Merged So there was melted steel

[jaydeehess]

We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
Perhaps there are some ways the reaction can be slowed down. Take a look at this simple video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs ..if you look you there are plenty more. Also molted steel found weeks later could have been unreacted thermite. As I said before I am very skeptical of what they say was found or not, especially in the first couple of days before anyone independent was in. So don't bring up nothing was found on the top of the pile, that will my reply.

Really? There were cameras on the rubble from t=0
No thermite 'burns' seen then, none reported by on lookers and first responders. NONE, at all!


We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
I have doubts whether AQ even exists, or at least not in the form we are led to believe.

This makes two basic subjects that you dismiss out of hand. Yes AlQada exists, it blew up US Embassies, a US warship and publicly declared war on the USA. Fact is you have doubts about it because its inconvenient to your own narrative.

We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.
I don't think it was the U.S. government. A relatively small cabal inside of it, the cabal also extends to other countries and the private sector.
A relatively small cabal that managed to place tons of thermite in buildings and arrange for the taking control of 4 airliners. Define 'small'.
We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
Perhaps but thermite starts off at a higher temperature, therefore it will be insulated at that higher temperature, or at least that's what I would think.
Why feel the need to introduce an unknown in an equation that can be solved with known materials?
We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
Well as I said before I am very distrustful of anything those first days at the WTC. Also I mean isn't that where the fires were? Don't you think the millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, would affect the surface? I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.

Yes, we understand that from now on you will choose to ignore anything that is inconvenient to your own narrative.

 

[jaydeehess]

We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
Well as I said before I am very distrustful of anything those first days at the WTC. Also I mean isn't that where the fires were? Don't you think the millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, would affect the surface? I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.

Hilited is exactly why one would expect less fire in the surface, but would have had zero effect on thermite. Isn't the fact that water would have no effect on thermite YOUR reason for bringing up the amount of water poured on the rubble in the first place? Now you want to use it to tell us this is why thermite would not burn on the surface?
Make up your mind.

Fact is that we know that there were many surface fires as a result of the collapses. Ms. Wood is good for one thing, documenting the burned cars. What we do not see, anywhere is evidence that burning thermite occurred on the surface despite being told by some 911 conspiracists (bill and MM in this thread) that there was an enormous amount of it on the surface. We have vehicles covered in the supposedly thermite laced dust, these vehicles are on fire yet the dust on them actually serves as a fire retardant in some cases and NEVER exhibits the characteristics of a thermite burn!

You also do not yet comprehend why water has little effect on fires with a lot of overburden.
The water DOES reach underground but must follow paths dictated by gravity while fires can easily exist in locations that are not on that path.
Why is that such a difficult concept (one borne out in numerous other examples of fires) for you to comprehend?

 

[Edx]

I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.

What do you mean "you guys told me"? Do you really still not agree with that?

Landfill fires have the same problem and you claim this kind of fire cant even get hot enough to melt aluminium, yet they still dump tons of water on them and it does very little and its hard to stop oxygen feeding it despite them trying to make sure there are as few airpockets as possible. On 911 there was ample oxygen, huge amounts of debris and huge amounts of office contents fueling it. It would be like one of the worst scenarios you could think of for an office fire, or landfill fire! We already know regular office fires can reach over 1200°C and they are considered some of the worst fires because of how much hydrocarbons there is in an office complex. AE911 will try and claim that in the towers the fuel load regulations show that the fire would have burnt out before it got so bad as NIST, even though they are wrong it doesn't even apply to the rubble pile. Im not sure why you think that isolated pockets wouldn't have the potential to get up to far higher temperatures.

 

[GlennB]

You also do not yet comprehend why water has little effect on fires with a lot of overburden.
The water DOES reach undreground but must follow paths dictated by gravity while fires can easily exist in locations that are not on that path.
Why is that such a difficult concept (one borne out in numerous other examples of fires) for you to comprehend?

Amen.

Even in a much smaller fire - a store or warehouse, say - where the smouldering remains are very accessible to fire crews' water and sitting on a solid concrete base, those crews will continue to "damp down" for many hours in order to prevent re-ignition. Days even.

