Merged So there was melted steel

[beachnut]

Aren't we wandering away from the OP again?

There is no automatic anything. Evidence of molten steel is only evidence of molten steel, and evidence of errors or omissions by those who claimed there was none.

When you have John Gross saying no molten steel, and multiple others saying yes molten steel, which answer wins?

lol, there was no melted steel in the real world,,, but the OP is an IF there was. The reality version of 911, kills the insane nanothermate theory.

You make up lies about NIST, can you retract them, or is really an open loop Gish Gallop as you can't defend your initial statements. Find any alive terrorists yet? Did you find any melted steel.

Read the OP.

If there was melted steel... IF, what does it mean.

You say melted steel is proof of melted steel. Kind of ends your contribution. Thus you can't connect if there was melted steel to support claims made by 911 truth, like CD, or thermite BS.

Thus you and I are done; unless you got something.

 

[AClark]

I asked you to produce evidence for melted steel.

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsw2...VPWL-YOhN5OpyylauVpRg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.d24]

I had other stuff prepared, but this page gives people and links to articles. If you ignore Jones, knock yourself out with the rest.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

 

[beachnut]

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsw2...VPWL-YOhN5OpyylauVpRg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.d24]

I had other stuff prepared, but this page gives people and links to articles. If you ignore Jones, knock yourself out with the rest.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

You put in history commons, which also has quotes of no melted steel; which is it... are you quibbling on steel now?
Leslie Robertson claims he did not see melted steel, and denies he made the the statement. Thus your Robertson's quote is retracted, you other stuff is the same, BS and quote mined BS. Not evidence, like a fail. Like thinking opinions and look like are evidence. They are not.

BTW, steel can't flow in a channel rail, it would melt the channel rail. lol


As you already said. Melted steel would be proof of melted steel; and you never attempted to tie melted steel, if it exists to the BS claims 911 truth implies melted steel is proof for; like CD, thermate, and other BS.
We are into dead horse beating... lol

Again, you have opinion, not fact. Thus you failed to show me melted steel. In fact you thought corroded steel was melted steel.
Anyone next to melted flowing steel would be burnt.
I think you have some simile in your opinions of melted steel. lol

you don't understand seeing melted metal is not evidence for melted steel. and witnesses did not do an analysis for steel, on the liquids they saw. Thus saying it is steel is not proof in the real world. But quote mine away.
History commons is a great place to cherry pick quotes from, where raw news stories are "quoted", and thus you can make up any BS you want and support the BS with out of context quotes. Quotes are not evidence, the same with opinions.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, how do they make steel? Gee, asking for citation on something easy to look up yourself is kind of ....

Troofers always do this as if they have never heard of yahoogle. Another tell.

 

[abaddon]

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsw2...VPWL-YOhN5OpyylauVpRg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.d24]

I had other stuff prepared, but this page gives people and links to articles. If you ignore Jones, knock yourself out with the rest.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

The highlighted? LOL. I just bet you did.

 

[Myriad]

Molten steel is incandescent, too bright to look at comfortably. You'd think anyone who actually saw molten steel at ground zero would have mentioned that little detail, but no one did.

 

[Georgio]

Desperate for "debate" at any price???

I think 'desperate for righteous indignation at any price' is better. I was correct when I wrote:

In the main there are two types of regular posters on here: those who want to educate people who have heard about 9/11 Truth claims and don't understand the science thoroughly enough to evaluate the claims properly, and those for whom posting on here is a recreational activity where they vociferously marvel at how stupid twooferz are, call them names and pick fights with them...it is best to ignore this latter group as the last thing they want is for anyone who is confused to understand the issues better, they just want to fight.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11141969&postcount=298

This latter group do not want people who have been taken in partially or completely by 9/11 truth claims to understand the claims or the related issues any better. That is the very, very last thing they want; it would mean the angry argument would eventually end and their source of self-affirmation eventually dry up.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not to me... it looks severely corroded... chemically... oxidized... or eaten by acid or similar. You can see the same corrosive look in steel sheets driven in to the ground at the water's edge used as bulk heads foe example.

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/sh..._line.jpg&sp=a9e1fbd1915ffeb0fa5e956eef63f88d

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/sh...ion_2.jpg&sp=8aa56f13236eae83a7add3c732776d81

look https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/sh...ilure.jpg&sp=8e0db40fdd8ab96289bd21f64b75deaf

I have seen similar damage in steam locomotive fireboxes, throat plates, fire tube ends and smoke boxes where high sulfur coal has been used.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.”

Ask yourself this: What channel rails?

Dave

 

[DGM]

Ask yourself this: What channel rails?

Dave

Not to mention the fact molten steel looks nothing like lava.

But, this is off topic. Molten steel is given. So what?

 

[Sunstealer]

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsw2...VPWL-YOhN5OpyylauVpRg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.d24]

I had other stuff prepared, but this page gives people and links to articles. If you ignore Jones, knock yourself out with the rest.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

So what? I know Beachnut has challenged you, but please bear in mind the OP. The presence of liquid steel is a given in the OP. Given that acceptance, then it's up to anyone to show how that accepted presence could be shown to prove that the presence of such material can be seen as evidence for controlled demolition, and hence a conspiracy.

