Merged So there was melted steel

[Oystein]

...
But they have the related on-record academic qualifications to investigate the presence of thermite.
...

Could you please list the related on-record academic qualifications to investigate the presence of thermite of the following 6 of the 9 authors:

• Steven E. Jones
• Frank M. Legge
• Daniel Farnsworth
• Gregg Roberts
• James R. Gourley
• Bradley R. Larsen

Thanks.


ETA: I have some "on-record academic qualifications to investigate the presence of thermite" about Jeff Farrer, provided in person by Jeff Farrer himself here, starting around at 4:40:

And at that point, Steve (Jones) was saying "well, how do we find a calorimeter? Who's got a calorimeter? So, I found a lab that had a calorimeter that we could use, it's a DSC..., and learned quickly who to use the calorimeter..."

So we learn here:

• Steven Jones doesn't even know how to find a DSC
• Jeff Farrer had no experience at all with DSC going into this study, yet he was the one of the nine who did the DSC analysis.

That's the kind of expertise we are dealing with here. A team of nine publishing an analysis of a kind that apparently none of them had any experience with.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Travis never said he believed that there was molten steel.

Irrelevant.

He posed its existence as a 'what if', which necessitated an argument supporting a 'definitely was'.

That's how these sorts of discussions work. Is this sort of thing new to you?

 

[Robrob]

How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed?

It is a logical deduction drawn from the presence of unspent thermitic residue throughout the WTC dust. Knowing the steel melting temperatures achievable in a thermitic reaction, and given that the unspent thermitic residue logically represented what was once a much larger amount, it is reasonable to accept the existence of steel melting temperatures inside the buildings prior to their collapses.

MM

WTC5.


How hot did it get?

 

[Travis]

Who cares what I "believe?"

This thread is supposed to be about the implications of molten steel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What?

That twinstead can read minds?

Dr. Jones et al who produced the 'paper' were quite qualified to perform the scientific investigation on which the 'paper' is based.

If you are too lazy to Google their credentials, then you clearly have no interest in hearing both sides of the argument.

And I suggest you start your search by examining the credentials and publishing history of Dr. Niels Harrit.

MM

No they were not. Only Jones and Farrer conducted the actual tests and neither are chemists.
Harrit and the others took no part in the tests although its likely Harrit contributed some of the long words to make the report look "sciencey" enough to fool the uneducated.

 

[Oystein]

No they were not. Only Jones and Farrer conducted the actual tests and neither are chemists.
Harrit and the others took no part in the tests although its likely Harrit contributed some of the long words to make the report look "sciencey" enough to fool the uneducated.

Can you document this? I know Farrer did the DSC tests, but do you know who did XEDS and who did not? Who did the infamous "flame tests", and who did all the funny things on the MEK-soaked chip?

I guess I am most interested in who analysed chips a-d. Farrer and Jones? How do you know? Where was Harrit then?

 

[000063]

I never said that the authors of the paper were thermite experts...

Evasion detected.

 

[LSSBB]

Molten steel?

Discussion about whether or not there was molten steel at the WTC site has been split here from an unrelated thread here.

Posted By: LashL

<Snip>
Robertson also said there was a "river of steel flowing" in the B1 level, NIST says impossible..who's right?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited down to the salient point for this split thread.

I'll just take one leg off your turkey there, and leave the rest to others.

Here's my question, answer it as best you can:

How do you, or how would anyone, know that what was in "the river of steel" was actually steel?

 

[lexicon008]

I'll just take one leg off your turkey there, and leave the rest to others.

Here's my question, answer it as best you can:

How do you, or how would anyone, know that what was in "the river of steel" was actually steel?

good question...why don't you ask Leslie Robertson that. He is the one claiming it was steel. As an engineer he had to know that if it was actually molten steel then temperatures had to be quite high right? Seems he's made alot of rather odd mistakes or contradictory statements. What exactly are we to beleive is his version of truth?

Obviously you would need to test said material to know for sure what it was.
Apparently Mr. Robertson was confident enough that it was steel to claim it at a lecture.
NIST however without any testing whatsoever denied that molten steel was possible.
So we have a discrepency here..how do we solve this discrepency?

