It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC New Image Of Molten Steel(?) and Hunt for Video

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Firstly, I found this picture in a 911 tribute video:



Anyone know the story behind this? Where the original footage is? Has it been debunked? Not sure if this is molten steel. The colour seems to suggest it could well be, with all the dust clouds its hard to see why it would be this colour.

Here is another picture I found in my search too which I had not seen before of a burnt out/melted car which actually shows a stream of metal running from underneath:




Secondly, I have been trying to track down the source video of the collapse from close up, i have only seen it so far in the loose change movie. Its around 11:50. If there is any more to the clip it could reveal a better video of the spire 'disintegrating'



Taken from this video:

video.google.com...

go to 11:50, I went to the LC forum to try and track it down, no luck yet and have been looking for many hours. I would imagine it holds a better resolution vid of the spire. Can anyone link us up?



[edit on 14-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Wow. No idea about the first one but the second one looks like molten aluminum that ran out from that tire well while the car was on fire, and then it cooled and hardened.

Honestly the first one looks like one of those video clips from a nuclear test right before everything is disintegrated. Obviously that's not actually the case. What have you heard of an afterglow, Insolubrious?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Dear Insolubrious:

Holy Toledo, by the beard of Zeus, what in the world! How do you find this stuff?

All three pictures look authentic to me. But of course we all know the “eyes wide shut squad” (expression inspired by gottago) is about to chime in with their “critique”. However, the picture that cannot be dismissed no matter what, is the second one showing the parked car with the molten tire rims. That’s definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-signature-proof of a nuclear explosion of one type or another. Still, we’re going to hear plenty of ‘but it looks photoshopped’ till our ears hurt.

Keep on digging, how you do it I don’t know!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
That’s definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-signature-proof of a nuclear explosion of one type or another.


Huh? How do you come to that conclusion? Wouldn't any type of nuclear detonation vaporize aluminum?

I am totally against the official story surrounding 9/11, but to say some type of nuclear device was detonated is certainly stretching it. Wouldn't there be all kinds of radioactive fallout?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hi guys, thanks to all for posting. I was hoping that first image may of grabbed a bit more attention and debate.

bsbray I actually started a thread called WTC afterglow (which appears to of been removed). Afterglow is like a by-product of a gamma ray burst in x-rays, UV and other wavelengths which can last for an indefinite amount of time. I found a video clip claiming to contain afterglow that occured during and remained after the collapse but i was quite skeptical, it looked much like a brightness adjustment in the video and it didn't appear to happen on any other videos so i didn't really pursue it.

I totally agree with you on the second image (looks like molten aluminum that ran out from that tire well while the car was on fire, and then it cooled and hardened). Yet I have never seen a burnt out car produce running aluminum so it does suggest an extreme heat source was present. I have seen many burnt out cars first hand, none of which produced running aluminum.

After finding that first image one can imagine ways to how those wrecked cars may of been produced.

WITW - all three pictures I believe to be authentic, the first image is actually a screenshot from a 911 tribute video so it certainly was not a 1 frame photoshop job. I am considering chasing up the producer of the video to find out his source for this clip because I certainly haven't seen it anywhere else.

In the footage the firetruck is speeding quite fast toward that molten stream and pretty much cuts a second after it comes into contact with it. You can't see much as smoke engulfs the cameras vision. Whether some of that smoke is produced by the fire truck coming into contact with that molten pool is very hard to tell, also the firetruck is already kicking up much dust in its wake so you pretty much lose visual rather quick.

I am continuing to dig! I have several gb of archive footage queued and downloading from a variety of sources and my connection has been maxed out for the last day or two. If i find anything you guys will be first to know.

I am still trying to find the source for that LC clip btw, if anyone finds it please let me know, and if you cant find it let me know also! I have a hunch there is much more footage out there than what is currently unavailable for various reasons.

nyarlathotep - sure, a nuke detonation would evaporate aluminum if the aluminium was at the epicenter of (or closer to) the blast, what we are seeing here i believe is a proximity effect. I suspect the burnt out cars were caused either by

a) some type of super heated blast wave produced by the bomb
b) superheated debris spat from the towers or
c) a slurry of molten steel as seen in that first image

Could be all 3, i think b is most likely.

It would explain and add sense to the selective fires on some these veichles too, like this one:



Notice, the engine block is on fire yet the fuel tank hasn't even ignited, what is causing the fire? Small amount of super heated debris landed on the hood i suspect.

If you get a chance please have a go at tracking down the original sources for these clips/vids as i mentioned in my first post, like i say i am pretty maxed out here!


edit: removed 'debunkers' comment to be 'nice'

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Insolubrious

Thank you for the pictures. One immediate reaction from a lot of 'de-bunkers' is 'photoshop'! Is there anyway we can confirm these? They are fascinating.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Come on guys, that large pool of "liquid hot magma (in my best Dr. Evil)"
Is just Aluminum from the plane. It just all happened to fall in the exact same spot (that of which didn't explode into millions of pieces)

So simple, *goes back to sleep*

Heh, but lets confirm that isn't footage from a volcanic eruption before we call out the debunkers . The attitude that you need to call them out is kind of silly. All that does is create a negative debate environment , where they go into a shell just to spite YOU in the face of any evidence.

Not only do we got to do more work, more research, we got to be BETTER people.

Anyway, is that a palm tree?





[edit on 14-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Dude, thats not molten metal because jet fuel cant melt steel!

ITS LAVA!!

The collapse of the building accelerated so fast, and it was such an efficient progressive collapse that it progressed all the way to the core of the earth and opened up a volcano underneath the WTC.

THATS why you see those hot spots on the satellite images. And the 'smoke' that rose from the rubble for weeks is actually ash from the volcano.

Seriously!



