So, is paper, wood and kerosene the only....

[wildbilln864]

alternatives they can come up with for molten metal weeks after the WTC collapses? Why then doesn't my woodstove or charcoal grill collapse? :shrug:

[hack89]

1. Instead of the circular logic

Why don't you simply lay out a reasonable mechanism for thermite to produce the molten metal? A good place to start is to explain whether the molten metal is the by product of the thermite reaction or is structural steel that was melted by thermite.

As for your wood stove, if it was made of aluminum and you exposed it to 1000 C fires for days, it too would melt.

[wildbilln864]

2. point one....

give a reasonable mechanism? Not my responsibility!
And point 2?
But the towers were steel and it melts at 2800 degrees F. whereas your 1000 degrees c is only 1832 degrees F! 1000 degrees F. well below the required temperature! Sorry, try again!
:eyes:

[hack89]

3. If you can't explain how thermite ..

created the molten metal then how can the molten metal be proof of thermite?

What was the entire outside of the WTC clad with? Aluminum perhaps? And how about all the non-structural aluminum commonly found in office spaces? There was plenty of aluminum in that rubble pile and it melts at 660 C. Now you you show me where anyone positively identifies the molten metal as steel.

On edit: there were 4 million pounds of aluminum cladding per tower.

[mhatrw]

12. Thermite melts steel.

Hydrocarbon fires do not.

[Daveparts]

19. Molten Aluminum

would not stay hot for days let alone weeks
Aluminum disapates heat quickly.

[wildbilln864]

20. and I'd like to add that...

all those interconnected steel framing members would have wicked away the heat from the firey areas and no way could the steel get hot enough to melt. Something else caused the heat but what!? :shrug:

[G Hawes]

4. Molten metal

does not mean molten steel, and your own initial post says molten metal, not molten steel, and you cannot claim that the molten metal at the scene was steel, so why move the goalposts?

[rman]

5. Surely you realize steel is a type of metal

I sure can claim that the molten metal was at least in part iron, which is a component of steel.
No goal posts were moved.

Where do you think all that molten metal came from?

How does the government's official theory explain it?

[hack89]

6. How can you claim it was partially iron?

based on what analysis? Why are you ignoring the 8 million pounds of aluminum cladding the WTC was sheathed with?

[wildbilln864]

7. yes you are correct...

but I'd suspect that if it were molten aluminum, then the reports would have said molten aluminum as molten aluminum looks shiny like molten solder. Pictures I have seen from the cleanup process show orange and yellow glowing metal. That's surely steel IMO. What's yours?
Why assume it's molten aluminum? :shrug: Weren there experts there who'd have known the difference between molten aluminum and iron/steel/titanium, etc, etc? I submit it was not aluminum flowing from the building in that famous photo.
So let's have an investigation and see! Write your congressman and demand it! Or continue to aid with the coverup whatever the motivation for the coverup, IMO!

[hack89]

8. Couple of things...

1. Pure molten aluminum is bright but do you really think it it was pure? Think of all the contaminants that were mixed in with it - soot, dust, plastics, concrete, etc. You can tell nothing from the color.

2. If the pile was hot enough to melt steel then doesn't logic dictate that there would be molten aluminum since it has a lower melting temperature? Are you arguing the steel was molten while the aluminum was not?

3. The metal flowing from the building was Alloy 2024 - the stuff airplanes are made out of. It melts at 935 F.

[wildbilln864]

10. another list!?

1. Wrong. You can tell plenty from the color!
2. Only if aluminum was present at the heat source!
3. Said who? You? Any evidence? :shrug: Any credibility?

[hack89]

11. Why not?

1. Are you really saying that there were no contaminants mixed in? OK. Too bad you have no pictures to prove anything.

2. The entire rubble pile was measured as having surface temperatures of 1000 C. The surface temperatures were 700 - 800 C a couple of weeks later. Care to explain how any aluminum in the rubble pile was not exposed to temperatures hot enough to melt it?

3. I have as much credibility as you. But here is another chance to explain it to me - was the molten metal the by product of the thermite reaction or was it structural metal being melted? I have asked this basic question a couple of times yet no one seems able to answer it. If you can't answer fundamental questions about the characteristics of thermite, why am I to believe you have any credibility on the matter?

[wildbilln864]

13. you have no reason to

believe I have any credibility whatsoever, yet you reply.

In the pictures we see steel heated to a yellowish orange color. Any aluminum would have turned to liquid by then. And would appear as silvery molten aluminum. The steel, and iron would be orange as in the pictures. Keep in mind that this is long after the collapses. I can only guess that the steel was buried and very insulated in order for it to retain the heat for this long. :shrug:

There were even reports of evaporated steel after the cleanup. Is this true as reported by the NEW York Times? :shrug:
If it is true, how do you explain that?

[hack89]

14. Care to answer my questions?

I understand why you wouldn't.

By evaporated steel I assume you mean the sulfidation corrosion that was reported? It is easy - a nasty mixture of prolonged heat with lots of sulfur and other chemicals. I remind you that despite repeated requests no one has every shown how thermate could cause this effect.

[wildbilln864]

15. I did in another thread.

Guess you missed it. Don't assume so much. By evaporated steel I mean evaporated steel!

snip/
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

[hack89]

16. But since thermite doesn't evaporate steel

as proven by the well known photos of the columns neatly cut at 45 degree angles, I guess we have a mystery.

BTW, do you agree with the general tone of the entire article? If so, you are certainly moving closer to the truth.

[wildbilln864]

17. but how do you know...

it doesn't? :shrug:

[hack89]

18. Well,

isn't there photographic evidence of the effect of thermite on steel columns?

It would be highly unlikely - wouldn't thermite burn off before the steel was hot enough to melt completely? And how would the steel not in contact with the thermite get hot enough to melt? I could understand localized melting but entire beams? Are you saying that they slathered entire beams with thermite?

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Just add natural gas

and you can have yourself quite a nice barbecue.