Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
I would like to hear the theories as to how magically molten metal steel showed up where WTC 7 collapsed if said building had collapsed from fire and structral damage.
Also I would like answers for this question too, but please I would prefer anyone who disagrees with the Controlled Demolition hypothesis to answer both questions, but here it is; How were ground zero and the WTC 7 remains so hot that they left molten metal steel for six weeks, that is a whole month and a half after 9/11?
Please don't debate the exsitance of the molten metal steel or the time it remained because it is very easy to provide multiple mainstream articles that documented this. One article I read had a person from Controlled Demolition inc, yes a company called Controlled Demoltion did the clean-up, said that ground zero had to be atleast 1600 degrees and that if you walked on it with steel toed boots that the rubber would melt after a little while, but how does a fire maintain life for 6 weeks without anything feeding it? _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
InfoWarrior wrote:
I would like to hear the theories as to how magically molten metal steel showed up where WTC 7 collapsed if said building had collapsed from fire and structral damage.
Also I would like answers for this question too, but please I would prefer anyone who disagrees with the Controlled Demolition hypothesis to answer both questions, but here it is; How were ground zero and the WTC 7 remains so hot that they left molten metal steel for six weeks, that is a whole month and a half after 9/11?
Please don't debate the exsitance of the molten metal steel or the time it remained because it is very easy to provide multiple mainstream articles that documented this. One article I read had a person from Controlled Demolition inc, yes a company called Controlled Demoltion did the clean-up, said that ground zero had to be atleast 1600 degrees and that if you walked on it with steel toed boots that the rubber would melt after a little while, but how does a fire maintain life for 6 weeks without anything feeding it?
The thing about it is InfoWarrior, that the theories game is really just a trap for the unwary.
There are people who say it might be due to unreacted thermite burning away, others propose natural blast furnaces somehow forming in the dust
and other less conventional forms of heat generation.
But the problem with theories is that no matter how elegant they may at first appear, it only takes one awkward fact to blow them out of the water.
Disinfo types love to invite you to play the theory game for this very reason.
However a much better approach is to gather all the evidence and then allow those who are competent to devise a working hypothesis that takes all the facts into account.
Rather the opposite to the approach taken by the official investigations.
Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: I have more questions, but these never get answered
You make a good point about all the facts. I agree that they should always look at all the facts. Like how the FEMA or the NIST, I can't remember which, which leaves out the 47 central steel reinforced support coloums. It might even be left out in both. The reason I ask these questions are because they are central to understand what tempature ground zero and the WTC 7 remains were at. _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: Hopefully this covers alot more, if my first questions didnt
It should be very easy to explain the collapse of a building. NIST has had 5 reasons for WTC 7, and still can't explain how it collapsed in 5 years. the FEMA report leaves out the 47 central steel reinforced support coloums in the Twin Towers. The 9/11 Commission won't try to look into the government involvement or the money trail leading to Atta, and they are being called indapendent being appointed by George Bush. Also If you want me to ask questions why did NORAD stand down? Why did Buzzy Krongard, number three in the CIA, have put options on United and American Airlines on 9/11? Why did Bush sign the presidential order W199i, that made it illegal for FBI agents to pursue terrorist investigations like Able Danger which could have stopped 4 of the hijackers including the lead hijacker Atta? Why did Bin Laden meet with a CIA cheif in Dubai at a military hospital while he was on the top 10 for the FBI? How did each tower's 47 central steel reinforced coloums fail? Why did William Rodriguez hear and feel a explosion underneath him before the first plane hit? Also William Rodriguez's story can be confirmed by 16 witnesses. I only put theory because alot of people on the internet call you a theorist nut if you write anything about 9/11 being an inside job. So I put theory for everyone who doesn't think that a controlled demolition caused all the molten metal steel. Really it doesn't matter if you call your answer FACT or THEORY, I just wan't to know what you think caused the molten metal steel, if you don't believe the WTC buildings where brought down by controlled demolitions. _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully this covers alot more, if my first questions d
InfoWarrior wrote:
It should be very easy to explain the collapse of a building. NIST has had 5 reasons for WTC 7, and still can't explain how it collapsed in 5 years. the FEMA report leaves out the 47 central steel reinforced support coloums in the Twin Towers. The 9/11 Commission won't try to look into the government involvement or the money trail leading to Atta, and they are being called indapendent being appointed by George Bush. Also If you want me to ask questions why did NORAD stand down? Why did Buzzy Krongard, number three in the CIA, have put options on United and American Airlines on 9/11? Why did Bush sign the presidential order W199i, that made it illegal for FBI agents to pursue terrorist investigations like Able Danger which could have stopped 4 of the hijackers including the lead hijacker Atta? Why did Bin Laden meet with a CIA cheif in Dubai at a military hospital while he was on the top 10 for the FBI? How did each towers 47 central steel reinforced coloums fail? Why did William Rodriguez hear and feel a explosion underneath him before the first plane hit? Also William Rodriguez's story can be confirmed by 16 witnesses. I only put theory because alot of people on the internet call you a theorist nut if you write anything about 9/11 being an inside job.
and this one by Webster Tarpley (or alternatively get a copy of his book
Synthetic Terror). He does one of the best available jobs of tying those threads you mention together.
(Hint: if you have a slow internet connection, pause the video(s) and let the progress bar fill up a little - a temporary file will continue downloading while paused)
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
chek wrote:
However a much better approach is to gather all the evidence and then allow those who are competent to devise a working hypothesis that takes all the facts into account.
Rather the opposite to the approach taken by the official investigations.
Good point chek.
I've only been a 911 Investigator for a few months and I did quite a lot of speculative thing for the first couple of month. I've learned that real evidence speaks for it's self and there no need to speculate. Of course some evidence is better than others but hundreds of thousands of people all working towards a common goal means if the evidence exists it will be found.
Scientific theories aren't speculation in my book as even NIST FEMA etc use them to explain the phenomena of the twin towers collapse.
I recently read this article(relates to the collapse of the towers and not molten metal) and found it to be very compelling “scientific evidence” even though some would call it a theory: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering wrote:
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c1
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Patrick Brown wrote:
chek wrote:
However a much better approach is to gather all the evidence and then allow those who are competent to devise a working hypothesis that takes all the facts into account.
Rather the opposite to the approach taken by the official investigations.
Good point chek.
I've only been a 911 Investigator for a few months and I did quite a lot of speculative thing for the first couple of month. I've learned that real evidence speaks for it's self and there no need to speculate. Of course some evidence is better than others but hundreds of thousands of people all working towards a common goal means if the evidence exists it will be found.
Scientific theories aren't speculation in my book as even NIST FEMA etc use them to explain the phenomena of the twin towers collapse.
I recently read this article(relates to the collapse of the towers and not molten metal) and found it to be very compelling “scientific evidence” even though some would call it a theory: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering wrote:
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c1
It's a phase we all go through at first when on closer examination the official conspiracy appears so blatantly false for so many reasons!
And don't get me wrong! Evidence is good!
Speculation is also good, but only as a means to formulating a theory, which should in turn always be considered expendable in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Excuse me pasting this from my blog from a while back, but it basically states my view of the empowering position we as citizens find ourselves in for possibly the first time in history.
"But over and above that, the evidence for disputing the Official 911
Story - and its resulting aftermath of foreign wars, domestic
control, invasion of privacy, detainment at will, rendition,
torture, corruption, cronyism, embezzlement and the whole ugly and
global mess - would not have been available without the thousands
of digital photos, movies and recordings made on the day by hundreds
of ordinary people and emergency service workers who happened to be
there at the time with the means to record events as they happened.
With common access to the internet to share all that information
with anyone anywhere in the world who is interested
(and many millions of people nationally and internationally are
still very interested), the net enabled many of those ordinary
citizen's images, reports and articles to be seen, disseminated,
compared and analysed to demolish the fabricated though plausible-
sounding fictions we were led to believe initially.
