Giving this one more go.... molten metal

reply to post by bsbray11


No, you can analyze the details, however keeping in mind that they are all interconnected to fit the bigger picture of what is going on. THAT is what you are failing to understand. But if its too complicated for you to understand something like this, I really question your technical skills. Especially if you are going into something like electronics engineering.

This is as if you were taking apart a car, and then questioning how every single piece, scrap, shred of it manages to make the car run. That is what you are doing. Bah, what is this metal rod? How does this help the car run? It doesnt burn fuel so its useless. Whats this? A hose? For what? This hose wont do much for the fuel or the engine. What about these? Brackets? Pssh. Yeah thats gonna help power the car. A piston? How is this going to work in running the car? Is it going to help it turn? Stop? No? Well its worthless too. All these parts by themselves have no bearing on having a car run properly. So no, according this, the car is not suppose to be able to run with such random parts in it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
No, you can analyze the details, however keeping in mind that they are all interconnected to fit the bigger picture of what is going on. THAT is what you are failing to understand.

No, YOU are failing to understand that you can't change the meaning of the individual facts in order to paint whatever "bigger picture" you would like to see.

You can't deny your theories about the pile are contradicted by the actual facts, just to save your fairy tale of a "bigger picture" from being destroyed by the same facts.

The whole and only reason you believe all the nonsense you do is exactly because you have enforced a psychological policy of making every single minute detail fit with the over-all story that you were fed by the media and government since 9/11. If you looked at the individual facts separately and objectively all on their own, and let whatever picture emerge that the facts themselves indicate, you would be arguing with the facts themselves about destroying your delicate "bigger picture."

There was no fire until hot steel was exposed to oxygen. The heat was all there instantly after the collapse, and 5 days later the surface temperatures alone on the pile were still equivalent to the maximum temperatures possible for steel heated by office fires, even after having so much cold water dumped on it and being exposed to the cool air.

You wouldn't make it in the classes I take, so stop whining about how I wouldn't make it. I am making it. I've designed and built my own radios from scratch, among other things you probably have never even heard of, and passed all my electronics classes, and can analyze series-parallel AC circuits, inductance, capacitance, transient functions and all. Not to brag but you really do talk a lot of crap for someone who has demonstrated what credibility again...?


At least I can accept the facts for what they are, and don't have to twist and distort the details in my head to force them to conform to a larger outlook that is completely wrong. I never said there was molten steel and no fire until the molten steel was exposed to oxygen; the clean-up workers and others working with them did. That's not something I can change. You can't change it either. All you can do is accept what they said, short of being able to refute it, which you haven't been able to at all. Just excuse after excuse, a lot of talking crap, and a lot of throwing around arrogant remarks like you would know something that you really wouldn't.

reply to post by bsbray11


What you call flame is black body emission in the visible region of hot particles, such as C2+. The gases produced in oxygen starved fires are flammable and those hot gases and other hot carbonaceous materials, will burst into flame when exposed to air.
When underground, partial combustion may not show much flame because the rate of volatilization is low. [It's also underground and tough to see unless someone is in there with it.] Try blowing on embers and describe what you see. Bank a fire and then uncover it and describe what you see. These materials are burning without visible flame or they would go out and cool. Iron can burn, as GenRadek mentioned, and burning metals are common in catalyst labs. The banked fires and embers in the WTC rubble didn't go out, as your own referenced map shows. The hot spots changed position as though fires were burning and depleting some fuel supplies and spreading to others. There is no other explanation.
There is evidence of underground fire, witnesses to underground fire, and all the conditions for underground fire.
Maybe you can fnd some no-planers to help you out with your arguments.

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call flame is black body emission in the visible region of hot particles, such as C2+. The gases produced in oxygen starved fires are flammable and those hot gases and other hot carbonaceous materials, will burst into flame when exposed to air.
When underground, partial combustion may not show much flame because the rate of volatilization is low.

"Partial combustion" would mean the combustion rate is also slower and head would be produced less quickly.

Fires that are smothered and don't have a good supply of oxygen are not going to roast a massive amount of steel and keep it at 700C for five days (just on the surface -- nevermind the temperatures underneath, where so many people testified to seeing molten steel flowing) while thousands of gallons of water are being poured on. It would be exactly like a smoldering camp fire. Not much heat at all compared to an open fire and losing heat as time goes on from lack of combustion and entropy. Your biggest problem is that you know more big words than you have the common sense to handle.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Partial combustion" would mean the combustion rate is also slower and head would be produced less quickly.

