Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

That's as wrong as you could possibly be. The opposite is true. Landfils are packed as tight as possible, they are not loosely piled up. The WTC pile was full of air spaces and piled on top of subway tunnels.

And of course as has been shown, even in landfill fires its incredibly difficult to stop oxygen feeding it and incredibly difficult to put out.

 

[Edx]

oh no not on ignore, whatever shall I do? Gross is a liar it's as simple as that. Ever wonder why he doesn't sue the people that call him a liar? It's not just me, there are people well known people who have said it. You'd think he'd do something.

By the way thanks for the documented reports of fires getting as hot as you said.

Truthers are called liars all the time, why don't they ever sue?

I guess this means everything Alex Jones has ever said must be true.

 

[A W Smith]

Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, (via thermitic reactions) even if it was a poor site for internal fire.

MM

Only in your cartoons Merry Melodies,
because I handed your ass to you in this very thread on the above points.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7620089&postcount=664

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Not true.

Nano-thermite which is triggered at 430 C has been found in the red chips of every available WTC dust sample.

Thats a lie. No test definitive test has ever found any thermite nano or otherwise.

Sorry I haven't been able to followup much in this thread but I'll only be able to spot post until I return from Europe.

We can't wait to hear more of your unsealed sealed chamber that use a fire retardant as fuel to keep steel molten.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

Source? methane I've heard of but oxygen?

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

Baseless assertion

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

How would it smother an active fire if its laced with Thermite????

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

which means it would ignite and spread, it didn't.

The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, (via thermitic reactions) even if it was a poor site for internal fire.

baseless assertion. Thermite burns quickly, the dust does not.

 

[Travis]

I probably should have wrote this sooner, but whatever anyone believes happened on 9/11 the presence of molten steel is the result of something malicious. I mean if you believe Islamic terrorists flew planes into the building under the direction of OBL, that is certainly a malicious act, which caused the molten steel. So to be completely technical that would answer your OP, but I know that is not what you meant.

Calling that "malicious" is being vague though. My explanation calls for conditions that could have arisen from a building collapse caused by fires initiated by faulty wiring.

I contend the presence of molten steel that can't be explained, gives rise to suspicion, that something other then the official story is what happened.

So if it could be explained then your entire thesis crumbles.

Now in regards to your furnace, I see you withdrew your sure to Oystein's doubt that it was there, that's fine. Let me just ask a basic question, why do you think the fire would have gotten that much hotter when it was in debris, as opposed to when the building was standing up? I mean the source of fuel is the same.

Physics leads me to believe that. Fuels have a dynamic range in the temperature of the fires they produce (If you don't believe me check the temperature range you can get on a stove powered by natural gas just by messing with the oxygen mixture) and the fuels present, under certain conditions, could have produced an environment hot enough to melt steel.

I would think that oxygen supply would be the same.

Seriously? You think the debris pile had the same oxygen supply as the standing towers?

I know you can say insulation, but I can easily counter with the smothering affect the debris would call. So why do you believe that in debris the temperature would be so much higher?

Again, there is the physics of the matter. If there is enough oxygen present to prevent a complete smothering then the insulation factors should prevail.

I realize that I'm kinda late to the party here, but I would like to point out that this thread started with a false premise: There was no melted steel on ground zero.

But hey, I'm willing to waive that aside for a moment just to ask an important question to any true believers here. Even if there was, so what?

Note: in any other thread I am very, very skeptical that there was any melted steel.

 

[jaydeehess]

As I said any rational person would think not being able to explain molten steel is suspicious somewhat curious. Viewers of this thread can make their own decisions.

FTFY

I do in fact find it mildly curious. Given that there are reports of molten steel in many other fires a rational person would have a hard time finding it suspicious that there are similar reports about the fires of the WTC rubble.

Explanations have been offered yet you reject them.

ON the other hand when asked HOW molten steel fits into a conspiracy to take the towers down you refuse to offer anything.
That too is curious, but hardly suprising, or for that matter, suspicious.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

"Oxygen" producer? Nitrogen compounds perhaps but please supply reasoning for O₂ production.

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

Perhaps 50 years ago they were created as loosely packed piles but since then enviromental concerns dictate that the material be packed down as its added on in order to extend the amount of material that can be packed into a landfill (which lenghtens the time its avalable as an active landfill) and to reduce leachate.