"Fire crews from across Norfolk are damping down following a fire at a property in the south of the county. The fire broke out on Thursday evening in the thatched roof of two 15th century cottages in The Street, Garboldisham, between Diss and Thetford.
Up to 70 firefighters tried to bring it under control and 12 pumps were sent, some from Fakenham in North Norfolk.
Nobody was injured in the incident and fire crews remain at the scene."

link

This is a pair of cottages, requiring 70 firefighters and 12 pumps. tmd2_1 (and most truthers) have absolutely no concept of the vast scale of the actual and residual fires at WTC.

None.

"Fire crews remained at the scene today of a devastating house fire that has left one family homeless and many others effected.
Almost 24 hours after the fire engulfed one property and damaged four others, firefighters continued to damp down the property to extinguish remaining hot spots."

And this was a very small everyday house. 24 hours, still damping it down.

link

 

[Edx]

Amen.

Even in a much smaller fire - a store or warehouse, say - where the smouldering remains are very accessible to fire crews' water and sitting on a solid concrete base, those crews will continue to "damp down" for many hours in order to prevent re-ignition. Days even.

Well tmd has already been shown landfill fires that last for months and even one in the UK that has lasted for 13 years!

 

[GlennB]

Well tmd has already been shown landfill fires that last for months and even one in the UK that has lasted for 13 years!

And yet he somehow manages to use that as support for his pov. Too weird for me.

 

[triforcharity]

First off It's Farenheit. Secondly, if you look at the NASA photos (I have them referenced a few pages back) you can see there are "hot spots" meaning isolated pockets of this high heat. The other areas are cooler.

Imagine that, fire produces heat above the place it's burning......

You can confirm this theory by placing your hand above a candle. It's hot. Remove it from above the candle, not so hot. Do NOT leave you hand above the candle for extended periods of time. It's hot, and will in fact burn your skin. Your mommy would need to put aloe on it then......

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds. Landfill fires are the closest resemblence and I did not find any that came close to that. Also remember that is on the surface...I did a rough caclulation of how hot it may have been underneath. It's probably high, but the point is that it got extremely hot, much hotter than even your "building" fires.

I'm sure someone else already asked, but I would love to see these rough calculations.....I need a good laugh.

 

[triforcharity]

Well I don't see how it can be like an office fire being that there were no offices, I think they were uh kind of destroyed.

So, if I take something, and smash it to pieces, this changes the chemical makeup of that object, and will no longer act the same way in a fire?

STFU!!! Seriously? You mean to tell me that if I take a piece of 2x4x8 southern yellow pine, and bash it up with my axe, and toss it into a fire, that it will burn COMPLETLY DIFFERENT than if I had left it whole?

That's assinine at best.

 

[triforcharity]

How about something was put in there to melt the steel to help in the demolition of the building?

Um, wasn't the "molten steel" reported AFTER the building collapsed?

How's that for a wild theory.

It's wild all right. As wild as bear ****.

 

[tmd2_1]

It was in fact the ultimate result of a malicious act, but not the proximate result of said malice. It did NOT necessarily take malice to produce molten steel (IF there was molten steel), yet that is your claim: That only malice could be the ultimate reason for molten steel. This claim is patently false, notwithstanding the admission that the malicious act of flying planes into the towers was in fact the ultimate cause for a chain of events that caused all the conditions of the GZ debris pile, including any molten steel that may have been there (even though that is not very likely) and the (unknown) conditions that would have produced that molten steel, if there had been molten steel, such as cinditions similar to those in a furnace capable of melting steel (a setup that is, in general, not very likely to arise by chance, but whose likelihood would raise significantly once we are informed that there was molten steel - that's Bayesian Probability, if you want to look something up and educate yourself).


