Merged So there was melted steel

[Tomtomkent]

Denial based on wishful thinking.

MM

Denial based on chemicals that could be used for thermite, nano or otherwise, in paint, bonded to other chemicals, is not evidence of thermite.

Claiming paint is thermite sounds like wishful thinking.

 

[Oystein]

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?

Thanks for the excellent summary of the thread topic. Here is a summary of all answers to this question provided by truthers so far:

but... but... urrrr...

 

[Oystein]

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

MM

Hey Miragememories,
it is also easy to ignore posts that totally, brutally, absolutely prove you to be wrong wrong wrong, right? Like this one - whaddaya say to this:

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

According to Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material...", the red-grey chips were about 0.1% by weight of the dust samples.

About 50% by weight of each chip was red layer

About 28% by weight of the red layer was minerals. Only 10% was a stochiastic mix of Al (disregarding the fact that it wasn't elemental, as evidenced by the clear presence of kaolinite crystals and equal amount of silicon) and Fe2O3.

So this "rich concentration of red chips" is actually only 0,005% by weight thermite.
Multiply that with the energy density of thermite (1.5MJ/kg) and you get a dust that contains 0.075 Joules = 0.0179 calories of thermitic energy per gram of dust.

Remember that 1 Calorie is defined as the energy to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C.


MM claims that Harrit's dust, if densely packed, can heat steel by more than 1500°C.
In fact, it could warm the same amount of water by less than 1/10th of a °C, if only it were thermitic (which of course it isn't)

Miragememories intuition is off of reality by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude. This is absolutely on par with truthers in general

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

This is a bare faced lie.

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.

This is just nonsense, if they had come down because of say and earthquake and fire then you have shown no evidence that the result in the debris pile would have been any different

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

More? no probably not but the preheat and insulation could be much higher.

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.

You are surely the most ignorant twoofer to date. Molten iron has been produced for thousands of years.....only a complete idiot would say the Romans couldn't make iron because they didn't have a modern industrial age furnace likewise its idiotic to say a small quantity of steel could not have been melted because of the fires at ground zero.

You still have not suggested a plausible way that steel could have got there maliciously. perhaps if you concentrated on that part? Are are you only smart enough to KNOW that it couldn't have happened in just the fire but cannot manage the task of working out what could if it was malicious.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Denial based on wishful thinking.

MM

 

[Oystein]

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

You have told us that conclusion several times now, but you keep forgetting to give us also your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic) that led you to this conclusion.

There is nothing vague about it.

Well, the word "something" is usually understood by most people as something vague, don't you agree?

Would any of that have happened if planes were not flown into the buildings? (this is of course assuming the official story)

That question was asked of you by me already. Why do you repeat it, instead of answering it?

Flying planes into buildings is a malicious act.

So?
Do the fires know if they were started by malicious act or accidentally? Would they behave any differently, dependent on the nature of intent?

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

We are not talking about fires in the upright towers. We are talking about fires in the debris, weeks after the collapses.

 

[Oystein]

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

Yes. This agent would have been ignited or fired or otherwise activated just BEFORE the collapse. Any steel melted by that agent to aid in the columns' demolition would have resolidified seconds, or at most minutes, after the collapses.

This theory of yours does not explain molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. You need to provide some Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) to make that case.

I guess your inability to provide this Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) starts with your utter cluelessness as what that "some agent" would be, right? You can't actually give us any valid Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) without being a little more specific with your theory! And that's why your conclusion, without Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic), is rubbish.

 

[tmd2_1]

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



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.



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.

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct. The molten steel would not have been there had those planes not been flown into the buildings, and that is certainly a malicious act.

Now I never said the furnace was impossible, just highly unlikely. You asked what are the odds of it occurring, so let's take a look at those odds. Here is what the article said "Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions took place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years"

I don't believe you can count that it was running for several hundred thousand years, as it was the same set of conditions causing it, but I'll get to that later. So that would be 16 times in 1.7 billion years, all over the world. That would be once every 106,250,000 years. Those are your odds. That's what you would be saying happened at the world trade center.
Now even if you want to use those "hundred thousand years" (something you clearly shouldn't) I'll just round it up to running a million years. So that's 16 million years. That's still 1 in 106.25 years. Still something that is unlikely.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes. This agent would have been ignited or fired or otherwise activated just BEFORE the collapse. Any steel melted by that agent to aid in the columns' demolition would have resolidified seconds, or at most minutes, after the collapses.

This theory of yours does not explain molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. You need to provide some Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) to make that case.

I guess your inability to provide this Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) starts with your utter cluelessness as what that "some agent" would be, right? You can't actually give us any valid Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) without being a little more specific with your theory! And that's why your conclusion, without Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic), is rubbish.

Hey can I give a very specific theory, when I'm not sure exactly what was found, how much of it was found, and when it was found? Besides others including MM have given some, and you dismiss them. I've said several times in other threads, I'm much more concerned with IF there was molten steel or not. As molten steel whenever, and where ever it was found, casts serious doubt to the official story.

