Merged So there was melted steel

[JSanderO]

Where is the physical that there was steel in liquid form under the pile?
How much was there?
If it actually existed what happened to it?
How do we even know the flowing liquid was steel or iron?
When was it supposedly seen?
Why don't multiple photos exist?
If it did exist, how do we know when the liquid was created?
Is this an artifact of the collapse? How would be know?
Would not all sorts of never before seen things be found in the collapse of a completely occupied 450,000 ton building over an occupied parking garage... things not seen even in a CD of an stripped building not larger than 1/10 the mass?
What does the location of the liquid "metal" tell us?
If it was part of the CD wouldn't it be under both towers?

 

[Sunstealer]

It doesn't "always" mean one thing or another. You've just shown it can be used several different ways.
If you understand what I just wrote, stop with the fake semantics. It doesn't offer any new insight or argument for you. It just makes you look dumb.

Well done, we are finally getting somewhere.

If the word molten can be used several different ways then there is no way for the reader to know whether the witness who describes something as molten is describing a liquid or a solid unless there is additional information.

For example, a witness who describes a beam as molten is obviously describing a solid object because the word beam gives the reader the additional information.

Therefore to use such witness testimony as evidence of liquid steel is incorrect.

I'm showing you that your language is not sufficiently robust. In essence; don't use the word molten to describe anything. Use liquid or glowing brilliantly. You won't see me using the word because it's meaning is lax. This is the reason why we use specific technical language when writing, because it means there is no confusion or ambiguity when read. The reader understands exactly what the writer means. Laymen don't.

This is why metallurgists refer to a/the "liquidus" rather than molten to mean liquid because it has a specific metallurgical and physical meaning - it can't be misconstrued.

Similarly we'll quantify if we use such words as melting/melted. e.g. grain boundary melting.

If you understand what a grain boundary is and what its size is, then it's obvious that this phrase is describing a highly localised and a very small volume of liquid compared to the rest of the material which is solid.

You may argue that this is semantics, but it's important to use unambiguous language otherwise dishonest people such as truthers will use this to attribute properties that aren't there. You cannot use any report using the word molten as an indication that liquid steel was present unless it's qualified with additional information.

This is one of the reasons why witness reports are unreliable. Why haven't truthers contacted these people to find out exactly what they saw? You can't be bothered and would rather watch youtube videos because any proper investigative work is beyond you.

Give up the ridiculous "liquid steel in the rubble pile" nonsense.

 

[ergo]

Sunstealer, the word 'molten' refers to material in the liquid state, or material having melted and resolidified. If steel has melted and resolidified, it has reached the temperature AT WHICH STEEL MELTS. If it is liquid, it has also reached the temperature AT WHICH STEEL MELTS. References to 'rivers' or 'pools' or 'dripping' steel describe steel in the liquid state. Either way you cut it, you're describing steel which has reached melting point.

Glowing red hot steel is glowing red hot steel. There are eyewitness accounts of glowing red hot steel as well. You're not going to have molten steel without also having glowing red hot steel present. That's probably why the eyewitness accounts include references to all different states of steel at the WTC rubble pile.

You're the only one who's confused here. The common definition of 'molten' is something that has reached the temperature at which it melts.

If you doubt that there was liquid or melted steel there, you can seek verification of those eyewitness accounts. That is what a real debunker would do. You've had over ten years to do this. Complaining that people don't use metallurgical terms when they're describing steel in the liquid or resolidified state is fake semantics.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't have a problem with "so what". As long as we can agree on the likelihood, given the evidence and the numerous testimonials, of molten steel in the pile.

We can end the discussion here if you want.

You don't a problem with 'so what' yet you're too scared to try to answer it.

Typical.

 

[Mark F]

Lol.

Sorry, didn't catch the rest of what you said.

That much is obvious.

 

[DGM]

If you doubt that there was liquid or melted steel there, you can seek verification of those eyewitness accounts. That is what a real debunker would do. You've had over ten years to do this. Complaining that people don't use metallurgical terms when they're describing steel in the liquid or resolidified state is fake semantics.

That's why we keep asking you for the proof you said you had.

Do you have it or did you make it up?

 

[ergo]

Where is the physical that there was steel in liquid form under the pile?

Where is the physical evidence for a lot of things re: 9/11?

How much was there?

Why?

If it actually existed what happened to it?

It was taken away, like everything else in the rubble pile was.

How do we even know the flowing liquid was steel or iron?

What other metal existed there in as great quantities? What other metal is used to make beams, columns, and girders?

When was it supposedly seen?

During the pile clean up.

Why don't multiple photos exist?

For the same reason that many other parts of the visual record of 9/11 are missing.

If it did exist, how do we know when the liquid was created?

Do you doubt that it was sometime between when the planes hit and when the last of the rubble was removed?

Is this an artifact of the collapse? How would be know?

Do you have another theory?

Would not all sorts of never before seen things be found in the collapse of a completely occupied 450,000 ton building over an occupied parking garage... things not seen even in a CD of an stripped building not larger than 1/10 the mass?