"Not at all." to the quoted "In short, you agree that molten steel weeks after the collapses could possibly be the ultimate result of crashing planes into the towers, and is not indicative of that story being wrong."?
This means I have to revise the bolded rendering of your claim as such:

tmd claims that molten steel weeks after the collapse can only be the ultimate or proximate result of malice, with the explicit exception of fires started by crashing planes.​

tmd, please let me know if this is now a fair rendering of what you claim! If yes, then a simple "YES" will do, of not, please correct it!
I will state now that I disagree with this claim.


Ok. So you are saying:

The premise "molten steel" leads me to the possible conclusion "Unreacted thermite reacting as fire got to it".​

.
Now, what's missing here is of course the Reasoning why you think unreacted thermite could have melted steel weeks after the collapses. In particular, you'd have to explain how that unreacted thermite got to where it was when it ignited and melted the steel, and why it wasn't widely dispersed in the debris because of the violent, turbulent collapses. So please describe the path the thermite took from just before it was brought to the WTC by malicious actors, through its implementation, the collapse, and the waituing time in the debris pile!


The only ones who claim that thermite WAS found are Harrit and friends. According to their analysis, the allegedly "thermitic" red-gray chips were dispersed in the dust and constituted only about 0.1% by weight of the dust in all 4 samples. Further, Harrit and friends inform us that only the red layer, itself half (50%) of each chip, contained thermitic stuff, while the gray layer did not and was presumably inert. Further, their data, and especially Mark Basile's quantitative analysis, reveal that the red layers consisted mainly of materials that were NOT thermite, and that a stochiastic mix of Fe2O3 and Al was at most 10% by weight of the red layer. The main refererence that Harrit uses for real, existing, nanothermate, a paper by Tillotson, informs us that nanothermite has an energy density of about 1.5kJ/g.
From these numbers, all of which we know from Harrit and friends. it follows that even if they are right and they did find nanothermite, it constituted only
0.1% * 50% * 10% = 0.005% of the dust, giving the dust a thermitic energy density of 1.5kJ/g * 0.005% = 0.000075 kJ/g, or 0.075 J/g, or 0,018 Calories/g. It would take nearly than 100 kg of that "thermitic" dust to boil one shot (0.02 liters) of water. Oh wait, no, wrong, this would be true if it was possible to heat the water that's in contact with the dust without warming the dust! The fact of the matter is, that the alleged thermite in the dust could warm the dust itself only by a fraction of a degree.

TMD, even if it was true that Harrit and friends found thermite in the dust from the towers, it would be 4 to 5 orders of magnitude too ineffective to melt even minimal amounts of steel.


I struck out every word in this paragraph that's totally unnecessary in this thread, owing to the fact that, in this thread and for the purpose of debate, we assume without evidencer that there was molten steel. No one is aking you to prove that. Why don't you understand that? Cut it out!


What a transparent falsehood! I am very much interested in your Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) that you employed when you accepted for yourself that molten steel could be the result of unreacted thermite in the rubble, or some other malicious act, with the exception of planes flown into the towers that started fires.

You are the one utterly unwilling, or unable, to provide this Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) and quench my interest!

I'm not sure why you insist on saying what I am saying or not saying. All I am saying is that everything that was found at ground zero was the ultimate result of a malicious act.

Everything you struck out is relevant to this thread. I am telling you why I am suspect of anything that was found not found at ground zero.

Harrit et el work speaks for itself I really don't need to add anything to it.

In terms of where the thermite would have been. Take a look at Cole's video from about 12:15 to 13:40 he gives some good evidence to where it may have been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Also I'll add, this may not deal directly with the OP but I will make it anyway. It does not necessarily have to be thermite. In my opinion, two airplanes could not have not brought down those buildings (I mean the airplanes and the results they caused) and they certainly could not have brought down building 7. Or at the very least they could not have caused the results we saw hat day. It is also my belief that nothing that was present that day could have caused molten steel, so if was there, it must have meant some other agent was at work that day. Thermite is the prevailing theory, if somehow it was not used, it only means something else was used.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Thermite is the prevailing theory, if somehow it was not used, it only means something else was used.

What is it that causes you to believe this?

 

[triforcharity]

Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

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

Yes and no. Methane yes. Oxygen, not so much.

