable, yet commonplace, nature of said reports?
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring anything, NIST ignored the reports of molten steel. It's all over the FAQ page that is still available on their site.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).


so who is ignoring things here. If there was molten steel, and yes it cannot be determined without testing, then the "Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires" did not cause the steel to melt..what did?
If they failed to test for it then they failed to follow proper investigation procedure as per NFPA guidelines.

They had numerous people reporting it so they can't say "we knew nothing about that".
If they assumed it wasn't steel, then again they have failed to prove otherwise and ignored nfpa guidelines.
They said themselves that the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel, yet we have reports of molten steel...this is a problem and needs an explanation.
Maybe it wan't steel, maybe it was other materials or a mix of materials,,but NIST never looked, never tested didn't rule out anything with scientific validity other then saying ..

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)."
 
lexicon008 said:
I am not ignoring anything, NIST ignored the reports of molten steel. It's all over the FAQ page that is still available on their site.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).


so who is ignoring things here. If there was molten steel, and yes it cannot be determined without testing, then the "Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires" did not cause the steel to melt..what did?
If they failed to test for it then they failed to follow proper investigation procedure as per NFPA guidelines.

They had numerous people reporting it so they can't say "we knew nothing about that".
If they assumed it wasn't steel, then again they have failed to prove otherwise and ignored nfpa guidelines.
They said themselves that the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel, yet we have reports of molten steel...this is a problem and needs an explanation.
Maybe it wan't steel, maybe it was other materials or a mix of materials,,but NIST never looked, never tested didn't rule out anything with scientific validity other then saying ..

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)."
Click to expand...
So you agree, if fires cannot melt steel, and reports of melted steel in other fires is therefore wrong, then so are reports of molten steel in this fire.
Ask yourself why reports of molten steel were not investigated in other fires and you will understand why they were not in this one.
That or continue to ignore it and insist that in this case there is some compelling reason to check it out and spend money and resources on this red herring.
 
jaydeehess said:
So you agree, if fires cannot melt steel, and reports of melted steel in other fires is therefore wrong, then so are reports of molten steel in this fire.
Ask yourself why reports of molten steel were not investigated in other fires and you will understand why they were not in this one.
That or continue to ignore it and insist that in this case there is some compelling reason to check it out and spend money and resources on this red herring.
Click to expand...

Actually no I will not agree since you have not indicated what fires you are refering to and what if any similarities they have to the fires in the wtc.
Nor will I agree unless the material that was claimed to be steel is in fact determined to be steel.
I am more then willing to agree that without testing no one on either side can argue for or against it being steel without some measure of uncertainty.

Why they were not investigated in other cases is not for me too say since, again, i don't know what cases you are refering to. Having said that, if they were a result of a terrorist or suspicious fire, I would expect that they should have been looked at to determine the cause since, as NIST noted, normal fires even with jet fuel will not get hot enough to melt steel.
 
Last edited:
lexicon008 said:
Actually no I will not agree since you have not indicated what fires you are refering to and what if any similarities they have to the fires in the wtc.
Nor will I agree unless the material that was claimed to be steel is in fact determined to be steel.
I am more then willing to agree that without testing no one on either side can argue for or against it being steel without some measure of uncertainty.

Why they were not investigated in other cases is not for me too say since, again, i don't know what cases you are refering to. Having said that, if they were a result of a terrorist or suspicious fire, I would expect that they should have been looked at to determine the cause since, as NIST noted, normal fires even with jet fuel will not get hot enough to melt steel.
Click to expand...

There was no melted steel found in the WTC. Is there melted steel in your version of 911? How will you explain something which does not exist?
 
lexicon008 said:
so who is ignoring things here. If there was molten steel, and yes it cannot be determined without testing, then the "Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires" did not cause the steel to melt..what did?
If they failed to test for it then they failed to follow proper investigation procedure as per NFPA guidelines.

They had numerous people reporting it so they can't say "we knew nothing about that".
If they assumed it wasn't steel, then again they have failed to prove otherwise and ignored nfpa guidelines.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you cite the NFPA article for me that covers this? If so, we could get some indictments and maybe even force people to answer questions under oath......this is HUGE!!!
 
triforcharity said:
Really? Can you cite the NFPA article for me that covers this? If so, we could get some indictments and maybe even force people to answer questions under oath......this is HUGE!!!
Click to expand...

