Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by pteridine


Moving the goalpost.
Now it has to be firemen with experience in complex rubble piles, wih smoke in their eyes and hot feet.

The backhoe picks up a piece of STEEL, it is orange and yellow, and dripping MOLTEN liquid substance off the lower end,

WHAT DOES your INTELLIGENCE tell you it is MOLTEN LEAD??

The firemen see liquid metal, and protruding from the liquid molten metal is three STEEL, IBEAMS.

WHAT does YOUR INTELLIGENCE tell you it is MOLTEN ALUMINUM???

Use your head for something besides a hat rack.

These firemen were not looking at liquid metal in a laboratory with no supporting evidence to indicate what kind of liquid metal they were observing. They had solid pieces of steel, with liquid steel dripping off the end and concluded it was molten steel.

reply to post by slugger9787


Read this. It's written on a science site about the fires at the trade center in December of 2001. If you read the whole thing, he even explains reasons as to why the fire went as long as it did, and why many of the fires were not being properly extinguished (rescue work, recovering body parts, etc.):
www.newscientist.com...

Here's another link about the hazards the firefighters faced with regards to the special circumstances surrounding 9/11:
www.fathom.com...

Originally posted by slugger9787
The firemen see liquid metal, and protruding from the liquid molten metal is three STEEL, IBEAMS.

WHAT does YOUR INTELLIGENCE tell you it is MOLTEN ALUMINUM???

Actually, yes, that would be my first guess.

What is it exactly that leads you to believe that there's no way molten aluminum and non-molten steel could possibly come into contact with each other? Both materials were used in construction and ended up in a rubble pile together, I would actually be more surprised if they DIDN'T come into contact with each other, than if they did.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What is it exactly that leads you to believe that there's no way molten aluminum and non-molten steel could possibly come into contact with each other? Both materials were used in construction and ended up in a rubble pile together, I would actually be more surprised if they DIDN'T come into contact with each other, than if they did.

Lets also not forget that molten steel will cool down quickly if it is in contact with non molten steel and transition to lower than its melting point rapidly. Other materials that are better insulators and melt at a lower temperature would not.

One of my favourite little facts is that glass is an extremely strong candidate as it is quite emissive, melts at the upper range of fire temperatures and was extremely prevalent at the towers.

reply to post by slugger9787

I note that you didn't consider the possibility that there could be more in the rubble than steel and some of it could have melted.

I have a hat for you to wear....

I presume molten metals are yet another "groundbreaking" precedent for steel framed buildings that have collapsed??

Oh..hang on, a steel framed building has never collapsed before....or after 9/11.

Anybody think there may be a connection between fires which were still burning underground months afterwards, and the exploding WTC's???

Hmm....

Originally posted by benoni
I presume molten metals are yet another "groundbreaking" precedent for steel framed buildings that have collapsed??

No? They're pretty common in fires, hell I can melt aluminium with my lighter. If you really don't know that molten metal is a common occurrence in fires then I don't know what to tell you, you obviously haven't checked it out at all.

Oh..hang on, a steel framed building has never collapsed before....or after 9/11.

Sure they have, you forgot to say high-rise. Even then, no building has been subjected to anything close to what happened on 911.

Anybody think there may be a connection between fires which were still burning underground months afterwards, and the exploding WTC's???

Hmm....

Anybody think you've not got any actual evidence and are just trying to cast doubt upon the 'official story' with your own personal wishes???

reply to post by pteridine


Bet you do.
I use my head for something besides a hat rack, but thanks anyway.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by pteridine

 

Bet you do.
I use my head for something besides a hat rack, but thanks anyway.

That is not apparent.

You have not addressed the possibility that molten material other than steel was in the mix.

reply to post by pteridine


By virtue of the fact that steel melts at a higher temperature than aluminum, copper, brass and other more ductile metals it was inferred that the temperature necessary to melt steel will also melt all metals with a lower melting temperature.

Originally posted by exponent

Oh..hang on, a steel framed building has never collapsed before....or after 9/11.

Sure they have, you forgot to say high-rise. Even then, no building has been subjected to anything close to what happened on 911.

I am SO tired of the supposed 'debunkers' claiming that a kerosene fire, and damage to a couple of floors of a high rise, is SO 'unique' that it would cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse because of fire for the first time in history....twice..on the same day...

reply to post by jambatrumpet


So, in other words, the reported 20 story gash damage to "a couple floors" did absolutely nothing to the building's integrity? And the chunk taken out of the corner? You can't just repeat the same thing over and over again to make people ignore certain factors.

Please explain to me how damage on the top third of a building causes complete structural failure of the bottom two thirds.....

But, I stand by my earlier post...no amount of reasoning will persuade you to see the obvious inconsistencies with the official story...

reply to post by jambatrumpet


Then explain the "obvious inconsistencies" please. I want to be able to understand this apparently truth that I am missing. What holy light have you looked through? Tell me.

I've looked and looked and looked and all I get is confirmation that the official story knew better what was going on physically with the building than you guys do. I even make up my own ideas that I think make sense which are NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY AT ALL. Yet I'm accused of being a blind OS supporter. For christ's sake, tell me what I'm doing wrong.

reply to post by slugger9787


But how do you know that molten material was steel? If the temperature was 1000 C, aluminum would be molten and steel would be glowing hot.

reply to post by pteridine


I have melted lead, steel, and aluminum, copper, brass.

I know firefighters are experienced enough to tell the difference between molten metals.

reply to post by slugger9787


You know firefighters can loook at molten metal in a rubble pile burning with underground fires and tell what metal it is? How do you know this?

reply to post by pteridine


I have the Firefighters Handbook right in front of me, and I dont see any mention of knowing which molten metal looks like what in a fire.

Maybe thedman can help, since he is a firefighter.

reply to post by Varemia

What are you doing wrong?

Well, for that answer you must look inside yourself. WHO are you really? Do you have human traits?

Only YOU can answer that question, I could, but T&C...you know the rules.

Then, if you are indeed, human...as opposed to a corporation or a nonhuman sociopathic tool, then it follows that you would need certain cognitive abilities independent of outside affirmation. In other, simpler words, you need to be able to think for yourself.

It is very clear that you are indeed struggling, but we are holding out hope!