Merged So there was melted steel

[GlennB]

So, you are not only doubting what the engineers said about the temperatures required to produce the effects they saw on the steel, you are also now doubting the thermal imagery data on the debris pile?

There is no thermal imagery indicating temperatures capable of melting steel. So, source please.

 

[jaydeehess]

,,,
Post by Edx

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7442385#post7442385

So, now can you address the query:
Either other reports are true in which case, in fires, there can be conditions that mimic blast furnace effects( which use hydrocarbon fuel) and actually melt steel.

Or

These reports are untrue because such conditions do not ever naturally occur in which case all such reports, including those from the vicinity of the WTC disaster, can be assumed incorrect and unworthy of further investigation

Gee, those who claim that reports of molten steel must be minutely investigated asked for examples of such reports in other fires. That has been supplied and yet my query still stands unaddressed.

How inconvenient,, err ,,, I mean unusual.

 

[ergo]

There is no thermal imagery indicating temperatures capable of melting steel. So, source please.

That we have access to. But try applying a bit of logic:

If surface temps of up to 1,300 F were detected, what do you think the below-pile temperatures would be: hotter or cooler?

Since there were reports of melted steel, we know temperatures must have exceeded 2,800 F.

In addition, you'll notice that the the ASSE (American Society of Safety Engineers) surveys reported temperatures under the pile of more than 2,800 F. Now, I don't have access to that data, but I don't have any reason to doubt them, since we already have numerous reports of melted steel, among other high temp-melting metals.

So what's the problem?

 

[000063]

That we have access to. But try applying a bit of logic:

IE: let's make stuff up.

If surface temps of up to 1,300 F were detected, what do you think the below-pile temperatures would be: hotter or cooler?

Since there were reports of melted steel, we know temperatures must have exceeded 2,800 F.

Except that has been pointed out time and time again, it is impossible to reliably distinguish "molten" steel from other metals by eye, no matter what expertise one has. Moreover, it's also been shown that molten steel has been reported in fires where it could not possibly be present.

In addition, you'll notice that the the ASSE (American Society of Safety Engineers) surveys reported temperatures under the pile of more than 2,800 F. Now, I don't have access to that data, but I don't have any reason to doubt them, since we already have numerous reports of melted steel, among other high temp-melting metals.

So what's the problem?

I've also noticed you're dodging the question of how the long-term fires can be reconciled with any sort of controlled demolition theory, including nanothermite.

I'm not shocked in the slightest.

It's also interesting that you don't doubt "official" sources when they agree with you, when I've seen you be snarky about the US Naval observatory.

 

[ergo]

In this case, there were too many reports, and from knowledgeable sources, of molten steel to simply dismiss them all as "error". That would not only be sloppy debunking, but just plain sloppy reasoning.

Not only that, but many of the reports were not simply of the generic "pool of molten steel" variety, which may or may not be accurate, but were observations that pointed to the melting of steel specifically, such as melted steel beams, columns, or girders, or evidence showing material characteristics of the steel that indicated melting or vaporization.

If you had merely a handful of non-expert claims of "melted steel" and there had been no evidence of extreme temperatures in the debris pile then you might have an argument. But with the evidence available, and the testimonials put together, your argument doesn't really hold up. It makes me wonder why you keep trying to make it. What's it to you whether there was melted steel in the pile or not?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just a different perspective I put more than a year ago... Take these witness statements at face value and let's say thermite somehow got into the debris pile. How does finding this weeks after the collapses prove that this material was responsible for the collapse of the buildings? Did they ever find structural members that exhibited damage that would have lead to the building coming down? Did anyone escaping the towers at any point testify to seeing bright thermite flashes? Didn't think so... This theory that melted steel suggests two skyscrapers had been demolished is pulled straight from the depths of the buttocks

 

[ozeco41]

Just a different perspective I put more than a year ago... Take these witness statements at face value and let's say thermite somehow got into the debris pile. How does finding this weeks after the collapses prove that this material was responsible for the collapse of the buildings? Did they ever find structural members that exhibited damage that would have lead to the building coming down? Did anyone escaping the towers at any point testify to seeing bright thermite flashes? Didn't think so... This theory that melted steel suggests two skyscrapers had been demolished is pulled straight from the depths of the buttocks

Hence my repetition of my 2008 parody at post #218.

