Where is the evidence of molten steel in the rubble?

[BenBurch]

http://tinyurl.com/27ppeo (Sorry no http, I don't have enough posts to post a link yet and won't make no-info posts to get to the total...)

Any comments y'all can come up with on how I might argue this point better would be gratefully received.

(I'm not the best at argument when I think the people I am arguing with are dishonest...)

Thanks!!!

[CHF]

Mostly second-hand accounts or GZ workers describing the metal as "steel."

There are no images of all this "steel," no test results confirming the metal type and no logical reason for it being steel as opposed to, say, alluminum.

[Anti-sophist]

They have provided you with ample evidence of molten metal and no evidence that that metal was steel.

We know that temperatures were hot enough to melt aluminum and molten aluminum is consistent with all available evidence.

Molten steel is not consistent with any of the evidence.

[CHF]

A good question for the "steel" believers would be

1) what caused it? (Answer: THERMITE!!!)

2) how much thermite would keep steel in a molten state for days/weeks?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

tinyurl.com<add slash here>27ppeo (Sorry no http, I don't have enough posts to post a link yet and won't make no-info posts to get to the total...)

Any comments y'all can come up with on how I might argue this point better would be gratefully received.

(I'm not the best at argument when I think the people I am arguing with are dishonest...)

Thanks!!!

Ask them what "molten steel' would have to do with controlled demolition. Thermite (NEVER used in CD) also doesn't burn for weeks (watch utube videos). What's their point?

[Myriad]

Also, there are no first-hand reports of "pools" of molten metal of any kind, nor reports of solidifed pools of previously molten metal found in the clean-up. Most likely the second-hand (& third-hand, etc.) accounts of "pools of molten [metal or steel]" resulted from extraplolation of the first-hand reports, reporters assuming that if there was a lot of flowing molten metal, it would naturally form "pools."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Reality Believer]

Originally Posted by DGM

Ask them what "molten steel' would have to do with controlled demolition. Thermite (NEVER used in CD) also doesn't burn for weeks (watch utube videos). What's their point?

I second that. The premise of the accusation is at fault in the first place. Purposeful demolitions do not leave pools of molten stuff around. Why is this an indication of foul play?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

I second that. The premise of the accusation is at fault in the first place. Purposeful demolitions do not leave pools of molten stuff around. Why is this an indication of foul play?

The simple answer is to a CTists, everything is considered an indication of "foul play".

A more complex answer would be....actually there are no complex answers, refer back to the simple answer.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

The simple answer is to a CTists, everything is considered an indication of "foul play".

A more complex answer would be....actually there are no complex answers, refer back to the simple answer.

But is there ANY way to get through to them? I feel like if I just knew the right way to say the truth, they'd finally hear it.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

But is there ANY way to get through to them? I feel like if I just knew the right way to say the truth, they'd finally hear it.

As in my reply earlier I like the logical approach. You know the "does this REALLY make sense to you" line of reasoning. After awhile maybe they'll start to think.

[R.Mackey]

The argument I've made against molten steel that seems to be the most effective (on pp. 84-85 of my whitepaper) concerns the quantity.

There are two competing theories: Either (a) there was only rare and incidental melting of steel at best, in which case we expect to find virtually no melted steel or iron, and what we find will be scattered or even microscopic; or (b) thermite or some other exceptional heat source was used, in which case we expect to find large volumes of melted steel or iron. Thermite, in particular, creates melted iron as part of its operation. The amounts of thermite the Truth Movement is speculating about are very large -- many tons of thermite, possibly hundreds of tons. We then expect to find either many tons of melted iron or virtually zero. There are no explanations for values in between.

Also, since the Truth Movement argues that only this malicious event could melt iron, then after the thermite or whatever had done its job, the melted iron that resulted would solidify into puddles or slag-like blobs, and would remain so indefinitely. There is no way for the "ordinary" fire that followed to re-melt or otherwise disturb these objects.

