Creative Speculation
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
zappaman
(20,612 posts)It's only been posted and consistently debunked at least a dozen times.
maybe you'll strike gold with #13?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)
The screen grab is the same for the one claiming molten metals proved CD.
Should have read the title better!
jesters
(108 posts)A video speculating that the drips are molten aluminum "debunks" the speculation that it could be molten steel? How?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Response to zappaman (Reply #1)
Logical This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)He thought it was promoting the notion that the flow was nano/thermi/ate.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)An investigation is what's needed to debunk.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Did the molten Al run all the way down to the basement without cooling and hardening first?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)but he says "rails" so it flowed down more that one and he says "you get down below and you see molten steel running down the channel rails..."
where is "down below"?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)I was wondering if you did.
PS. I love it when you play coy.
Response to Logical (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Dozens of first responders reported observing molten steel beams that were literally melting and dripping before their eyes.
'underground fires smoldered for months, fed by molten steel...there were rivers of steel...at the canteen we hear truck drivers complaining that some of the girders (from Building 7) were so hot that they caused the beds of their dump trucks to crack and split open.'
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)TMI for some to grab hold of. Strange how the lobby windows are blown out, but windows above are intact. Strange how nobody believes the janitor who said he felt an explosion in the basement just seconds before impact, and he and others confirmed there had been an explosion. More facts that get in the way. Strange how a lot of people were describing explosions in the towers, even cops and firemen.
Next up, WTC owners want to sue airlines for planes damaging towers. LOL! I can't wait for that investigation. Where are the reconstructions of ANY plane. Are we sure it was a passenger plane? Others said it looked like a military plane. Were the black boxes found or weren't they? Some say they were, other say not. I myself say impossible. I'm a no planer. No seats= no planes. I sure hope the airlines have some "truther" lawyers. But will they go there? It would take down the whole facade.
<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="
" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you watch the close-up high res video of Tower 1 burning, at the moment Tower 2 is hit, the fire in tower 1 'pulses'. Why? Because the air handling systems of the two towers had interconnections in the basement. Pressure will escape wherever it can find release from the air ducts in the central support columns. If it finds a weak point at ground level, bam, that's where it blows out.
I would question the individual's perception of timing under those stresses/conditions. Human memory doesn't record like a video tape. It's constructive. And as such, it is incredibly fallable.
There are other forces to consider. The shockwave, like the P-waves of an earthquake spreading from the impact. The flex of the building, under 7.7 million foot-tons of torque. The resonance of the buildings, absorbing that momentum. If the flex of the building on impact knocks loose a 500lb slab of decorative marble sheet at ground level, and it falls 2 stories in the lobby and shatters, might that sound like a bomb exploding? I'm thinking: yeah, it does.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)lol thanks for the laugh.
but realistically, the lobby windows were blown out from the explosions going off in the basement and ground level area. and were widely reported by the local TV networks on 9/11.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What point are explosions in the basement, when the buildings clearly crumble from the aircraft impact points, down. Not from the basement like a controlled demolition?
What can you break or blow up in the basement to weaken the towers to the point they don't collapse right away, but eventually collapse from the impact point down?
Love to hear the logic behind this one.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Ground level explosions imply the use of CD. Bravo for getting that one.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yippee, you posted some information on how ACTUAL implosions work. Which of course have nothing at all to do with the mode of collapse (not bottom-up, not top-down, but IMPACT point-down) in towers 1&2.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)You'd just like to pretend they didn't happen eh? Those reporters were lying!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would not be shocked if some things exploded spectacularly at or near ground level. You're talking about 2 100 acre buildings full of electronics, plus another large building, plus a power substation.
Have you ever seen what electrical transformers do when shorted out?
I would also not be surprised if mechanical forces, such as extremely heavy objects falling, hitting the ground were mistaken for explosions as well. Recall that the soft, wet bodies of humans hitting the ground after jumping from the towers are clearly audible on multiple ground-level videos from many blocks away. Drop a 150lb chunk of aluminium cladding 60 stories, what does it sound like when it hits the concrete street below?
Shit, we still have people who witness tornadoes trying to describe what sort of locomotive it sounded like. Humans associate information. We don't record it like a reel to reel.
Edit: and you are STILL dodging the question of how ground-level demo charges produce or even aid an impact point-down collapse of the buildings. Not the top. Not the bottom. Collapse starts where the fires were hottest, where the planes hit the two main towers. Please explain what sort of witchcraft produces a 'controlled demo' that behaves in that manner.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)what evidence do you have that the power stations exploded in the basement?
don't forget that Building 7 in fact went down in a conventional manner. it was a classic building implosion.
like Building 7 the two main towers also came straight down more or less into their own footprint, which indicates CD. but they also came down somewhat differently in a way that was never seen before, what you described as an impact point-down collapse. the floors were literally exploded one by one from the top down and why that is would require a proper investigation but I would surmise that it had something to do with the extraordinary height of the Twin Towers...
....which may have been too tall to bring down in a conventional manner (e.g. knocking out the supports and letting gravity do the rest--the classic CD method). they were too tall to bring down conventionally so they did it by literally annihilating each floor one by one. that's what it looked like to me. you can see that in the collapse footage of the Twin Towers that shows each floor exploding and being vaporized to dust one by one from the top down.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you want to see that sort of problem, next time a major storm hits Seattle, like the Inaugural Day Storm, do what I do. Go down to alki beach. Stand with your back to the ocean, and watch the transformers blow up all over Seattle.
It's quite the show.
Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically. All you have to do is a look at a top-down photo of the wreckage to see the bias of the towers in their fall.
I'm curious by what method you think each floor was 'exploded'? No thermite is visible from the outside. Not sure if you've ever seen thermite or thermate in action, but it's pretty obvious because it burns with all the appearance of an arc welder. So that rules out that. What explosive do they hypothetically use to pulverize concrete into 100 micron dust, FLOOR BY FLOOR, in a steady roar, with no bangs? Recall, there is video not only from the outside, but the INSIDE of the towers as the collapse started. It is a roar. The kind of roar consistent with a progressive collapse, not a series of bangs. (Doubly impressive since this alleged demo went off without a hitch, where real life, actual demolitions do sometimes have hilarious failures.)
In towers 1 and 2, I see floors smashed to dust. The two towers had, respective of the impact points, a WWI top-tier battleship, and the other, the equivalent mass of WWII's Yamoto, sitting on top of the impact points. The supports, which were visibly pulled inward prior to the collapse, snap, and the mass above comes slamming down, dropping 20 feet unopposed.
Possibly the largest wrecking ball humanity has ever unleashed.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)your hairsplitting about what constitutes a symmetrical collapse into a building's footprint is tiresome. by your rigid definition then no building in history has ever been blown symmetrically into its own footprint.
you can see in the following clips of several known building demolitions that they do not collapse perfectly symmetrical even though they are considered successful demolitions. there is often a noticeable lean as they collapse, and they do not exactly fall into their own footprint. that would be impossible because in any building demolition some debris will always land outside of the original footprint area. but for all intents and purposes they have collapsed into their own footprint, because most of the debris is inside the footprint area.
if anything building 7 came down more symmetrically than than any other known skyscraper implosion I have ever seen.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings.
Not a one of them came 'straight down'. If you want to point to the incredulous symmetry of the collapses, qui bono? Certainly not the insurance companies in this case.
You haven't addressed the logistics of hauling all those explosives into occupied buildings without anyone noticing either.
Nor the lack of 'bangs' from sequential explosions. I won't deny some stuff blew up that day, there are 4 or 5 recorded 'explosion-like' bangs. Nothing capable of bringing a building down though, and none during the progressive collapses.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Building 7 couldn't be a CD because it didn't come down symmetrically.
Now you want to tell me it couldn't have been a CD because it came down too perfectly, because a real CD would have been biased! in your words
Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically.
The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings.
lol. make up your mind already.
I don't think it would have been too hard to disguise the work of setting up the buildings for demolition. they could have done it under the guise of building renovations, asbestos removal since the towers were known to have an asbestos problem for example, under the guise of replacing and upgrading old wiring or whatever else they could think of. these kind of things are done on buildings all the time and no one would ever know the difference.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically."
You seem to have understood what I said here ok...
"The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings."
You don't seem to know what I am saying here. I said the lean is fine, in reference to an ACUAL CD. They lean it on purpose. What they don't do, is lean it INTO OTHER BUILDINGS. 7 hit other buildings. Quite significantly so.
1&2 completely wrecked shit in all directions.
Even building 7 would be considered a complete and utter spectacular FAILURE of a CD by any actual CD firm. Ignoring of course, the actual facts of how the collapse unfolded, and the fire and building codes changed as a result, because you know people just LOVE doing all that work for shits and giggles.
