Molten Metals (Pt. 2)

[Nathan_Hale]

Since Molten Metals (Pt. 1) predictably degenerated into the typical side-tracking and name calling, I propose we try this again.

The question: What kept steel molten for weeks in the WTC rubble?



http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-r...

"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher."

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn: 'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said


From this statement we can deduce (1)'Sometimes' means this happened on more than one occasion and (2) If the end of a steel beam is glowing and dripping that a. That's why they called it 'molten' and b. It was steel.

So, What kept steel molten for weeks in the WTC rubble?

[hack89]

1. Fires that burned for weeks.

the rubble pile was packed with thousands of tons of combustible materials.

Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Shortest thread ever? n/t

[Nathan_Hale]

3. What....

combustible materials in an oxygen-poor environment can burn hot enough to melt steel? I don't think PC housings, carpet & paint would do the trick to get to ca. 2300 Fahrenheit.

Saying combustibles doesn't do the trick. What other explanation does anyone have?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Any molten metal observed by humans was in an oxygen-rich environment.

Can you explain why?

BTW, melting steel is a straw man.

[Nathan_Hale]

7. Now, now.....

let's stay on track here. Can you demonstrate that 'WTC combustibles' can burn hot enough to melt steel?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Sure. But let me make sure you can understand the answer.

Both of these fires are burning from the same material. Yet the one on the right is burning much hotter than the one on the left. Do you understand why?

[Nathan_Hale]

14. You've haven't shown a fire...

of WTC combustibles yet, have you? You havent't demonstrated that paint, carpet and synthetics can melt steel have you?

Let's stick with the question of heat.

Stay on track now.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Melting steel is off track. You haven't shown any molten steel at WTC.

Now answer the question.

[Nathan_Hale]

16. Besides the fact...

that neither of your fires melts steel, despite the differences in heat, I have brought forth several witnesses who state they saw dripping steel beams. What have you offered? You have not offered a witness, a formula or even a plausible theory of how 'WTC combustibles' (whatever magical properties these things might be imbued with)could burn hot enough, burn over weeks time, to melt steel.

Again the question, what was the source of heat that kept steel molten for weeks in the WTC rubble?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. I am trying to, but you don't seem to be able to follow the explanation

"Dripping steel beams" may not have been dripping steel. It could have been, but it need not be.

Molten steel is a straw man.

Now answer the question. Why is one fire hotter than the other?

[Nathan_Hale]

44. We have .....

molten steel:

A direct, unimpeachable eye witness: Abolhassan Astaneh, Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: "Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overp...

So, let's summarize, a civil engineering expert says he saw "melting of girder" at the WTC. Girders are steel, ergo, we have molten steel at the WTC.

So, again I have provided ample witness testimony of the existence of molten steel. You, on the other hand, have not demonstrated that 'WTC combustibles' can account for the necessary temperatures. Your bid.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. "File unavailable."

You have not yet answered my question. Molten steel continues to be your straw man distraction.

Do you understand, of the two fires I posted, why one is burning hotter than the other?

[Nathan_Hale]

50. Sorry, let's try that link again...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

So according to Abolhassan, we had melted girders at the WTC. Melted means it was molten, in liquid form for some period of time. Dozens of witnesses, some of which I have cited to Sduderstadt, confirm Abolhassan's account. It's not a straw man. That you maintain it is, is the straw man.

So, you have not demonstrated any means of generating the heat necessary to keep steel molten for weeks, months after the collapse.

And give your two boy scout fires a break, will you? More heat does not necessarily mean higher temperature.

So, the questions still stands. What was the source of heat that kept steel molten for weeks/months after the collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. No, I will not give my two "boy scout fires" a break.

One is burning much hotter than the other. The reason why is closely related to why any metal might be found to be molten under the Pile at Ground Zero.

So far you have not displayed any willingness to learn the source of heat that kept metal molten after the collapse. Until you answer the question, you will be nothing but a "question-asker", not a "answer-seeker".