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

This was not a volcano. The dust was not meters thick. At best, on basically horizontal surfaces it was a few inches thick. It would not smother a fire further down, one reason being same reason that water did not. Another being that the amount of dust that reached down into the pile would diminsh the further down you went. We already know that there was enough air a few meters down to keep two firefighters alive until they could be dug out. Your premise is thus shown to be negated.

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

It would also mean that we should have seen surface flares of these red chips since , as per tmd, the surface was over 1341 degrees F in many places, and by your own words the surface was hot enough in many places to cause vulcanized rubber boots to melt.
I know you have been away for quite a while and probably missed my asking you how it is possible that these red chips managed to make their way down to undrground places where the temp was above 430 degrees yet you had also said that it was not possible for air to reach areas of combustion. Is an oxygen molecule really larger than the red chip particles?


The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, and the evidence is there that it would have a much better air supply than any landfill internal fire while retaining much of the insulative effects of being underground..

Furthermore you as well as tmd still refuse to explain how molten steel, assuming it did exist beyond simple reports of it existing, fits into a conspiracy to bring the towers down.

 

[tmd2_1]

Calling that "malicious" is being vague though. My explanation calls for conditions that could have arisen from a building collapse caused by fires initiated by faulty wiring.



So if it could be explained then your entire thesis crumbles.



Physics leads me to believe that. Fuels have a dynamic range in the temperature of the fires they produce (If you don't believe me check the temperature range you can get on a stove powered by natural gas just by messing with the oxygen mixture) and the fuels present, under certain conditions, could have produced an environment hot enough to melt steel.



Seriously? You think the debris pile had the same oxygen supply as the standing towers?



Again, there is the physics of the matter. If there is enough oxygen present to prevent a complete smothering then the insulation factors should prevail.



Note: in any other thread I am very, very skeptical that there was any melted steel.

Molten steel, as with any debris that were at the World trade center, could only be the result of something malicious. There is nothing vague about it. Would any of that have happened if planes were not flown into the buildings? (this is of course assuming the official story) Flying planes into buildings is a malicious act.

Do you think the debris would have gotten more oxygen then the upright buildings? If so please explain.

As far as the furnace goes, here's an example of a furnace that melts steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace Now of course I'm not saying this is the only type of furnace that can melt steel, but itis one that can. Do you see all that's involved? You really mean to tell me conditions got something like this at the WTC? Now of course if there was a furnace at the WTC it wasn't electronically operated, but the point is, that it would seem unlikey anything like this could have been achieved.

 

[tmd2_1]

FTFY

I do in fact find it mildly curious. Given that there are reports of molten steel in many other fires a rational person would have a hard time finding it suspicious that there are similar reports about the fires of the WTC rubble.

Explanations have been offered yet you reject them.

ON the other hand when asked HOW molten steel fits into a conspiracy to take the towers down you refuse to offer anything.
That too is curious, but hardly suprising, or for that matter, suspicious.

I've said many times some agent would have been used to melt the columns, to aid in it's demolition.

 

[jaydeehess]

Molten steel, as with any debris that were at the World trade center, could only be the result of something malicious. There is nothing vague about it. .

You have been asked several times for reasoning about this. All you ever do is re-assert it.
Saying it over and over does not constitute reasoning.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've said many times some agent would have been used to melt the columns, to aid in it's demolition.

Why do you ignore the reports of molten steel in many other fires? Either those reports are wrong and the reports in the WTC are miraculously correct, or the reports are correct and the molten steel at the WTC is not uncommon.

Its 'some agent' somehow aided in some fashion the destruction of the towers but somehow managed to create molten steel that miraculously pooled below the surface which stayed hot for weeks and was never found solidified on the surface.

right?


and you scoff at a insulative furnace effect!

 

[tmd2_1]

You have been asked several times for reasoning about this. All you ever do is re-assert it.
Saying it over and over does not constitute reasoning.

Forget about molten steel for one second. All I'm saying is anything and everything(obviously I don't mean a worker's hat...etc) that was found at ground zero was the result of something malicious. You can accept the official story 100%, and what ever was found at ground zero was the result of something malicious. Flying planes into buildings is indeed malicious.