The presence of liquid steel is a given in the OP. It is not contested for the purpose.

 

[Sunstealer]

Ask yourself this: What channel rails?

Dave

This is one phraseology that I don't comprehend. I do not know what the phrase "channel rails" means. I'd be interested to find out exactly what this means within context.

 

[DGM]

This is one phraseology that I don't comprehend. I do not know what the phrase "channel rails" means. I'd be interested to find out exactly what this means within context.

It's likely nothing. C-channel members are commonly called 'rails'(c-rail) in the field. He saw something running down the twisted channel and called it a rail.

 

[Bubba]

Twist.

Before championing thermite, Steven Jones was already a science whiz. To settle the cold fusion question at a panel discussion, Jones led a show of hands which superseded science.
Begins at 1:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASyX1SP2UM

 

[jaydeehess]

Aren't we wandering away from the OP again?

There is no automatic anything. Evidence of molten steel is only evidence of molten steel, and evidence of errors or omissions by those who claimed there was none.

When you have John Gross saying no molten steel, and multiple others saying yes molten steel, which answer wins?

You say I wandered away from the OP then you do exactly the same thing?

Not that I did wander off topic. The topic is "YES, molten steel". I point out that its quite possible, based on as much evidence for it has been put forth, that molten steel is simply not that uncommon in large fires. That answers the question "Molten steel, ok, so what?".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aren't we wandering away from the OP again?

There is no automatic anything. Evidence of molten steel is only evidence of molten steel, and evidence of errors or omissions by those who claimed there was none.

When you have John Gross saying no molten steel, and multiple others saying yes molten steel, which answer wins?

OK, let's construct a syllogism, shall we?

Reports of molten steel are common in building fires, whether or not actual molten steel was found. Actual discovery of molten steel is not unknown in building fires. Therefore, reports of molten steel are perfectly consistent with the WTC collapses being entirely unassisted by explosives or incendiaries, and the actual presence of molten steel, even if there were physical evidence of it (which there isn't, but that's off-topic), would still not be inconsistent with the WTC collapses being unassisted by explosives / incendiaries.

The other side of the coin is: would the presence of molten steel weeks after the collapses be an expected consequence of explosives/incendiaries? And this is where we're still waiting for a plausible hypothesis.

So the truth movement is claiming that something consistent with unassisted collapse and never clearly shown to be a consequence of assisted collapse is nevertheless evidence in favour of assisted collapse. It's what we call Moebius logic; it turns itself inside out half way round.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aww, where's your sense of humour.

We all trip over Poe's Law^WP from time to time round here. Since the sum total of evidence for molten steel consists of a few anecdotes plus hordes of truthers with no relevant experience looking at photos and saying "That looks like molten steel to me," it's a bit hard to tell when someone's not serious.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have seen similar damage in steam locomotive fireboxes, throat plates, fire tube ends and smoke boxes where high sulfur coal has been used.

That's because high sulfur coal contains pyrites, when burned they produce sulfuric acid.

Just like the black smoke soot, and drywall produce a reducing environment in the towers,
the evidence of sulfidication only points to the presence of sulfuric acid, not to thermite, and is not evidence at all of molten steel.
I actually believe there was molten steel and evidence for it, but since it was produced by chemical reactions not man made thermites that evidence would not be a chunk of solidified Iron but a large chunk, of iron oxide slag with other compounds mixed in.
It would have been indistinguishable, from the slag left over by metal cutting processes, and not shipped off to China, but buried at fresh kills or one of the other landfill sites where the towers rubble was disposed of!
Chemical testing however could reveal it was actually molten steel/ Iron.
I see no reason to dig it up and test it though as it should be there, from naturally occurring chemical reactions.
I even know what actual residue from a thermite cutting device would be, from testing one,
However that knowledge I keep to myself.

 

[AClark]

That's because high sulfur coal contains pyrites, when burned they produce sulfuric acid.

Just like the black smoke soot, and drywall produce a reducing environment in the towers,
the evidence of sulfidication only points to the presence of sulfuric acid, not to thermite, and is not evidence at all of molten steel.

So, the wall boards, in fire, produce sulfuric acid which eats corrodes steel?

Are there minimum temperatures, quantities involved? Some sort of evidence that isn't anecdotal? I'll have to double check, but I thought the official sources couldn't account for the sulphur?

 

[beachnut]

So, the wall boards, in fire, produce sulfuric acid which eats corrodes steel?

Are there minimum temperatures, quantities involved? Some sort of evidence that isn't anecdotal? I'll have to double check, but I thought the official sources couldn't account for the sulphur?

The official source has evidence the steel was corroded in fire at 800 to 1000 C. Below the temperature steel melts at, the steel was corroded. Official based on material science, chemical engineering. Brush up on chemical engineering, which 911 truth failed to do when they made up the BS of melted steel, CD, and thermite.

It does not matter where the sulfur came from. The steel was corroded in fires at 800 to 1000 C. Thus no melted steel. But again, this thread gives you melted steel; what does it mean for your CD claims and idiotic thermite lies you are supporting, unable to debunk from 911 truth.

Study of the steel found, proves it did not melt. But the OP is not about reality, it is about a hypothetical, "given melted steel", now what?