 

[NoahFence]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act,

You have not explained clearly, or even hinted at, WHY you come to that conclusion.

Malicious being something besides the obvious....(Aircraft & Collapse)

It is your assertion that something besides those two were involved. Explain how you come to that conclusion.

 

[NoahFence]

.......

Besides others including MM have given some, and you dismiss them. I've said several times in other threads, I'm much more concerned with IF there was molten steel or not. As molten steel whenever, and where ever it was found, casts serious doubt to the official story.

He has? Link?

WHY would molten steel cast serious doubt to the "official story"??


WHY

 

[Oystein]

Hey can I give a very specific theory, when I'm not sure exactly what was found, how much of it was found, and when it was found?

No, you can't, and that's your problem right there.
The honest thing to say would be "I have no competing theory. I know nothing."

Besides others including MM have given some, and you dismiss them.

You call that "dismiss them"??? Showing with mathematical precision that MM is wrong by a factor of 1000 to 10000?!?!

I've said several times in other threads, I'm much more concerned with IF there was molten steel or not. As molten steel whenever, and where ever it was found, casts serious doubt to the official story.

And there you go again, asserting a conclusion, without giving any Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic)

It's getting old, man.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct. The molten steel would not have been there had those planes not been flown into the buildings, and that is certainly a malicious act.

In which case, you are effectively conceding that molten steel in the rubble pile is consistent with the generally accepted narrative of 9/11. Will you, therefore, advise other truthers to stop citing it as evidence of a conspiracy inside the USA to carry out a false flag attack, as you clearly believe it is no such thing?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct. The molten steel would not have been there had those planes not been flown into the buildings, and that is certainly a malicious act.

are you some kind of zombie? We heard you the first time. You offer no proof of your assertion. Understand that you believing something does not make it fact.

Now I never said the furnace was impossible, just highly unlikely.

who said otherwise? It is however far more likely than MMs sealed yet unsealed chamber being fueled with a fire retardant! So since thats the only two suggestions to date then its clear that molten steel in a huge debris pile fire is not evidence of a malicious act.

You asked what are the odds of it occurring, so let's take a look at those odds. Here is what the article said "Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions took place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years"

I don't believe you can count that it was running for several hundred thousand years, as it was the same set of conditions causing it, but I'll get to that later. So that would be 16 times in 1.7 billion years, all over the world. That would be once every 106,250,000 years. Those are your odds. That's what you would be saying happened at the world trade center.
Now even if you want to use those "hundred thousand years" (something you clearly shouldn't) I'll just round it up to running a million years. So that's 16 million years. That's still 1 in 106.25 years. Still something that is unlikely.

Whole continents and mountain ranges have come and gone in that time..........and again you are missing the point....just because something is unlikely does not mean it will not happen.

 

[Oystein]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct. The molten steel would not have been there had those planes not been flown into the buildings, and that is certainly a malicious act.
...

*sigh*

Alright. Let me tackle this from a different perspective:

The reason for the existence of this very subforum is the assertion by truthers like yourself that the common narrative, that includes planes (through causing fires causing collapses) that are ultimately responsible for whatever conditions found at Ground Zero. Yes, that means malicious intent. Possibly, although highly unlikely, one such condition was molten steel weeks after the event.

You doubt that narrative, and instead speculate that "some agent" other than the planes "somehow" did "something" that proximately caused the towers to collapse, and ultimately caused steel to melt weeks after the event. That this agent was planted by malicious intent, you say.



In both theories, ours and yours, malicious intent is the ultimate cause for molten steel. So, the presence of molten steel is not a criterion by which we can distinguish between the common narrative (planes and fires) and any other theory ("something") based on malicious intent. So what is molten steel then evidence of, besides malice? Is it evidence that the common narrative is wrong somehow? You have apparently argued in your most recent posts that it is NOT, as you can only deduce malice from molten steel (let's forget for the moment that you are wrong, and that you have forgotten to tell us your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic). You are wrong because the same debris conditions that arose from fires started by maliciously flown planes could as well have arisen from fires started by accidental, non-malicious means, such as planes that went astray by accident, or just any old office fire gone really bad).



Now, I italicised the word "ultimately" a few times; malicious intent seems to have been the ultimate (indirect) cause of whatever conditions were found on GZ. What I am asking you here all the time is of course the proximate (direct) cause of molten steel (if there were any, mind you; we are only assuming there was, for the sake of debate). What melted the steel weeks after the collapses, or kept it molten for so long? I know for sure that planes didn't do that, and I know equally sure that thermite charges ignited before the collapses to cause them could not possibly have done that. We need you to come up with better proximate explanation that does not start with planes, but starts with some other malicious, intentional act.

 

[tmd2_1]

In which case, you are effectively conceding that molten steel in the rubble pile is consistent with the generally accepted narrative of 9/11. Will you, therefore, advise other truthers to stop citing it as evidence of a conspiracy inside the USA to carry out a false flag attack, as you clearly believe it is no such thing?