"I don't think it would have been too hard to disguise the work of setting up the buildings for demolition. they could have done it under the guise of building renovations, asbestos removal since the towers were known to have an asbestos problem for example, under the guise of replacing and upgrading old wiring or whatever else they could think of. these kind of things are done on buildings all the time and no one would ever know the difference."
Great fucking Gnu, do you have any idea what you are saying? Do you know how much explosives it takes to pulverize just ONE out of 100x2 ACRES of concrete flooring? How many TONS PER FLOOR? You think they could just slap it on the beams under the guise of asbestos abatement? Well, ok, that totally explains how the floor BETWEEN the inner and outer core got pulverized then. Boy, you got me there.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #36)
gyroscope This message was self-deleted by its author.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Ever heard of it?
Advanced military applications
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has shown the feasibility of creating a new class of weaponry - Compact, powerful bombs that use nanometals such as nanoaluminum to create ultra-high burn rate chemical explosives an order of magnitude more powerful than conventional bombs. Nanothermite or "super-thermite" is one example of such a "Metastable Intermolecular Composite" (MIC.) Nanoweapons are any military technology that exploits the power of nanotechnology in the modern battlefield.
thenanoage.com/military.htm#weapons
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)collapse. Not even on the enormous nearly football-field sized chunks of the building literally tossed aside, exposing the interior.
Do you imagine nanothermite doesn't burn brightly? Does it have a nano-cloaking shield? Why don't we see any explosions propagating through the building behind the infamous enormous section of tower 1's north wall that physically impacted WTC 7?
Are these nano explosives fucking INVISIBLE? Explode without concussion?
You're just waving a magic wand here, you know that right? You don't understand how mechanical kinetic forces EXPECTED to be present in that form of collapse can pulverize concrete, so you reach for a deus ex machina that you don't understand, and hope it'll FUD up the discussion enough for you to pretend you are winning.
Not a chance. WTC 1 & 2 were pulverized from the impact points downward, by purely mechanical forces brought on by a sudden failure of the outer supports.
Tell me, what magical nano explosive SUCKS the outer walls INWARD at the floor where the fires are hottest, letting them snap just prior to the collapse? Those outer walls are half of the tube-within-a-tube support core of the building. It cannot physically stand with just the central core supports intact. Once the outer supports fail, total systemic collapse is inevitable.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)do you know for a fact what nanothermite is supposed to look like? have you ever seen it in action? if not, then quit your baseless speculating. it's lame and getting old.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please. Knock it off.
"Like conventional thermite, super thermite reacts at very high temperature and is difficult to extinguish. The reaction produces dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn."
It burns just like regular thermite: BRIGHT AS FUCK
Things don't burn invisibly just because you nanoscale the reaction material.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)nanothermite produced the molten metal, and why in your words it was bright as fuck.
should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You realize the materials hoisted into the air and installed in the towers, every last bit of it, stores potential kinetic energy to be released when it can fall, right? En total, the amount of energy released by the collapse of the towers, IGNORING the fires, was on the order of one percent of a small atomic bomb.
Less than 1% of that energy was converted to seismic energy, and each tower still produced a 2.0 on the Richter scale. About 30% of that energy went into breaking apart the materials of the building. The remaining ~70% is converted into heat. Heat located in a concrete oven-like environment that retains heat excellently well, in the rubble pile.
Every floor was 3.2 million pounds of concrete and steel. A layer of concrete 4 inches thick. You break that up by smashing it and dropping at least some of it 100+ floors, you generate a lot of heat. 10^12 Joules is a shedload of energy. Energy is never created nor destroyed, only converted.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)'Fires and friction of the collapse?' lol
Do collapsed buildings normally produce molten metal? If so then there would have been pools of molten metal seen after every controlled building demolition in history. But that's not the case! There has never been anything like it ever seen until 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's good to see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, no matter what subject we move to.
Here, let me break it down for you to something very very small, without power exponents, etc.
In order to look for dark matter in the universe, there are experiments set up in mine shafts around the world. Deep enough to shelter them from cosmic rays, but dark matter has almost no mass, and can pass right through the earth. In these experiments, they have a bool of solid germanium, and they chill it close to absolute zero. When one of these particles scores a direct hit on one atom of germanium, the collision will produce heat, and heat the bool 1 one millionth of a degree.
That's two atoms, one with almost no mass, colliding, and producing waste heat.
You cannot escape physics. It's real. You could ignore it, but you cannot ignore the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring it. Friction produces heat. Work/energy is stored as potential energy. Every bit of energy used to lift the building materials into the air, is stored as potential kinetic energy.
Pretend it isn't all you want. It's how the known universe works.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)your theory about destroying each floor with explosives involves TENS OF THOUSANDS of tons of conventional explosives. Snuck, apparently, and wired up, inside an occupied business building.
Kinda strains the credibility, doesn't it?
William Seger
(11,031 posts)If you're serious about the subject of 9/11 then you really should do some serious research. The problem with getting all your information from "truther" sites is that you won't know what you're talking about.
No offense, of course, but the notion that there were demolition explosives in the basement and then an hour later the buildings collapsed from the top is a really stupid theory.
greytdemocrat
(3,300 posts)I clearly saw a "Mini-Nuke" go off, anyone else??? Anyone????
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the first responders clearly saw something else.
perhaps you should get your eyes checked.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)While first responders may be super men, you're claiming that they can do metallurgical analysis with their eyes? I have to doubt that.
There were thousands of tons of aluminum in the buildings, and aluminum is easily melted at the temperatures in an office fire. Why is it, then, that there aren't any reports of molten aluminum? My guess is that some people did see it but just assumed it was molten steel, whereas other people who saw it realized that they couldn't identify it by sight, so they just reported seeing "molten metal." At any rate, there is no physical evidence of molten steel in the debris, so any wild theories that use that as a premise aren't credible. And even if there was evidence of molten steel, why would you take that as evidence of controlled demolition? Please name a demolition method -- even a hypothetical one -- that would leave molten steel weeks after the attack? Finding molten steel would be an interesting puzzle to solve, but just jumping to vague and irrational conclusions to feed your conspiracy theory inclinations doesn't do the trick.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)but if you were paying attention you would notice that they said they were pulling out glowing hot steel girders that were hot enough to cause the beds of their dump trucks to crack and split open. sorry but support beams or girders aren't made of aluminum.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... not distinguishing between "glowing hot" and "molten"? 
Mystery solved.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Clearly there were molten metals in the wreckage. But what kind? Tens of thousands of tons of aluminium on the buildings. Undoubtedly tens of thousands of tons of copper and lead present as well.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)they were pulled partially submerged from the pools of molten metal. if those pools were molten aluminum they could not have heated the steel girders enough to make the steel truck beds crack and split open because the temperature wouldn't be hot enough.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It was ALL being heated by the kinetic energy/friction of the collapse, PLUS things that can burn.
You know, like iron? Iron can burn under some circumstances. Heat it to about 300c and spray steam on it. Burns quite nicely as plasma. There's all sorts of fuel to burn in that pile of rubble, and very little heat loss, due to the insulating properties of the concrete and other rubble.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)there's a new one. no reports ever about pools of Al until you present them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No one has offered any evidence it was steel. The 'meteorite' chunk didn't corrode much, indicating some non-ferrous metals. The building was clad in tens of thousands of tons of Alcoa aluminium alloy.
You do the math. Ockham's razor suggests: molten metal observed in the pits most likely a lower melting point metal, like aluminium.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)it was AL either! it's just a guess. Eyewitnesses said it was molten steel. Do they know the difference? Maybe so, maybe no.
do you think molten Al would stay red hot for weeks?
Why?
And do you know how a heat sinks works?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I saw NOT A SINGLE PERSON in any of those film clips saying 'molten steel' actually performing ANY sort of test to see what metal it was.
The 'meteorite' is pretty much the only chunk of corroding metal that we were shown. And it's not really totally melted either, it's a compressed amalgam of lots of stuff including concrete, some metals that aren't corroded, and some metal that IS corroded, but still recognizable as rebar and stock steel. Not pools of solidified steel.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #59)
wildbilln864 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Dr. Astaneh-Asl has pictures.
The FEMA Appendix C report is about melted steel that was thoroughly analyzed. You don't know the 2002 FEMA report? You're not very familiar with the issues, are you?
The Report tells of steel that showed signs of intergranular melting due to a sulfidation attack. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm The New York Times characterized this steel as having been "vaporized" and "evaporated", and declared that this was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". The Report called for further investigation. NIST didn't do it. The melted steel is one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged in its half-report.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Check NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They suggested maybe rubber or plastic, but they did no tests to show that burning rubber or plastic on steel would result in a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel producing the intergranular melting showed in FEMA Appendix C. They could not determine whether the "corrosion" was the result of solid, liquid, or gaseous attack.