And resources such as http:\\www.complete911timeline.org
(which collates and orders stories already in the mainstream media,
but usually buried) would not have connected the dots in exposing
what still may be the boldest act of tyranny in modern times.
It's not over yet.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
InfoWarrior wrote:
Please don't debate the exsitance of the molten metal steel or the time it remained because it is very easy to provide multiple mainstream articles that documented this.
It's amazing how delusional you people can become.Despite the fact that _no_ evidence whatsoever exists that the molten metal found was actually molten steel, you guys are still clinging to this belief that there was molten steel because one or two eye witnesses claim to have seen molten "steel".
Again, and let me repeat, there is absolutely no evidence, at all, that steel ever melted. Zero. None. Metal, yes, steel no. Understand?
This silly myth is never going to die among the uninformed, I fear. Just like the "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" myth.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully this covers alot more, if my first questions d
InfoWarrior wrote:
It should be very easy to explain the collapse of a building. NIST has had 5 reasons for WTC 7, and still can't explain how it collapsed in 5 years.
NIST hasn't been working on the explaination for 5 years. How long do you _THINK_ the investiation into WTC7, done by professional, should take?
Quote:
the FEMA report leaves out the 47 central steel reinforced support coloums in the Twin Towers. The 9/11 Commission won't try to look into the government involvement or the money trail leading to Atta, and they are being called indapendent being appointed by George Bush. Also If you want me to ask questions why did NORAD stand down? Why did Buzzy Krongard, number three in the CIA, have put options on United and American Airlines on 9/11? Why did Bush sign the presidential order W199i, that made it illegal for FBI agents to pursue terrorist investigations like Able Danger which could have stopped 4 of the hijackers including the lead hijacker Atta? Why did Bin Laden meet with a CIA cheif in Dubai at a military hospital while he was on the top 10 for the FBI? How did each tower's 47 central steel reinforced coloums fail? Why did William Rodriguez hear and feel a explosion underneath him before the first plane hit? Also William Rodriguez's story can be confirmed by 16 witnesses. I only put theory because alot of people on the internet call you a theorist nut if you write anything about 9/11 being an inside job.
This is called "sophistry". It's where you make 10,000 misleading statements in a big pile of * instead of staying on topic, because you feel that overwhelming someone is going to make your side of the argument stronger.
Again, I can walk you through the rational and reasonable answers to any of the above, but I severely doubt your interest in rationality or reason and so it would likely be a waste of my time.
So how about I stick to the original topic... molten steel and the complete and utter lack of evidence it ever existed.
Quote:
I just wan't to know what you think caused the molten metal steel, if you don't believe the WTC buildings where brought down by controlled demolitions.
Let me repeat, there is 0 evidence that the molten metal was steel. But, for the sake argument, the really important question is how does a controlled demolition explain all that "molten metal steel". You might need to invoke Dr. Judy Wood's "star wars fusion beam weapon" if you actually knew enough physics to try to explain how a CD produced all the mysterious heat you don't understand.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: I have more questions, but these never get answered
InfoWarrior wrote:
You make a good point about all the facts. I agree that they should always look at all the facts. Like how the FEMA or the NIST, I can't remember which, which leaves out the 47 central steel reinforced support coloums. It might even be left out in both.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
InfoWarrior wrote:
Please don't debate the exsitance of the molten metal steel or the time it remained because it is very easy to provide multiple mainstream articles that documented this.
It's amazing how delusional you people can become.Despite the fact that _no_ evidence whatsoever exists that the molten metal found was actually molten steel, you guys are still clinging to this belief that there was molten steel because one or two eye witnesses claim to have seen molten "steel".
Again, and let me repeat, there is absolutely no evidence, at all, that steel ever melted. Zero. None. Metal, yes, steel no. Understand?
This silly myth is never going to die among the uninformed, I fear. Just like the "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" myth.
I would be very interested in what other metal might be present at the WTC in quantities sufficient to run in 'rivers'.
Perhaps it was solder from all that office equipment. Or what was left after most it pulverised. But then solder doesn't solidify and form great rusty red 'meteorites' either does it.
