Merged So there was melted steel

[tsig]

What does burning steel look like?

Here you go:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bur...rning-steel-wool-photo-experiments%2F;500;333

 

[ergo]

Another dishonest cherry pick from trooferville.

Your quote is a return to the opening paragraph of the article.......

"A descent beneath the World Trade Center is a passage into a grotesque landscape of stalagmites formed by dripping metal, entire office floors compressed into a space of six inches, and train cars smashed all the way down to the tracks by collapsed concrete ceilings. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/n...ow-rubble-a-tour-of-a-still-burning-hell.html

Nope. You have the wrong quote.

 

[000063]

Are you planning to get back to the fires and how they support a CD theory at any point, ergo?

 

[DGM]

It's odd how "truthers" ignore questions as to how this actually proves anything or why we should care. They expect a "debunking" but there really isn't anything to "debunk".

The area were hot, real hot. So what?

You would think a "movement" using this as evidence of something could actual explain what. To date, no one has. It kind of explains why people have stopped listening to this "movement" (outside of entertainment, that is).

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
,,,
Post by Edxhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7442385&postcount=1014
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, do you believe testimonials regarding UFOs and ghosts?

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

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, I have pointed out that reports of molten steel in many other fires, has been covered in these forums in the past, and pointed you to the threads, and the list put together by Edx, showing such reports to be fairly common. I am not comparing statements by UFO believers to these reports i am comparing reports of molten steel in other fires to reports of molten steel in the WTC UNDERGROUND fires. In this small sampling of such reports at least one of the persons saying this is a Fire Chief. As far as the others go no one has been able to state exactly how experts such as Leslie Robertson can determine, by sight alone, the composition of the material they are looking at. Instead all that you can say is that these people are 'experts' yet when some of these same experts you list above state unequivocably that the WTC structures collapsed due to impact and office fire damage suddenly they are no longer expert enough to believe despite the fact that some of these self same people are speaking to this after having studied the collapses rather than giving an off the cuff remark with no personal study of the subject.

Can you see how such cognitive dissonance makes you less than credible?

I have asked several times now whether or not to believe reports that arose in these other fires, and how such belief or disblief affects whether or not to deeply investigate such reports in the WTC fiers.. Yet I have not received any response whatsoever,

 

[jaydeehess]

It's odd how "truthers" ignore questions as to how this actually proves anything or why we should care. They expect a "debunking" but there really isn't anything to "debunk".
<<snip>>

No! At least it has not been shown to be anything uncommon in this case of reports of molten steel.. See my above post.

 

[1337m4n]

Since Clayton won't or can't, perhaps Ergo will answer my query.


Assuming for the sake of argument that there was molten steel, how does that prove an inside job?

 

[LSSBB]

Since Clayton won't or can't, perhaps Ergo will answer my query.


Assuming for the sake of argument that there was molten steel, how does that prove an inside job?

There was a whole thread on that question alone.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by JSanderO
What does burning steel look like?

Here you go:

My 8th grade science teacher's favorite classroom demo was to prepare a pure oxygen atmosphere in a jar and drop a heated strip of iron or steel into it.

It left the class like this:

 

[Orphia Nay]

A simile.

Exactly. Certainly not a pool of molten steel.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by LSSBB
Actually, one of the Skyride towers from the Chicago World Fair was accomplished with thermite. It wasn't easy, though.

I see... still I think the difficulty of the procedure in the precedent plus the added effect of the plane impacts still renders this as one of the "firsts"... At the end of the day, this sort of logic is flawed obviously. Still I fnd it interesting just musing on it because the TM uses it in one respect but not when it's inconvenient to them.

You can judge the size of the thermite containers from the photo on the lower left. Good luck building a and concealing dozens, if not hundreds, of those in a building in operation 24/7.

The thermite demolition must have made for a spectacular fireworks show, which was its intention. Somewhere, there must be newsreel or amateur footage of it. Maybe there's a roll of 16mm Kodachrome in someone's attic.

 

[Animal]

Nope. You have the wrong quote.

No, , you cherry pick the quote further in the article tat was referring back to that quote in the opening paragraph. Typical troofer dishonesty.

 

[ergo]

ergo, I have pointed out that reports of molten steel in many other fires, has been covered in these forums in the past, and pointed you to the threads, and the list put together by Edx, showing such reports to be fairly common. I am not comparing statements by UFO believers to these reports i am comparing reports of molten steel in other fires to reports of molten steel in the WTC UNDERGROUND fires. In this small sampling of such reports at least one of the persons saying this is a Fire Chief. As far as the others go no one has been able to state exactly how experts such as Leslie Robertson can determine, by sight alone, the composition of the material they are looking at.

I addressed that point here. In this case, there are numerous references to specific steel components. Components which would not be composed of other metals, i.e., beams, columns, girders. It's simply not credible to suggest that people who observed melting of structural steel components would have somehow got it mixed up with molten aluminum, copper or lead, since none of these metals form substantive structural components.

Instead all that you can say is that these people are 'experts' yet when some of these same experts you list above state unequivocably that the WTC structures collapsed due to impact and office fire damage suddenly they are no longer expert enough to believe despite the fact that some of these self same people are speaking to this after having studied the collapses rather than giving an off the cuff remark with no personal study of the subject.

I notice the same with bedunkers. When firefighters talk about bodies falling from the towers sounding like explosions, or when they talk about WTC 7 being supposedly "fully involved", bedunkers are all ears. But when firefighters talk about witnessing sequential explosions like demolition charges or when they talk of molten steel in the rubble, bedunkers are all "oh, they're wrong. They don't understand what they're saying."

 

[ergo]

Bedunker friends, it's a silly argument to try and dismiss this many reports of molten steel at the WTC as some kind of mass error or confusion. Your attempts to characterize them as such make you look desperate.

There's a reason why the early stories of the towers' collapses involved a melting steel scenario. Extreme temperatures were also recorded in the pile and the persistence of the heat months after the event was unprecedented. Everyone commented on this.

Here's the reality: You folks don't know anything about it. You're making guesses, and trying to pass them off as fact. Some of you are even making **** up.

Since the facts are not on your side, the question we should be asking is: why is so important to you to discredit reports of melted steel at the WTC rubble pile? What personal investment could you possibly have in this argument, which you're clearly losing?

 

[Animal]

Bedunker friends, it's a silly argument to try and dismiss this many reports of molten steel at the WTC as some kind of mass error or confusion. Your attempts to characterize them as such make you look desperate.

There's a reason why the early stories of the towers' collapses involved a melting steel scenario. Extreme temperatures were also recorded in the pile and the persistence of the heat months after the event was unprecedented. Everyone commented on this.

Here's the reality: You folks don't know anything about it. You're making guesses, and trying to pass them off as fact. Some of you are even making **** up.

Since the facts are not on your side, the question we should be asking is: why is so important to you to discredit reports of melted steel at the WTC rubble pile? What personal investment could you possibly have in this argument, which you're clearly losing?

The eye-pop is the troofer projection.

BTW......the fact that NO melted steel was recovered from the WTC discredits the reports, not anything anyone else says. Troofers lost that argument when the last bits of material were removed from the site, WITHOUT ONE BIT OF MELTED STEEL EVER FOUND.

 

[LSSBB]

The eye-pop is the troofer projection.

BTW......the fact that NO melted steel was recovered from the WTC discredits the reports, not anything anyone else says. Troofers lost that argument when the last bits of material were removed from the site, WITHOUT ONE BIT OF MELTED STEEL EVER FOUND.

In case no one got the point. Just to, you know, assist in reading comprehension.

 

[ergo]

Animal, if melted steel was witnessed at the site, then it was also recovered from the site. Right? No steel was left behind on the site. There was even a quote earlier from a pile witness who talked of large chunks of molten metal being recovered.

Don't forget that many of Astaneh-asl's observations were of steel that was already being shipped away from the site, and not preserved for examination. Fire chiefs and other engineers raised alarms about this at the time. That's also documented.

Give it up, guys.

 

[TJM]

Animal, if melted steel was witnessed at the site, then it was also recovered from the site. Right? No steel was left behind on the site. There was even a quote earlier from a pile witness who talked of large chunks of molten metal being recovered.

Don't forget that many of Astaneh-asl's observations were of steel that was already being shipped away from the site, and not preserved for examination. Fire chiefs and other engineers raised alarms about this at the time. That's also documented.
Give it up, guys.

Link?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Link?

I don't recall fire chiefs complaining, but it's established that Astaneh-Asl spoke out about this in a NYTimes article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/n...ek-test-steel-before-it-melted-for-reuse.html

Other engineers were attributed by proxy via the ASCE reference.

But this is old news. It was that, plus Astaneh-Asl and others who managed to get the arrangement to examine the steel at Fresh Kills and the other site going. The plan got stopped quickly, and neither the FEMA researchers nor Astaneh-Asl complained about access to steel after that.

This is known; there's nothing suspicious about it. There never has been. Truthers have been schooled over it for years now; one example here (as AJM8125 already knows; that statement and links are really for you other readers who haven't been around as long as he, since he's already seen all this). This is nothing more than the standard Truther claims recycling program.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Another dishonest cherry pick from trooferville.

Your quote is a return to the opening paragraph of the article.......

"A descent beneath the World Trade Center is a passage into a grotesque landscape of stalagmites formed by dripping metal, entire office floors compressed into a space of six inches, and train cars smashed all the way down to the tracks by collapsed concrete ceilings. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/n...ow-rubble-a-tour-of-a-still-burning-hell.html

(Bolding mine)

Yet the the concrete floors were pulverized to dust.