They claimed they lacked information about the circumstances under which the material was recovered (why didn't they just ask the WPI investigators?) They do not know what was the source of the corroding element, how long the process took, or the temperature at which it occurred.
They assumed that the steel was in a "prone" position when this occurred. They stated that the temperatures were actually much higher than the 700 C to 800 C range estimated in the FEMA report.
They claimed that the corrosion of the steel took place after the tower fell, that it played no part in the tower falling, and thus implicitly justified their failure to do tests that might answer the questions they did not answer.
They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They did not demonstrate that the sulfidation mechanism they propose can happen. If it could, you'd think it would happen pretty commonly in fires.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Certainly in some conditions present in the wreckage. (Steam+Heat, and the sulfur can come from sources like drywall, at certain times, from certain vendors. (Some recent Chinese-made drywall contained strontium sulfide, even. Ugh)) Erosion (as your source specified) does not automatically indicate melting. (at least not in the context of pure heat slagging beams, like a cutting torch.)
However.
I grant you the win here. You are asking tight enough, good enough questions that the conversation has now failed my cost-benefit/time consumption ratio. I cannot quickly find answers to your questions outside the NIST and FEMA and other official reports, reports which, I accept, you consider suspect. IF there is a conspiracy the nature of which you are asking about, than it must needs follow that the official reports are dodgy.
Going outside official reports, to materials that support my position, is an effort. It is incredibly time consuming to sift through all the, what my side labels 'truther' info to find what I consider unbiased and supporting evidence for my position. And I accept that from your viewpoint, my sources are biased.
In your objection about the FDR's, and possible double-agents working against hypothetical conspirators.. again, I cannot source a credible defense. However, in parting, I would suggest one thing; what you are asking for is impossible. If the government is in any way complicit, further investigation (as you point out NIST did not perform about certain things) would be pointless, because it would always exonerate the guilty. You would need a party to perform that investigation that is A) Truly independent, and B) Truly competent.
Most of the entities capable of the latter, are not within the confines of the former. Even sources I consider fairly unbiased, like MIT, cannot truly be called such. At least, I cannot expect you to accept them as such, even if I personally rate them as acceptable.
So, I cede this territory to you. You have asked questions I am not prepared to answer with solid sources, so my objections would be merely opinion. Opinion I feel is qualified at least on some materials issues (I happen to make things with steel, or... do I? You have no way to know, and that's fair) but cannot prove to your satisfaction.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Heat that wrought iron fence to 600c and spray steam on it, and come back, and we'll see if you're still laughing. Add in some sulfur dioxide, as one can expect from decomposing sheet rock of that era, for bonus points.
Iron oxidation is an exothermic reaction.
2 Fe + O2 → 2 FeO
Add in SO2 for additional fun.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)NIST didn't. Show how a reductant aids combustion.
Jonathan Cole burned steel with powdered sheetrock and aluminum and diesel fuel for three days. There was no change in the steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Diesel fuel? You don't think that simulates the events in the rubble pile, do you? Even the JP8 (Kerosene, not Diesel) was consumed, or mostly consumed before the collapses.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Gypsum board is Calcium Sulfate, correct. It's fully oxidized. It's chemically inert. That's why they use it for fireproofing.
I am not aware that NIST ever claimed that gypsum or sulfur dioxide was an element in the sulfidation attack that the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)My fireproof safe is an inch thick layer of, what is essentially, gypsum board. It's only rated to 1000c for like, 15 minutes. That's not even very good, it's on the lower end of fireproof scale/cheap.
Refineries deal with this a lot, as sulfides are common in the fuels they are working with. There are specialized carbon steel compounds used to combat it. http://www.csb.gov/in-cooperation-with-cal-osha-csb-releases-technical-report-on-chevron-2012-pipe-rupture-and-fire-extensive-sulfidation-corrosion-noted/
The ATSM steel in the towers has none of that. I don't know why that guy's tests didn't show the problem. There are practical concerns in shipping loads of that sort of steel over oceanic distances, because if it starts corroding it gets hot, and the heat can damage the ship itself, start fires, etc. I will assume his tests do not account for all the variables present in the rubble pile. Heat, compression, convection, other catalysts like paint, etc. Did he spray water on it while the temps were still maintained? Localized steam on hot iron is problematic, like a plasma fire, etc.
Edit: Sorry about the title of my previous post. It looked ok in preview, but a couple Unicode characters in the formula blew up in the site software, apparently.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)H2S is very corrosive. Do you have any evidence that Calcium Sulfide is corrosive? Jonathan Cole's experiment did not show any damage to the steel from cooking with Calcium Sulfide.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which is done commercially and in the lab by heating it to between 600c and 900c in a reducing atmosphere, like carbon monoxide. End product is calcium dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
You see, heat liberates the H2O locked in that CASO4+2H2O gypsum.
Again, I don't know if his test used like for like gypsum. Some has additives that might prevent this, such as silicate fibres for fire resistance, or additives to prevent water damage. There are variations in composition of such drywall over time, such as the 2006-2009 fuckup with extra bonus sulfur dioxide in commercial drywall from China that corroded pipes in walls, and made people sick. You have to test with like for like materials from the initial construction of the building, from the same sources, PLUS take into account remodels on many different floors (an acre at a time) over the lifespan of the building.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The sulfur is still fully oxidized.
Calcium sulfide is not hydrogen sulfide. You're all wet.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is basic chemistry. There is an entire INDUSTRY based upon the extraction of those components in those conditions as described.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You haven't demonstrated sulfur dioxide.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)your interpretation may vary.
It's like creationism. The creationists claim irreducible complexity, and 'this must have been created because it isn't possible to happen naturally', and not being able to re-create the initiation of the universe in the lab, the best I have is work from people like Hawking showing that not only CAN it happen under certain circumstances, but that it MUST follow from certain circumstances.
I accept that and move on. It provides an excellent template for this issue. I do not feel compelled to build a multi-story kiln full of crap that would be present in a building manufactured in that era, and subject it to various forces present on that day. If the components are available, and to my satisfaction they are, then I am done, and need spend no further energy on it.
A failed experiment by one guy doesn't break that conclusion for me. Ockham's razor tells me his experiment was probably badly formed.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)If there was a sulfidation attack, there must have been a reducing atmosphere, therefore there was a reducing atmosphere.
It's not for me to show what happened. I'm not claiming I know. You claim to know. It's for you to build the kiln. Jonathan Cole already did, and there was no effect on the steel. If you think Cole is wrong, show him wrong.
Or ask NIST to do it. Why didn't NIST demonstrate the reducing atmosphere and put "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" to rest? They just wanted to keep people guessing?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are actually a LOT of ways to get that as a byproduct. Unless you start from a position of something OTHER than the impact/fire brought them down, there is no need to go searching afield for WHY a material that is expected to be present in the rubble, could have affected other things in the rubble under certain conditions.
I would fully expect carbon monoxide in the rubble. Something like 70 acres worth of office materials and other bullshit PER TOWER didn't start to burning until the collapse. Why WOULDN'T it be present? It's a mind-boggling supposition.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)and you have not demonstrated that it would have any effect.
And even if you put on a case, you're not NIST. Nobody should care what some guy in a funny internet mask would expect.
NIST needs to explain the melted steel and the evaporated steel, which are only 2 of the 10 essential mysteries that NIST dodged--all of which took place after they terminated their analysis at the moment the collapses began.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Still waiting. Eroded, fine. Slagged, no. You haven't done it. Nobody has. There is a DIFFERENCE between the two, and the knock-on implications.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And you have nada.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not that haven't been debunked anyway.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)We got melted steel, we got evaporated steel. But you want slagged steel. Because some internet guy in a funny mask thinks that's the key?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are trying to associate eroded steel with molten steel by using the word melted.
I think that is highly deceptive and cheap, and bullshit.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Dr. Astaneh said it was "melting of girders".
All of the 9 Phds and the FDNY Captain said "melted" or "molten" or "melting"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't think the others knew or cared any better either.
None of those witnesses at the time understood the importance of demonstrating the difference between those metals at the time.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You didn't even look at "Material Recovery Report" by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, fig. 10.
Are you trying to bury the facts in nonsense? Why?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I just looked at it again. That is erosion.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The New York Fucking Times said there was vaporized steel. The PhD they attributed the statement to never repudiated it.
The "pools" of molten steel came from the anti-semitic Christopher Bollyn, and no one else. Your fingernails are scrabbling on the last sliver of the plank.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)All those photos support vaporization. Erosion. NOT MELTING/MOLTEN STEEL running and pooling.
There is nothing in any of those photographs that leads to a stalagmite of steel. Nothing. Not one photo. You, like many others are abusing the word 'melt'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your demand for photos when photographers were excluded from Ground Zero is disingenuous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Especially not Astaneh's, who testified before Congress on this issue. He reported NO molten steel. He also presented photos that he took ON the site to Congress. So you can forget that 'excluded' bullshit, he took these:
That's him, incidentally, in the photo on the lower right.