 

[LSSBB]

good question...why don't you ask Leslie Robertson that. He is the one claiming it was steel. As an engineer he had to know that if it was actually molten steel then temperatures had to be quite high right? Seems he's made alot of rather odd mistakes or contradictory statements. What exactly are we to beleive is his version of truth?

Obviously you would need to test said material to know for sure what it was.
Apparently Mr. Robertson was confident enough that it was steel to claim it at a lecture.
NIST however without any testing whatsoever denied that molten steel was possible.
So we have a discrepency here..how do we solve this discrepency?

I am an engineer. If I saw a river of what looked like steel, how would I know that it was indeed steel?

 

[Skibum]

I am an engineer. If I saw a river of what looked like steel, how would I know that it was indeed steel?

I'm not an engineer. I think the best question concerning this "river of steel" would be,...where the hell did it go? The site has been cleaned up, down to the bedrock, yet strangely I have heard of no reports of large slabs of steel being found.

 

[lexicon008]

I'm not an engineer. I think the best question concerning this "river of steel" would be,...where the hell did it go? The site has been cleaned up, down to the bedrock, yet strangely I have heard of no reports of large slabs of steel being found.

Its a large site and no one knows for sure how much of this material was actually there. If it didn't pool then you're not going to get a slab are you. It could be just like an ore vein in rock.
Even if it did slab..would anyone recognize it, question it, report it or would they just consider it part of the debris pile and move on.
The witness evidence we have from fire, clean up crews and Robertson say a molten material was present that all seem to have felt was molten steel.
You would think that a standard investigation would try to prove one way or the other if it was steel or not. If it is then they need to explain how it was melted using aviation fuel and office furniture. If it wasn't then what was it and does it lend credence or refute their existing theory.

 

[Skibum]

Do you honestly think that a "river of steel" would just disappear? If it is described as a river it would have already pooled, and when it cooled it would maintain that shape. It would have easily been recognized as different from the regular debris they were finding as they would have had to handle it differently to remove it. I'm pretty certain eyewitnesses accounts you have read are mistaken.

 

[jaydeehess]

One can melt steel using coal, not much different then office furniture. That being said there is still nothing other than anecdotal remarks by which to bolster any claim of molten steel. No solidified pools, or rivers if you prefer, nothing.
One can however find dozens of anecdotal remarks concerning molten steel at other non-911 related fires, all of them either equally correct or incorrect as those pertaining to the 911 fires.

Once again lexicon presents an unsubstantiated point, quell surprise.

 

[lexicon008]

Do you honestly think that a "river of steel" would just disappear? If it is described as a river it would have already pooled, and when it cooled it would maintain that shape. It would have easily been recognized as different from the regular debris they were finding as they would have had to handle it differently to remove it. I'm pretty certain eyewitnesses accounts you have read are mistaken.

Could be they are mistaken, we will never know though will we.
Bear in mind, aluminum melts at a far lower temp and pools just like steel. Are the clean up crew going to examine every slab of cooled metal they find? Should they have? Perhaps if the reports were credible.
Your certainty that they are mistaken is fine and dandy but is not proof for or against it.
You weren't there, you did not see what they saw and you do not have their experience.
Why would these people claim they saw molten steel if they didn't think that is what it was? Mistaken..could be.
This is the whole point really. A thorough investigation would have checked these things not just hand waved them away.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could be they are mistaken, we will never know though will we.
Bear in mind, aluminum melts at a far lower temp and pools just like steel. Are the clean up crew going to examine every slab of cooled metal they find? Should they have? Perhaps if the reports were credible.
Your certainty that they are mistaken is fine and dandy but is not proof for or against it.
You weren't there, you did not see what they saw and you do not have their experience.
Why would these people claim they saw molten steel if they didn't think that is what it was? Mistaken..could be.
This is the whole point really. A thorough investigation would have checked these things not just hand waved them away.

Checked what? Where are the solidified lumps to test?

You have some explanation as to why molten 'steel' is reported in other non-911 related fires?

Either steel can melt in certain conditions in s fire or it cannot. Either other reports then are true and molten steel at the WTC is inconsequential, or all reports of molten steel in fires are incorrect thus establishing that such reports are particularly unreliable.