19.2.4 - Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4
oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used
to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce
exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally
leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having
been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing
fires and were referred to in these particular instances
as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of
exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire
growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire),
and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of
being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that
there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.
In any fire where the rate of fire growth is considered exceedingly
rapid, other reasons for this should be considered in addition to the use
of an accelerant, exotic or otherwise. These reasons include ventilation,
fire suppression tactics, and the type and configuration of the fuels.

you might remember this one...you posted it here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183072

Regardless, NIST was told that many people (fire fighters, clean up crew, Les Robertson himself (you know him don't ya beach?)) indicated they saw molten steel and they seemed to be uninterested in checking this out even though they knew that the fires should not have caused it.
 
lexicon008 said:
19.2.4 -... you might remember this one...you posted it here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183072

Regardless, NIST was told that many people (fire fighters, clean up crew, Les Robertson himself (you know him don't ya beach?)) indicated they saw molten steel and they seemed to be uninterested in checking this out even though they knew that the fires should not have caused it.
Click to expand...
There was no melted steel found. oops - evidence of melted steel would be found, but no one has any from the WTC.

Robertson said no, there was no melted steel - you can ask him. He said no melted steel. Are you unable to contact him?

Simple research shows Robertson said no. BTW, a river of melted steel is how hot? What happens to people next to it?

No clean up crew saw melted steel - there were no piles of melted steel found. What is your point? Have you read NIST yet? No.

What is the fantasy Exotic Accelerants for your theory of woo on 911?
 
Last edited:
lexicon008 said:
I am not ignoring anything, ...
Click to expand...
Lex said, then proceeded to completely ignore JDS' point.

I also like how you keep pointing out that normal fires don't melt steel, and instead of considering the most probable idea that it wasn't steel, you go "okay, what melted the steel"?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
So you agree, if fires cannot melt steel, and reports of melted steel in other fires is therefore wrong, then so are reports of molten steel in this fire.
Ask yourself why reports of molten steel were not investigated in other fires and you will understand why they were not in this one.
That or continue to ignore it and insist that in this case there is some compelling reason to check it out and spend money and resources on this red herring.
Click to expand...

The melted steel was in the debris fires that lasted 3 months after 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Beachnut

"There was no melted steel found. oops - evidence of melted steel would be found, but no one has any from the WTC. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ3MDKzPp_Y

Now why would he say what he is saying..he isn't a truther.

"Robertson said no, there was no melted steel - you can ask him. He said no melted steel. Are you unable to contact him?

Simple research shows Robertson said no. BTW, a river of melted steel is how hot? What happens to people next to it?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto (50 seconds in roughly)
Robertson did say it..his voice..his words..his observations.. so is he wrong or lying?

Funny how you say he said no then use virtually his exact words from this lecture to show yes he did say it.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Lex said, then proceeded to completely ignore JDS' point.

I also like how you keep pointing out that normal fires don't melt steel, and instead of considering the most probable idea that it wasn't steel, you go "okay, what melted the steel"?
Click to expand...

No i am not ignoring what he said. He hasn't even defined what types of fires he's talking about. He claimed reports..what reports is he talking about?
He claimed "there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

I also agreed that it is quite possible that in both cases it wasn't actually steel that was seen to be melted. My point is that it is not up to anyone but the investigating body to prove or disprove the molten steel evidence.
They have not disproven it, they simply stated it could not havve happened even though plenty of credible eye witnesses claim otherwise.
 
lexicon008 said:
No i am not ignoring what he said. He hasn't even defined what types of fires he's talking about. He claimed reports..what reports is he talking about?
He claimed "there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

I also agreed that it is quite possible that in both cases it wasn't actually steel that was seen to be melted. My point is that it is not up to anyone but the investigating body to prove or disprove the molten steel evidence.
They have not disproven it, they simply stated it could not havve happened even though plenty of credible eye witnesses claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

If they don't have any samples, how do they verify witness statements? Also, per a point raised several times in the past, most recently by beachnut, how can people be standing near molten steel? Don't you think the very heat radiated discredits accounts where people are adjacent?
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
If they don't have any samples, how do they verify witness statements? Also, per a point raised several times in the past, most recently by beachnut, how can people be standing heard molten steel? Don't you think the very heat radiated discredits accounts where people are adjacent?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't since we don't know how far away they were observing said molten material. Heat also tends to rise more then radiate sideways. Hence the reason you can stand within a few feet of a roaring campfire and not get burned but if you put your hand above it you will.
This is demonstrated easily with a simple cigarette lighter. Light it and put your had beside the flame, far less heat then above the flame.

You can find all sorts of video of people working in foundries all over the world standing within feet of extremely hot flowing metals with and without heat protective suits.

As for having no samples, they can do the same thing done in court, witness statements, visual record, expert testimony and test what there is left of the materials.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom