Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

I'm telling you its simply a huge mistake. Have you tried multiplying the Celcius equivalent of 32F by 2 yet?

First you will have to determine if its a vent for escaping gasses, how deep the fire is and several other factors that are not in evidence.

What do these spot temps of 1341 deg F tell us? That there were 1341 deg F spot temperatures and little else.

I'll also add everything I did was based on F so conversion has no factor in this. I asked you a simple question 1341F on the surface, how would you come up with the core temperature in F?

 

[ozeco41]

...Let's imagine a courtroom setting if you will (as you know I've done this before)...

Good. So can we get this Court setting close to realistic? And clear as to who is who and what side they are on?

... AQ and OBL are on trial....

What are they indicted for?

...Now remember in terms of *this* thread molten steel is assumed and therefore it can be entered into evidence.

Who wants it in evidence? Why has the opposing party agreed? (What I am trying to do here is clarify your scenario. you have prosecution and defence totally mixed up plus a lot of presumptions hanging in thin air. Remember that everything you want to rely on in a court trial has to be put before the court. Usually by witnesses. And always subject to rules including rules of procedure.)

...So say you represent the prosecutions expert witnesses. You're asked why was there melted steel....

"you represent" is not valid. They are expert witnesses. There is no "representation" What are you trying to say please?

... You may say (as you did earlier) I can not explain it. You may go into a furnace, then you would be asked to go into detail, something none of which anyone has been able to do in this thread....

Why is "you" speaking? Who is "you" and what standing does "you" have? Why have you called "you" as an expert witness if he is not going to give the answers that you want?

...It will also be pointed out that there appears to be no evidence anything like it has happened in history....

There is no mechanism for "pointing out" in a court case. Do you propose to call a witness?

...So far I haven't heard much of why it would have been there, just a lot of whining asking me to show why thermite..etc would have produced the molten steel...

"I" (i.e. tmd2) is not in the court room - you (tmd2) have changed scenarios.

...Then the defence gets to call their witnesses, Jones, Ryan, Cole, Etc... showing what thermite can do, why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel....

Why would the defence call these persons? Would these persons support "why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel"? What would be their response when cross-examined on what they precisely mean by "should not"? Can you rely on them holding to their evidence under pressure of cross-examination?

...Laying out their theories, of which you are familiar. As an example watch the Toronto hearings. Compare that to your "we can't explain it" Which do you think the jurors will go with. Assuming a fair jury of course.

We have left the courtroom scenario again.

And those are only the start. The ploy of staging a courtroom scenario is valid. BUT you have to play the "Moot Court" seriously by the rules which would apply.

[/lawyer-having-fun-off]

 

[Oystein]

You clearly are, it's what you always do. I laid out exactly what would happen, and you know that's what would happen. Any neutral observer can see this.

Nonsense. You do nothing of the sort.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be interested in evidence and theories is not interested in the Toronto hearings. That is perhaps the best place of yet, to get this type of information from the side you oppose yet you have no interest in it.

Give me a summary of the information submitted there!

Want to know what I think may have happened? This is speculation on my part.

Read the hilited sentence next to the hilited sentence further above. I lol'ed.

I'd say there was some thermetic material placed at the impact zone of the planes.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance, and I think you can see why have thermite would aid in this. This would explain why molten steel appears to be pouring out of the South tower before collapse.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives, or nano-thermite.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

The demolition was clearly over-engineered, as they had to make sure it came down. Could not afford it not to.

Cool, bro. So steel was melted before the collapses. I understand that.

Then what?

The towers - collapse. Right?
What happends with the molten steel as the towers collapse? And in the minutes and hours after the collapse?
Answer: It would resolidify very quickly! There would be no molten steel left after an hour!
Why? Because the molten steel would mix with tons of cool material, temperatures will equalize well below the melting point of steel -> only solif steel be left.

Now fast forward several weeks. Someone observes molten (still liquid, >2800°F, white hot) steel.

Did that steel melt BEFORE the collapse? Of course not!

So how was this steel melted? You kinda forget to explain that.

But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..etc..to give a more accurate theory.