Even if there was:
a) Molten steel at ground zero; OR
b) ThermXte in the dust; OR
c) 100 tonne stockpiles of thermxte on site; OR
d)
e)
.
.
z)

There was no CD and the single anomalous fact is far short of an hypothesis worthy of discussion.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ergo, do you believe testimonials regarding UFOs and ghosts?

If not, what makes testimonials about your pet topic any different?

 

[GlennB]

[There is no thermal imagery indicating temperatures capable of melting steel.] That we have access to.

Excellent, there is no such thermal imagery to support your erroneous claim. Glad you cleared that up for us.

 

[Dog Town]

Excellent, there is no such thermal imagery to support your erroneous claim. Glad you cleared that up for us.

Sadly, not a dent! Teh stooooopid! It BURNS!

 

[GlennB]

Since there were reports of melted steel, we know temperatures must have exceeded 2,800 F.

There were reports of unicorns in Africa, therefore unicorns exist. Identical logic.

In addition, you'll notice that the the ASSE (American Society of Safety Engineers) surveys reported temperatures under the pile of more than 2,800 F.

That link is to your own post, and that post doesn't contain a link to the original. You're surpassing yourself in the application of illogic, and I didn't think that was even possible.

eta: let me put you out of your 2800°F misery. R.Mackey debunked that claim years ago, here.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

In this case, there were too many reports, and from knowledgeable sources, of molten steel to simply dismiss them all as "error"...

As you are well aware ergo, your testimonials don't say what you claim they say, and have been dealt with at length both here and elsewhere.

Each one is either a misquote or quote-mine, a journalist or academic paraphrasing an expert, an expert making an early observation only to clarify or correct themselves later, a description of steel melted by welding/cutting equipment during the construction of the towers and the clean-up of the site post-9/11, a description of melted metal that isn't steel, a description of partially melted, partially corroded or partially evaporated steel, an off-the-cuff remark by a first responder/firefighter/clean-up worker, our old friend simile ("looks like", "it was like" it felt like"), and so on.


I'll save you the bother of adding further scoops of wrongness from the bias bucket and simply remind you that this isn't "Magic: The Gathering", and you don't get to re-use the same card from the deck when it comes round again.



And that's all the attention you're getting from me today, use the search function if you require further clarification

 

[Dog Town]

this isn't "Magic: The Gathering", and you don't get to re-use the same card from the deck when it comes round again.

The Bible Creed of, "da twoof"!

 

[000063]

There were reports of unicorns in Africa, therefore unicorns exist. Identical logic.



That link is to your own post, and that post doesn't contain a link to the original. You're surpassing yourself in the application of illogic, and I didn't think that was even possible.

eta: let me put you out of your 2800°F misery. R.Mackey debunked that claim years ago, here.

#000063boookmark
2800 temperature debris pile

 

[000063]

In this case, there were too many reports, and from knowledgeable sources, of molten steel to simply dismiss them all as "error". That would not only be sloppy debunking, but just plain sloppy reasoning.

Not only that, but many of the reports were not simply of the generic "pool of molten steel" variety, which may or may not be accurate,

Straw man. The false reports of "molten steel" in other fires were very similar to those on 911, and were not usually the "pool of molten steel" variety. And, really, if you think that whether it was in a pool or not is a critical difference, that's kinda sad.

but were observations that pointed to the melting of steel specifically, such as melted steel beams, columns, or girders, or evidence showing material characteristics of the steel that indicated melting or vaporization.

Considering that one of Truthers' favorite image of "melted steel" is of steel that was cut by an torch by the cleanup crew, I'm rather skeptical of any "expert" being quoted by Truthers. And, as has already been pointed out, it's basically impossible to accurately get temperature readings from a helicopter. In fact, the rest of the paragraph states that "The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001."

If you had merely a handful of non-expert claims of "melted steel" and there had been no evidence of extreme temperatures in the debris pile then you might have an argument. But with the evidence available, and the testimonials put together, your argument doesn't really hold up. It makes me wonder why you keep trying to make it. What's it to you whether there was melted steel in the pile or not?

I like how you're basically flat out ignoring the claim that even "experts" simply can't distinguish molten steel visually.

I note that you didn't even bother to quote, so you can't be accused of quote-mining out, the question about the fires and long-term heat and their potential connection to a CD. No, now you're just straight up ignoring it, despite insisting that long-term heat was present. I wonder who you think you're fooling.

 

[ergo]

Excellent, there is no such thermal imagery to support your erroneous claim. Glad you cleared that up for us.

GlennB, if surface temperatures of up to 1300 F were recorded, do you think the below-pile temps would be hotter or cooler?

There were reports of unicorns in Africa, therefore unicorns exist. Identical logic.

GlennB, engineers hired to examine the wreckage reported on evidence of melted steel. Are you suggesting they don't know what they're talking about?

That link is to your own post, and that post doesn't contain a link to the original. You're surpassing yourself in the application of illogic, and I didn't think that was even possible.

Wow, you're having real problems.

http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_35496

http://www.worldcat.org/title/she-a...dangerous-workplace-in-the-u-s/oclc/665140138

eta: let me put you out of your 2800°F misery. R.Mackey debunked that claim years ago,

As if. Lol.

 

[ergo]

Ergo, do you believe testimonials regarding UFOs and ghosts?

Unbelievable. You're equating the witnessing of melted steel at the World Trade Center with seeing ghosts and UFOs. This is incredible.

Are you suggesting that the reports of fire chiefs, structural engineers and ironworkers are somehow less informed that the armchair opinions of anonymous internet bedunkers? Orphia Nay, do you know more about these matters than Richard Garlock, Leslie Robertson, Ahmed Ghoniem, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, RJ Lee, and the American Society of Safety Engineers? Do you know more about these matters than they do, Orphia Nay?

But here's an answer to your inane question: if large groups of people, including credible sources, saw these phenomena at the same time and the same place and reported on them publicly, and I wasn't there myself, I would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, for the time being at least. Who am I to say what others saw, when I wasn't even there?

 

[ergo]

As I've pointed out before, some of the first collapse explanations circulating in the media at the time involved a melting steel narrative. This is because of the numbers of reports that were coming from Ground Zero about molten metal and molten steel specifically.

That there was melted steel in the debris pile at Ground Zero is not a debatable point.

 

[Richard the G]

Unbelievable. You're equating the witnessing of melted steel at the World Trade Center with seeing ghosts and UFOs. This is incredible.

Are you suggesting that the reports of fire chiefs, structural engineers and ironworkers are somehow less informed that the armchair opinions of anonymous internet bedunkers? Orphia Nay, do you know more about these matters than Richard Garlock, Leslie Robertson, Ahmed Ghoniem, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, RJ Lee, and the American Society of Safety Engineers? Do you know more about these matters than they do, Orphia Nay?

But here's an answer to your inane question: if large groups of people, including credible sources, saw these phenomena at the same time and the same place and reported on them publicly, and I wasn't there myself, I would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, for the time being at least. Who am I to say what others saw, when I wasn't even there?

You have quoted Les Robertson as a witness of molten steel however I know he thinks truthers are nuts. I wonder how you can latch onto one of his statements and ignore the others. Is that how truth works?

 

[ergo]

You have quoted Les Robertson as a witness of molten steel however I know he thinks truthers are nuts. I wonder how you can latch onto one of his statements and ignore the others. Is that how truth works?

Leslie Robertson's opinions about 9/11 truth have nothing to do with what he witnessed in the WTC rubble pile. Astaneh-asl also subscribes to the natural collapse theory. But he saw melted steel, and other evidence of extreme temperatures in the wreckage.