[SDuderstadt]

47. Does "melting" automatically assume...

"molten"? Hint: no

[Nathan_Hale]

51. This is really just...

a distraction on your part. Abolhassan said the girders had melted. Of course they cannot be confirmed to have been in a molten (liquid) state. But, his account supports the accounts of others which all amount to temperatures not attainable by fire except in controlled conditions.

So the question still stands.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude, your "argument" is going in a circle...

do you see that? And, no, "melted" does not mean "molten", dude. If you order a cheeseburger, it's fair to state that the cheese is "melted", however, that doesn't mean the cheese achieved a liquid state. So, all you're doing is playing word games.

Your claim is "molten steel", remember? Does Astaneh reference any "pools of molten steel"? No. In fact, if you look at what he specifically said around the time of 9/11, what he noted was he observed "charring" of a girder.

Dude, you can stack up all the "eyewitnesses" you want, but it's clear that many of those "eyewitnesses" didn't see anything directly themselves but are relating what they heard from other people. Ever played "telephone", dude? You can prove this to yourself by googling a string from Fuchek's "quote" and noticing that EXACT same quote is attributed to multiple speakers. Is that remotely possible, dude?

Beyond that, if you want to prove "molten steel", you're going to have to provide more than just "eyewitnesses" because even a metallurgist cannot determine the composition of a pool of molten anything without testing. Do you really expect us to believe laymen can do something an expert can't do?

All your quote mining has done is create a strawman. Repeating it over and over still leaves you with...a strawman.

[Nathan_Hale]

54. My argument.....

is not going in circles. But yours is grasping at straws and intentionally obfuscating the topic. I specifically qualified my previous post with "might have (once)been molten." Melted girders, molten girders support extremely high and unexplainable temperatures.

Your argument grasps at straws in trying to dismiss Fuchek's account. He is quoted by a senior editor of an online government trade journal. The source is good. Fuchek's quote, along with the accounts of dozens of other, create the preponderance of evidence for the existence of molten steel. Your expectation that everyone's account read like the transcript of a deposition is unrealistic.

No one has an explanation except for the handwaving 'it was the fires, the fires.'

[SDuderstadt]

55. No, dude...

you keep asserting a strawman and dodge the logical questions I ask. Again, how can someone tell it was "molten steel" without testing it?

[Bolo Boffin]

57. "except in controlled conditions"

Is it your contention that conditions under which a fire might produce temperatures above its rate of heat release occur only under human arrangement?

[hack89]

58. How do high explosives generate such temperatures?

silly me - I thought they sheared and shattered steel through high pressure shock waves. Movie special effects aside, have you ever seen a high explosive detonation? There is very little flame - just a small, brief flash.

Only continuous combustion can generate prolong fires. Something had to be burning months after the collapse. What was it?

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

you keep trying to argue "molten steel" as if it's an established fact, when it isn't.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Ah, gee, I missed that Nathan went right back to the molten steel straw man, didn't I? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

12. Yep...

you're slipping, dude, but not as badly as NH.

[hack89]

19. There is nothing else to explain hot temperatures in the rubble pile

or are you willing to give it a shot?

[LARED]

24. Nathan, learn something about the combustion process,

then take a long walk before posting nonsense again.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Do yourself a favor...

and go to Google, then type in several words from Fuchek's supposed "quote", then see how many hits you get for that EXACT same quote attributed to different people.

Beyond that, can you point to any examples of "name-calling" in the part 1 other than WildBill calling me "deliberately obtuse"? Take your time.

[Nathan_Hale]

6. It's not just him...

here's someone else:

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm (Johns Hopkins)

Don't worry, there are plenty of others to quote.

Molten steel still stands.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Simple question, dude...

why is the EXACT same wording being attributed to so many different people????

And you realize that Alison Geyhl explained that she did not have direct knowledge of "molten steel"...she explained that she was repeating what she'd heard other people say was said?

