Merged So there was melted steel

[twinstead]

The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

They have been found.

We know what they think.

It is your masked (nun's habit), non-experts, making unsupported declarations based on their wishful thinking that I have a problem with.

MM

So why are your "experts" being ignored by other experts? All I hear about this earth shattering-study is crickets chirping. That doesn't bode well. Is there nobody who wants the Nobel Prize? Is there nobody who wants the Pulitzer Prize?

Your "paper" is crap. I know it. You know it. Maybe a second opinion is in order.

 

[DGM]

He's not going to go back on topic, if he ever even was on topic. He would much prefer to argue if molten steel existed, rather than accept it as a given for the purpose of this thread and explain why the hell it matters.

I agree, So let's let him keep his reason this "smoking gun" somehow matters to the "official story" to himself.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

Fine, I'll go ahead and grant it right now. There were puddles of liquid steel.

And?

 

[A W Smith]

Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

You know what a thermitic reaction looks like? Correct? Please explain how those who alledge witnessing flowing molten steel missed the continuing thermitic reaction taking place that would sustain its molten state. Show us witnesses to this pyrotechnic display.

 

[Edx]

The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

WHy cant they get their paper published in a reputable journal that doesn't spam other scientists to become editors of journals in subjects they arent even qualified in. You cant even prove the paper was peer reviewed at all let alone quality peer reviewed. The whole point of peer review is to have a base line standard of assumed quality, if the journal has proven lax standards then its worthless as any kind of "peer review". As others have said, no one cares about anything your "experts" have to say and anyone qualified that has commented on it that wasnt already deep into your conspiracy theories already has said they are totally wrong. Either everyone in the scientific and engineering community are just SO SCARED of the conspiracy they don't want to support you, or they are in on a conspiracy or they are all incompetent. Even the people you claim support the idea that there was melted steel on 911 and you say we know we can trust that they really are talking about melted steel because of how much of an "expert" they are do not seem to agree with you either and are apparently extremely blase about saying steel melted. Why does no one, not even your own sources, actually agree with you if its all so damn obvious? You also have a lot of cheek to try and appeal to authority in this way when there are plenty of real peer reviewed papers in respected journals that completely disagree with you, but of course you guys don't care about that. One rule for everyone else, right MM? Why do you love special pleading so much?

So, if we want to actually address the OP. IF there was melted steel then.... we know that a furnace is merely a well insulated fire - FACT. We know a furnace can produce melted steel. We also know that it is conceivable that there could have been certain conditions in the rubble pile that could have caused steel to melt. Why is this less likely than thermite, where you imagine it properties it doesn't have but instead claim nano thermite does yet you can't even show it that it does, where you have no theory as to how it created the effect you say was observed or how it got into the towers in the first place or how it managed to continue to keep the steel melted for so long and why none of it was considered strange enough to be photographed or documented in any way shape or form. So then, why is thermite more likely than a furnace effect? That is really what this OP comes down to.

 

[Edx]

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

Sure I'll go with that.

Now tell us how in the world that is a sensible suggestion? How could there be so much "unspent" thermite just continually being introduced? Where did it all come from?

I have heard Steven Jones give two ways for how nano thermite was used.

On the Jesse Ventura show on 911 Jones said that if you paint it onto steel and it dries it becomes a high explosive. It doesn't, of course, even the test Ventura had conducted showed it just burned for a bit and even then did nothing at all to the steel. Regardless of that no amount of nano thermite painted onto steel is going to be enough to provide enough energy to be continuously introduced into a system for weeks or months enough to sustain steel melting temperatures.

I have also heard Steven Jones say that nano thermite merely acted as matches or fuses for regular explosives like C4 or RMX. That is quite a difference, but again regardless of this a small fuse or match isn't going to provide any kind of energy to keep steel molten even if you had lots of it that somehow was all in the same place and somehow all of it was "unspent" and somehow was being continuously introduced to the same location for months.

Maybe you should consider what you are actually suggesting here. If you make a small fire and you kick it over, red hot burning embers fly everywhere all over the ground. It is quite likely that the ground itself will not even catch fire, or even if it did not for very long. How on earth you imagine all this thermite (sorry, unspent thermite) somehow managed to work its way into the right place to melt steel for months somehow being fed even more unspent thermite the entire time I have no idea. There is a far more likely situation, if steel really melted, you refuse to consider it.

 

[Montag451]

Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

I have to say you do seem to be going round in circled. How on earth can unspent nano-super-great-nothing-like-the-real-stuff-thermite keep being introduced?

You seem to under the impression it is like a fuel, keep adding bits when the fire gets low and it will keep burning.

You dump more thermit on a thermit reaction and it burns just like thermit, quickly, hot and with lots of light. To maintain a reaction you would need to continually be adding it. It doesn't smolder away like a barbecue.