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

No. Absolutely not.

If you could do this in a landfill, it would be very ineffecient.

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.

No.

See pictures above.

You also know that fires burning create their own drafts, and will pull air from wherever they can? They're smart like that. And kinda badass too.

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

Ok champ.....lol!!

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

Huh? Can you translate this out of truther, and into normal English please?

 

[tmd2_1]

It is and was an irrellevent point to make.
I have seen you make this 'point' several times and ignored it every time. I believe it is proper to ignore irrellevent comments.


Yet you absolutly NEVER give an inch yourself, continueing to defend a line of thought despite having nothing to back it up other than appeals to ignorance, non-sequitors and circular reasoning.


Sorry, which post was that?
Most of the comments that I read which are directed at you attack your assertions and claims. Isn't that what debate IS?

If you are referring to defining what was a malicious, feel free to begin another thread. This subject is Waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy of topic.

Yeah I know a discussion on what is malicious or not is way of topic for an OP that asked "I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious." (it here is referring to molten steel) Sorry I'll try to do better the next time. I was pointing out a mere technicality.

 

[tmd2_1]

We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
Perhaps there are some ways the reaction can be slowed down. Take a look at this simple video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs ..if you look you there are plenty more. Also molted steel found weeks later could have been unreacted thermite. As I said before I am very skeptical of what they say was found or not, especially in the first couple of days before anyone independent was in. So don't bring up nothing was found on the top of the pile, that will my reply.

Really? There were cameras on the rubble from t=0
No thermite 'burns' seen then, none reported by on lookers and first responders. NONE, at all!


We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
I have doubts whether AQ even exists, or at least not in the form we are led to believe.

This makes two basic subjects that you dismiss out of hand. Yes AlQada exists, it blew up US Embassies, a US warship and publicly declared war on the USA. Fact is you have doubts about it because its inconvenient to your own narrative.

We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.
I don't think it was the U.S. government. A relatively small cabal inside of it, the cabal also extends to other countries and the private sector.
A relatively small cabal that managed to place tons of thermite in buildings and arrange for the taking control of 4 airliners. Define 'small'.
We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
Perhaps but thermite starts off at a higher temperature, therefore it will be insulated at that higher temperature, or at least that's what I would think.
Why feel the need to introduce an unknown in an equation that can be solved with known materials?
We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
Well as I said before I am very distrustful of anything those first days at the WTC. Also I mean isn't that where the fires were? Don't you think the millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, would affect the surface? I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.

Yes, we understand that from now on you will choose to ignore anything that is inconvenient to your own narrative.

Photographs? Remember the ban? http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/boston_photoban.htm

As I said I have doubts if AQ really exists, at least not the way we are lead to believe. It is a discussion for another thread.

In terms of thermite burn some say FEMA report appendix C is the result of thermite, and in fact it looks very similar to the work of Jon Cole.

 

[tmd2_1]

Hilited is exactly why one would expect less fire in the surface, but would have had zero effect on thermite. Isn't the fact that water would have no effect on thermite YOUR reason for bringing up the amount of water poured on the rubble in the first place? Now you want to use it to tell us this is why thermite would not burn on the surface?
Make up your mind.

Fact is that we know that there were many surface fires as a result of the collapses. Ms. Wood is good for one thing, documenting the burned cars. What we do not see, anywhere is evidence that burning thermite occurred on the surface despite being told by some 911 conspiracists (bill and MM in this thread) that there was an enormous amount of it on the surface. We have vehicles covered in the supposedly thermite laced dust, these vehicles are on fire yet the dust on them actually serves as a fire retardant in some cases and NEVER exhibits the characteristics of a thermite burn!

You also do not yet comprehend why water has little effect on fires with a lot of overburden.
The water DOES reach underground but must follow paths dictated by gravity while fires can easily exist in locations that are not on that path.
Why is that such a difficult concept (one borne out in numerous other examples of fires) for you to comprehend?

I was only stating that perhaps the great amount of water would had some affect on the surface where thermite may have been present. If it were to have any affect it would have been on the surface. If I am wrong about that so be it. As I said my main point is I am distrustful of what was not found at ground zero.