Could you also explain how someone can identify "molten steel" merely by looking at it without spectrographic or other metallurgical analysis?

[Nathan_Hale]

13. Sure, let's have more eyewitnesses

To wit:

The Atlantic correspondent William Langewiesche

Langewiesche explored the shifting debris with construction workers and engineers, documenting the crises and questions as they arose. He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/unexpectedly-this-request-was-granted-immediately-and-in-full-langewiesche-became-the-only-journalist-to-be-embedded-to-use-the-pentagon-term-for-reporters-who-live-and-travel-with-the-units-they-cover-in-the-world-trade-center-operation/2529/



Joe O'Toole, Bronx firefighter: O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel,"

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html

The end of a steel beam, glowing & dripping. That's molten steel all right.

So, what was the source of heat that kept steel molten for weeks?

[hack89]

18. Or melted aluminum

or is it your contention that the melted steel and molten aluminum magically never mixed? Why could a steel beam heated red hot have been laying in a pool of melted aluminum? Wouldn't the aluminum drip off the beam as it was lifted?

[wildbilln864]

26. yes,but...

as the molten Al cooled it would turn silvery in color so that it could be identified as Al.

[hack89]

27. Except it was not a pure sample - there was dust and ash and

lots of other crap mixed into it.

[wildbilln864]

28. that would not change the color characteristic...

as prof. Jones has mixed various contaminants with Al and reported no change in silver color.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

30. I try to follow all things 911...

You anti-truthers like to attack and attempt to discredit people who disagree with you but facts are still facts. So deal with it.

[zappaman]

31. "facts are still facts"?

simple questions...
is it a fact that planes hit the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in PA?
is it a fact that the WTC collapsed after being hit by these planes and not by nukes, bombs in closets, controlled demolition, etc?

If these are not facts, please post the real facts.

[wildbilln864]

33. ok...

simple questions...
is it a fact that planes hit the WTC( yes), the Pentagon(maybe), and a field in PA(maybe)?
is it a fact that the WTC collapsed after being hit by these planes and not by nukes, bombs in closets, controlled demolition, etc?
It is a fact the WTCs collapsed after being hit by planes. The cause of those collapses is still debatable.

If these are not facts, please post the real facts.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

you think that MAYBE a plane hit the Pentagon and MAYBE a plane crashed in the field in PA???

Dude...there were 100+ witnesses who saw the airliner crash into the Pentagon. This is getting ridiculous.

[wildbilln864]

37. I don't think you can find a hundred who say they actually saw it.

so?

[SDuderstadt]

39. Typical "truther" double standard....

Let me make sure I get this straight, dude...you have a handful of people who believe they saw "molten steel" and you say that you'll take their word, even as you admit there is no way they could determine it was "molten steel" merely by looking at it.

Yet, when I point out there are 100+ witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, you immediately call it into question (which doesn't address the issue of how you could claim to follow 9/11), yet be unaware of these 100+ witnesses. More importantly, Bill, how many witnesses are there that saw the AA flight flyover the Pentagon or saw something other than an airliner hit it? Give up? Hint: it's ZERO, dude.



http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20070114083601/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/08-23-2004/facts.htm

[SDuderstadt]

32. Bill...

if you get your info from Stephen Jones, it's no wonder your claims are so laughable.

[wildbilln864]

34. I have gotten some info from Jones as well as many others....

I can't say how valid his claims are but no one has yet debunked him successfully so here we are.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

is your test that he "hasn't been debunked" (even though he has) or that he has proven his goofy claims?

[wildbilln864]

38. Who else has...

tried to show whether Al's silver color is changed by mixing contaminants? No one?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Since no one here claims it was pure aluminum....

who cares, dude?

[wildbilln864]

41. So you cant! Well that's what I knew already.

You fail again.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Which proves what, Bill?

You always have these ridiculous self-defined evidence thresholds that prove dick.

[wildbilln864]

59. and you always have...

notta!