Therefore, for the thermite theory to be correct, we must find huge blobs or very many moderate blobs of formerly melted iron or steel when we clean up the pile.

We find none. The best we can do is quote-mine a few individuals, none of whom performed any tests, and at least two of whom (Leslie Robertson and Mike Loizeaux) have later confirmed they were quoted inaccurately.

The Truth Movement fails to appreciate that there is no middle-ground because they never get around to proposing a complete hypothesis. This is one of the many errors that pervades their thinking.

I don't know if that will settle the argument for you, as it's likely that nothing can, but it should convince anyone who has the ability to learn.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, the best they have are those two specks that Jones mis-identified from some chick's apartment obtained after demolition was underway.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Yeah, the best they have are those two specks that Jones mis-identified from some chick's apartment obtained after demolition was underway.

Whoa! I missed that. Two specs pf aluminum/iron ammalgam? After clean-up and recovery were under way? Interesting. I would like to know more about that aspect. Like the total weight, when and where found.

There was a lot of torch work going on during the rescue phase alone, almost as soon as they could get welders in there to start cutting away debris, Is it hard for anyone to concieve of the possibility that there was aluminum in close proximity to some of the large standing columns that had to be cut?

Got a link to a more detailed report on the provenance of the spherules that had Jones so excited?

[leftysergeant]

Dang! Maybe i should have looked at the site right off the bat.

I woulldn't count too much on educating at least half of those characters. Troll City, dude.

Atomic bomb and ERobertG have been banned from at least three boards that I have visited, ABomb under at least two sock screen names. He was dumb enough to post a picture of the "meteorite" to the Randi Rhodes Show board as Ic3Lights, but linked directly to his Atomic bomb Photobucket account

These are not bright people, okay?

Intersting point #2; Atomic Bomb and Killtown use the same avatar. Hmmm...

Okay. slapping my own face for having brought that ad hominem up in the first place.

I notice they have tight firewalls around that site, maybe to keep out people who are unwilling to give their ideas a head start down the rabbit hole?

[BenBurch]

Well, the firewalls are just what the board provider provides.

Believe it or not, I am actually a moderator in that nuthatch. But our bias is never to censor except when there are direct personal attacks and except when some non-public third party gets accused of something, we censor the post or the name.

Most people on the board are not into 9/11 conspiracies, or are LIHOPers who think the CDers are Barking Moonbats, hence having "ALL" posts concerning it moved to the September 11 forum.

And confession time; I think there was some weak form of LIHOP happening in the depraved indifference the Bush administration displayed towards investigation of terrorism in the first 2/3 of his first year in office. He was sternly warned not to allow that to happen, and did.

[BenBurch]

I'll try to document that on the specs...

[BenBurch]

Oh, and since you hang out on Randi's board you probably know of me, I run http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/

[leftysergeant]

I'm more familiar with the White Rose in the context of Thom Hartmann's frequent referrences to it.

ERG and ABomb are not welcome there any more, either.

There does seem to be a concerted effort by certain trolls to take over liberal and progressive boards, especially those centered around the more rational liberal talk shows.

They are most welcome on the Mike Malloy board, but Mike is pretty much MIHOP. He was also fired from Air America. Guess he's the Alex Jones of the left, bit with a bit more class. (But then, how could he have less?)

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by CHF

Mostly second-hand accounts or GZ workers describing the metal as "steel."

There are no images of all this "steel," no test results confirming the metal type and no logical reason for it being steel as opposed to, say, alluminum.

So CHF, you point out there are no tests results for the metal type, but tend to ignore there were no test results for explosives. Why the hypocritical approach in the use of scientific testing?

[BenBurch]

Malloy's a good guy, and does not reject ideas out of hand if you present them respectfully, but some more people grounded in our point of view need to call in. I really should not as I work for the company that broadcasts his show.