Not a single beam he took a picture of and shared has ever shown anything more than strain, heating, or erosion. No slag. No true melting, as in molten steel that can drip, run, pool, etc. Not one.
I know he used the word 'melted' in that PBS interview, but it seems he perhaps misspoke. People do that. He SUPPORTS the NIST report, and indeed, participated in it, and testified before the Congress on it.
Glanz, I don't even care about.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Instead you seem to think that posting different pictures negates the pictures you didn't look at.
That's Bushbot tactics.
See "Material Recovery Report" by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, fig. 10.
http://archive.org/stream/WTC-ASTANEH#page/n9/mode/2up
Also this October 2001 report: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The beam was eaten away, not melted.
I've seen that fucking photo a hundred times from trutherbot's. There are several more of different beams. That is not a slagged beam. No cutting charges. No nothing. That beam was eaten by intense heat, and corrosion. Period. Basic, 9th grade chemistry.
Some times, I do worry that I will be presented with evidence that actually shows something suspicious, but fortunately, you people never deliver. Because the alternative is horrific.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 05:23 PM - Edit history (2)
When you vaporize a solid you melt it first.
You are quibbling about semantics. There is vaporized steel, there is melted steel. 8 PhDs say so, and a host of other witnesses. And Dr. Astaneh's figure 10 seems to show a notch cut in the steel. And don't forget he saw "melting of girders" not "corrosion of girders".
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8939719#post8939719
Even Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's not semantics when the issue in question is POOLS of molten steel, stalagmites of formerly molten steel, dripping beams, etc.
It's fucking nonsense. Not a one of these people have provided evidence of any of that. Not one. Not a single photo. Despite Astaneh himself taking photos, with a crew, on-site. Not just shit on a flatbed outside his window, he went TO the site, and took pictures.
Those beams are eroded, not melted, in the sense of molten steel.
(Vaporized, I do not disagree with, in the general sense. As I pointed out earlier, iron burns under certain heat and steam conditions.)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)That's a straw man argument. It turns out that story comes from Christopher Bollyn alone, though the 40-pound ingot of iron seems on its face confirmatory. http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=154&hires=1
The only Astaneh picture you've presented that was "on site" was Fig. 1, and that was taken from across the street from the site. The other ones were all clearly taken offsite.
Sorry, you've got 5 PhDs saying melted steel, and numerous others. You've got photos. And you've got 3 more PhDs saying "intergranular melting". The presence of melted steel is beyond reasonable doubt.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You introduced the stalagmite, which, like the claim of pools of molten metal so often trotted forth by truthers, gives rise to the implication of steel that became molten, ran, and dripped. So, you have made it your hill to defend, actually, unless you want to withdraw that complete unsubstantiated horseshit about the alleged stalagmite.
'intergranular melting' is actually intergranular corrosion. The devil is in the details of how the information is conveyed. " including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting"
You have zero photos. Not one that shows slagged steel. You don't get a stalagmite without slagged, freely running molten steel. Your hill, you defend it.
You apparently have no idea what 'reasonable doubt' means.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It soon went to melted aluminum, Dr. Astaneh's "melting of girders", NCSTAR 1-3C Section 6.3.4., your claims of the presence of sulfur dioxide, your claims of a reducing atmosphere, and your counterfactual remarks about photos you did not bother to look at.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)us have posted, many, many times, because I am interested in getting to the bottom of this.
Now, that said, get to defending slagged steel. (per your assertion/linked claims of a stalagmite that YOU accept the assumption it was steel, and not some other easily melted metal.)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Why would not a scientific demolition develop processes that minimize the production of slag?
Using a buckling mechanism of internal explosives bulging out the walls of incendiary-heated steel would not involve any slag at all.
Plus there IS slag--"flowing down the channel rails", making a stalagmite of steel, plus Dr. Jones's 40-pound ingot.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It doesn't teleport around, or vaporize and congeal in that manner.
"Plus there IS slag--"flowing down the channel rails", making a stalagmite of steel, plus Dr. Jones's 40-pound ingot."
There is ALLEGATIONS of slag (not specific as to metal type) flowing down channel rails, and zero evidence of it. Leslie Robertson didn't test the metal in any way.
The ingot looks like BS to me. By all means, post the assay if you can.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Especially when they have photographs and samples.
Dr. Jones said he did a chemical analysis from that 40-pound ingot. Prove him a liar and do me a favor.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Performing one test without peer review or anything, and saying 'it's either steel or elemental iron' doesn't inspire confidence. An assay is required to even BEGIN to understand what that ingot is, and where it is from.
Certainly not to the level of proving his claims WRT molten steel or thermite. Still waiting on peer review of his 'unexploded thermite' horseshit.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)There were multiple witnesses, there are photos, there are samples, it was established in a government report.
Your continuing hysterical denial is amusing, and telling.
If you want to assay the ingot, contact Dr. Jones.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'Melted' in the context of corroded/eroded is not the same thing as a chunk-producing or stalagmite-producing slagged steel beam.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your hysterical attempts to lawyer away evidence are incompatible with the search for truth.
What's the need for slag? Did the fires cause slag? And yet you believe the fires brought the towers down simply by heating, and not melting, the steel. Why could not thermite heat the steel to weaken it, and yet not melt it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You don't get one without the other.
You've provided no evidence of a steel stalagmite. Let alone the intermediary step between intact structural steel, and the stalagmite.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)who saw it himself.
Learn to google and maybe you won't be so misinformed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-site-below-rubble-a-tour-of-a-still-burning-hell.html
"A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In neither place does he specify why he thinks it is steel.
Of none of this allegation, are there any photos or evidence for him to offer us.
Ok, so the 'evidence' is an unsubstantiated claim. Big deal.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Are you calling Dr. James Glanz a liar? You think he's going to throw his reputation as a NYT science writer away on a tall tale that he hopes will become an urban legend?
You think a PhD science writer would not make some effort to see what the stalagmite was made of? Like try to scratch it with a key? Like maybe take a sample? His testimony is evidence, and it's corroborated by a couple of dozen other witnesses.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would not go so far as to call him a liar, based on the content of his writing.
I do not accept his assertion without evidence.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)His testimony is evidence.
The corroboration of other witnesses is evidence.
You just deny, deny, deny reality--like the creationists who have taught you how to think.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Accepting such claims without evidence is precisely how creationists operate.
I can find you PHD's that support creationism ON THOSE VERY UNSUPPORTED GROUNDS upon which your position rests.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It's corroborated by two dozen witnesses. It's evidenced by photos. It's evidenced by samples.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Depending on an actual assay of the '40lb ingot'.
You lack two dozen witnesses actually performing some sort of test to establish the presence of molten steel.
The claim is incredible, because there really shouldn't be any molten steel there.
The photos do not show molten steel. Period.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The photos show steel that was melted. You are playing a silly semantic game to try to pretend
you're not wrong. You're fooling only yourself.
I didn't say the photos show molten steel. I said they show melted steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You don't get Glanz's alleged steel stalagmite without molten steel.
Photos that you claim show 'melted' steel does not show that the metal was ever molten. 'Melted' can include high heat/fast oxidation. Conditions that do not raise any sort of suspicion in the rubble pile given the heat and water present.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You can't expect somebody to produce molten steel 12 years after the fact.
You're just dodging when you demand that the melted steel connect to the stalagmite.
That's a dishonest tactic you must have learned from your creationist friends.
"But the black butterflies in the factory towns don't explain how the giraffe got
a long neck! Sorry, you lose!"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or isn't what you purported it to be?
There is no connection between your reference to Astaneh's photos, and the stalagmite, nor your post in 161 stating that there was flowing molten steel.
None atall. Not a shred.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I don't know what it is. Check it out with Dr. Jones. Prove that he lied.
There is a connection between Astaneh's photos, the stalagmite, and the reports of flowing molten steel. They are all witness accounts of melted steel, and they are all unexplained.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No matter how desperate you are to link the two.
I don't need to prove Jones is lying. The claims about the 'formerly molten ingot' are no different than his claims of 'unreacted thermite chips. Both claims as substantial as unicorn farts.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I'm not linking the two. You are. Just like a creationist will tell you that there is no connection between the black butterflies in industrial cities, and the long necks of giraffes.
"Fornerly molten ingot" is an assertion of fact. "Unreacted thermite chips" is an opinion. Maybe when you learn the difference you will stop being so confused.
So prove Jones lied when he said there was a 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten iron or steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That could be a charred chunk of compressed dog turds for all anyone knows. It has not been assayed. It has not been independently analyzed. No mechanism that could have produced it has been identified by him, or anyone else.
You have no proof it is iron/steel.
You have no proof it was 'formerly molten'.
You have no proof it has anything to do with the collapse.