D'uh. Weasling out of a hole, eh, brother?
I tell you what: Just make an assumption! Ill accept any assumption that includes a bulk amount of steel in one place. Let's say, at least one poubd of liquid, molten, white hot steel in one place. Okay? Upper limit can be anything you like. Name your assumption, and then give me a more accurate theory that works well with that assumption!

The point is that if there was molten steel found(as there almost assuredly really) it should not have been there.

Gnah! There you go again: Making that same old claim, without providing any Reasoning why you think it should not have been there!

Any neutral person can see what you are trying to do. The courtroom setting I laid out is what would happen and you know it. Except the amounts of molten steel and when it was found would all be known so defense experts could refine their theories.

It should be really easy, tmd: Just take one witness account about molten steel that you trust, and that you can put a date on, and estimate from the details of that witness account how much steel there may have been. Just source the witness statement, and I'll accept your date and amount, unless it's obviously invented by you.

Then tell me that theory!

 

[GlennB]

I'll also add everything I did was based on F so conversion has no factor in this. I asked you a simple question 1341F on the surface, how would you come up with the core temperature in F?

You can't, as you have no idea how the materials, fuel and fire are distributed in the pile. However, if there's an active fire on or just below the surface it's perfectly possible that the highest temperature is right there, not in the "core" at all. And the fact that the hotspots were so tiny strongly suggests that we're seeing an actual fire or fire vent there rather than heat spreading generally outwards from far underground, as the latter would result in a much more even spread of surface temperature readings.

But I'll second what jaydeehess said earlier - that extrapolating temperatures the way you did is awful science in itself, but the fact that you didn't stop to think about th 9700°F figure is mind-boggling. It's a ridiculous number.

 

[tmd2_1]

Good. So can we get this Court setting close to realistic? And clear as to who is who and what side they are on?
What are they indicted for?
Who wants it in evidence? Why has the opposing party agreed? (What I am trying to do here is clarify your scenario. you have prosecution and defence totally mixed up plus a lot of presumptions hanging in thin air. Remember that everything you want to rely on in a court trial has to be put before the court. Usually by witnesses. And always subject to rules including rules of procedure.)
"you represent" is not valid. They are expert witnesses. There is no "representation" What are you trying to say please?
Why is "you" speaking? Who is "you" and what standing does "you" have? Why have you called "you" as an expert witness if he is not going to give the answers that you want?
There is no mechanism for "pointing out" in a court case. Do you propose to call a witness? "I" (i.e. tmd2) is not in the court room - you (tmd2) have changed scenarios.
Why would the defence call these persons? Would these persons support "why temperatures should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel"? What would be their response when cross-examined on what they precisely mean by "should not"? Can you rely on them holding to their evidence under pressure of cross-examination?
We have left the courtroom scenario again.

And those are only the start. The ploy of staging a courtroom scenario is valid. BUT you have to play the "Moot Court" seriously by the rules which would apply.

[/lawyer-having-fun-off]

Are you a lawyer? Just wondering?
Anyway, OBL and AQ are on trial for the events of 9/11.
The defense wants in evidence, and remember in terms of *this* thread it is assumed to have been really there. Maybe represent isn't the best word, I was saying Oystein himself was the prosecution expert witness. You can substitute NIST etc...they would all have close to the same answers. I meant the defense attorney would ask Oystein to elaborate on his furnace...and so far no one in this thread has. The defense attorney would also also point out that there appears to be no historical evidence of this natural furnace occurring anywhere.

The defense would call them because based on their credentials they have knowledge of the subject matter. They would lay out their theories as to why there was molten steel, and why given the official story, temperatures should not have gotten that hot. They've explained this it many times. Thermite reactions own oxygen supply..etc. You can look them up, and compare them to "we don't know why"

 

[tmd2_1]

Nonsense. You do nothing of the sort.


Give me a summary of the information submitted there!


Read the hilited sentence next to the hilited sentence further above. I lol'ed.


BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

BEFORE the collapses? Cool.

Cool, bro. So steel was melted before the collapses. I understand that.

Then what?

