Melting steel?

a reply to: skyeagle409

I know that, but I take exception to the way that was stated..

a reply to: wildb

The aircraft had left their marks on the facade of each building, but some people actually believed the WTC Towers were clad in steel.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

The aircraft had left their marks on the facade of each building, but some people actually believed the WTC Towers were clad in steel.

May be true but irrelevant, much steel behind the clad.. the clad is irrelevant ..

a reply to: wildb

May be true but irrelevant, much steel behind the clad.. the clad is irrelevant

Steel columns were seriously damaged as each aircraft slammed into those buildings.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

May be true but irrelevant, much steel behind the clad.. the clad is irrelevant

Steel columns were seriously damaged as each aircraft slammed into those buildings.

Yeah, how about that, I agree..

a reply to: wildb

Which was clearly evident by the impact damage left on the facades of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Which was clearly evident by the impact damage left on the facades of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Yep, I agree..

a reply to: wildb

Yep, I agree..

Good to hear! Now, let's take a look here.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

Undicisettembre: Many conspiracy theorists believe that molten steel was found at the bottom of the towers and this should prove it was a controlled demolition. Is it true that controlled demolitions leave molten steel pools?

Brent Blanchard: No. And there is no evidence there was molten steel. The way they phrase that question is fundamentally wrong and that's why it reaches wrong conclusions every time. There were molten materials, there were very hot burning materials, but there's no evidence that any of those materials were steel. It is much more likely that they were aluminum, or copper, or composite materials.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

a reply to: Chadwickus

I saw this video that day and thought I'd share in the hopes that maybe it will dissuade the silly notion that the steel in the World Trade buildings melted from jet fuel.

Yeah. Sure. As all y'all know... watching videos is the only thing we can do, innit?

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

www.nytimes.com...

On a funny sidenote the article discusses Diesel as culprit, which later turned out to be utter nonsense. But all that kinda illustrates the amount of astonishment they found themselves engulfed by.

Evaporated steel in extraordinarily high temperatures is something I would like to know more about though. Pity.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Do you know RJ Lee found temps of 3180* F..

a reply to: wildb

Some of their findings suggested even more heat, but yep. Condensed lead on mineral wool wasn't the only strange feature in the WTCdust...

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wildb

Some of their findings suggested even more heat, but yep. Condensed lead on mineral wool wasn't the only strange feature in the WTCdust...

Right, like I said , then where did the heat come from..?

a reply to: wildb

That is false. In fact, it was Steven Jones who pushed that piece of disinformation and never said anything about iron flakes melting at much lower temperatures than bulk iron.

To sum it up, Steven Jones took a number of truthers for a joy ride to never-never land.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Evaporated steel in extraordinarily high temperatures is something I would like to know more about though. Pity.

Let's remember that torches and high temp wands were used to cut steel beams during cleanup operations at ground zero.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That is false. In fact, it was Steven Jones who pushed that piece of disinformation and never said anything about iron flakes melting at much lower temperatures than bulk iron.

To sum it up, Steven Jones took a number of truthers for a joy ride to never-never land.

Your lying again and I'm calling you out, you know dam well RJ Lee found those temps, Again your deflecting to protect your stupid little lies, no one brought up Jones, don't reply to me about him because I could care less about him.

ENOUGH!

If you can not post in a civilized manner, then refrain from doing so.

Anymore posts that are not civilized debate or decorum will result in post removals.

And, as this is the 9/11 forum, the penalties can be quite high in here.

Tread lightly.

Do not respond to this post.

a reply to: wildb

Right, like I said , then where did the heat come from..?

Some of it came from these sources.

The RJ Group

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's remember that torches and high temp wands were used to cut steel beams during cleanup operations at ground zero.

First you would have to elucidate, that Dr. Barnett wasn't aware of Captain Obvious and thus his observations are redundant at best. That's your assumption, innit? Prove it!

I say let's remember our debate regarding the WTC dust first. At least this way we won't have to talk about torches, or do they use asbesthos and fireproofing during cleanup?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I say let's remember our debate regarding the WTC dust first.

Let's begin here.

RJ Lee Group Report

The analytical results are as follows:

• Chrysotile asbestos was pervasively present in the Building. The WTC towers were built, in part, using fireproofing materials that contained chrysotile asbestos. In contrast, the Building was not constructed with asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Chrysotile asbestos is a distinguishing WTC Dust Marker for WTC Dust.

• Mineral wool was pervasively present in the Building. Mineral wool is a WTC Dust Marker for WTC Dust. The WTC towers used construction materials that contained mineral wool.

• Gypsum, also designated as a WTC Dust Marker for WTC Dust based on its high abundance and small particle size (not its mere presence), wasubiquitously present in the Building.

• Particles of partially burned or melted plastic (vesicular carbonaceous particles), not expected in “normal” dust, were commonly observed in WTC Dust due to the fire that accompanied the WTC Event. Additionally, the concentrations of various burned phases and the characteristics ofspecific phases, also proved to be excellent “fingerprints” for WTC Event
dusts.

• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

• The investigation has established that WTC Dust is a carrier of toxic substances.

911research.wtc7.net...

In other words, the high temperature referred to in the RJ Lee Group pertains to fires raging within the WTC buildings, and nothing to do with explosives nor thermite.

.