skyeagle409, on 28 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:
What do you suppose, "not molten" means?
Read it again....but very slowly....
“
A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on ‘how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new,
not molten and mangled and laden with debris.’” <...i.e. as in....
“Ironworkers’ Job of Clearing Ground Zero Is Over, but the Trauma Lingers,”
Do you get it?? He was eating his lunch looking at the new building, when one of them commented on how much easier it was to eat a sandwich here in front of the new steel, not the molten mangled and laden with debris at GZ. Which I think would have been much harder to eat a sandwich at, hence the job of cleaning GZ is over, but the trauma lingers on that he is reflecting on.
But this iron worker according to your logic is wrong and didn't see molten steel, he his wrong and everyone is wrong at GZ because a pantomime internet debunking warrior says so and is confiused himself that this evidence trumps the eyewitness accounts. Just because you say they are wrong is not evidence that all these people are wrong...lol...And I can't believe Pysche actually praises you, I really am struggling to see why.
skyeagle409, on 28 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:
Let's see! They said that after 7 weeks, some beams were pulled out of the wreckage and they were red hot after 7 weeks. Now, sit back and think for a minute. That means that since the beams were pulled out, simply means the steel beams were not in a molten state. Common sense logic, you understand! And since the beams were red hot, the steel beams were at temperatures far below the melting point of steel to be in a molten state.
Say Mr Metalworker with your 40 years of experience...Do you think that steel beams they pulled out which are red hot AFTER 7 WEEKS would have been hotter say a few weeks before...
Before 7 weeks of water colling it all down after pulling molten beams in the proceeding 7 weeks...or....do you believe after 7 weeks of water hosing and cooling it down and pulling molten aluminum out, that the debris fires were at it's peak temperature??
You know like this guy says...
“In the first few weeks,
sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,”
Common sense which appear to be on vacation Sky. lol
skyeagle409, on 28 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:
Let's make a short list from your links.
2000 degrees is below the melting point of steel.
1200 degrees is far below the melting point of steel. What have I said about fires reaching temperatures high enough to weaken the steel columns of the WTC buildings? What have I said about temperatures high enough to melt aluminum but not steel?
Steel being pulled six stories underground yet the steel is only cherry red, which simply means the temperature of the steel is far too low to melt steel.
You are not getting it are you, so let me explain.....lol
Do you think that the temperature would probably be at various temperatures at various places at various times, or that it was one uniformed temperature?? lol
The temperatures are nothing more than guesses, like this guy said.
The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.’” Yeah thats aluminum for ya!! lol
or
The fires got very intense down there and
actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.
Edited by Stundie, 28 February 2013 - 11:14 PM.
There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.