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The argument I've made against molten steel that seems to be the most effective (on pp. 84-85 of my whitepaper) concerns the quantity.

There are two competing theories: Either

Quote:

(a) there was only rare and incidental melting of steel at best,

And praytell in an office fire would cause steel to melt?

Quote:

in which case we expect to find virtually no melted steel or iron, and what we find will be scattered or even microscopic

Source?

Quote:

(b) thermite or some other exceptional heat source was used, in which case we expect to find large volumes of melted steel or iron. Thermite, in particular, creates melted iron as part of its operation. The amounts of thermite the Truth Movement is speculating about are very large -- many tons of thermite, possibly hundreds of ton

s.
Source?

Quote:

There are no explanations for values in between.

The values in between would depend upon the amount of material used to create the melted steel.
Also, since the Truth Movement argues that only this malicious event could melt iron, then after the thermite or whatever had done its job, the melted iron that resulted would solidify into puddles or slag-like blobs, and would remain so indefinitely. There is no way for the "ordinary" fire that followed to re-melt or otherwise disturb these objects.

Quote:

Therefore, for the thermite theory to be correct, we must find huge blobs or very many moderate blobs of formerly melted iron or steel when we clean up the pile. We find none.

And do discuss, RMackey, the access to debris removal by independent journalists, photographers, mainstream media, to document the removal of debris,etc. Or was access to debris removal controlled and the media's access limited if not outright prevented?

Quote:

The best we can do is quote-mine a few individuals, none of whom performed any tests, and at least two of whom (Leslie Robertson and Mike Loizeaux) have later confirmed they were quoted inaccurately.

Tests are required to prove melted steel, but not to disprove or prove the use of explosives? Ahh the hypocrisies of the debunk movement!

Source for inaccurate quotes about melted steel please?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

So CHF, you point out there are no tests results for the metal type, but tend to ignore there were no test results for explosives. Why the hypocritical approach in the use of scientific testing?

First of all, there was no reason to test for explosives because there was never, in the minds of rational people, any doubt that there were no explosives used to initiate the collapse. You only investigate that which you have good reason to believe may have been involved.

And any idot who even looks at the "meteorite" will know without a second glance that the metal was NOT melted, unless said idiot were afflicted with a personality disorder, like S. Jones of whacky old Judy. There is paper with legible writing on it, bits of identifiable carpeting and what appears to be melted plastic on the upper surface. The steel pans into which the concrete was poured are still clearly identifiable. The rebar sticking out of some of the concrete is still umistakeably identifiable.

Thus, those identifying it as a bolus of "once-molten metal" are clearly identifiable as vapid twits or outright liars.

[SDC]

"White Rose"?? Well, it was a conspiracy, and very brave, with a terrible fate. A little hyperbolic in the present situation to use that, I think. But whatever.

[leftysergeant]

I think that a lot of twoofers see themselves as the heirs of the White Rose legacy, but their goals are hardly consistant. As witness, the heavy reliance on the scribblings and rantings of AJ, Bollyn, Hufscmid and D.B Smith to support their delusions, and their occassional rantings, a la Kevin Barret as to how they would deal with those who doubt them, post revelation of Da Twoof.

Sounds more like something William Pierce would have endorsed.

[R.Mackey]

Back for more punishment, eh?

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

And praytell in an office fire would cause steel to melt?

Since the volume we're talking about is tiny, lots of things, and it need not have occurred in the fire. Local favorable chemical reactions, or surface chemistry. There's also friction of collapse or impact, or even signs of "melted steel" left over from construction. Steel that appears to have melted also may not have, read Lentini and McCarver. Also, our very own CrazyChainsaw has replicated dozens of plausible chemical mechanisms for tiny amounts of steel melting consistent with the WTC fires in his own experiments.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Source?

RJ Lee Group. The dust containing iron droplets was considered ordinary given the type of fire, and useful as a marker to distinguish this dust from others.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Source?

The values in between would depend upon the amount of material used to create the melted steel.