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Insolubrious

Thank you for the pictures. One immediate reaction from a lot of 'de-bunkers' is 'photoshop'! Is there anyway we can confirm these? They are fascinating.


Sure, i put the video into premier and snipped out this tiny clip. Now i have uploaded it to youtube so you can all check it out.

Also notice there is a news logo in the bottom right corner. Perhaps we could find an extended and/or higher resolution version (ABC or something?).






[edit on 14-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Is this guy for real?? I think they're all fabricated, except for the WTC collapse pic.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Insolubrious


Thanks again.

To me in that shot it almost looks like sunlight, as the truck passes you can see the back of the truck brighten up as well.

Then again, I won't know for sure. The original would have much better resolution.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But of course we all know the “eyes wide shut squad” (expression inspired by gottago) is about to chime in with their “critique”.


You really need to work on your tone. If you don't respect people with a different opinion to you how do you ever expect them to listen to you. And if you don't expect them to why are you here?


Still, we’re going to hear plenty of ‘but it looks photoshopped’ till our ears hurt.


What are you basing this on? Because I have yet to see anyone claim anything is a photoshop in these forums.


Onto the pictures;

The first one from the youtube video, you will notice the whole video is in sepia tone... So anything bright will look orangey. That coupled with the firetruck driving straight at it leads me to believe it's not molten anything... I mean... Who would see it and try to drive right over it if it was molten metal? At first glance I thought it may be water from a burst fire hydrant but I don't know.

The second picture, what's the source?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Dude, ...
ITS LAVA!!

The collapse of the building accelerated so fast, and it was such an efficient progressive collapse that it progressed all the way to the core of the earth and opened up a volcano underneath the WTC....
Seriously!


Dear sp00n1:

Sorry, this is one of those forbidden ‘one liners’ with little substance. But I simply had to comment. And, besides, it will catapult this important thread of Insolubrius’s right back to the top of the list where it belongs.

I know this is a serious topic, but your post made me laugh — maybe even more than you intended to. I don’t see anything wrong with laughing a little about the official accounts of 9-11 and what all the CT-debunkers have to say. I for one think your ‘lava’ comments are sophisticatedly funny and original. Great post!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I am very doubtful its water, if i thought that i wouldn't of posted it. Its glowing and appears to have a slight thickness to it, no sunlight could penetrate that area from all the dust anyway and wouldn't produce that orange glow.

Going on the general ethos of firemen on that day at the scene of a huge disaster, I believe the firetruck driver probably thought his big tough firetruck would take it, and being an emergency and in a rush he was probably already so panicked and so adrenalized he didn't think twice about it and was only concerned on getting to the scene to try and rescue his colleagues and victims. He was probably far more concerned with getting to the scene and getting to work on the site even if it meant he had to wreck his truck in the process. Its hard to tell but it looks like smoke is produced on contact with it. It appears the truck shifts chaotically too and looses its velocity as his tires make contact and would of blown.

Second picture source came off a public domain image upload site, it was one of many amongst pictures of burnt out car wrecks from WTC. I forget which site but i will try and track it down again.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I for one think your ‘lava’ comments are sophisticatedly funny and original. Great post!


I thought it was about as worthy as going into the UFO forums and making jokes about eating dinner with eT who then took you on tour of the hollow moon because you don't believe it. It's called disrespect.


Orginally posted by Insolubrious
I am very doubtful its water, if i thought that i wouldn't of posted it.


I am very doubtful it's any kind of liquid anymore. There is an elevated section in the middle of the road that it is covering, but how would molten metal have 'flowed' over it?


Orginally posted by Insolubrious
believe the firetruck driver probably thought his big tough firetruck would take it


I would question the ability of a fireman who thought rubber tires could take running over molten metal. It could be argued that he was panicked, but interpretations of the fireman's actions would be objective I guess.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I had to offer up some ridiculous explanation before the debunkers beat me to it.

However, after seeing the clip i am disappointed. I thought the still image was very convincing, but now i do not.

The 'smoke' is just dust being sucked up by the passing truck.

The 'molten metal' appears to be a sort of optical illusion created by intermingled sunlight with shadows from surrounding buildings. The same 'orange-ish' sunlight can be seen reflecting off of the dust/smoke in the upper right side of the screen as well. You can also see the same ray of sunlight reflecting off of the dust/smoke stirred up by the truck, and i think the truck even casts a shadow on the molten metal/sunlight spot.

If you knew where and when this was filmed, you could either prove or disprove the sunlight explanation.



[edit on 3/14/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
there probably wasn't much time to think about it by the time he realised what it was. He may of interpreted it as a fire or something else, perhaps he didn't have time to think about the effects of rubber vs molten steel, or maybe he didn't even spot it on the road or was looking the other way, on the radio or whatever. Depends on the person in that situation, some firetruck drivers may of hit the brakes just in time whilst others just accelerate and plow through it unwittingly. He may not of been the brightest spark in the NYFD but he probably had some balls and was more concerned about getting to the scene asap overruling his own safety and the outcome of his truck.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Dear CaptainLazy:

Alright, that ‘tears it’. I need to say something in Insolubrious’s defense.

Insolubrious is one hundred percent right with his analysis and you are entirely wrong. Why?
Because Insolubrious’s reasoning is reasonable and yours is not.

1. It’s reasonable for the fire truck driver NOT TO HAVE KNOWN that this might be molten metal or some dangerous substance. Or are we to believe that fireman often or ever come across liquid metal in their drivepaths? Instinctively any normal human being would have tried to plow through whatever was in the way.

2. Of course molten metal would flow over any shallow obstructions or objects.

3. Who am I disrespecting by complimenting sp00n1’s comments as genuinely funny and original? Certainly not you. You don’t think the pictures show lava, molten metal, any kind of liquid or anything at all for that matter. So, please do enlighten me!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join