Merged So there was melted steel

[tsig]

What are "liquid-like piles"?

You like to make-up terms so no one can answer your questions. You have not shown any steel in a "liquid-like pile".

BTW: Is structural steel ductile at room temp?

Surely you've seen a heap of water or a hill of milk.

 

[ergo]

"Using a materials science definition, I'm sure he is".

That wasn't so hard, was it.?

How many times did you have to read that? Lol.

Good job.

There is nothing left here to look at.

There wasn't anything to begin with. Just so you know.

 

[tsig]

Of course it's ductile at room temperature. The specification for A36 steel defines a minimum of 23% elongation. Are you trying to tell the engineering world that a material that can stretch a minimum of 23% of it's original length (before fracture) isn't ductile?

You are hopelessly out of your depth. You can't even look up and understand what ductility actually means.

One of the very first things you learn in a metallurgy degree and are shown in the lab is the "Ductile to Brittle transition (temperature) in steel". Look it up, you might learn something.

That means it floats on water, right?

 

[Justin39640]

That means it floats on water, right?

"It's a witch!"

 

[ergo]

No, it "buckles".

 

[ergo]

Really neat pictures, thank you.

And purdy, too...

 

[DGM]

There wasn't anything to begin with. Just so you know.

Thanks for summing up your effort.

I think this might be my new signature on the "truth movement".

Bye, Bye.

 

[Dcdrac]

so the total irrelevance of whether steel was molten at the Site of the 9/11 Terrorist attack has been conceded due to lack of supporting arguments and evidence.

 

[ergo]

Bye, DGM.

 

[Dcdrac]

all I have seen in both the threads covering this is the complete irrelevance it has to the attacks that destroyed the buildings.

Mind you, you can say that about all the truther nuttter statements.

 

[ergo]

Your contributions here have been invaluable, dcdrac. I'm utterly slayed by your logic.

 

[tsig]

No, it "buckles".

Wait, wait, don't tell me I know the answer to this one:

Gott Mit Us. right?

 

[tsig]

"It's a witch!"

Actually I think they're the only group that hasn't been blamed for 911.

 

[Miragememories]

"The topic is:

Given that there was molten steel, what does that tell us about the buildings' collapse.?"

That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM

Are those the only possible sources of heat from a collapsing skyscraper?

 

[ergo]

That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM

No, no, MM. What it says about the collapse is that the columns both missed each other, and "buckled", presumably under the strain of missing each other...

 

[LSSBB]

No, no, MM. What it says about the collapse is that the columns both missed each other, and "buckled", presumably under the strain of missing each other...

There were only two columns?

 

[TheRedWorm]

And pretty, too...

(my change of word)

Quite. And, if you weren't a truther, the pictures might have actually helped you learn something. But alas, you aren't here to actually find the truth, just troll.

 

[dafydd]

Right. I'll let you guys carry that discussion. You're the ones asking the question.

Troll alert!

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Right. I'll let you guys carry that discussion. You're the ones asking the question.

Either you misunderstand the OP, or you are deliberately derailing it.
You are being allowed to regard the existence of molten steel as a given. For the purposes of this thread there need NOT be any questioning regarding it presence in the rubble fire, it is assumed, for the purpose of this thread, that every reference in witness statements concerning the presence of liquid molten steel are TRUE.

That having been established, for the purpose of this thread, we wish to know if or how this fact affects any scenario concerning the manner by which the WTC towers collapsed.

Please, everyone, no more about whether or not molten steel was present in the rubble. There is already a thread dedicated to that debate.
THIS thread seeks only to address what people feel would be the discussion consequences given the assumption that molten steel was present in the rubble.

Is there any confusion now, about what this thread is about?