[SDuderstadt]

61. It's "nada", dude...

not "notta".

[wildbilln864]

64. it's whatever I write it is, sdude!

you're just following the crowd again.

[zappaman]

69. "it's whatever I write it is, sdude!"

that sames logic seems to apply to your embrace of goofy theories.

"I believe what I believe" no matter what the evidence says...

[wildbilln864]

76. "that sames logic"...

What evidence are you referring to?

[SDuderstadt]

72. CT "logic"

proper spelling is "following the crowd".

You're such a "rebel", Bill. It's not that you don't know how to spell, dude, you just "think outside the box". Too funny.

[wildbilln864]

75. how is nada proper spelling?

It means "not a" as in you got not a fucking clue.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Jesus, Bill...

are you honestly denying that "nada" is the Spanish word for "nothing"? Do you seriously believe that when someone says "you've got nada", they really mean "you've got 'notta' "? Do you always argue the point when you're dead wrong?

Wait, I just answered my own question.

[wildbilln864]

79. woa slow down dude and don't let your panties wad. I....

don't speak Spanish! But okay I'll concede your point, now calm down. Let your ego have time to absorb this little boost. You're fun to argue with though.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Dude...

this was almost as stupid as when SLAD said "backpeddle" when she meant "backpedal". Rather than simply admit she was wrong, she launched into this ridiculous rationalization of how she really meant "backpeddle".

There's no such word as "notta", dude and I have a very difficult time believing you've never heard the word "nada", dude.

[wildbilln864]

82. woa again dude. I ....

already conceded. You win.
And you're off topic!

[SDuderstadt]

84. My point is the lack of awareness of many "truthers"...

of rhe world atound them and their inabiltiy to simply admit when they're wrong. That's not off-topic, dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. I'm guessing you will make no effort to argue

that "rhe," "atound," and "inabiltiy" are exactly what you intended to type. Although I suppose it might be satire. :) To err is human, but you're not the sort who doubles down.

Meanwhile, back in reality, did anyone offer some explanation of high temperatures other than, umm, fire? Is this actually a China syndrome thread, or what? Just Asking Questions?

[hack89]

45. Can you provide a link to Jones' work? nt

[SDuderstadt]

25. Dude...

it's a given that some people are so illogical that they don't realize how illogical they are because they lack the epistemological tools to do so. It's a classic "catch-22"...the problem prevents its own solution. You are frankly one of the more illogical people I have ever encountered. Do you see how your own "argument" contradicts itself?

I assume you're claiming "melted steel" (actually, you're asserting it without proving it...it's one of the most circular arguments I've ever encountered) could only have resulted from something other than fires of ordinary office materials, even though nothing about the "official story" rests upon melted steel. Therefore, it must have been something else and the CT substance du jour is thermite. But, we know thermite is an incendiary and, as such, is completely consumed in burning through whatever it is used to burn through. So, since thermite cannot be the source of the intense heat in the underground fires, that leaves the office contents. But, if you accept that as the heat source, it must also have burned hot enough to melt steel. Again, no part of the "official story" rests on that, so you just demolished your own argument in the process.

As to the claims in this post, all you're doing is playing more word games. Note the article about Langeswiesche. Do you notice the passage about the molten steel is not enclosed in quotation marks? So, what does that mean? Did Langewiesche say it? Hint: no, that's what the writer of the article maintains. Are you claiming that person is a direct eyewitness?

As far as O'Toole is concerned, you seem to think that piling up more eyewitnesses would prove your claim. Is O'Toole a metallurgist? Hint: no, he's a firefighter. Unless you can prove that a metallurgist can identify molten steel merely by looking at it, let alone a lay person like O'Toole, your claim is dead in the water, as he is hardly an expert witness. Let me make an analogy. Let's say I plopped a sack full of "diamonds" in front of you and said I wanted $10,000,000 for it. If you wanted to buy it, but were not sure of its authenticity, would you be okay with me saying, "well, let's get the next ten passersby to verify it"? Or, would you insist that one or more gemologists certify their quality and verify they are not, in fact, cubic zirconiums?