Fires that are smothered and don't have a good supply of oxygen are not going to roast a massive amount of steel and keep it at 700C for five days (just on the surface -- nevermind the temperatures underneath, where so many people testified to seeing molten steel flowing) while thousands of gallons of water are being poured on. It would be exactly like a smoldering camp fire. Not much heat at all compared to an open fire and losing heat as time goes on from lack of combustion and entropy. Your biggest problem is that you know more big words than you have the common sense to handle.

Yes, less heat is produced but, because the fire is insulated, much less heat is dissipated. That is a point you have been missing or don't want to admit. With hot spots migrating and smoke continually rising from the ruins, try some of your common sense and suggest a heat source that would do that.
Fill in the rest of the common sense phrase: "Where there's smoke........" You can do it; we'll help if you get stuck.

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is no way to deny the underground fires? What do you think I'm doing right now?

You're doing what every other truther does when their cognitive dissonance kicks in to try and save their delusional views. By trying to change the subject away from the current subject of underground fires back to the claims of molten steel again..

We all notice that rather than admit that there are indeed first responders who saw underground fires, and FDNY fire chiefs that are quoted about the state of the under pile fires, your denial and cognitive dissonance allows you to smoothly slide back into the whole steel thing again.

You have yet to debunk the firefighters, clean-up workers and geologists who said.......that fire did not exist until the already-heated material was exposed to air. All you are doing is telling me I'm wrong over and over without touching the reasons YOU are wrong that I am giving you.

I gave you quotes about eyewitnesses to underground fires.

So while the first responder's statements aren't debunked, your typical-for-a-truther poor research skills and cherry picking certainly is.

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, less heat is produced but, because the fire is insulated, much less heat is dissipated.

That doesn't explain why temperatures on the surface of the pile, exposed to cool air and thousands of gallons of cold water, is still right at the maximum temperatures open atmosphere fires are capable of heating steel. 700C after 5 days of water-pouring and September temperatures in NY. That is not just smoldering. Again, you lack common sense here.


Look up the Cardington tests again. Look at the maximum temperatures they produced with a controlled and high-powered fire, again much smaller cross-sections of steel, and how quickly the steel cooled right back off after the heat was no longer being applied.

Rapid rusting on an unprecedented scale causing the steel to heat 100's of degrees C even while being doused with cold air and water the entire time? Extraordinary claims require.... Naturally-occurring blast furnace? No evidence for that either. You don't see that you don't know what was actually causing this, and that your guesses are awful and make no sense, and have no scientific verification whatsoever? Why don't you save your ridiculous armchair guesses, stay in school, and just wait until someone that knows what they're doing actually does further study? That's actually all I'm telling you, and it's the rational mentality. Not pulling 100 different irrational excuses out of your ass because you can't take stand the idea that you don't know something about 9/11.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're doing what every other truther does when their cognitive dissonance kicks in to try and save their delusional views. By trying to change the subject away from the current subject of underground fires back to the claims of molten steel again..

Keep the rants to yourself Joey. Until you finally have proof of what was causing so much lingering heat and not a bunch of high schooler guesswork, I don't need your armchair psychology either.


Edit to add, your credibility is already so shot to me with all the immature trolling I've seen from you in the past when pushed to uncomfortable information, like when you were "debating" Valhall, a professional engineer, you really don't need to bother posting to me at all. If I stop responding to you completely, it's not because you "win" anything, it's because you are not even worth responding to so many damned times over and over every day. You can post what you want.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Until you finally have proof of what was causing so much lingering heat

I've provided multiple quotes of eyewitnesses to the underground fires. And how they lingered for as much as 12 weeks. That proves that your earlier statement is debunked thoroughly.

Most people will accept that this proof of lingering underground fires is proof that the fires are the source of the lingering heat.

Since nobody knows to what standards you want for this proof to be, it is impossible to know what it is until you have stated it.

So, what kind of proof are you, personally, looking for?

A technical paper documenting this?

Or will common sense prevail here, and will you admit that the fires were responsible for the lingering heat?

reply to post by bsbray11


So bsbray, explain how these can happen:

Coal Seam Fires

A coal seam fire or mine fire is the underground smouldering of a coal deposit, often in a coal mine. Such fires have economic, social and ecological impacts. They are often started by lightning, grass, or forest fires, and are particularly insidious because they continue to smoulder underground after surface fires have been extinguished, sometimes for many years, before flaring up and restarting forest and brush fires nearby. They propagate in a creeping fashion along mine shafts and cracks in geologic structures.