The towers - collapse. Right?
What happends with the molten steel as the towers collapse? And in the minutes and hours after the collapse?
Answer: It would resolidify very quickly! There would be no molten steel left after an hour!
Why? Because the molten steel would mix with tons of cool material, temperatures will equalize well below the melting point of steel -> only solif steel be left.

Now fast forward several weeks. Someone observes molten (still liquid, >2800°F, white hot) steel.

Did that steel melt BEFORE the collapse? Of course not!

So how was this steel melted? You kinda forget to explain that.



D'uh. Weasling out of a hole, eh, brother?
I tell you what: Just make an assumption! Ill accept any assumption that includes a bulk amount of steel in one place. Let's say, at least one poubd of liquid, molten, white hot steel in one place. Okay? Upper limit can be anything you like. Name your assumption, and then give me a more accurate theory that works well with that assumption!


Gnah! There you go again: Making that same old claim, without providing any Reasoning why you think it should not have been there!


It should be really easy, tmd: Just take one witness account about molten steel that you trust, and that you can put a date on, and estimate from the details of that witness account how much steel there may have been. Just source the witness statement, and I'll accept your date and amount, unless it's obviously invented by you.

Then tell me that theory!

Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it. In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

 

[tmd2_1]

You can't, as you have no idea how the materials, fuel and fire are distributed in the pile. However, if there's an active fire on or just below the surface it's perfectly possible that the highest temperature is right there, not in the "core" at all. And the fact that the hotspots were so tiny strongly suggests that we're seeing an actual fire or fire vent there rather than heat spreading generally outwards from far underground, as the latter would result in a much more even spread of surface temperature readings.

But I'll second what jaydeehess said earlier - that extrapolating temperatures the way you did is awful science in itself, but the fact that you didn't stop to think about th 9700°F figure is mind-boggling. It's a ridiculous number.

I said the 9700 was a very rough calculation and may not have been the best way to do it, just trying to show it was very hot underneath. Come on you really believe that temperature was reached at or near the surface? Remember no thermite, how could the water which had been poured on for days at this point (this was taken on the 16th) have had no affect if it was near the surface?

 

[NoahFence]

How do you know it had no affect? Perhaps without water, the surface would have been too hot to work on.

No thermite. No bombs. No rockets or incindiaries of any kind.

Molten metal of any kind is expected in fires. Especially in massive fires that are nearly impossible to fight, where untold tons of various metals are present.

There was a huge parking complex under the towers. How much metal is that? How much rubber burned, between the tires, wires, hoses and such?

WHY DOES MOLTEN ANYTHING MEAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

I'm still waiting for the answer to that. Man up for once. Answer it.

 

[dafydd]

Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it. In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

How and when was the thermite planted and how was it done without anyone noticing and who planted it? You have to answer questions like that to have even a tiny chance of being taken seriously. Given the fact that there was no thermite,thermate,nano thermite or whatever you truthers call it nowadays found in the rubble I would say that you are on a hiding to nothing here. Find a new hobby.

 

[DGM]

Are you a lawyer? Just wondering?
Anyway, OBL and AQ are on trial for the events of 9/11.
The defense wants in evidence, and remember in terms of *this* thread it is assumed to have been really there. Maybe represent isn't the best word, I was saying Oystein himself was the prosecution expert witness. You can substitute NIST etc...they would all have close to the same answers. I meant the defense attorney would ask Oystein to elaborate on his furnace...and so far no one in this thread has. The defense attorney would also also point out that there appears to be no historical evidence of this natural furnace occurring anywhere.

The defense would call them because based on their credentials they have knowledge of the subject matter. They would lay out their theories as to why there was molten steel, and why given the official story, temperatures should not have gotten that hot. They've explained this it many times. Thermite reactions own oxygen supply..etc. You can look them up, and compare them to "we don't know why"

Well I (being a prosecutor*) Would ask what this has to do with what OBL and AQ was being charged with? Does it have to do with the planning and hijacking of the planes? Does it have to do with the planning and subsequent crashing of said planes by operatives of the accused?

First thing you need to do is show how this has anything to do with the case against OBL or AQ.

* in your fictitious court

 

[dafydd]

Tmd. Please grow a spine.