Follow that line of logic above, now still accepting the official story 100%, we add that molten steel was found. It's still the result of the malicious act of flying planes into buildings. That's all I am saying here. It's something we can all agree on.

But I do understand that is not the question he is really asking, I was merely pointing this out to him.

 

[tmd2_1]

Why do you ignore the reports of molten steel in many other fires? Either those reports are wrong and the reports in the WTC are miraculously correct, or the reports are correct and the molten steel at the WTC is not uncommon.

Its 'some agent' somehow aided in some fashion the destruction of the towers but somehow managed to create molten steel that miraculously pooled below the surface which stayed hot for weeks and was never found solidified on the surface.

right?


and you scoff at a insulative furnace effect!

I point out the furnace, to show how difficult it appears to be, that those conditions would have happened at the WTC.

You asked me how does molten steel = inside job (I'm paraphrasing) I told you it would be my belief that something was put there to help melt the steel columns and therefore aid in the demolition of the building. This is aided by the idea that no body seems to be able to explain why molten the steel would have been there naturally. That was all your question was really asking.

 

[Travis]

Molten steel, as with any debris that were at the World trade center, could only be the result of something malicious.

You do realize that you can't just assert this without backing it up?

There is nothing vague about it. Would any of that have happened if planes were not flown into the buildings? (this is of course assuming the official story) Flying planes into buildings is a malicious act.

Do you think the debris would have gotten more oxygen then the upright buildings? If so please explain.

I think they got less oxygen but the oxygen supply was constant. This allowed for continuous but slow combustion causing a build up of heat that was exacerbated by insulating effects of non combustibles.

As far as the furnace goes, here's an example of a furnace that melts steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace Now of course I'm not saying this is the only type of furnace that can melt steel, but itis one that can. Do you see all that's involved? You really mean to tell me conditions got something like this at the WTC? Now of course if there was a furnace at the WTC it wasn't electronically operated, but the point is, that it would seem unlikey anything like this could have been achieved.

This is a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor. Now of course I'm not saying this is the only type of nuclear reactor but you can see what is involved with it. Now do you think that this can happen naturally? I mean what are the odds of that?

Oh, they have happened naturally when just the right circumstances allow it.

More on the Oklo natural reactors.

So whether it was a furnace effect or some sort of other exotic oxidation process created in the soup of normal building debris there are conditions that could have created molten steel that have nothing to do with an inside job.

 

[A W Smith]

I point out the furnace, to show how difficult it appears to be, that those conditions would have happened at the WTC.

You asked me how does molten steel = inside job (I'm paraphrasing) I told you it would be my belief that something was put there to help melt the steel columns and therefore aid in the demolition of the building. This is aided by the idea that no body seems to be able to explain why molten the steel would have been there naturally. That was all your question was really asking.

http://www.google.com/search?q=reve...&ei=DUqFTvzIDYTf0QHki-3DDw&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ

 

[Tomtomkent]

I've said many times some agent would have been used to melt the columns, to aid in it's demolition.

Agent P from Phineas and Pherb?

On what basis do we assume this based on the evidence, rather than the known conditions that could have caused the molten metal with out further components?

 

[Miragememories]

Why do you ignore the reports of molten steel in many other fires? Either those reports are wrong and the reports in the WTC are miraculously correct, or the reports are correct and the molten steel at the WTC is not uncommon.

Its 'some agent' somehow aided in some fashion the destruction of the towers but somehow managed to create molten steel that miraculously pooled below the surface which stayed hot for weeks and was never found solidified on the surface.

right?


and you scoff at a insulative furnace effect!

It is easy to ignore your unprovided examples that are supposedly comparable to the WTC debris pile conditions.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Thats a lie. No test definitive test has ever found any thermite nano or otherwise.:

Denial based on wishful thinking.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Agent P from Phineas and Pherb?

On what basis do we assume this based on the evidence, rather than the known conditions that could have caused the molten metal with out further components?

Perry would have stopped the bad guys, so it was not Agent P melting the steel. .
For Judy Wood, it was Doctor Heinz Doofenshmirtz with a beam weapon. Fantasy is 911 truth. In Judy's delusion, the steel did not melt, it was dustified.

Phineas and Ferb episodes are more rational than all 911 truth claims, including melted steel and thermite. Will 911 truth settle on a single integrated story?