Your denial strategies get more ludicrous by the day AS.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
chek wrote:
I would be very interested in what other metal might be present at the WTC in quantities sufficient to run in 'rivers'.
Perhaps it was solder from all that office equipment. Or what was left after most it pulverised. But then solder doesn't solidify and form great rusty red 'meteorites' either does it.
Are you serious? You don't know what other metal was used in mass quantities in the WTC and has a melting point well below the temperature of the fires?
Seriously? I thought you were interested in the truth. I thought you've done the research? How can such an obvious fact have escaped your thorough combing?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
chek wrote:
I would be very interested in what other metal might be present at the WTC in quantities sufficient to run in 'rivers'.
Perhaps it was solder from all that office equipment. Or what was left after most it pulverised. But then solder doesn't solidify and form great rusty red 'meteorites' either does it.
Are you serious? You don't know what other metal was used in mass quantities in the WTC and has a melting point well below the temperature of the fires?
Seriously? I thought you were interested in the truth. I thought you've done the research? How can such an obvious fact have escaped your thorough combing?
For a moment I thought you might be referring to aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
chek wrote:
aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Of course I am that ridiculous. Feel free to debunk the "official aluminum theory". Make sure you can definitively prove it wasn't aluminum. Eye-witnesses claiming it wasn't is going to be sufficient, unfortunately.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
chek wrote:
aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Of course I am that ridiculous. Feel free to debunk the "official aluminum theory". Make sure you can definitively prove it wasn't aluminum. Eye-witnesses claiming it wasn't is going to be sufficient, unfortunately, as that's a fairly impossible thing for an eye-witness to be able to know.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
chek wrote:
aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Of course I am that ridiculous. Feel free to debunk the "official aluminum theory". Make sure you can definitively prove it wasn't aluminum. Eye-witnesses claiming it wasn't is going to be sufficient, unfortunately.
Fair enough, but first I have to ask on what evidence you base your extraordinary claim.
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
chek wrote:
Anti-sophist wrote:
chek wrote:
aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Of course I am that ridiculous. Feel free to debunk the "official aluminum theory". Make sure you can definitively prove it wasn't aluminum. Eye-witnesses claiming it wasn't is going to be sufficient, unfortunately.
Fair enough, but first I have to ask on what evidence you base your extraordinary claim.
The fires were hot enough to melt aluminum. You do agree with that, right?
Since the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, the existance of liquid aluminum should be expected, therefore the claim is by no means extraordinary.
Anyway, since the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, and we expect to see liquid aluminum, it stands to reason that the liquid metal found at ground zero was aluminum (since we expect liquid aluminum to have existed). It also stands to reason that the first-responders who claimed to have seen "molten steel" incorrectly identified the metal as steel because they aren't experts and didn't perform any metellurgic tests. It's a fairly easy mistake to make.
Finally, the vast majority of the energy in the fuel, the plane, in combustibles, and the gravitional energy of the building ended up as heat that day. How much of it was concentrated in the debris pile is an impossible number to quantify. However, all of the chemical and potentional energy released in the collapse, and in the months following the collapse as reactions continued, is likely the cause of duration of the heat found in the debris pile.
Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: Molten Metal Steel
Anti-sophist why then were there mutiple article saying "Molten Metal Steel Six Weeks After 9/11". I doubt multiple people are standing around, who are controlled demolition clean up experts in one case, just lying to reporters. There is even video of one repoter talking to a person at the ground zero clean up talking about the melting boots, and how it was 1600 degrees 6 weeks after 9/11, and talks about the melting steel. Second you never answer about how the molten metal steel could be there for 6 weeks. It was still 1600 degrees 6 weeks after 9/11. Third are you actually saying I'm lying about the FEMA report not having the 47 central steel reinforced coloums in the Twin Towers? _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel
InfoWarrior wrote:
Anti-sophist why then were there mutiple article saying "Molten Metal Steel Six Weeks After 9/11". I doubt multiple people are standing around, who are controlled demolition clean up experts in one case, just lying to reporters. There is even video of one repoter talking to a person at the ground zero clean up talking about the melting boots, and how it was 1600 degrees 6 weeks after 9/11, and talks about the melting steel. Second you never answer about how the molten metal steel could be there for 6 weeks. It was still 1600 degrees 6 weeks after 9/11.
