Giving this one more go.... molten metal

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I will trust trained firefighting professionals to give me an idea of what happened at the WTC, over any anonymous person on a conspiracy forum, any day of the week.

Except, of course, when they say that they believed that 7 had lotsa big fires.

Oh, and when their engineers state that they belived that 7 was gonna fall due to those fires.

When it comes to that, the TM changes its tune, doesn't it?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no positive evidence of molten steel.

I'm not sure why you purposely ignore what others post, but I posted the three types of evidence earlier in this thread and other threads.

I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what positive evidence means.

try again.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Just like if multiple witnesses saw the same person stab somebody (exact same thing), then that person did stab somebody. Got it?

A correct analogy would be asking about the type of knife, not whether or not a stabbing actually occured.

We believe that the first responders saw something, just as your hypothetical witnesses saw a stabbing.

What it was is in question.

Was it steel? Aluminum? Glass? A mix of stuff.

Was it a kitchen knife? Switchblade? Folding knife? Screwdriver?

Your poor attempt at this is just sad, dude.

Originally posted by okbmd

You have already said you don't believe there was thermite/thermate involved , so what would you suggest there was that melted this 'steel' ?

Conventional explosives melt steel now ?

What?

Are you asking him to form a hypothesis about this?

Don't be absurd. Ain't gonna happen. Read my sig for an explanation.

The sad thing is, if truthers knew how quickly the earth cooled after underground atomic tests, they would stay faaaaaar away from that, and the charlatans would try and fool the gullible claiming thermxte did indeed burn for months.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And a debunking of your statement that there was zero oxygen due to there being no airflow into the piles in 2 ways:

1- that smoke was rising from the piles, which means that air was going into the piles at the same rate.

2- that injecting an inert gas - nitrogen - was considered but rejected since it was too porous to be effective.

And like I said, the steel itself was causing fires because of how hot it already was. There is no evidence of the magnitude of heat required for keeping so much steel at the maximum temperature open-air fires can heat it to, without the oxygen efficiency of open-air fires. 700C after 5 days of pouring water does agree with experimental data from Cardington and even simulation data from NIST.

Originally posted by pteridine
The high temperature of the rubble is the result of the fires beneath.

The facts aren't going to change no matter how many times you repeat this.

The fires are not open atmosphere fires, so the temperature limits you like to quote are irrelevant. They are quite a bit more than smoldering, they are partial combustion.

The bottom line is that the oxygen-starved fires would not
be as efficient as gas-fed burners placed directly onto steel with the sole intention of heating it as much and as rapidly as possible for such a fire (ie the Cardington tests). Yet the same temperatures are present on the surface of the pile alone, and after 5 days of water being dumped and being exposed to cool air. So your excuse doesn't add up, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is no evidence of the magnitude of heat required

Correction.

There's no backup to your claim that a massive amount of visible fire roaring out of the piles would be necessary to produce those temps.

Whereas the rational can point to fire tests where a slow burn produces high temps also.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The bottom line is that the oxygen-starved fires would not
be as efficient as gas-fed burners placed directly onto steel with the sole intention of heating it as much and as rapidly as possible

I don't think that anyone's argueing that.

It's YOU though, that needs to construct this strawman in order to make your point(less).

Slow heating is fine, since we're talking days and weeks here.

Surely your next arguement isn't gonna be that underground oxygen starved ( ha ha ) fires don't get hot enough?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There's no backup to your claim that a massive amount of visible fire roaring out of the piles would be necessary to produce those temps.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said smoldering isn't going to cause create heating than controlled open-air combustion coming out of a gas burner, on thinner cross-sections of steel. Because it isn't. Again, I refer you to the Cardington tests. Do you know what tests I'm referring to?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The bottom line is that the oxygen-starved fires would not
be as efficient as gas-fed burners placed directly onto steel with the sole intention of heating it as much and as rapidly as possible

I don't think that anyone's argueing that.

It's YOU though, that needs to construct this strawman in order to make your point(less).

Slow heating is fine, since we're talking days and weeks here.

So in other words you think the underground fires were so intense that they were heating the pile even while firemen were dumping thousands of gallons of cold water on it and it was exposed to cool air. I'm not buying it, and you have no credibility to begin with.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The facts aren't going to change no matter how many times you repeat this.

The bottom line is that the oxygen-starved fires would not
be as efficient as gas-fed burners placed directly onto steel with the sole intention of heating it as much and as rapidly as possible for such a fire (ie the Cardington tests). Yet the same temperatures are present on the surface of the pile alone, and after 5 days of water being dumped and being exposed to cool air. So your excuse doesn't add up, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

The facts are underground fires. Efficiency has nothing to do with this. Total energy over time and minimization of thermal loss are what is important. The fact that heat is continually being generated in different places indicates fire, not hot steel cooling.
I would consider you a No-Fire conspiracist if you would ever clearly state your position.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So in other words you think the underground fires were so intense that they were heating the pile even while firemen were dumping thousands of gallons of cold water on it and it was exposed to cool air. I'm not buying it, and you have no credibility to begin with.