 

[tmd2_1]

What is it that causes you to believe this?

I've been explaining it throughout this thread. In terms of the buildings falling, it is really not apart of this thread. Suffice it to say the free fall admitted to by NIST for WTC 7 is part of the reason. But as I said that's a story for another thread.

 

[triforcharity]

Photographs? Remember the ban? http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/boston_photoban.htm

A few words you seem to have missed.

" except with the approval of the Police Commissioner,"
"because the site is a crime scene"
"There were no reports of seized equipment as of early Wednesday, police spokeswoman Sgt. Marian Messina said."

And you are welcome to file a FOIA request for arrests made for people taking pictures.


And there are plenty of pictures of GZ. Here's a link to dozens of them. Actually, hundreds.
http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC Attack/

In terms of thermite burn some say FEMA report appendix C is the result of thermite, and in fact it looks very similar to the work of Jon Cole.

Really? Did you see inter-granular melting in those samples that John Cole did?
Did you happen to notice that thermite burns well above the melting point of steel, and the steel in Appendix C is shown to NOT have reached ABOVE 1800 deg. F? Conclusion? Not thermite.

You've been told this DOZENS of times TMD. Why do you continue to lie?

 

[Oystein]

I'm not sure why you insist on saying what I am saying or not saying. All I am saying is that everything that was found at ground zero was the ultimate result of a malicious act.

No, this is only a part of what you are saying!
You actually qualify that by insisting that
+ only a malicious act can be the ultimate result of everything that was found at ground zero
+ The malicious act of "flying planes into the towers" cannot be be this malicious act

Everything you struck out is relevant to this thread. I am telling you why I am suspect of anything that was found not found at ground zero.

That's not of interest - we are already assuming for the purpose that molten steel was found - no reasons why required.

Harrit et el work speaks for itself I really don't need to add anything to it.

Harrit's work? Only shows that primer paint was scrapped off the floor joists. Does not explain, and does not try to explain, why molten steel (assuming there was any) would be the result of some malicious act other than flying planes into the towers. There is a LOT of Reasoning missing between Harrit's work and the allegation of what molten steel implies. A LOT.

In terms of where the thermite would have been. Take a look at Cole's video from about 12:15 to 13:40 he gives some good evidence to where it may have been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Can you please write it down? Do you mean "in Cole's garden"?
Where it MAY have been?
Tell me the story, please!
Where WAS it place?
WHEN was it ignited? Before or after the collapse?
What happened to the molten steel during the collapse?
What happened to any unreacted thermite during the collapse?

Why wasn't both the molten steel and the unreacted thermite not dispersed by collapse such that no molten steel could have been possible mere MINUTES AFTER the collapse?

Also I'll add, this may not deal directly with the OP but I will make it anyway. It does not necessarily have to be thermite. In my opinion, two airplanes could not have not brought down those buildings (I mean the airplanes and the results they caused) and they certainly could not have brought down building 7. Or at the very least they could not have caused the results we saw hat day. It is also my belief that nothing that was present that day could have caused molten steel, so if was there, it must have meant some other agent was at work that day. Thermite is the prevailing theory, if somehow it was not used, it only means something else was used.

Yes, we know that you believe in all these conclusions. However, you provide zero Reasoning for all these beliefs. Why (by what Reasoning) do these beliefs follow from the premise of molten steel weeks after the collapses?

 

[Oystein]

I've been explaining it throughout this thread.

What you have NOT been explaining at all is the Reasoning why you feel that molten steel can only be the result of a malicious act, but not planes flown intot the towers.

In terms of the buildings falling, it is really not apart of this thread. Suffice it to say the free fall admitted to by NIST for WTC 7 is part of the reason. But as I said that's a story for another thread.

Èxactly. You moved the goal posts there and momentarily derailed the thread. Don't do that, just don't.
Simply answer the question: What Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) do you have that the assumed presence of molten steel weeks after the collapses can only mean some malicious act before the collapse, but not plane crashes!