Because mistaking molten aluminum mixed with other compounds for molten steel is not a hard mistake to make. These people had the misconception that it was molten steel when it wasn't. No metallurgic test was ever performed on the molten metal, and no eye-witness was expert enough to tell the difference.
Your entire "proof" relies on the people at ground zero being able to identify molten steel and differentiate it from molten aluminum mixed with other compounds. There's absolutely no evidence that anywhere there could definitively have made that distinction. Molten aluminum being mistaken for molten steel is OVERWHELMINGLY more probable of an explaination.
No rational person would fault a first-responder for seeing molten metal and incorrectly claiming it was steel, instead of aluminum.
As a point of clarification, I didn't say they were "lying". There is a difference between being mistaken and lying.
Quote:
Third are you actually saying I'm lying about the FEMA report not having the 47 central steel reinforced coloums in the Twin Towers?
No, that's not what I said. I said you didn't seem to have your facts straight ("Uh, one of the reports maybe said this.. maybe both.. I forget").
This issue is entirely off-topic, as well, but I'll be more than happy to look at it closer. Feel free to provide some objective source showing this glaring hole in the FEMA initial report on WTC7.
Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: Molten Metal Steel
Ok, you are saying they are lying. They are experts at CD clean ups, and they know molten metal steel. Also everyone has seen that picture of one of the steel beems where it looks like it was sliced sideways, and melted from something. Surely your not claiming that wasn't steel? Also you never talk about how it was hot enough to keep steel melted for 6 weeks after 9/11. _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
Finally, the vast majority of the energy in the fuel, the plane, in combustibles, and the gravitional energy of the building ended up as heat that day. How much of it was concentrated in the debris pile is an impossible number to quantify. However, all of the chemical and potentional energy released in the collapse, and in the months following the collapse as reactions continued, is likely the cause of duration of the heat found in the debris pile.
Let me know where I went wrong.
Balls!
I sense from your responses today that you're losing patience with our persistent endeavours to find out the truth.
Now you keep mentioning the heat of the fires and the kinetic energy of the building although you just seem to be clambering desperately for a 'plausible' explanation but without considering the use of explosive.
You really should read Judy Wood's article as you might learn a thing or two.
Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering wrote:
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c1
As for the heat of the fires in the towers you keep forgetting that the NIST report states that even peak temperatures didn't exceed 600 degrees and then only for short periods of time.
Hmm like a twisty-turney thing you twist and turn don't you AS?
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Patrick Brown wrote:
I sense from your responses today that you're losing patience with our persistent endeavours to find out the truth.
I'm losing patience from repeating myself, mostly. Persistence is good. Stubbornness and ignorance are bad. Persistence only pays off when you are moving forward, isntead of dwelling on well-debunked notions.
Quote:
You really should read Judy Wood's article as you might learn a thing or two.
That Dr. Judy Wood? The one who thinks holographic planes combined with previously unknown star-wars fusion beam destroyed the WTC?
Quote:
As for the heat of the fires in the towers you keep forgetting that the NIST report states that even peak temperatures didn't exceed 600 degrees and then only for short periods of time.
Lie. NIST stated the temperature reached 1000 degrees Celsius. Only off by 400 degrees.
No one is so consistently wrong as you Patrick. What does that feel like? Most of the other CTist either intentionally mislead by leave wiggle room, or just don't provide evidence at all. You consistently make provably false statement that require almost no effort, at all, to debunk instantly. What's it like to make up lies and be proven wrong instantly? Is it fun?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
chek wrote:
Anti-sophist wrote:
chek wrote:
aluminium, but then decided no, even AS couldn't be that ridiculous.
Of course I am that ridiculous. Feel free to debunk the "official aluminum theory". Make sure you can definitively prove it wasn't aluminum. Eye-witnesses claiming it wasn't is going to be sufficient, unfortunately.