It really doesn't burn like a fuel. When I demo it I use about 12g over a water filled beaker. Even then we have a pile of heat proof mats, safety screen and stand at least 3m away. It shoots sparks all over the place.

Even if the NWO could keep dumping the stuff safely there is no way you wouldn't notice it.

You know when you watch video of steel foundries with sparks and fire everywhere. That is what it looks like.

 

[George 152]

Well. Then find some real experts, and ask them their opinions. Go down to your local university and take a poll. Are you afraid to find out what the rank-and-file real experts think, or have you already rationalized in your mind why the vast majority of them will disagree with you?

Just talk to your local farrier while he's making a set of shoes.

 

[Oystein]

Says another unqualified nobody. Just like your architect that you keep trouting out like he's some kind of authority on metallurgy.

Why do you reward the troll by continuing his obvious and intentional derail? Did you notice that all he quoted from my post was the one sentence that was not addressing the OP, and introduced by me as being apart fromn the topic?

Well. Then find some real experts, and ask them their opinions. Go down to your local university and take a poll. Are you afraid to find out what the rank-and-file real experts think, or have you already rationalized in your mind why the vast majority of them will disagree with you?

Why do you reward the troll by continuing his obvious and intentional derail? Did you notice that all he quoted from my post was the one sentence that was not addressing the OP, and introduced by me as being apart fromn the topic?

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

The OP has granted that there was molten steel weeks after the collapses. Address the OP pleae. Do not continue off-topic rails.

Tell us: How do you explain collapse initiation and molten steel weeks later in one go? Please keep in mind the several weeks in between!

 

[Oystein]

Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

• Where did the thermite come from?
• Why did not burn when it was intended to burn (before collapse)?
• How did it stay concentrated enough during the collapse to be still ignitable and have enough energy density to melt steel?
• How was it kept from igniting for weeks? What ignited it weeks after?
• Why did those who observed molten steel not also observe the blinding light of the thermite reaction mere seconds or minutes earlier?
• Was that thermite explosive, or did it just burn?

 

[Oystein]

He's not going to go back on topic, if he ever even was on topic.

Then instead of assisting him with going and staying off-topic, why don't you demand that he return to the topic or shut up?

He would much prefer to argue if molten steel existed, rather than accept it as a given for the purpose of this thread and explain why the hell it matters.

Then why do you ask him questions that are off-topic?

 

[tsig]

Says another unqualified nobody. Just like your architect that you keep trouting out like he's some kind of authority on metallurgy.

Rainbow or cuthroat.

 

[tsig]

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

Somehow I feel you're not here to communicate.

You don't know why molten metal is evidence of evil do you?

 

[tsig]

Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

A swing and a miss.

The premise of this thread is that there was molten metal.

Question is, what does that prove?

How does molten steel prove that planes + fire didn't cause the towers to fall?

 

[Miragememories]

A swing and a miss.

The premise of this thread is that there was molten metal.

Question is, what does that prove?

How does molten steel prove that planes + fire didn't cause the towers to fall?

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

 

[Edx]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

We know you think that MM, but as I said a furnace is simply a well ventilated fire. So we know that conceivably the rubble pile could have had places where conditions were right that could have achieved such temperatures. No need to invent massive conspiracies everywhere or substances that does whatever we need it to do at any given moment.

What you are doing is claiming a substance where you ascribe whatever properties you want to it whenever you want based on nothing, where this substance somehow melted steel in a way that you refuse to explain other than the barest details imaginable and where we have pointed out to you why your description makes absolutely no sense. You already know it makes no sense because that is why you have evaded all calls for you to expand on your theory so that it could even potentially make sense. Disagree? Well go on then, explain your theory so it can make sense even in theory. You already know our questions, we've asked them several times but you ignore them.

 

[Oystein]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

No one claims they did, and that doesn't answer the OP.

You say thermite.
Somehow.
The dust-trickle-trickle-trickle-theory.
Seriously?

 

[twinstead]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

So your answer, other than some ludicrous theory about thermite "percolating" down into the rubble, is that your incredulous "fire + planes could not produce steel melting temperatures" declaration means that if molten steel WAS present, the "official story" can't be true?

 

[A W Smith]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

I just posted three pages back where other professionals reported "molten steel" in other fires, now I ask you the same question I asked Ergo, Why do you give credence to those who allege molten steel at WTC but not other reports of molten steel at other fires which burn the same fuel? If other fires contain molten steel, why not at WTC? And why have you ignored my question to you about the witnesses to molten steel not reporting a continuous blinding pyrotechnic thermitic reaction?

 

[Montag451]

Read the thread.

MM

I have, but to fair it doesn't seem like you have, or you just selectively ignore parts to suit your CT