Coal fires are a serious problem because hazards to health and safety and the environment include toxic fumes, reigniting grass, brush, or forest fires, and subsidence of surface infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, electric lines, bridge supports, buildings and homes. Whether started by humans or by natural causes, coal seam fires continue to burn for decades or even centuries until either the fuel source is exhausted; a permanent groundwater table is encountered; the depth of the burn becomes greater than the ground’s capacity to subside and vent; or humans intervene. Because they burn underground, coal seam fires are extremely difficult and costly to extinguish, and are unlikely to be suppressed by rainfall.[1] There are strong similarities between coal fires and peat fires.

A fire underground in a coal seam? Gee how the hell can oxygen get down there to allow it to smolder for so long? I mean damn, if a little ol fire cant continue in a debris pile from two 110 floor buildings, with each floor an acre in size, which collapsed down, burying burning materials, then how the hell can a fire smolder for decades in a coal seam? I mean come on, apparently the WTC debris pile was airtight, (according to you), so then how can air get down deep deep deeeeeeep into the ground to allow it to burn coal for so long? I mean if cant happen at the WTC debris pile, then dammit it cant happen anywhere else either in such conditions. Must be magic thermite causing those coal seams to stay so hot and burning for so long underground too eh? Thats gotta be it!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Until you finally have proof of what was causing so much lingering heat

I've provided multiple quotes of eyewitnesses to the underground fires. And how they lingered for as much as 12 weeks. That proves that your earlier statement is debunked thoroughly.

No, it doesn't. You are saying the underground fire is what caused all the steel to remain at 700C in huge areas on the surface of the pile alone, which is having water dumped on it for 5 days straight. You have provided NO evidence of this at all. Lingering fire in patches here and there would be expected if there was molten steel, but if the fire itself is what heated all the steel in the first place, then there would have to be massively, massively intense fires blasting up through the pile, and there WEREN'T. They were oxygen-starved and flames shot up from the already extremely-hot steel.

The clean-up workers clearly state, the steel is already extremely hot, even molten, with no fire, until this steel is exposed to oxygen, and then fire breaks out just from the extreme heat of the steel itself. That is NOT fire heating the steel!! That is extremely hot steel creating fire when exposed to oxygen. Why is the steel hot in the first place when there is no fire in the same place beforehand? These excuses are awful. You are basically saying the tail was wagging the dog.

reply to post by GenRadek


It's not my job to explain anything. I'm asking questions. Either you provide answers and provide the evidence/proof along with them, or don't bother responding at all. Because if you don't know, and I don't know, then we are both left with unaddressed issues.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are saying the underground fire is what caused all the steel to remain at 700C in huge areas on the surface of the pile alone
, which is having water dumped on it for 5 days straight. You have provided NO evidence of this at all.

Like I said, to most people, it does. Your standards are still shrouded in the mist though, so I find it impossible to know what will get you to agree to common sense. So you can claim victory if you wish on this point.

However, I provided a debunking of your statement that there weren't any underground fires though, with first hand quotes.

And a debunking of your statement that there was zero oxygen due to there being no airflow into the piles in 2 ways:

1- that smoke was rising from the piles, which means that air was going into the piles at the same rate.

2- that injecting an inert gas - nitrogen - was considered but rejected since it was too porous to be effective.

These 2 points are true and not debateable.

but if the fire itself is what heated all the steel in the first place, then there would have to be massively, massively intense fires blasting up through the pile, and there WEREN'T.

I find it ironic that you make claims like this, after you've complained about my not proving to you that the underground fires couldn't be responsible for the temps.

Several of us provided you with information that could be used to determine if our statements are true.

You, OTOH, have nothing to provide backup to this. Your proof here seems to be nothing but a bare assertion and incredulity. That is undeniable also.

The clean-up workers clearly state, the steel is already extremely hot, even molten, with no fire, until this steel is exposed to oxygen, and then fire breaks out just from the extreme heat of the steel itself.

Think about that for a second. What "breaks out" when exposed to air? Certainly NOT the steel itself. But the fuels present. And presumably, it didn't ALL get pulled out with whatever piece was being pulled from the rubble, but stayed behind. Now common sense says that since it is demonstrated, by you too, that it is hot enough for that stuff to produce flames when given ample air, that it also not any great stretch to understand that this material was smoldering beforehand.

That is NOT fire heating the steel!!

Agree that there wouldn't be open flames evrywhere, but Pteridine showed you what kind of heat that slow combustion produced. And if you're gonns argue that there was limited air, it must also be true that there would limited heat loss to the atmosphere. Again, undeniable.