Fair enough, but first I have to ask on what evidence you base your extraordinary claim.
The fires were hot enough to melt aluminum. You do agree with that, right?
Since the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, the existance of liquid aluminum should be expected, therefore the claim is by no means extraordinary.
Anyway, since the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, and we expect to see liquid aluminum, it stands to reason that the liquid metal found at ground zero was aluminum (since we expect liquid aluminum to have existed). It also stands to reason that the first-responders who claimed to have seen "molten steel" incorrectly identified the metal as steel because they aren't experts and didn't perform any metellurgic tests. It's a fairly easy mistake to make.
Finally, the vast majority of the energy in the fuel, the plane, in combustibles, and the gravitional energy of the building ended up as heat that day. How much of it was concentrated in the debris pile is an impossible number to quantify. However, all of the chemical and potentional energy released in the collapse, and in the months following the collapse as reactions continued, is likely the cause of duration of the heat found in the debris pile.
Let me know where I went wrong.
Back in the days when PC's ran in double figure MHz and math co-processors were but a distant dream, and CADCAM was an exciting development, one of my favourite tasks in rapid prototyping was spending a morning at the aluminium foundry to have whatever pieces cast.
It was rather disappointing the first time - I was expecting something like the foundry scene out of Terminator 2 - all flying sparks and glowing, boiling metal. Unfortunately, it looked more like this - molten aluminium doesn't have a high light emmisivity.
Now obviously, the solid beams shown being lifted, while extremely hot, are not molten, but there are eye-witness accounts stating that they were 'dripping with molten metal'
"Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02
Here's a photo of steel pipe being manufactured - notice the similarities in colour?
And then we also have the rusty solidified masses of concrete and metal commonly referred to as the 'meteorites' recovered afterwards.
As far as I recall, I've seen no claims of solidified aluminium ingots being recovered.
Last edited by chek on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:57 pm; edited 3 times in total
The emissivity of liquid aluminum is well understood.
Pure liquid aluminum doesn't emit light like what was seen. Luckily the liquid aluminum was almost certainly mixed with compounds that do.
chek, you've been at this way too long to be repeating this tired tripe. You already _know_ my response was going to be "it wasn't pure liquid aluminum" and yet you went to all this trouble anyway. Why?
No one ever claimed it was pure liquid aluminum. It was mixed with plenty of things that change the color. Anyone who thinks the liquid metal was "pure" and not mixed with impurities is deluding themselves. So don't compare what was seen at the scene with pure liquid aluminum.
Do me a favor, start up a roaring charcoal fire pit, inside a stainless steel bowl melt an aluminium can. Look at the color. Then throw a few pieces of paper and some wood inside the molten aluminum. Look at the color again.
Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Houston, TX
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: Molten Metal Steel
See you can't answer AS, you just keep quoting me like that proves something. How could there have been molten metal steel for 6 weeks? That steel beem, how could it have melted at tempatures that only got to peaks of 600 degrees. Also you forgot the part about the explaination to the steel beem. Also if you just mindlessly quote without any explaination your never going to prove anything. _________________ 9/11 was an inside job
Last edited by InfoWarrior on Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Molten Metal Steel found at Ground Zero & WTC 7
Anti-sophist wrote:
Quote:
As for the heat of the fires in the towers you keep forgetting that the NIST report states that even peak temperatures didn't exceed 600 degrees and then only for short periods of time.
Lie. NIST stated the temperature reached 1000 degrees Celsius. Only off by 400 degrees.
Hmm I'm sure I read 600 degrees in one of the NIST PDFs! Anyway Acrobat Reader can search through folders full of PDFs at once so I'll have to download the complete NIST report and run a couple of searches.
As for the molten metal Steve Jones quotes a few eyewitnesses here:
Steve Jones wrote:
The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first
photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “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,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and
was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in
Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down
in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to
subterranean fires after the collapses.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Anyway Acrobat Reader can search through folders full of PDFs at once so I'll have to download the complete NIST report and run a couple of searches.