WHY DOES MOLTEN ANYTHING MEAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

 

[jaydeehess]

Your answer speaks volumes towards showing you have no real interest in any kind of debate. This may be even worse then you not seeing the silver being poured out of the cylinder.

I'll also add everything I did was based on F so conversion has no factor in this. I asked you a simple question 1341F on the surface, how would you come up with the core temperature in F?

I said the 9700 was a very rough calculation and may not have been the best way to do it, just trying to show it was very hot underneath. Come on you really believe that temperature was reached at or near the surface? Remember no thermite, how could the water which had been poured on for days at this point (this was taken on the 16th) have had no affect if it was near the surface?

The above speaks volumes about your utter ignorance of thermodynamics.

I am by no means an expert in it myself.However I am fully aware that multiplication on numbers from a relative scale such as temperature is about as wrong as multiplying distance times time and expecting an answer in terms of mass.

IT DOES NOT matter whether the scale is Celcius or Farenheit, a temperature number that is double that of another number does NOT mean that the heat has doubled nor can it be used as a conversion factor.

What if something is at -10 F tmd? Is -20 twice as hot?

I also recall that thermodynamics was a second year university course in physics. One might wonder why its not taught in first year. Perhaps because it damned complicated? My course was 30+ years ago and I remember little of it, so no, I would not be the one to calculate the interior temperature.
I do know though that you will need a lot more information other than the spot temperatures recorded by the IR scan of the area.

To illustrate: I have a woodstove in my cottage. An IR scan of the roof of the cottage would show a very hot spot at the location of my chimney. If one did not know that it was a chimney one might calculate the interior temperature at that spot by using the insulative ability of a common rooftop and determine an extremely hot fire in the attic, or an even hotter fire in the room below, that is heating up that spot on the roof. However if one knows that this is a chimney then one understands that the heat is that of gasses coming off a fire in a stove. But how hot is the fire? Now you need to know the length of insulated chimney, the type of insulated chimney, is the stove pipe from stove to ceiling single or double walled, the size of the stove pipe and insulated chimney.
Of course in the above example one can easily deduce the existance of a chimney. In the case of the WTC rubble though you seem to desire that these hot spots are not upwelling gasses from fires below. Instead you seem to wish that these are indicative of the temperature of the surface rubble having been heated by conduction from a heat source below. What is your justification of that?

Next in a rooftop we can possibly assume a length of stove pipe and chimney, 6 feet of stove pipe from top of stove to ceiling level and another 8 feet of insulated chimney from there to chimney cap. The most common diameters are 7, 8 and 10 inch so that part can be easily accounted for as well as can the difference single or double wall pipe can be accounted for to arrive at a range of temps for the fire in the stove.

In the case of the WTC you know none of this, you don't know the distance from surface to fire, the distance travelled etc. You might say that you are assuming a center of pile fire, but you are still trying to say that this is a common SURFACE temperature while I am saying its more likely a chimney gas temp. For comparison purposes you are aware of the temperature specs for stainless steel wood stove chimneys though right? I have posted them in the past. Might one expect at the very least, flue temps that are in keeping with those specs.

 

[jaydeehess]

WHY DOES MOLTEN ANYTHING MEAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

<<theme from "Jeopardy" plays>>

 

[dafydd]

<<theme from "Jeopardy" plays>>

Lol, I can hear it in the background.

 

[dafydd]

The above speaks volumes about your utter ignorance of thermodynamics.

I don't think that tmd knows that whereas a cup of boiling water has a higher temperature than a bath full of lukewarm water, the bath contains more heat than the cup full of hot water. A basic course in physics would do the lad the world of good.

 

[MIKILLINI]

To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

Speculation is what drives you, without evidence of controlled demolition. This is where you are and will be in the future.Kthx4playing!

 

[jaydeehess]

To illustrate: I have a woodstove in my cottage. An IR scan of the roof of the cottage would show a very hot spot at the location of my chimney. If one did not know that it was a chimney one might calculate the interior temperature at that spot by using the insulative ability of a common rooftop and determine an extremely hot fire in the attic, or an even hotter fire in the room below, that is heating up that spot on the roof. However if one knows that this is a chimney then one understands that the heat is that of gasses coming off a fire in a stove. But how hot is the fire? Now you need to know the length of insulated chimney, the type of insulated chimney, is the stove pipe from stove to ceiling single or double walled, the size of the stove pipe and insulated chimney.
..........................

