1648 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

...as not a single person who witnessed the molten metal refer to it as steel.......lol

Then, what's the argument?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

They are very important. Do you know why?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

If you are  going to post temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero, you have to provide the source and evidence because anything less just won't work.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 February 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

That's really pretty funny Sky.

Land based thermal imaging devices trained on the fires as they burned in the first hour showed remarkably low temperatures.  Way too low to melt steel and perhaps not hot enough to even weaken steel.

Office fires have been known to burn at temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. Was jet fuel responsible for the collapse of the steel columns of the Windsor building in Spain?

Quote

     11.3.2. At what temperature does a typical fire burn?


The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment depends on several factors including the amount and configuration of available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F.

http://www.aisc.org/...Qs.aspx?id=1996  

Not nearly high enough to melt steel, but high enough to weaken steel and melt aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 February 2013 - 05:30 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

The answer is: to see if have been paying attention and the fact you asked that question shows that you are not paying attention at all.

Oh I have been paying attention but you obviously have no idea why you brought up the Hudson River cause you have failed to point out the relevance of you mentioning it......lol

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

That doesn't work for you!

Oh it works fine sonshine. It doesn't work for you and your proving the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel...lol

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

I do not not know what molten steel would be doing at GZ if the building had collapsed from just the fires...lol

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

They were not trained to identify molten metal.

You do not need to be trained to identify molten girders/beams/steel. lol

And there were plenty of experts there capable of identifying it.

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

What they saw was aluminum, since  temperatures were  high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.

You do not know what they saw cause you wasn't at GZ and more importantly, your continuous assertion that the temperatures were not not high enough has been proven as a falsehood that you have fantasised into existence. lol

Edited by Stundie, 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

They are very important. Do you know why?

The graphs bear no relevance to the subject in hand and does not prove that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel. You posted them in a desperate attempt to prove you had a point, when you didn't and now you have egg on your face and look pathetic...lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

If you are  going to post temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero, you have to provide the source and evidence because anything less just won't work.

I never claimed I had the temperatures under the rubble because I knew that no measurements were taken.

You are the one who keeps persisting that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, it's your claim, you prove it. hahahahahahaha!!!

Don't try and switch it on me.

Just fess up and admit you drop a bollock! lol

[DONTEATUS]

Looks for nice soft pillow and Hot cup of Coffee to ponder the ponders ! Hard to believe that this thread is still Alive ?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Oh I have been paying attention...

No you haven't!

Quote

Oh it works fine sonshine. It doesn't work for you and your proving the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel...lol

Since no one provided evidence of molten steel nor the source, nor even temperature readings that reached the melting point of steel, what more is there to say? What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

Quote

I do not not know what molten steel would be doing at GZ if the building had collapsed from just the fires...lol

Then, what is the point of your argment?

Quote

You do not need to be trained to identify molten girders/beams/steel. lol

Answer this:  How would you identify molten aluminum that dripped over a steel column?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

I never claimed I had the temperatures under the rubble because I knew that no measurements were taken.

It has been posted that temperatures were in the range 2000 degrees and below, which once again, is not high enough to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 20 February 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Looks for nice soft pillow and Hot cup of Coffee to ponder the ponders ! Hard to believe that this thread is still Alive ?

Yes indeed, it hard to believe. What I find peculiar is why conspiracist claim that molten steel at ground zero was evidence of thermite! Thermite does not leave behind molten steel after a short time much less over a period of days. Someone who didn't know what they were talking about concocted a conspiracy out of pure ignorance and there was those who took the bait and ran off with it.

After clean-up workers cut steel columns with torches at ground zero, photos were taken of those columns and amazingly, conspiracist saw the photos and falsely claimed the steel columns were cut by thermite.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

No you haven't!

Well obviously I haven't understood why you mentioned the Hudson River, but I understand why you refuse to explain it's relevance....because as per usual, it was another pointless point.

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Since no one provided evidence of molten steel nor the source, nor even temperature readings that reached the melting point of steel, what more is there to say?

Evidence of molten steel? You mean multiple eyewitnesses are not evidence?? hahahahahahaha!!

The source of the molten steel is obvious from the eyewitness accounts...the rubblt.

And again, you are repeating a falsehood that you have hallucinated into existence that the the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though there are no recorded temperatures of the heat under the rubble.

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

I'm not sure what it would be doing there if fires caused the towers to collapse?? lol

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Then, what is the point of your argment?

The point is that you do not know better than those at GZ and they said the molten metal was steel.

Therefore your claims are bunk!

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Answer this:  How would you identify molten aluminum that dripped over a steel column?

Wait for it too cool down and identify it or if I wasn't sure, do some very simple tests that a high school child could do but a guy with 40 years experience couldn't handle...lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

It has been posted that temperatures were in the range 2000 degrees and below, which once again, is not high enough to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

No, what you have posted does not support your argument because you do not have temperatures from under the rubble, making your whole claim absurd to the point where you posted 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the temperatures in the rubble....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Well obviously I haven't understood why you mentioned the Hudson River, but I understand why you refuse to explain it's relevance....because as per usual, it was another pointless point.
Evidence of molten steel? You mean multiple eyewitnesses are not evidence?? hahahahahahaha!!

The source of the molten steel is obvious from the eyewitness accounts...the rubblt.

And again, you are repeating a falsehood that you have hallucinated into existence that the the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel,..

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel, so where is your proof that they were?

Quote

I'm not sure what it would be doing there if fires caused the towers to collapse??

Then, what is the point of your argument?

Quote

The point is that you do not know better than those at GZ and they said the molten metal was steel

Simple common sense and the laws of physics is all that is needed to make a determination. Since it has beens shown that temperatures were far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was not steel, but aluminum.

Were you aware that Richard Gage and Steven Jones are not considered credible?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

No, what you have posted does not support your argument...

On the contrary, show us readings that placed temperatures over 2000 degrees. On another note:

Quote

A Dangerous Worksite

"Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity. Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble.

Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion."  OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration 2003-11-01 - A Dangerous Worksite The World Trade Center

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2013 - 07:03 PM.