Were there pools of molten steel or not?

Originally posted by Pootie
I am going to hold you to the eyewitness comment you have made in this thread. NEVER attempt to use eyewitness testimony to support your case as this thread will be referenced. WAIT A MINUTE... the whole NIST "story" is based on THEIR EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS... guess those can be tossed. The 9/11 Comission report relies on testimony... that can be tossed...

I find it hysterical that when it comes to the molten metal, eyewitness testimony isn't reliable, but when it comes to eyewitness testimony to describe the "damage" of WTC 7, then eyewitness testimony is gold. I believe some people on this site have an agenda.

Originally posted by Griff
I find it hysterical that when it comes to the molten metal, eyewitness testimony isn't reliable, but when it comes to eyewitness testimony to describe the "damage" of WTC 7, then eyewitness testimony is gold.

Griff, did you ever hear of that study that showed that defending your political ideology releases chemicals in the brain, I think endorphins, that make you feel good? I don't see why the same wouldn't be true here.

Some people are trying to push the physics and demand answers to obvious problems with what happened that day, and others are posting to defend their worldview, and get a rush from it. That's their agenda. That's what makes them so damned blind to this kind of contradictory logic, when it doesn't help their case. They ignore it, and move on, and just let it slip their mind so they can focus on things that seem to validate them instead.

I for one wasn't born thinking 9/11 was an inside job, and it took a few years after 9/11 before I even came across a reason to suspect it wasn't "al Qaeda". But you have to have the "intestinal fortitude" to let go of everything you believe, and then try to rebuild your worldview based on harder evidence than what they spew on TV, or the social reasoning of "if so many people believe it, it must obviously be true". Obviously that logic doesn't work when almost everyone starts off believing something false right from the start.

If you don't have the guts to do that, you don't have the guts to "handle the truth". Instead, you just constantly aim to defend your current worldview out of convenience and inherent physiology.

bsbray11,

Either that or 9/11 is a basic IQ test, and those who fail... simply fail.

Even the most conservative people who have always believed mainstream media, if they are intelligent enough and are not ignorant to the facts, can't ignore the logic of the argument. They can't ignore the gaping holes in the official story and they can't ignore the physics.

You will find that a very small minority of intelligent people, after researching 9/11 properly, will retain their original mainline views. That is to say, 99% of intelligent people come around eventually.

This, I propose, is one of the reasons it is so hard to convince people. Because if the evidence hasn't convinced them already, just by its very existence, then how is arguing with them going to help?

And so, while arguing is good, I think we should be focusing on the third person. The fence sitters who read the arguments and can’t make up their mind, rather than those who’ve already proven themselves too stupid or too ignorant to accept the blindly obvious truth.

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by Yandros
How thick are you people!?

Just two questions for you. Do you know how they make steel? And do you know how an oven works?

Yes. Whats your point?

Then you do understand that heat builds up in an enclosed space and steel is manufactured by adding iron ore to burning charcoal in an enclosed space. At least that's how they started out doing it over 5000 years ago.

Seriously, you can burn just about anything in an enclosed space and get temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Clay pottery is fired around the same temperatures (1200C) in any electric hobby kiln, copper melts at around 1000C and you can do that in a campfire. A fire burning underground for days or weeks would easily get that hot and most people that know how an oven works will understand that.

It's really not good form to call people "thick" just because they disagree with you.

I don't think you understand the logistics of the situation here.

Jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature of 980 C. Steel members have a heat conductivity which is great enough that jet fuel, and heating due to carbon based combustion, can never spot weld a small area of a steel member because the rest of the steel member heats up, conducting the heat away from the spot being heated.

It would be fine if you had perhaps 100 grams of steel in a tiny enclosure and kept adding energy into it. I don’t know about melting steel with such long carbon chains (C12 – C15), but you certainly have a good chance of getting it red hot.

But the WTC’s are very different. You have fires enclosed inside a floor, that’s fine for your argument. But you are thinking in terms of physical enclosure. Heat however isn’t enclosed in this way. The heat from the fires would have conducted up and down the steel members of both the outside walls and the inner columns, turning the entire tower into a giant heat sink. This is the same principle used to cool the CPU in your computer.