........In the case of the WTC you know none of this, you don't know the distance from surface to fire, the distance travelled etc. You might say that you are assuming a center of pile fire, but you are still trying to say that this is a common SURFACE temperature while I am saying its more likely a chimney gas temp. For comparison purposes you are aware of the temperature specs for stainless steel wood stove chimneys though right? I have posted them in the past. Might one expect at the very least, flue temps that are in keeping with those specs.

Looked it up,,,, again.

SuperVent 2100 (JM) is an all-fuel chimney primarily used on Wood Stoves and other Solid Fuel applications. Sizes: 6”, 7”, 8". Insulation: 2" Solid Pack, Listings: ULC S-629

SuperVent JM chimney is intended for venting gas, liquid or solid fuel residential type appliances and building heating appliances. It has been tested and approved to withstand temperatures up to 2100 ^oF (1150 ^oC) for three minute intervals. Continuous operating temperature should not exceed 1200^oF (650[/sup]o[/sup]C)

Click on catalogue under "product literature"

Continuous operating temp, in a woodstove chimney, of 1200^oF and spec'd to withstand short intervals of 2100^oF
From a residential heating appliance!
But gasses exhausting from the underground fires in the WTC rubble in that range are "suspicious"!

Of course the upper range, 2100 F is for protection against creosote buildi up flue fires. This is the result of unburned gasses condenscing on the inner surface of the flue. When the flue temperature reaches about 1100 F these deposits can ignite and reach 2000 F.

Since flue fire easily last more than three minutes its recommended that the chimney be replaced after a flue fire. Did you get that tmd? A stainless steel woodstove chimney should be replaced after a flue fire and flue fires are quite common if one uses mixed fuels or has serveral smoky fires and does not take care to have the deposits removed properly.

IT IS COMMON then for temperatures up to 2000 F from such basic stove types.
Let's go back again and examine your reasons for wishing that this cannot occur in the rubble of the WTC towers.

 

[triforcharity]

Your answer speaks volumes towards showing you have no real interest in any kind of debate. This may be even worse then you not seeing the silver being poured out of the cylinder.

JayDee is correct of course. The math that you did was so far beyond dumb, I think I may actually be dumber for just reading it.

You cannot calculate the temperature without having all the known variables. Even so, I am not real sure you could even do it then.

Did TMD seriously claim that the core temperatures of the WTC piles were over 9,000 deg. F? LOL!!! Awesome!! We're talking hotter than a nuclear meltdown!! How the **** was there any steel left at ALL after that, I certainly couldn't tell you. Hell, there wouldn't be much of ANYTHING left.

 

[jaydeehess]

I said the 9700 was a very rough calculation and may not have been the best way to do it, just trying to show it was very hot underneath. Come on you really believe that temperature was reached at or near the surface

What temperature , 9000 F? Certainly not but that's basically a number you pulled from a dark, damp, warm, place of ignorance and there is no reason to believe in it at all.

Remember no thermite, how could the water which had been poured on for days at this point (this was taken on the 16th) have had no affect if it was near the surface?

Remember that it was you who stated that thermite must have been involved BECAUSE of all the water poured upon the rubble which , according to you, would have doused any carbon based fuel fire but would not affect thermite fires.
It was also you who pooh-poohs the idea that water would not reach covered carbon based fuel fires in the rubble.

Now you want the water to be able to stop thermite ignition at the surface but allow it in underground rubble that, according to you, must have all been wet from the water being poured upon the rubble.

Make up your mind.

 

[jaydeehess]

Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it.

I was going to respond to this but I just don't have the heart. Its just too much stupid to handle all at once especially just after illustrating quite conclusively that carbon based fuels in mere residential appliance construction can generate temperatures to 2000 F

In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

Actually it seem you base your conclusions more on everthing you do not know, and all things you choose not to know.

Whattayaknow molten 'something-described-as-steel' in an insulated compartment. Much like what is described in numerous other fires.