Now this is much more difficult, since nobody on your team has bothered to provide even a ROM estimate of the amount of thermite needed. Since it takes, ideally, at least 60 kg of thermite to heat one ton of steel to 700 degrees Celsius, the amounts of thermite needed to level the building are estimated in the 7 to 15 ton range at minimum. Counting the expected efficiency (or lack thereof) of thermite-steel coupling, this estimate is probably low by at least a factor of four. And that's just to cut one floor, not the whole structure.

If you can provide me with a lower-energy scenario, go right ahead.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

And do discuss, RMackey, the access to debris removal by independent journalists, photographers, mainstream media, to document the removal of debris,etc. Or was access to debris removal controlled and the media's access limited if not outright prevented?

Well-poisoning. I said there is no evidence. Even if the above was an accurate description, it would not provide evidence; at most it provides a feeble excuse for why there is no evidence. Not very useful.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Tests are required to prove melted steel, but not to disprove or prove the use of explosives? Ahh the hypocrisies of the debunk movement!

What a ridiculous thing to say, even for you.

NIST proved no explosives were needed.
Examination of the recovered steel proved that no failure mode was consistent with explosives.
No chemical residue test could possibly be applied anyway.
There has never been a plausible or even faintly possible theory advanced for planting of explosives. Therefore, there is nothing to debunk.

You guys claim explosives. You have to prove it. Now you claim melted steel. You have to prove that, too. There is no asymmetry here, just business as usual for the Truth Movement.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Source for inaccurate quotes about melted steel please?
Source for inaccurate quotes about melted steel please?

Leslie Robertson says he was misquoted as explained here, and Mike Loizeaux confirmed that he was misquoted in a telephone call from Ron Wieck, known to you as pomeroo.

Ask them yourself if you don't believe me.

That about does it for your argument. And in the future, please learn how to use the "quote" function properly. Thanks.

[Apollo20]

Leftysergeant:

If you believe this:

"There was no reason to test for explosives because there was never, in the minds of rational people, any doubt that there were no explosives used to initiate the collapse. You only investigate that which you have good reason to believe may have been involved."

Please tell my the basis for assuming there were no bombs on the aircraft.

Most rational people would assume that there might have been bombs on the aircraft.

Therefore a wise investigator WOULD look for explosive residues don't you think?

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Leftysergeant:

If you believe this:

"There was no reason to test for explosives because there was never, in the minds of rational people, any doubt that there were no explosives used to initiate the collapse. You only investigate that which you have good reason to believe may have been involved."

Please tell my the basis for assuming there were no bombs on the aircraft.

Most rational people would assume that there might have been bombs on the aircraft.

Therefore a wise investigator WOULD look for explosive residues don't you think?

Why would an explosive on the plane be something an investigator would look for? Can you explain how an explosive on the plane was responsible for the collapse. Account for the energy added by an explosive. Be extremely technical and don't make statements full of conjecture. Balls in your court...be careful you don't fumble as usual.

[Arus808]

im running into this with a toofer on the myspace forum.

he's claiming that the THERMITE was placed in the cutter charges which magically were attached to the covered core columns. as if the cutter charges wouldn't be enough


yes, when you tell them that thermite can't burn horizontally, they come up with even more asinine claims.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Arus808

im running into this with a toofer on the myspace forum.

he's claiming that the THERMITE was placed in the cutter charges which magically were attached to the covered core columns. as if the cutter charges wouldn't be enough


yes, when you tell them that thermite can't burn horizontally, they come up with even more asinine claims.

Thats when they haul out the magic nano-thermate.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Thats when they haul out the magic nano-thermate.