 

[lexicon008]

One can melt steel using coal, not much different then office furniture. That being said there is still nothing other than anecdotal remarks by which to bolster any claim of molten steel. No solidified pools, or rivers if you prefer, nothing.
One can however find dozens of anecdotal remarks concerning molten steel at other non-911 related fires, all of them either equally correct or incorrect as those pertaining to the 911 fires.

Once again lexicon presents an unsubstantiated point, quell surprise.

whos fault is that..i am not the one that investigated the site.
Is it my fault that they hand waved the witness testimony away and didn't look?
Is it my fault that the investigators from NIST looked at the meteorite and went Meh not worth testing. This by itself, according to NFPA guidelines at the time, indicates the possiblity of exotic accelerants or extremely high temperatures.
NIST didn't say that molten steel was possible but was in small quantities that could be explained away..they said there was no molten steel because the fires could not have reached sufficient temperature to melt steel.
Now when you have numerous people saying there is molten steel, whether they are right or wrong you cannot rule it out until you test can you? You can presume that it isn't there because it shouldn't be there but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
If you test and find it, then you need to explain it.

 

[LSSBB]

Its a large site and no one knows for sure how much of this material was actually there. If it didn't pool then you're not going to get a slab are you. It could be just like an ore vein in rock.
Even if it did slab..would anyone recognize it, question it, report it or would they just consider it part of the debris pile and move on.
The witness evidence we have from fire, clean up crews and Robertson say a molten material was present that all seem to have felt was molten steel.
You would think that a standard investigation would try to prove one way or the other if it was steel or not. If it is then they need to explain how it was melted using aviation fuel and office furniture. If it wasn't then what was it and does it lend credence or refute their existing theory.

Exactly how many reports of rivers of molten steel were there? What is the probability in each instance that it was indeed molten steel? How many samples of the solidified remains of rivers of molten steel were found in the rubble?

 

[000063]

Its a large site and no one knows for sure how much of this material was actually there. If it didn't pool then you're not going to get a slab are you. It could be just like an ore vein in rock.
Even if it did slab..would anyone recognize it, question it, report it or would they just consider it part of the debris pile and move on.
The witness evidence we have from fire, clean up crews and Robertson say a molten material was present that all seem to have felt was molten steel.
You would think that a standard investigation would try to prove one way or the other if it was steel or not. If it is then they need to explain how it was melted using aviation fuel and office furniture. If it wasn't then what was it and does it lend credence or refute their existing theory.

See, you're arguing from ignorance here. You are unable to explain how anyone would be able to tell how it was steel with any real degree of certainty visually, even if it wasn't in a slab.

...
This is the whole point really. A thorough investigation would have checked these things not just hand waved them away.

Oh, that old chestnut. "It didn't check whatever little detail I feel is critical, so it wasn't a thorough investigation."

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Skibum
I'm not an engineer. I think the best question concerning this "river of steel" would be,...where the hell did it go? The site has been cleaned up, down to the bedrock, yet strangely I have heard of no reports of large slabs of steel being found.

Its a large site and no one knows for sure how much of this material was actually there. If it didn't pool then you're not going to get a slab are you. It could be just like an ore vein in rock. Even if it did slab..would anyone recognize it, question it, report it or would they just consider it part of the debris pile and move on.
The witness evidence we have from fire, clean up crews and Robertson say a molten material was present that all seem to have felt was molten steel.
You would think that a standard investigation would try to prove one way or the other if it was steel or not. If it is then they need to explain how it was melted using aviation fuel and office furniture. If it wasn't then what was it and does it lend credence or refute their existing theory.

Funny, I don't see any signs of huge slabs of congealed iron anywhere in these pictures. (I'm sure that you, as a student of 9/11, are aware that there was a big ceremony when the last column was removed from GZ.) Shouldn't there at least have been nodules resembling iron-nickle meteorites all over? Did nobody save one as a souvenir? Or were these all confiscated by NWO agents?

Are you saying it diffused into the soil? As a retired chemist, I'd be fascinated to hear a theory as to how this is possible. Here's a test for truthers: Take some thermite and drip the molten iron into various soils, and see how far it penetrates. This should be good. I'd advise you not to try it with moist soils.