All your work lies ahead of you still.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I have no work. You do. Contact Dr. Jones and prove that the ingot does not
exist.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)authenticate it.
He hasn't. The equation is simple; he's full of shit.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)For you to make any conclusion at all is irrational and unjustified.
Prove he lied. You seem to have a hardon for Dr. Jones. Do some actual work and prove he lied.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)for slagged steel, and also thermitic paint chips (that are TOTALLY not primer paint... meh) to independent full analysis/assay.
He's a liar. That's all. He has had 12 years to prove otherwise.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Make a fool of him.
So who has replicated Dr. Millette's findings, and where have they been published, and why didn't he run the DSC test that might have confirmed that his chips were the same as Dr. Jones's chips?
Oh right, silly me. No one, no where, and 'cause he had the results that he wanted and he was scared that more tests might contradict that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is old territory we are re-hashing. The conclusions have been in for a very long time now.
Jones is a crackpot.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)"Hasn't" is not can't or won't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Try again.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)in any of their descriptions.
Molten steel, running or pouring, especially near impurities behaves in a couple specific ways, such as sparking. Which not a single source you've identified that claimed molten steel has mentioned.
1. Temps were not high enough.
2. None of the photos of damaged steel show steel that slagged and ran as molten liquid metal.
3. None of the witnesses that described molten steel running free, described the expected properties of molten steel that runs. Not one.
You're holding an empty sack, inventing suppositions (practical men know what melted steel looks like) to bolster your position, and it's not going to work.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)what melted steel and molten steel look like.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are making an assumption. And stating a ridiculously false absolute.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)None of your claims about yourself can be verified. They are thus useless and pointless--except the fact that you expect them to be believed demonstrates your credulity and the likelihood that you would, for instance, believe William Seger's claims about his credentials and you are thus are likely to be fooled by a lot of nonsense you read on the internet.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You have adequately demonstrated your ignorance by expecting that 'practical men' can look at molten metal and tell you without doing anything else, what it is comprised of.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I said they know what molten steel looks like.
You need to sharpen your tools.
Melted girders are by definition steel. If you believe that melted aluminum or melted plastic looks like molten steel, you are free to demonstrate it. I know what melted aluminum and melted plastic look like.
Demanding impossible proofs when there hasn't even been an honest investigation yet is not good investigative procedure.
But for some reason you're not interested in an honest accounting of that day. Well some of us are.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)> they were pulled partially submerged from the pools of molten metal.
You have a vivid imagination. You should try to find a constructive use for it.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Were you heating steel wool? I agree that the evidence for "pools" of molten metal is about nil.
It come from Christopher Bollyn's characterization of what a cleanup worker said. It's not even
a direct quote. That's it.
But 5 PhDs and a FDNY Captain have testified to melted steel. Also Leslie Robertson, one of the
WTC engineers. One of the PhDs has photos.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)> I've heated steel in a campfire and been unable to make it glow.
Ah, so I must be lying or hallucinating? Well, according to Wiki, steel begins to glow around 426 degrees C, and at 1000 degrees (i.e. campfire temperatures), it can go past red into orange.
And exactly 0 people made a chemical analysis to determine that any molten metal they saw was steel rather than, say, aluminum. Why do you suppose nobody reported seeing any molten aluminum, even though we know there should have been a lot of it?
Looks like another failed bluff, "Ace." Wanna play again?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)That was in 2007. You really are not at all familiar with the issues, are you?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
Well I guess I have wimpy campfires made with douglas fir and redwood--not with charcoal and bellows. I couldn't make the steel glow.
Actually Dr. Jones did a chemical analysis of a sample taken from a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material. They didn't tell you about that in the PM article?
And then of course the FEMA Appendix C report did a thorough chemical analysis of steel that showed signs of intergranular melting due to a sulfidation attack. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm The New York Times characterized this steel as having been "vaporized" and "evaporated", and declared that this was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". The Report called for further investigation. NIST didn't do it. The melted steel is one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged in its half-report.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)As far as I can tell, the NIST did indeed follow up on the steel identified in the FEMA report, Appendix C. Check NCSTAR 1-3C, section 6.3.4. They have several pages devoted to this sample.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)of a subsection of the report.
Funny place to hide a discussion of what the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation", eh wot?
I'll have to check it again when I have time, but my recollection is that the discussion did not identify the source of the sulfur, and pretty much just declared the issue irrelevant based on the allegation that the sulfidation attack took place after the building had already collapsed, and thus was outside the scope of the report.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
AZCat
(8,345 posts)Not that funny. Are you really going to argue that the media should dictate investigatory priorities, especially considering the recent frenzy over Benghazi?
So correcting you once wasn't enough? After giving you the exact section in the report, you can't be bothered to go read it again? Maybe you could spend a little less time repeating incorrect statements on internet forums and a little more time researching.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They suggested maybe rubber or plastic, but they did no tests to show that burning rubber or plastic on steel would result in a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel producing the intergranular melting showed in FEMA Appendix C. They could not determine whether the "corrosion" was the result of solid, liquid, or gaseous attack.
They claimed they lacked information about the circumstances under which the material was recovered (why didn't they just ask the WPI investigators?) They do not know what was the source of the corroding element, how long the process took, or the temperature at which it occurred.
They assumed that the steel was in a "prone" position when this occurred. They stated that the temperatures were actually much higher than the 700 C to 800 C range estimated in the FEMA report.
They claimed that the corrosion of the steel took place after the tower fell, that it played no part in the tower falling, and thus implicitly justified their failure to do tests that might answer the questions they did not answer.
They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They did not demonstrate that the sulfidation mechanism they propose can happen. If it could, you'd think it would happen pretty commonly in fires.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No bellows required. That you haven't experienced it doesn't mean much. As the other poster said, try again. Or check youtube. Plenty of it. Easy to do. Thick pieces too.
Where are the pictures you say above that Astaneh has? I have yet to see one.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... that Astaneh thinks controlled demolition theories are nuts, that Jones' "40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material" is apparently a figment of some 911blogger's imagination, and that the eutectic reaction seen in that piece of steel happened at around 1000 degrees C, as has been pointed out to you. Another failed bluff, "Ace."
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Opinions about truthers are easy to influence. A few JREFers calling up Astaneh at 3:00 am demanding that he listen to their space beam conspiracy theories could very easily account for Dr. Astaneh's opinions about truthers.
He saw melting of girders. He took pictures. 7 other PhDs and an FDNY Captain have testified to melted steel.
If you think that Dr. Jones did not test ferrous material from a 40-pound ingot, you'd better test that with him. What "blogger's imagination" accounts for that?
NIST never identified the source of the eutectic, and neither did you--speaking of failed bluffs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)See "Material Recovery Report" by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, fig. 10.
Also this October 2001 report: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
You guys really ought to try to keep up and not rest on the February 2005 PM article.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You have referred to them at least twice, and supplied no link to his alleged photos.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Lets see photos of dripping beams that are actually molten, not red hot, not yellow hot, not shedding OTHER metal while the steel beam remains intact.
Do not show me eroded beams on a flat bed, stone cold. I want to see evidence of MOLTEN STEEL, which his photos of a flatbed do not provide. The only evidence I have seen of metal that might have been molten AND in contact with a steel beam is a metal that does not corrode like iron in earth atmosphere.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. You ask for photos and I give you photos. Then the photos are not good enough for you. You are demanding impossible proofs and a standard of evidence far beyond what you (and your imaginary friend Occam) demand of the official reports.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(And it's actually Ockham. 'William of', in reference to the town from which he hailed. )
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's what high temp erosion looks like. Not the same thing.
You describe slagged molten steel, I want to see slagged steel. That wasn't slagged steel.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The NYT said it was evaporated and vaporized, and the WPI PhDs made no objections to that.
Dr. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of formerly-molten steel.
Nobody should care what some guy in a funny internet mask thinks.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Where's a photo of it? Where's his analysis of what the metal that comprised that stalagmite is?
I say Glanz is, at best, mistaken.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Do you think he's going to say "steel" without some attempt to verify? Do you think it was aluminum or lead? He could have scratched it with a key to check that. Do you think he didn't?
Dr. Glanz said steel. If you think he lied, take it up with him.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And he has supplied zero evidence that I am aware of. A photo would be SOMETHING at least, even if it leaves open questions of chemical composition.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)He is a NYT journalist testifying about his own experience. Do you think a PhD science writer testified about melted steel without making some effort to distinguish it from aluminum or lead?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I do not recall anything in his testimony establishing WHY he thought it was steel.
I have yet to see photos of the supposedly pooled steel, on flatbeds or in situ. There is a GIANT FUCKING DEARTH of evidence for slagged steel. Some for eroded steel. Easily explainable without nefarious forces. No slag. This is a very easy bar to meet.