Thermate? No barium was found but the constituents of thermite were found so if they say thermate they are MAJORLY out of touch with reality. If they can show how thermite burns horizontally then they have to explain why the mechanism that held the thermite in place to burn horizontally wasn't found. Then they have a logistical nightmare so if they say thermite was used they aren't as guano as the thermate idiots but they are still guano.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Leftysergeant:

If you believe this:

"There was no reason to test for explosives because there was never, in the minds of rational people, any doubt that there were no explosives used to initiate the collapse. You only investigate that which you have good reason to believe may have been involved."

Please tell my the basis for assuming there were no bombs on the aircraft.

Most rational people would assume that there might have been bombs on the aircraft.

Therefore a wise investigator WOULD look for explosive residues don't you think?

What sort of explosives would have survived the Impact and subsequent fires? And what would you have tested? Steel from the impact site which had been exposed to the fire and would have shown clear marks if they had been blown up, or beams that were no where near the impact site and so wouldn't have had residue on them anyway. Add to that the difficulties in determining nitrates and over chemicals produced from exploisives, from those produced in the fires and piles.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Leslie Robertson says he was misquoted as explained here, and Mike Loizeaux confirmed that he was misquoted in a telephone call from Ron Wieck, known to you as pomeroo.

I'd suggest you actually mean:

...Mike Loizeaux confirmed in a telephone call from Ron Wieck, known to you as pomeroo, that he was misquoted.

Otherwise you are suggesting that Ron did the misquoting of what Mark said in their phonecall.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Thermate? No barium was found but the constituents of thermite were found so if they say thermate they are MAJORLY out of touch with reality. If they can show how thermite burns horizontally then they have to explain why the mechanism that held the thermite in place to burn horizontally wasn't found. Then they have a logistical nightmare so if they say thermite was used they aren't as guano as the thermate idiots but they are still guano.

But Magic nano-tantra-energized-thermate doesn't need Barium, and because it contains a trace of Cavorite, it falls sideways when it burns.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

So CHF, you point out there are no tests results for the metal type, but tend to ignore there were no test results for explosives. Why the hypocritical approach in the use of scientific testing?

Because you don't need tests for explosives. All you need is the eye of someone who knows what to look for which is otherwise called an engineer.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I'd suggest you actually mean:

...Mike Loizeaux confirmed in a telephone call from Ron Wieck, known to you as pomeroo, that he was misquoted.

Otherwise you are suggesting that Ron did the misquoting of what Mark said in their phonecall.

Y'all know what I mean.

Incidentally, the person who originally misquoted Mr. Loizeaux was none other than fugitive-from-justice Christopher Bollyn. So it is referenced in Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

Quite a thin case, these "molten steel" people have...

[leftysergeant]

Oh, where to start?

[quote]
Apollo20

Please tell me the basis for assuming there were no bombs on the aircraft...[quote]

No HE was detonated prior to, during or subsequent to impact. By the time the aircraft had gone half-way through the buildings, they were pretty well sliced and diced. This would also have had an undesireable effect on such delicate bomb-making components as batteries and radio recievers or timers or the wiring to the blasting caps.

The second strike, being the most widely-recorded of the two events, gives us the clearest images of what occurs when you jam an aircraft through a building. Refer to your favorite set of images if you wish, or need a visual aid to follow the reasoning of an old fire fighter.

What we see once the aircraft has largely passed through or come to rest inside the building is a cloud of aerosolized fuel on three sides of the building around the entry hole, the side of the building along which most of the parts of the aircraft passed, and the the cladding, office contents and and one engine exiting the other side through the cloud of fuel. If you watch closely, you will see that ignition of the fuel occurs after the engine has exited the building, (which was quite likely the primary source of ignition of the fuel cloud.) The fire in the fuel cloud actually travels from the exit back to the entry hole. At no time do we see much of anything other than burning fuel around the entry hole or the holes around the side where the fuel was forced out the windows. The fuel does not exit the windows with any particular energy, suggestive of a relatively soft over-pressurization of the interior of the building, which would not be consistant with any HE (other than, perhaps ANFO, which would be prohibitively difficult to use in these circumstances, just on the basis of volumn and weight.) Note, too, that the cladding and such move away from the building at pretty much the same speed as the expanding cloud of fuel vapor. The engine can be seen descending rather rapidly from the instant it leaves the building, as does most of the cladding which was below the cloud of fuel at the time it deflagrated. There is also a curtain of not-totally-aerosolized fuel seen falling from both the entry and exit holes, though most noticeably from the exit. This, too, follows pretty much the same trajectory upon leaving the building, but, because of its lesser ability to overcome air resistance, it loses momentum almost as soon as it is clear of the building. No solid objects are seen being ejected after the fuel deflagrates.