Wow, SanderO, you're really showing your true colours here. I guess we can see why 911 Forum is empty these days.

What does the location of the liquid "metal" tell us?

Don't know. Do you have a theory?

Interestingly, the location of the hot spots did not change. This suggests the heat was not a result of fire consuming building combustibles in the pile.

If it was part of the CD wouldn't it be under both towers?

Yes, probably. Do you have evidence that it was not?

 

[Mark F]

Sunstealer, the word 'molten' refers to material in the liquid state, or material having melted and resolidified. If steel has melted and resolidified, it has reached the temperature AT WHICH STEEL MELTS. If it is liquid, it has also reached the temperature AT WHICH STEEL MELTS. References to 'rivers' or 'pools' or 'dripping' steel describe steel in the liquid state. Either way you cut it, you're describing steel which has reached melting point.

Glowing red hot steel is glowing red hot steel. There are eyewitness accounts of glowing red hot steel as well. You're not going to have molten steel without also having glowing red hot steel present. That's probably why the eyewitness accounts include references to all different states of steel at the WTC rubble pile.

You're the only one who's confused here. The common definition of 'molten' is something that has reached the temperature at which it melts.

If you doubt that there was liquid or melted steel there, you can seek verification of those eyewitness accounts. That is what a real debunker would do. You've had over ten years to do this. Complaining that people don't use metallurgical terms when they're describing steel in the liquid or resolidified state is fake semantics.

Since you have not gotten this through your head yet - that is not necessary how people use the word "molten" in common language. Maybe that is how you interpret it but you have already been shown examples of how other witnesses describe things as molten that are clealry not in a liquid state. This is why it is so important to follow up on witness accounts, maybe even produce some (gasp) corroborating physical evidence. You were also given an example of this with Phil Rovulo's account. We debunkers have done the follow up, so why don't you?

You are the only one here who seems to think molten steel is even interesting, let alone important - although you refuse to explain why. Why is the burden of proof on us to prove you wrong when you won't even make a case for why molten steel is important?

So either explain exactly WHY molten steel is important, how/where it was found in the rubble pile, how much, who reported it, and where the corroborating physical evidence is or give it up already.

 

[ergo]

That's why we keep asking you for the proof you said you had.

Where did I claim this?

 

[ergo]

- that is not necessary how people use the word "molten" in common language.

Can you either rewrite or explain this statement? Grammatically it makes no sense.

Maybe that is how you interpret it

That is how everyone interprets it, because it is the definition provided in the dictionary.

but you have already been shown examples of how other witnesses describe things as molten that are clealry not in a liquid state.

I have? Where?

Molten can also refer to something that has melted. If steel melts. it has obviously reached the point at which steel melts. Or do you contest this?

This is why it is so important to follow up on witness accounts, maybe even produce some (gasp) corroborating physical evidence.

You don't understand burden of proof. If you are claiming that the accounts are wrong, you need to show why.

You were also given an example of this with Phil Rovulo's account.

Where? What are you referring to?

We debunkers have done the follow up, so why don't you?

What follow up have you done?

You are the only one here who seems to think molten steel is even interesting, let alone important

We're not discussing why it's important at this point. We're merely trying to establish that there was molten steel in the pile. And to show you the logical inconsistency of arguing both that accounts of molten steel must be wrong and that molten steel in the pile is nothing special.

 

[DGM]

Where did I claim this?

In this thread:

There are lots of pictures of melted and severely heat-deformed steel.

Is this one of those cases of a special meaning of the word?

 

[DGM]

Is this a "river of steel"?

 

[ergo]

In this thread:



Is this one of those cases of a special meaning of the word?

Yes, there are lots of pictures of melted or severely heat deformed WTC steel. I've posted these before on JREF.

Some of them are here.

 

[DGM]

Yes, there are lots of pictures of melted or severely heat deformed WTC steel. I've posted these before on JREF.

Some of them are here.

Nice try.

Which ones were examples of "melted"?

 

[ergo]

The ones where the steel has piled on itself.

We've had this conversation before.

 

[Justin39640]

Yes, there are lots of pictures of melted or severely heat deformed WTC steel. I've posted these before on JREF.

Some of them are here.

Heat doesn't turn steel into shrinky-dinks. Those are crushed.

 

[DGM]

The ones where the steel has piled on itself.

We've had this conversation before.

The fact you believe this was "melted" (or even hot) proves you have no idea what your looking at.

Believe what you want (for whatever reason). I'm done.

 

[ergo]

Heat doesn't turn steel into shrinky-dinks. Those are crushed.

What are shrinky dinks?

It is obvious that this is heat-generated. Do you have photos of non-WTC crushed steel columns that show the same smooth piling?

 

[Justin39640]

The fact you believe this was "melted" (or even hot) proves you have no idea what your looking at.

Believe what you want (for whatever reason). I'm done.

Telling too when you look where those pics are posted and in what context. Conspiracy sites. More people who have no clue what they're looking at. Shocking! lol

 

[ergo]

The fact you believe this was "melted" (or even hot) proves you have no idea what your looking at.

Believe what you want (for whatever reason). I'm done.

Oh, okay then.