Stupid argument, dude. The real shame is that nearly everyone, with the exception of hardcore "true believers" like you and a few others, sees it.

[Nathan_Hale]

43. All right, let's have a...

direct, unimpeachable eye witness: Abolhassan Astaneh, Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: "Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

So, let's summarize, a civil engineering expert says he saw "melting of girder" at the WTC. Girders are steel, ergo, we have molten steel at the WTC. Do you agree?

[SDuderstadt]

48. No, dude....

you're, of course, leaving part of what Astaneh actually said out. I'll give you a chance to save face, dude.

[Nathan_Hale]

49. Are you speaking of..

when he talks about steel softening? This expert stated unequivocally that he saw melted girders at the WTC. This is not softening and bending. The man surely knows what melted is. And, his experience matches that of dozens of other witnesses. Nevertheless, no one questions what was able to generate the sort of heat necessary for this months after the collapse. You cannot answer the question and you cannot face the obvious fact there was molten steel at the WTC long after the collapse. You have no real argument.

So, the question remains, what was the source of heat?

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude...

you keep playing word games with "melted" and "molten". Astaneh is not remotely saying that he saw "pools of molten steel" at Ground Zero.

Why don't you write to Astaneh and ask him specifically what he meant? Simple question, dude: Why isn't Astaneh a "truther"?

[backwoodsbob]

62. let me stab at this

http://www.blackiron.us/forge.html

ever seen a bellows at work?

using coal..or in modern forges propane...neither of which will reach a temp left alone hot enough to melt much of anything metallic... a fire in a bellows type environment can make iron and steel white hot and if worked just right...MELT steel.

There were subway tunnels under the WTC if a bellows or to be simpler a chimney effect got started that not hot enough pile of combustibles in a closed oven like environment can reach TREMENDOUS heat.

Even if there was molten steel I can easily reproduce that with a bellows and some coal.

I forge steel for a living...don't argue steel with me :loveya:

[LARED]

63. You must understand that your experience and expertize

count for nothing in the view of many truthers. The simple calculus they use is if you disagree with them you are a government shill and or Bushco lackey.

[backwoodsbob]

68. Friday I pushed 175,000 lbs of steel by hand

we work a LOT of steel...anyone who wants to argue steel stress points..I'll talk to yah

[wildbilln864]

65. there was no coal or a bellows at ground zero. nt

[hack89]

66. Look up chimney effect

and there were plenty of combustibles in the pile.

[wildbilln864]

67. I know what "chimney effect" is...

and you're assuming that was the case. Right?

[hack89]

71. The air to support combustion had to come from some where

there is no mechanism other than fire to explain the temperatures in the rubble pile.

[wildbilln864]

73. "there is no mechanism other than fire to explain the temperatures in the rubble pile. "

that you are aware of.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Why don't you explain to us what it was...

dude?

[hack89]

83. The Truth movement hasn't come up with one

care to give it a shot or are you just asking questions?

[backwoodsbob]

70. there were plenty of combustibles

want me to make a video of a coal fire melting steel?

[wildbilln864]

74. yes please do. Thank you and...

be sure and monitor the times and temps!

[wildbilln864]

81. oh?

"Even if there was molten steel I can easily reproduce that with a bellows and some coal."
So you believe the temperatures at ground zero reached 2700 degrees F.?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Call for help!

Moderator? sduderstadt called me "dude". Help me! Help me!

[Twist_U_Up]

21. Wanna see a liar ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501#

[SDuderstadt]

23. Can you point to the "lie"....

dude?

[jberryhill]

60. "If the end of a steel beam is glowing and dripping"

I have a question for you, Nathan...

If one end of, say, a 20 foot steel beam is glowing and dripping, then what is the temperature at the other end of that beam - you know, the end of the beam being picked up by the hydraulic equipment.

Here's a hint, if you need one...