One can conclude, therefore, that there was no HE explosion on impact, and the fires make it highly unlikely that even pre-planted explosives would have functioned after more than a few minutes with any predictability of results.

I cannot really see, in light of these facts, why anybody would take seriously any possibility that it was done by bombs or demolition charges, any more than I could see cause to pursue whacky old Judy's discombobulator ray guns.

Quote:

Arus808

...thermite can't burn horizontally...

Er. let's not talk too much about this. I have actually made a horizontal thermite cut or two. Don't ask for the recipe here in a publicly-accessible venue. There are obviously people here who I would prefer did not know how it is done. Just know that it involves calcium sulphate.

Problem is that it leaves gobs of iron on the steel it cuts which would look nothing like the raggediest, hastiest torch cuts seen in any of the clean-up pictures.

Then there would be the logistics of applying the blocks of thermite entirely around each of the core columns. This would involve removing extensive areas of dry wall and duct taping the charges to the columns all the way around. Do you see how feasible this is to do surreptitisiously in a building where people will be walking about all over the place, and might notice that a wall was removed and rebuilt, re-painted and is now a few inches further into the common areas than it was a week ago?

Naturally, such charges could not be placed on any of the perimeter columns because they would produce a show of sparks and a light bright enough to be seen two miles away at noon in the Sahara on a summer day.

Quote:

~engima~

No barium was found...

Actually, Jones mentions finding quite a lot of it, and I remember seeing it listed somewhere else on a reputable site. This is good. It shows that whoever did the sampling was not omitting anything of significant.

Jones further describes barium as "nasty stuff."

The freaking twit! Barium is a major component of paint and some plastics. You fingers are probably resting on something containing barium as you read this. If the paint on the walls where you are is white, it probably contains barium.

And just imagine, Bollyn mis-quoting Loizeaux. A Nazi lied to the world? What are we coming to?

[Apollo20]

Forget the fireball....The south face of WTC 2 showed definite signs of an explosion associated with the aircraft impact.

A GOOD forensic scientist would do the explosive residue tests anyway.

In the 1993 WTC bombing the FBI looked for urea in sewage!

And one other point:

Nitrates are NOT the residues to look for if the explosive was TATP for example!

[BenBurch]

A20 - If the fireball hadn't been exactly the size one might expect from the amount of fuel on the aircraft, you might have a point. But it was. There is not additional energy to account for and hence no need whatsoever to even think about a bomb on the aircraft. EVEN if the hijackers had a small bomb to cow the passengers, an additional grenade or two is NOTHING in comparison to the energy of the whole aircraft and its fuel.

You're getting desperate, boy.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Actually, Jones mentions finding quite a lot of it, and I remember seeing it listed somewhere else on a reputable site. This is good. It shows that whoever did the sampling was not omitting anything of significant.

You are gonna have to show me something that shows Barium was found.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

You are gonna have to show me something that shows Barium was found.

Me too... Because he showed a spectrogram claiming he was showing us thermate and it had no Barium peak in it. None. It wasn't thermate. And he claims the sulfur in his readings HAD to come from Thermate, and claims that the vast amount of sulfur in the pulverized drywall could have had nothing whatsoever to do with that. Yeah, right. I have a bridge to sell you.

I'll say it right now; Jones is either a fraud or the worst scientist since Lysenko.