Dave

Clearly I am not. Simply stating, that whatever you believe happened on 9/11 it was the result of a malicious act.

As the premise of the original thread there was molten steel. If you believe the official story 100% correct that molten steel would not have been there if the planes were not flown into the buildings. Meaning the planes flying into the buildings resulted in the furnace, and therefore the molten steel. This if you believe the official story correct.

In short anything and everything that was at ground zero (aside from worker's hats..etc) was the result of a malicious act. We may believe they were different malicious acts and who was behind them, but they were the result of a malicious act nonetheless. This is something we all agree on. That's all I am saying in this point.

I've also made it clear I understood that was not the intent of this thread. It is why should molten steel = alternative theory? Which I have been trying to explain.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hey can I give a very specific theory, when I'm not sure exactly what was found, how much of it was found, and when it was found?

But others do know and we end up with the conclusions in the 911 and NIST reports. Since they are much better informed than you, much more educated than you and much smarter than you, why do you imagine that they are wrong?
paranoia?

Besides others including MM have given some, and you dismiss them.

No he gave one patently insane idea of a sealed very well insulated chameber (to keep the heat in) being fed a steady trickle of the putative thermite in the dust (how this gets into the sealed chamber he does not speculate) and since we have pictures of burning cars surrounded by the dust which stops the fire spreading through the pile of paper trash it clear the dust was a retardant and not even remotely flammable.......and as others have pointed out even if there was the putative thermite in the amounts jones and harrit say they found it would be enough to warm the dust let alone kep steel molten!.

I've said several times in other threads, I'm much more concerned with IF there was molten steel or not.

Then you are in the wrong thread. The premise of this thread was molten steel

As molten steel whenever, and where ever it was found, casts serious doubt to the official story.

so you keep saying but lets see your evidence to back that assertion up!
Did you miss the fact that no-one at ground zero, all much smarter folks than you, did not find the reports af molten steel as remotely suspicious. Who are you in your moms basement in your free time from the job cleaning kitchens to imagine you know better than people who should and do know much better?

 

[tmd2_1]

*sigh*

Alright. Let me tackle this from a different perspective:

The reason for the existence of this very subforum is the assertion by truthers like yourself that the common narrative, that includes planes (through causing fires causing collapses) that are ultimately responsible for whatever conditions found at Ground Zero. Yes, that means malicious intent. Possibly, although highly unlikely, one such condition was molten steel weeks after the event.

You doubt that narrative, and instead speculate that "some agent" other than the planes "somehow" did "something" that proximately caused the towers to collapse, and ultimately caused steel to melt weeks after the event. That this agent was planted by malicious intent, you say.



In both theories, ours and yours, malicious intent is the ultimate cause for molten steel. So, the presence of molten steel is not a criterion by which we can distinguish between the common narrative (planes and fires) and any other theory ("something") based on malicious intent. So what is molten steel then evidence of, besides malice? Is it evidence that the common narrative is wrong somehow? You have apparently argued in your most recent posts that it is NOT, as you can only deduce malice from molten steel (let's forget for the moment that you are wrong, and that you have forgotten to tell us your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic). You are wrong because the same debris conditions that arose from fires started by maliciously flown planes could as well have arisen from fires started by accidental, non-malicious means, such as planes that went astray by accident, or just any old office fire gone really bad).



Now, I italicised the word "ultimately" a few times; malicious intent seems to have been the ultimate (indirect) cause of whatever conditions were found on GZ. What I am asking you here all the time is of course the proximate (direct) cause of molten steel (if there were any, mind you; we are only assuming there was, for the sake of debate). What melted the steel weeks after the collapses, or kept it molten for so long? I know for sure that planes didn't do that, and I know equally sure that thermite charges ignited before the collapses to cause them could not possibly have done that. We need you to come up with better proximate explanation that does not start with planes, but starts with some other malicious, intentional act.

Yeah that's pretty much my point. I pointed that out to him only as a passing point. A technicality so to speak. I did not intend for this to be a big deal. I understood the point of the OP, and have been trying to show, that his furnace seems highly unlikely.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Clearly I am not. Simply stating, that whatever you believe happened on 9/11 it was the result of a malicious act.

As the premise of the original thread there was molten steel. If you believe the official story 100% correct that molten steel would not have been there if the planes were not flown into the buildings. Meaning the planes flying into the buildings resulted in the furnace, and therefore the molten steel. This if you believe the official story correct.

In short anything and everything that was at ground zero (aside from worker's hats..etc) was the result of a malicious act. We may believe they were different malicious acts and who was behind them, but they were the result of a malicious act nonetheless. This is something we all agree on. That's all I am saying in this point.

I've also made it clear I understood that was not the intent of this thread. It is why should molten steel = alternative theory? Which I have been trying to explain.

Go....just go.......

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yeah that's pretty much my point. I pointed that out to him only as a passing point. A technicality so to speak. I did not intend for this to be a big deal. I understood the point of the OP, and have been trying to show, that his furnace seems highly unlikely.

yet you have no comment on MMs farcical alternative?.....methinks you doth protest too much.