A question about thermite and "molten steel"

[CHF]

So according to the truthers, thermite was used to take down the WTC towers and WTC7. This thermite, they say, is what caused all that "molten steel" at Ground Zero.

Now even though thermite has never been used as a demolition tool and even though there's no solid evidence that the metal in question was steel...let's assume for the sake of argument that the guv decided to use thermite on 9/11.

The whole point of the thermite would have been to weaken the steel so that it failed (ie the same role that fire plays in the official story). The guv would therefor have used enough thermite to achieve that, and no doubt more than that just to be sure.

But since the molten steel from a thermite reaction cools off quickly...

Why would they use enough thermite to leave molten steel hanging around for weeks? Isn't that some serious overkill?

It's sort of like the USAF wanting to destroy an enemy bunker. They'll use a missile; maybe a few....perhaps they'll even carper-bomb the target. But they won't toss a nuke at it! Yet here we find the guv using waaaaay too much thermite on 9/11.

Why would they do this?

[T.A.M.]

because they are the superevil, superpowerful, all knowing, but superincompetent Neocon Cabal(TM)

TAM:)

[Reality Believer]

....
The whole point of the thermite would have been to weaken the steel so that it failed (ie the same role that fire plays in the official story). The guv would therefor have used enough thermite to achieve that, and no doubt more than that just to be sure.....
.....
Oh man, I think you just might have summoned the ghost of Max Photon. :boxedin:

Better get the incantations ready - Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.

[Max Photon]

So according to the truthers, thermite was used to take down the WTC towers and WTC7. This thermite, they say, is what caused all that "molten steel" at Ground Zero.

Now even though thermite has never been used as a demolition tool and even though there's no solid evidence that the metal in question was steel...let's assume for the sake of argument that the guv decided to use thermite on 9/11.

The whole point of the thermite would have been to weaken the steel so that it failed (ie the same role that fire plays in the official story). The guv would therefor have used enough thermite to achieve that, and no doubt more than that just to be sure.

But since the molten steel from a thermite reaction cools off quickly...

Why would they use enough thermite to leave molten steel hanging around for weeks? Isn't that some serious overkill?

It's sort of like the USAF wanting to destroy an enemy bunker. They'll use a missile; maybe a few....perhaps they'll even carper-bomb the target. But they won't toss a nuke at it! Yet here we find the guv using waaaaay too much thermite on 9/11.

Why would they do this?


I think you mean "molten iron."

If thermite were used not to cut, but to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, then there would be no molten steel.

The critical temperature of steel - the temperature at which steel loses 1/2 of its strength - is about 600 C.

Melting steel requires 1540 C.


Note that melting steel at 1540 C is only a special case of heat-weakening - the high energy case.


By the way, am I the only one who thinks it's a little bizarre that Steven Jones - who's into solar energy no less - picks the use of thermite - cutting - that requires the maximum use of energy?

I mean, it takes a lot more energy to get steel to 1540 C, than it does to 600 C.

Plus, if you are trying to cut steel, and you only get to say 1490 C, you're totally screwed - no cutting!

In contrast, my heat-weakening model has a huge temperature sweet-spot, and at relatively low energy.


What's even more bizarre is the the Journal of 911 Studies has at least one paper that mocks Wood's directed energy hypothesis for being such an energy-hog.

Why in God's creation would Jones be gung-ho for thermite, and then absolutely, totally, completely ignore my heat-weakening argument?

What sense does that make?


Anyone care to speculate?


Musing Max

---

[defaultdotxbe]

I think you mean "molten iron."

If thermite were used not to cut, but to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, then there would be no molten steel.

The critical temperature of steel - the temperature at which steel loses 1/2 of its strength - is about 600 C.

Melting steel requires 1540 C.


Note that melting steel at 1540 C is only a special case of heat-weakening - the high energy case.


By the way, am I the only one who thinks it's a little bizarre that Steven Jones - who's into solar energy no less - picks the use of thermite - cutting - that requires the maximum use of energy?

I mean, it takes a lot more energy to get steel to 1540 C, than it does to 600 C.

Plus, if you are trying to cut steel, and you only get to say 1490 C, you're totally screwed - no cutting!

In contrast, my heat-weakening model has a huge temperature sweet-spot, and at relatively low energy.


What's even more bizarre is the the Journal of 911 Studies has at least one paper that mocks Wood's directed energy hypothesis for being such an energy-hog.

Why in God's creation would Jones be gung-ho for thermite, and then absolutely, totally, completely ignore my heat-weakening argument?

What sense does that make?


Anyone care to speculate?


Musing Max

---
i notived you didnt really answer CHFs question

why would so much thermite be used as to leave molten steel/iron/whatever around weeks later?