That is extremely hot steel creating fire when exposed to oxygen. Why is the steel hot in the first place when there is no fire in the same place beforehand?

And the cross argument is that you are simply wrong about that, and have been given information to inform yourself.

Your choice as to what to do with it.

While this thread continues to move along, I'm still thinking of Occam's Razor that I posted about earlier. Numerous, credible witnesses saw the molten steel and ID'd it as molten steel. That should be the end of discussion on the molten steel topic.

But no, the debunkers are trying anything and everything under the sun to explain away the molten steel, up to and including calling the images fake and all of the witnesses mistaken. Exactly like the no-planers call the images of planes fake and all the witnesses who saw planes are mistaken. All against Occam's Razor.

What's even more sad is the continual discrediting of our 9/11 heroes by debunkers (and no-planers alike). It's far more likely and easier to admit that there was molten steel at the WTC as that's what numerous witnesses said they saw.

It is hard to comprehend the type of person it takes to accuse our 9/11 heroes, and basically all firefighters in general, of not having the knowledge or training to recognize the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.

I will trust trained firefighting professionals to give me an idea of what happened at the WTC, over any anonymous person on a conspiracy forum, any day of the week.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
While this thread continues to move along, I'm still thinking of Occam's Razor that I posted about earlier. Numerous, credible witnesses saw the molten steel and ID'd it as molten steel. That should be the end of discussion on the molten steel topic.

The end of the discussion took place years ago.

There is no positive evidence of molten steel. There was no positive identification of molten steel. There were no recorded temperatures high enough to melt steel.

The claim of "molten steel" is dead and buried. Move on.

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no positive evidence of molten steel.

I'm not sure why you purposely ignore what others post, but I posted the three types of evidence earlier in this thread and other threads. Witness testimony is evidence. When multiple witnesses testify to the same exact thing, that gives even more credibility to what was witnessed.

Therefore, there was molten steel as seen by numerous witnesses. That means there is evidence of molten steel. Anything else to the contrary is opinion, denial, and disinformation.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


" When multiple witnesses testify to the same exact thing, that gives even more credibility to what was witnessed. "

To the contrary , when multiple witnesses testify to the EXACT same thing , a good investigator normally smells something fishy .

Ask any LEO ., you take statements from ten different witnesses , you will get multiple accounts of what happened .

So , your statement does not lend credibility to claims of anything .

Originally posted by okbmd
To the contrary , when multiple witnesses testify to the EXACT same thing , a good investigator normally smells something fishy .

You're playing BS semantic word games and nobody is going to fall for it. Multiple witnesses saw molten steel (exact same thing), therefore, there was molten steel.

Just like if multiple witnesses saw the same person stab somebody (exact same thing), then that person did stab somebody. Got it?

Originally posted by bsbray11

That doesn't explain why temperatures on the surface of the pile, exposed to cool air and thousands of gallons of cold water, is still right at the maximum temperatures open atmosphere fires are capable of heating steel. 700C after 5 days of water-pouring and September temperatures in NY. That is not just smoldering. Again, you lack common sense here.

You don't see that you don't know what was actually causing this, and that your guesses are awful and make no sense, and have no scientific verification whatsoever? Why don't you save your ridiculous armchair guesses, stay in school, and just wait until someone that knows what they're doing actually does further study? That's actually all I'm telling you, and it's the rational mentality. Not pulling 100 different irrational excuses out of your ass because you can't take stand the idea that you don't know something about 9/11.

The high temperature of the rubble is the result of the fires beneath. The fires are not open atmosphere fires, so the temperature limits you like to quote are irrelevant. They are quite a bit more than smoldering, they are partial combustion. Underground fires are among the most difficult to extinguish. Water doesn't do much if it can't reach the fires. What does your common sense tell you about underground fires? It is not likely that your common sense would tell you that a jet engine would be used to extinguish a mine fire.
The existence of underground fires is not a guess and fires have been verified. You are an armchair wannabe scientist, BS, and have no clue how science is done. You assume that you understand things based on extrapolation of a few basic science courses and call it "common sense." Your lack of knowledge and experience is telling and your counterattacks are feeble, at best.
The heat was caused by underground fires.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


How many of your witnesses tested this 'molten' material to verify that it was indeed STEEL ?

Copper , aluminum , glass , plastics ? Are any of these materials capable of existing in a 'molten' state ?

You have already said you don't believe there was thermite/thermate involved , so what would you suggest there was that melted this 'steel' ?

Conventional explosives melt steel now ?