Because of this scientific fact, you actually need a material which burns hotter than the melting temperature of steel in order to melt a section out of a steel member. Hence the official story is physically impossible.

In addition, I think you will find that the maximum burning temperature of a liquid carbon chain, such as jet fuel (C12 - C15), is to do with a bond energy constant. Once you get to a certain temperature the fuel probably disassociates and cannot be burnt, hence the seemingly arbitrary max burning temperature.

Shorter chains such as propane have much higher max burning temperatures and hence are used in blast furnaces and the like.

If a chemist (or physicist) is reading this can you please verify the above.

It is astonishing that this is even still a matter of debate.

I challenge a billionaire out there to reconstruct three towers that are identical to those that collapsed on 9/11. Then, hire the best demolition crew in the world and see if they can bring them down as perfectly as on 9/11. We are definitely more likely to see an imperfect and possibly slanted collapse.

I guarantee you that after that crew is done, molten metal from thermate will be in the basements and all of the concrete will be pulverized into clouds of dust from the explosive charges.

Anyone with any commonsense would see that there were more forces at work on that day.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Yandros
In addition, I think you will find that the maximum burning temperature of a liquid carbon chain, such as jet fuel (C12 - C15), is to do with a bond energy constant. Once you get to a certain temperature the fuel probably disassociates and cannot be burnt, hence the seemingly arbitrary max burning temperature.

Shorter chains such as propane have much higher max burning temperatures and hence are used in blast furnaces and the like.

If a chemist (or physicist) is reading this can you please verify the above.

Yes, only the "outer layer" of a pool or body of kerosene will burn. The amount of oxygen needed is really significant, and the black smoke we saw was an indication of a total lack of it.

Originally posted by snoopy
Well, for one, it certainly is not impossible for steel to have melted, even if it is very unlikely.

I absolutely disagree here. Open air un-controlled hydrocarbon fires such as fire you would get from burning furnitures, papers and aircraft fuel would not burn any hotter than 12-1300F while steel melts at temperatures of about 2700F. Furthermore, even furnaes used in steel mills burn at temperatures in excess of 4000F for at least a few hours in order to melt steel. Just because a fire burns at a certain temperature doesn't mean that the steel right in the vicinity of the fire is going to reach such temperatures.

Don't believe me? No problems, just go buy a gallon of kerosene or aircraft fuel and try to melt a single tiny piece of steel, it can't be done.

More importantly, the people claiming to have found molten steel have no way of really knowing what type of metal they were seeing, they simply assumed it was steel.

If we were talking about a chocolate structure, most likely the pools would be made of molten chocolate but we are talking about a steel structure here. What kind of molten stuff do you think these pools were made of is not steel?

In science, the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is because it is often faulty and inaccurate.

What about a video of hot molten steel dripping from the side of the building?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The only real evidence would be metallurgy testing.

Well, don't count on the NIST to provide such tests because in their zillion page report, not once did they mention any sort of a molten material, steel or otherwise. They decided that if they act as if it didn't exist, they don't need to explain it and they decided that if they don't mention it, people won't believe it was actually there. But there were metallurgic tests done, see here for more details:

BYU Physics Proff Steven Jones - Debris testing
www.youtube.com...

Unlike the NIST and FEMA reports, the truth movement doesn't try to pretend that things like molten steel, WTC7 collapse and witnesses of explosions all don't exist.

Ask yourself why neither NIST nor FEMA nor the 9/11 omission report try to explain the molten steel, the WTC7 collapse and a very large share of evidences that just didn't fit their ridiculous "pancake collapse" theory?


[edit on 2-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

the only liquid metal i'm aware of is mercury (quick-silver)

we have sketchy information that there were 'Vaults' in one or more
of those 3 collapsed buildings.
Some 'Vaults' were supposed to contain gold bullion & perhaps other
metals like silver->> & perhaps platinum & Mercury which might have
been in a transit mode between metal traders.

so, as far as someone reporting seeing "pools of molten metal'
some days or weeks after the collapses...logic pretty much rules out
that any 'pool' of liquid metal was not caused from intense heat that
persisted for that length of time. There must be another explaination