I don't care how many hundreds of times people describe what sort of locomotive a tornado sounded like, I do not think locomotives have much at all to do with tornadoes.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)That's what he said.
I want a proper investigation. I want him subpoenaed to say under oath what he saw and why he thought it was steel.
You don't. You want his testimony stricken before it's even been investigated. Thanks for showing where you're coming from.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't want his testimony stricken. I just don't find him credible. If he has evidence of his extraordinary claims, that's a different matter.
There was an investigation. I am satisfied with the results. If you want an investigation, you need to establish why, and 'some guy thinks he saw molten steel' isn't really enough evidence, sorry.
You could get together with other people that think something fishy is afoot and fucking pay for an independent investigation, if you care so much.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)and a FDNY Captain?
The investigation with which you are satisfied failed to answer 273 of the widows' questions, admitted that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" and even claimed it did not analyze the collapses of the towers.
Your satisfaction with the reports certainly doesn't demonstrate any rigorous basis. You have demonstrated your habit of discarding evidence on flimsy excuses.
Dr. Astaneh has photos of steel structural elements showing the melting. Dr. Astaneh is not "some guy". He's a PhD professor of structural engineering at Berkeley.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I asked for photos of slagging (which would tend to show demolition/cutting.) which neither you, nor anyone else has provided.
Astaneh's photos do not show slagging.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I asked you what's extraordinary about Dr. Glanz's claim, which was corroborated by 9 PhDs and a
FDNY Captain. You refused to answer.
You want to close off the investigation based on the phony standards promulgated by an anonymous
internet poster who calls himself "AtheistCrusader". Thanks for showing where you're coming from.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And the standard is in the claimants own testimony: dripping/molten metal. A state of metal whose byproducts do not appear in Astaneh's photos. Those are eroded beams, there is no slag, no MELTING in the sense of MOLTEN STEEL.
You might note that I am not arguing with the use of the word vaporized. Ask yourself why.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)On one of his photos there is a badly eroded piece with a cutting torch line across the top, where it was removed. THAT has slag, and you can see it is different from the rest of the erosion because it is not corroded at all. It's a fresh cut.
In order for metal to run, pool, drip, form stalagmites, etc, it must MELT in the sense of molten slag steel that can run, drip, etc.
None of Astaneh's photos show that.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)All of which you have not.
All photos you have supplied, do not.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"they were pulled partially submerged from the pools of molten metal".
Maybe you should stick to a thread fork of your own hill to defend then.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... nor any proof that Jones has a 40-pound ingot of "ferrous material"?
> NIST never identified the source of the eutectic, and neither did you--speaking of failed bluffs.
And you haven't yet identified any reason why the source of the eutectic NEEDS to be identified. Start by proving that it DIDN'T happen in the rubble pile AFTER the collapse. Since I seriously doubt that you will be able to do that, alternatively you can start by giving a plausible description of a controlled demolition that involves eutectic reactions, then explain in detail what we see in the videos using that hypothetical description.
If you can do either of those, then maybe we do need to look into the matter more deeply. Until then... 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The source of the eutectic needs to be identified if the mechanism of eutectic melting is to be plausible.
Why do you people expend such enormous energies asserting that there are no mysteries? I wouldn't spand my time arguing with creationists. Why are you afraid of thorough, honest, complete scientific investigations? Cost? ALL of the 9/11 investigations cost less than one Predator drone.
I can't prove a negative. That's ridiculous.
Here are the pictures:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8939719#post8939719
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron or steel
http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=154&hires=1
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... and I've been a frequent visitor to this board and other 9/11 forums for many years. Whatsamattah, you can't find them now? I think I know why that is.
And nope, I don't assert that there are "no mysteries." I assert that "mystery" does not equal "conspiracy," and I assert that "truthers" have found absolutely no credible evidence that "9/11 was an inside job," and I assert that controlled demolition and "no plane" theories are not only unsupported, they are perfectly idiotic.
> I can't prove a negative. That's ridiculous.
That's a common misconception, but in fact there are many cases where it's possible to prove a negative by simply disproving the affirmative. For example, I can prove that New York City is not in Idaho and that I don't have an elephant in my pocket. On the other hand, I can't prove that God or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster don't exist because I can't disprove that they do, but you can't generalize those cases to say it's always impossible to prove a negative. In the case of the eutectic reaction, it is at least theoretically possible that some forensic evidence could indicate whether the reaction happened before or after the collapse. Given the rubble heap and its fires, the principle of parsimony says that it most probably happened after the collapse, whether or not the source of the sulfidation has been identified -- sulfur being a rather common element. But you would like to claim that it happened before the collapse for the sole purpose of implying that it was part of some kind of controlled demolition -- which, I notice, you don't seem to want to elaborate (and I don't blame you). The question remains, why would you have us believe the less plausible scenario?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Here are the pictures:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8939719#post8939719
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron or steel
http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=154&hires=1
You employ the principle of parsimony like a blunt instrument when you assume the melting of steel took place after collapse in order to disprove the proposition that the melting of steel was the agent of collapse.
Can you point to evidence of other fires that demonstrated high-temp suilfidation attacks on steel because of shower curtains, floor mats, or carpet? If it were common I think the PhD fire scientist Dr. Barnett would not have expressed mystification about it, he would have set the NYT straight when they called it "the deepest mystery" and NIST could have simply demonstrated that it's a common phenomenon instead of inventing excuses not to demonstrate it.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... and since AtheistCrusader was unable to explain the difference to you between "melted" and eroded, I don't expect to have better luck.
As for the "40-pound ingot" in the AE911truth slideshow, I still can't find any information about it, and I hope you'll understand why I'm not willing to accept Richard Gage's propaganda as the sole source for anything. Google searches turn up nothing; please point me to a more reliable source, if you have one.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Are you denying that? How come Dr. Barnett did not object to his statement being characterized as describing "evaporated" steel? Here's what the NYT said: "[T]hat would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
The WPI article about it cites "melted steel" in its title. Apparently Dr. Biederman and Dr. Sisson did not object.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
I can't find anything about the 40-pound ingot either, except that photo. Go ahead, prove that Dr. Jones lied about it. Knock yourself out. Do something useful.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... well below the normal melting point of steel because of a eutectic reaction that almost certainly happened in the rubble pile. If that's all you mean by "melted girders" then this entire discussion is pointless, and the proof of that is you inability to extrapolate that piece of steel into a coherent and plausible "controlled demolition" theory. You'll rely instead on the typical conspiracy theorist's "mystery = conspiracy" fallacy.
As for Dr. Barnett, I suggest you read this (despite the atrocious formatting).
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You have a kneejerk reaction of trying to exclude evidence before it's been properly examined.
Of course intergranular melting is not the only melting. 5 PhDs and a FDNYT Captain testified to molten steel that was not just intergranular--as you should well remember if you've been paying attention.
I never asserted any conspiracy. That's your straw man. You're relying on a "no conspiracy = no mystery" fallacy.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Hmm, maybe that's why this thread is so irrelevant and boring, huh. Maybe you should come back when you are ready to assert a conspiracy so we'll have something worth arguing about? 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Like you.
Mysteries appeal to higher intelligences.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... shoddy construction of the twin towers, smoke billowing from every window of WTC7, and "someone would have talked" seem to appeal to just about everybody as a once-great nation settles into its own bilge
William Seger
(11,031 posts)No, those are not examples of ad hoc argumentation. Perhaps this will help you to understand the meaning of the term: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
The constant creation of new ad hoc arguments to undermine evidence is a good sign that they are not arguing in good faith - and may lead them into some serious argumentative trouble when their newer ad hoc explanations begin to conflict with others. Creationist explanations for why the Grand Canyon is explained by the global flood but similar canyons aren't seen everywhere are hilariously varied and entirely ad hoc - as no consistent geological theory would posit that a flood would create a canyon, and a flat desert, and a mountain range in different random places.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"You employ the principle of parsimony like a blunt instrument when you assume the melting of steel took place after collapse in order to disprove the proposition that the melting of steel was the agent of collapse."
NIST and the rest of us never posited that the melting of steel was the agent of collapse.
The WEAKENING of steel, which occurs at temperatures MUCH lower than the melting point, was the agent of collapse.
"You're not very familiar with the issues, are you?"
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I never said that NIST or you posited that melting of steel was the agent of collapse.
It seems pretty clear that you're trying to cause confusion to cover over the fact
that you're not very familiar with the issues.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)('melted' as in molten, rather than eroded/corroded 'melted' away)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Metal that is steel, running, molten down channel rails, and steel molten in a manner that could produce a stalagmite of steel.
Things you have only referenced CLAIMS of by a small number of people, no suggestion at all how they ACTUALLY determined it WAS steel, and zero evidence of steel beams in a state that could produce such free-running molten steel.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2013, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)
There are eyewitness accounts, there are photos, there are samples, there's an official government reports (FEMA Appendix C). Claims are evidence. Girders are steel. Your hysteria is noted.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Most of the people making those allegations are on the record interchangeably using molten metal and molten steel.