What else do you think would heat the pile, BS? Your vaunted technical education should allow you to explain it in detail.

Originally posted by bsbray11

if the fire itself is what heated all the steel in the first place, then there would have to be massively, massively intense fires blasting up through the pile,

Excuse me?

Deny you said this now.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So in other words you think the underground fires were so intense that they were heating the pile even while firemen were dumping thousands of gallons of cold water on it and it was exposed to cool air. I'm not buying it, and you have no credibility to begin with.

No, that once again is your personal strawman.

Look at the quote from you just above. It is your claim that there must be intense fires to heat the steel.

The fires can be smoldering, and still produce high temps.

It would be for you to prove your own personal incredulity that some guys working 2" hoses would affect the 20 acre site.

In fact, your belief is debunked by one of the quotes I provided for you. In it,the chief stated that they knew they wouldn't be able to put the fires out with their hoses, but would need to dig down to them.

But you don't believe him.

Okie dokie.....

Originally posted by pteridine
The facts are underground fires. Efficiency has nothing to do with this.

In other words you don't care that the debris pile couldn't produce the same amount of heat as controls in scientific studies, yet demonstrate the maximum temperatures achieved in those studies.

And completely ignore all the heat loss that would have been caused by dumping uncounted gallons of cold water, etc.

I'm about done with this conversation. Just like every other, you get too hung up on yourself to get what I'm saying straight in even a single response to me.

I would consider you a No-Fire conspiracist if you would ever clearly state your position.

Wow, that really means a lot to me coming from an anonymous internet high schooler. If you knew how I consider you, you would have saved the effort typing this whole post.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
if the fire itself is what heated all the steel in the first place, then there would have to be massively, massively intense fires blasting up through the pile,

Excuse me?

Deny you said this now.

No, that's exactly right. Unless you have the equivalent of so many burners used in the Cardington tests, for example, to heat many hundreds if not thousands of times the same amount of steel, all coming up from under the pile, then you can't achieve the same temperatures they did using that equipment at Cardington.


If you give a damn whether I respond to you at all, at least respond to what I actually post to you:

There is no evidence of the magnitude of heat required for keeping so much steel at the maximum temperature open-air fires can heat it to, without the oxygen efficiency of open-air fires. 700C after 5 days of pouring water does agree with experimental data from Cardington and even simulation data from NIST.

I've seen you both argue with professional engineers even in the face of being obviously completely wrong, and you both will keep going as if you were right the whole time anyway because you are just damned argumentative, and nothing else. It's not even worth repeating the same things over to you, over and over and over, and you failing to comprehend and form a legitimate response, over and over and over, and instead keep making the SAME logical fallacies and ignoring the data over and over and over. It's sickening.

Originally posted by pteridine
What else do you think would heat the pile, BS?

What did I say about not having to prove a better theory, and not having to know the real answer, for you to still be wrong?

I might as well say nothing, because you don't seem to ever understand this anyway. I must have repeated it over 100 times by now and logic still evades you. I don't have to know what actually happened, to know that what you say is not possible. And each and every time I have to repeat something so simple, your intelligence is impressed on me that much more clearly.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no positive evidence of molten steel.

I'm not sure why you purposely ignore what others post, but I posted the three types of evidence earlier in this thread and other threads. Witness testimony is evidence. When multiple witnesses testify to the same exact thing, that gives even more credibility to what was witnessed.

There is no "positive evidence" of molten steel and there never was.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by okbmd
To the contrary , when multiple witnesses testify to the EXACT same thing , a good investigator normally smells something fishy .

You're playing BS semantic word games and nobody is going to fall for it. Multiple witnesses saw molten steel (exact same thing), therefore, there was molten steel.

Multiple witnesses claimed they were abducted by aliens, therefore they were abducted by aliens? Don't you see the fallacy of your claim?

There exists NO positive evidence of molten steel and no evidence of temperatures high enough to melt construction steel.

It is your obligation to bring positive evidence of molten steel to the table when you claim there was. You have not done so.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I will trust trained firefighting professionals to give me an idea of what happened at the WTC, over any anonymous person on a conspiracy forum, any day of the week.

Except, of course, when they say that they believed that 7 had lotsa big fires.

Oh, and when their engineers state that they belived that 7 was gonna fall due to those fires.

When it comes to that, the TM changes its tune, doesn't it?

Not to speak of the firefighters at Ground Zero who estimated the temperatures never exceeded 2,000 degrees F., 600 degrees short of the temperature needed to melt construction steel.