The photos you have referenced do not show what I just asked you for.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your desperation is showing.
Melted steel is melted steel. Melted girders are melted steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You might as well argue that since shirts are washed on permanent press cycle, and underwear is washed on hot cycle, therefore doing the laundry is an impossible conspiracy theory.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)we have only an opinion/allegation, and no physical evidence of.
You pointed me to pictures that have fuckall to do with the source of a running stream of steel.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)and Leslie Robertson, one of the WTC structural engineers.
You are not refuting the evidence, because you can't. You are trying to suppress it by declaring it inadmissible.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm saying I don't buy just their opinion on the face. That's all.
What the fuck does it matter to you if I don't consider that proof? I'm not stopping you or anyone else from posting or anything.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... sufficient to support their collapse sequence.
But you demand proof of molten steel even when it's staring you in the face.
Selective skepticism is a terrible thing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You have not shown me proof of molten steel. You showed me ONE piece of evidence that I accept as an allegation, but have questions about, and two other things that have not a fuckgin thing to do with molten steel.
I'm willing to bet that Astaneh would disagree with your characterization of what he meant by 'melting' in reference to his comments about his photos.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)If you think Dr. Jones faked his sample of melted steel, prove it.
Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". That's steel. Melted steel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)or he is talking about something that is not the molten steel issue that produces rivers of molten steel in channel rails, and stalagmites of STEEL.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... because permanent press wash is not hot water wash.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are genuinely incapable of supporting with any evidence beyond a handful of assertions, that steel ran as liquid down channel rails, or formed a stalagmite.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your efforts to declare it to be of no significance before it's even been investigated are noted.
Do you have any personal stake in 9/11? Were you connected in any way? Lose any friends? Were you there?
Maybe you should let the people who have a reason to care decide what's not worth investigating, instead of taking that privilege on for yourself.
Make7
(8,546 posts)One Predator drone cost approximately $4 million.
[font style="color:#ffffff; background-color:#ffffff;"]http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf#page=286[/font]
9/11 Commission's budget $15 million.
[font style="color:#ffffff; background-color:#ffffff;"]http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q5[/font]
NIST's WTC investigation received a $16 million appropriation.
[font style="color:#ffffff; background-color:#ffffff;"]http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.cfm[/font]
So what investigations did you mean exactly when you said "ALL of the 9/11 investigations".
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)
So what was your point again?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)oks across the nation at this point.
Dumb ideas propagate if left unchecked.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)And you can't see how you resemble them.
You just declare all inconvenient facts to be hoaxes from the Devil to test your faith.
Thanks for nothing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Claims by people some of whom have been discredited.
Others could simply be in error.
Human perception is still what it is, even with a PHD attached.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)They did. Any human perception can be in error. That does not negate the fact that it exists.
You have absorbed the reasoning processes of your creationist friends. You simply suppose that all inconvenient facts are the doing of the Devil.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)molten steel.
These are not 'facts', beyond 'they said it'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)FEMA Appendix C has samples.
You seem to think that if you repeat a claim enough, it will make it true.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Show me a fucking photo of a stalagmite. I'll wait.
That would be a start, without even determining if the stalagmite was steel or something else.
Show me where FEMA has evidence of molten steel. MOLTEN STEEL. That is what I specified. Not eroded steel. Not your squishy bullshit use of 'melted', I said MOLTEN STEEL.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You can keep inventing all the impossible conditions and quibbles you want, but it only makes you look foolish.
To deny and deny and deny is the only way you can protect your illusions. And you don't even see your inner creationist has taken you over.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I see you offer zero photos of a stalagmite.
The steel in the state shown in Astaneh's photos can be arrived at without producing molten steel that can run, drip, and form a stalagmite.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You're quibbling about the difference. There is no need for Dr. Astaneh's melted steel to form a
stalagmite. Those are two different things. You might as well demand that poison cause a bullet
wound.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of a stalagmite made of steel. STEEL.
You need it to support your claim in post 161.
"Plus there IS slag--"flowing down the channel rails", making a stalagmite of steel, plus Dr. Jones's 40-pound ingot."
Support that claim. Astaneh's photos don't support it at all.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)And yet you never had the curiosity to research the molten steel evidence yourself?
You never heard of Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, saying "Molten steel, running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry, like lava"?
Your ignorance is not an argument. And neither is your irrationality.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I asked for evidence of molten steel and you referred me to Astaneh's photos. There is no evidence for molten steel running anywhere in those photos.
There is no evidence beyond a few people stating they saw, interchangeably, molten metal or molten steel.
No photos. No samples.
Well, one alleged sample that hasn't been proven in any way.
So stop referring people to Astaneh when they ask for evidence of slagged steel that can create a fucking stalagmite, that must run, and drip.
The only evidence you have offered is the opinion of a few humans whose eyes are not spectrometers capable of differentiating between molten steel or molten aluminium at a glance. People who may have made assumptions. People who may have repeated other people's assumptions.
That's before we even get to the possibility of molten steel having to do with the collapse, even IF some was found in the wreckage.
Edit:
"How many hundreds of hours have you spent posting about 9/11?
And yet you never had the curiosity to research the molten steel evidence yourself? "
And you can drop that 'you haven't researched XYZ' bullshit you keep coming up with. I've done plenty, but there's nothing here TO research. They are empty allegations without evidence. Period. Insubstantial. I'd be doing 'research' on the molten steel reading a paper on the fallibility of human perception/memory.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You create confusion, trying to blur the "melted" and "molten" steel, and then accuse me of having blurred
it. Your tactics are transparent.
There are a couple of dozen witnesses to melted steel. There are photos. There are samples. You are feigning
blindness.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not one. No evidence that steel liquefied, and ran as a free liquid. None. You have not supplied one photo or sample. Not even Jones' ingot qualifies. In fact, after 12 years, it's become solid evidence that no such thing ever happened.
You brought up the stalagmite. You need to support that beyond a person looking at it and assuming it is steel, because NONE of the evidence you have offered supports it by showing steel beams in a condition that could produce a stalagmite of running, dripping steel.
I am not the one blurring the distinction between 'melted' and 'molten'. You are. I accept the use of 'melted' in relation to eutectic corrosion. That type of corrosion, or 'melting' does not produce a stalagmite of steel.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You're creating phony contradictions. You might as well demand that the unmelted steel link to the melted steel.
The stalagmite is evidence that the steel liquified.
Your desperate efforts to defend your illusions fool no one but yourself.
"Molten steel, running down the channel rails" (Captain Philip Ruvolo) and "Like a little river of molten steel" (Leslie Robertson) produce a stalagmite of steel. Give it up. You're pwning yourself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)would produce a stalagmite anyway.
You are holding an empty sack, and insisting it is full of evidence.
If you could provide evidence of a beam that was slagged, that actually became running molten steel, then your claims could fit, and lend credence to each other. They do not. You have corroded/melted beam photos. ZERO slagged steel beams. Not one.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not of slagged beams anyway.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)See "Material Recovery Report" by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, fig. 10.
http://archive.org/stream/WTC-ASTANEH#page/n9/mode/2up
You're inventing your facts again.
Your analysis would improve if you would sharpen your tools, be more precise, be more honest, and avoid trying to pass of your opinions and fantasies as fact.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)a source of free-running molten steel that can drip and form a stalagmite.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You might as well claim that since the tail is not a leg, there's no elephant in the room.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You, or someone, needs to produce evidence of a metal beam that is the source of slagged steel that can run freely, drip, form stalagmites, etc.
You have not. Someone else can perhaps take a stab?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Personally, I like to admit when I'm wrong. That makes me more careful next time and keeps me honest.
I'm not boxed in any corner. Your ridiculous pretense that all evidence has to square with all other evidence before it even merits investigation is dishonest, absurd, and unintelligent.
Demanding that someone produce a slagged beam 12 years after it was shipped off to China is as ridiculous as claiming Cortez never landed in Mexico because you haven't seen his ship.
You're fooling nobody but yourself. Arguing with creationist morons has damaged your mind.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which you studiously refuse to provide.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Until you learn to make simple distinctions like the difference between a photo that does not show any slag and a photo that shows no slag, you're not worth my time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Keep pointing at photos that don't show slagged beams to explain molten steel that formed a stalagmite or a 'ingot'. Be my guest.
You're why most people don't give a shit about this issue. Which dovetails nicely with why there was no investigation into the criminal incompetence of the Bush Admin in the lead-up and the day of the attack itself.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts).... and a desperate attempt to pretend you have a point.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That metal did not run/drip forming a stalagmite. It didn't run down a channel rail.
You have... nothing.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Connection with a stalagmite is your phony specification.
Rational people first establish the facts, then examine and analyze them.
You try in a panic-stricken way to lawyer away the facts, finding dishonest excuses to conclude they're of no significance, doing your analysis before they've even been established, let alone examined.
There was melted steel. Join the reality-based community and admit it.
It has not been explained. Join the reality-based community and admit it.
It needs to be explained. Join the reality-based community and admit it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. You claim 'melted' steel.
2. You show photos of eutectic corrosion/eroded beams. Heat and water vapor are quite capable of that, moreso if you add sulfites, which are available in the rubble by way of heated gypsum board of various types over various decades of production from various manufacturers. It does not require unexpectedly high temps in the rubble to explain this.
3. You point to people who claimed to see steel running, molten, down channel rails.
3.a You do not show any evidence to support those claims. No thermal analysis of the liquid metals, no samples. No indication that the people who claimed it even attempted to establish what kind of molten metal they allegedly saw.
4. You point to a person who claimed to see a steel stalagmite.
4.a You assume this person did something that they never claimed themselves, to establish that the observed metal was steel. (You hypothesize scratching it with a car key or some other test, something even the person who allegedly observed it never claimed to do) In assuming the claim was true, you assume beams of steel ended up molten, even though none of your linked photos from Astaneh or others show beams that could produce a stream of molten steel. Erosion isn't slag. When steel runs, the source leaves 'tells' in the form of slag, running, dripping, etc.
5. The 'formerly molten ingot' claim. A piece of alleged metal possessed by a clown. Never assayed. Never independently reviewed. Just like the same clown's supposed thermite chips. A ridiculous source with a ridiculous claim.
You have never shown how steel could have formed a river of molten metal running down a channel rail. You never show how steel could have dripped and formed a stalagmite, let alone that the alleged stalagmite WAS steel.
Basically you talk in a big, broken, disjointed circle.
Do not come at me with "phony specification.". You show a claim, you back it up with a photo that has nothing to do with it. That's worth challenging. If you want to back up allegations from a couple eyewitnesses that claimed to have seen steel running freely, you don't show a beam with erosion damage to back it up. You show a beam that was slagged. That became molten in some place, and ran/dripped. Not a beam that was eaten away by heat, steam, and possibly sulfur erosion. They are not the same thing. One does not produce the other.
You have shown zero potential sources of molten steel, running freely.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:34 PM - Edit history (3)
NIST never did any tests showing that heat and water could do that. Yours is an empty claim. Jonathan Cole did a test showing no corrosion/melting at all after heating with aluminum, with diesel fuel, with gypsum.
Corrosion does not create a stalagmite. Something created the stalagmite.
Gypsum board is sulfate, not sulfite. It's completely oxidized. It's inert. Neither NIST nor FEMA mentions gypsum as a possible candidate for the sulfur that caused the intergranular melting.
The evidence to support the claims of melted steel is the testimony of eyewitnesses. A defense attorney can not exclude eyewitness testimony that the defendant was seen carrying a pistol down the street 2 minutes before the murder simply on grounds that the gun can not be produced. Your reasoning is defective here.
Thermite can melt steel. Unless you are willing to call Captain Ruvolo a liar, you must accept that there was molten steel. Leslie Robertson said the same thing. Neither one of them was authorized to collect samples and do a chemical analysis. Dr. Jones claimed he analyzed a sample. It was assayed. Go ahead, prove he lied. Get your own sample, do your own assay. You're claiming no one saw melted steel. Provide evidence to support your claim.
It is unreasonable to think that a PhD science writer for the NYT would jeopardize his credibility by claiming he saw melted steel without making some effort to satisfy himself that it was in fact melted steel. If you think he was lying, go ahead and prove it.
Your demand for photos is like that of a desperate defense attorney telling the jury: "The prosecution does not have any photos to back up his claim that my client shot the decedent." An argument like that would get laughed out of court. It's unreasonable to expect photos. Photography at Ground Zero was suppressed.
The sources of melted steel are 250,000 tons of steel. A couple of dozen witnesses have spoken about it. 8 of them are PhDs. Your desperation is showing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You cannot, because it has never been assayed.
You do know what an ASSAY is, right, mr. 'I work with steel'?
There is no assay. Period. He hasn't had one performed. Try again.
You create false analogies.
"Your demand for photos is like that of a desperate defense attorney telling the jury: "The prosecution's does not have any photos to back up his claim that my client shot the decedent.""
Error. Correct analogy: You have not shown that the decedent was shot at all.
You have, at best, produced a couple witnesses that claim to have heard a gunshot.
You have not produced a decedent/autopsy with injuries consistent with a gunshot.
"It is unreasonable to think that a PhD science writer for the NYT would jeopardize his credibility by claiming he saw melted steel without making some effort to satisfy himself that it was in fact melted steel. If you think he was lying, go ahead prove it."
No it isn't. People make mistakes. I don't need to prove anything, he never specified and still has not specified how or why he though the material he allegedly observed was steel. Any methods to verify were completely made up by you.
"The sources of melted steel are 250,000 tons of steel. A couple of dozen witnesses have spoken about it. 8 of them are PhDs. Your desperation is showing."
And that is all you have. A few witnesses, and not one of which actually talks about ESTABLISHING what metal they observed. Not one. No samples. No photos. Astaneh's photos do not show molten steel, or steel that was melted as in slag.
It's a little easier than you think to get sulfite out of drywall, I think. Recall all the shit from China that was recalled in 2005-2008 because it was eating peoples plumbing and making people sick. That's why I specified multiple sources of drywall over decades of building life, for each remodel of interior surfaces. In the presence of carbon monoxide, it'll release it at as low as 600c. Basic chemistry. Plenty of carbon monoxide in the rubble, from burning material from the ~80 acres of office stuff per tower that wasn't burned in the initial impact and fire.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Here is where Dr. Jones discusses his analysis of the composition of the metal samples. (Note in the later segment he specifically discusses slag.)
See at 1:04:54 and at 1:13:21
I have produced photos, and eyewitness testimony, of melted steel.
If you think Dr. Glanz made a mistake, it is up to you to prove it. Since there are other reports of melted steel, there is no justification for any assumption that Dr. Glanz is mistaken.
Your continued blindness to the fact that Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's claim that he saw melting of girders, and his pictures of melting of girders, are reports of steel girders melting is ridiculous.
If you have evidence that "That shit from China" was used in the twin towers, please provide it. Handwaving explanations from anonymous and very emotional internet posters are not acceptable substitutes for a complete and scientific investigation. If sulfur is easily extracted from drywall then it is for NIST to say so, not you on their behalf.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've gotten similar forms of steel to glow from a campfire, without forced oxygen. Sure.
Hell, my marshmallow tongs (about 8 gauge wire thickness, far thicker than steel wool) get a very nice glow just burning off the marshmallow residue, sticking it in the heart of the wood coals for about 10 seconds.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)Now as far as I know you can't pick thermite up at Wal-Mart.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049
William Seger
(11,031 posts)An independent study confirmed that the far more plausible hypothesis -- that Harrit's "unreacted thermite" chips are just chips of steel primer paint -- is in fact correct. At one point, Harrit and Jones shared their samples with another "truther" scientist, and when he was unable to duplicate their results, they vowed not share any more samples.
The most notable thing about Harrit's paper is that it actually contains very convincing evidence that the chips neither look nor react like thermite, yet Harrit comes to the stunningly anti-scientific conclusion that that means it must be some unknown, highly engineered form of thermite! The next most notable thing is that even after acknowledging that paint chips were considered as a possible explanation, the attempts to rule out paint are stunningly inadequate (e.g. rather than even attempt to find out what kind of primer paint was used on WTC steel, Steven Jones just scraped some paint of the BYU stadium bleachers and compared that). Even if you take what's presented as evidence in that paper at face value (a foolish thing to do, as the independent study shows), you don't need to be a materials scientist to notice that the paper's conclusions are simply not logically supported by that evidence.
We've been through this junk science again and again around here, and damnedifIknow why we'll have to do it again and again.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)who funded Dr Millet's research there William?
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Chris Mohr, with contributions from other JREF members: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314
“Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked… to suggest that we were publishing misleading data.” Jim Millette
I submit to you that Dr. Millette has kept his promise.
"Truthers" have had a year-and-a-half now to try to refute the science in Millette's findings, and the best you can do is try to cast suspicion on who paid for the study? Pathetic.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Plenty of steelworking applications use the same chemical composition for welding, as you would call 'thermite'. Especially thick steel shit, like ironworking on a large building, railroad ties, propeller shafts, etc.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Al + rust?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Everything here is a theory. It is reasonable to have an exploration to see if some theories are more consistent with the facts and others are less consistent with the facts. When a person loads their argument up with such dismissive, insulting terms, it brings their objectivity into question.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)
.... if they don't put it on every panel?