Meteorite proof that there WAS molten steel

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Fowl,

That is no answer at all.

What do you mean? Legible writing on paper means that there was no molten steel, the meteorite was created by the force of the collapse and is highly compressed material..
Think about it, if it could be used to rubbish the official story, do you not think it might be destroyed instead of keepin it at a hanger at an airbase??
There isnt a Conspiracy everywhere, although i do believe there is a few for 9/11, this is not one of them

Jimc
My reason for wanting a jackhammer to tear that mass apart is to find out if it is being held together by a material that melted or if the sand from the concrete was holding everything together by being sintered..

That is a good question but the concrete, how did it get 'reshapened' ? Only high temperatures could explain this and I'm going to have to look into 'sintering' a bit more before I'll go along with that. Also Jim, It's obvious that all the metal in the heap didn't melt but it does appear that some bits did.

To the deniers and shills;

Your debunking is sidestepping the one crucial fact that there should not be extreme heat in the basement, let alone molten steel and the meteorite.. the fireball was 70 floors up.

There is no way to explain it. Combine it with the 3 month fires, and you have yourself a smoking gun. No way of producing the said evidence without some extreme conditions.. gravity and jet fuel fires just don't cut the mustard.

Is calling us Shills within ATS's T&C, very insulting just because we believe there was no molten steel.

All it takes is pressure. An increase in pressure results in an increase in heat. I have seen room temperature aluminum billets put into a 60 ton press and come out with a temperature of over 300 degrees F.

Notice that the steel visable in these pictures is covered in rust, yet the rest of the mass is not. If this was being held together with molten steel I would expect to see slag on the surface or at least rust. I have no problem with the statement that this was exposed to a high temperature, but I see no proof that the temperature was high enough to melt steel.

Like I said before I'd like to take a jackhammer and start digging into this.

Originally posted by talisman
As for Steven Jones, I wouldn't be so quick to call him out on his theory, he is a scientist with years of experience. Thermate could have been 'one' of the things and when you get to the 'other' then maybe it will clear this up.

I agree and only ment that thermate couldn't have produced the molten steel for weeks. My belief is a combination of things, but I really don't like to speculate as to the how (because unless you are in the black ops programs, none of us know) but the physics involved.

But this is about the reality of Molten Steel and I think it absolutely certain now that there was.

Unless someone can convince me that pressure alone can create that.

This is for gasses so I'm not sure if it applies here but.

PV=nRT

It would seam to me that if pressure is increasing while the volume is decreasing, that the temperature wouldn't change much. I could totally be wrong in this assumption though. I'm sure there's a much more complicated equation for solids and thermodynamics and such. I wish there was a thermodynamicist in here. It seams I'm always looking for one.

What about friction? How much could that have produced?

Ok. Let's put it this way. How do you have molten concrete (which is evident in the pictures or else it would have been broken up) without molten steel. It takes an oxyacetaline (sp?) torch to cut through steel but it takes a plasma torch to cut through concrete.

Thermal Cutting of Concrete and Related Materials a


BIRGER DZURb, WOLFGANG ROTHERb, GABRIELE NUTSCHb, JOACHIM SCHILLINGc AND AXEL SCHWARZEc

b Plasma- und Oberflächentechnik, Technische Universität Ilmenau, D-98684 Ilmenau/Germany
c DJS Anlagen- und Oberfl@chentechnik, D-99510 Apolda/Germany


a This work was supported by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen ,,Otto yon Guericke" e.V. (AIF)


A large number of techniques in the construction industry are dealing with the mixture, reinforcement and use of concrete and related materials. But this is contrasted by only a few technologies for the destruction of old construction substance. Especially strongly steel reinforced concrete poses problems for breaking it apart with conventional means. In this paper some thermodynamical properties of concrete and some theoretical considerations about its melting are given. The development of a new technology for thermal cutting and the destruction of steel reinforced concrete and related materials by using a DC-plasma torch with non-transferred arc is described. Such a torch is well known from thermal spraying applications. It was modified and optimized to cut and drill concrete with a nitrogen plasma jet, as it is shown in some examples.

Source: www.annalsnyas.org...

So, again. How do you have molten concrete without molten steel?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe one journalist claimed that it required 'Temperatures hotter than the core of the Earth' to produce this specimen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You belive the statement HAS to be correct because one journalist made a claim?

Did he present his credentials showing he was qualified to make said claim?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Is calling us Shills within ATS's T&C, very insulting just because we believe there was no molten steel.

I've watched what you have been posting in various topics. You deserve no sympathy, and you will get none from me.

Who should get the sympathy? Some internet shill/moron, or the NY firefighters who saw the molten metal themselves, testified to that fact, and have since been forgotten, despite the large scale health problems they now all face as a consequence of the demolitions.

All it takes is pressure. An increase in pressure results in an increase in heat. I have seen room temperature aluminum billets put into a 60 ton press and come out with a temperature of over 300 degrees F.

Which is kinda of irrelevent, because we are not talking about EVEN pressure distribution across the matierials..

Not that there would have been much anyway at the WTC, seeing as over 90% of the building simply melted away into fine dust.

Some "internet shills" can actually know more than a firefighter. Firefighters are trained to fight fires. They are not metal workers, structural engineers, or anything of the sort. So while their testimonies gives you some insight into what could have been perceived, it's ultimately like asking a musician to analyze the workings of a jet engine.

Griff,

I can't get around "molten concrete". Concrete doesn't melt. The sand in the concrete may melt (about 1000 deg. F), but concrete itself doesn't melt. Plastics and other materials found in buildings can melt as low as 400 deg. F. The lead sheathing around the phone trunk lines can melt at around 600 deg. F. Any of these materials or a mixture of them could be what is holding this together. These pictures are clear enough that you can see where the steel rebat enters the mass. If the temperature was hot enough to melt steel, you would expect to see the rebar taper inward at where it enters the mass. The rebar has a consistant diameter where it enters it.

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe one journalist claimed that it required 'Temperatures hotter than the core of the Earth' to produce this specimen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You belive the statement HAS to be correct because one journalist made a claim?

Did he present his credentials showing he was qualified to make said claim?

The only reason that journalist said that is because someone WITH the credentials told them that little fact. Jornalists cant just say things like that willy nilly without some expert to back them up somewhere. That journalist wasn't the only one to refer to it as 'born of extreme temperatures'. Infact i think the Journalist was dumbing it down somewhat, rather than saying several thousand or a million degrees did this, they give it in laymen terms like 'as hot as the inner earth' or whatever. A bit like 'sophisticated explosives' = 'top secret nuclear devices we can't talk about on air'

[edit on 15-6-2007 by VicRH]

Originally posted by Johnmike
They are not metal workers,

There have been reports of molten steel by the metal workers

structural engineers, or anything of the sort.

Hmm. I just did a google search for "leslie robinson + molten steel". Guess what the first result was. This:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good job ATS in being the number 1 search hit!!!!!!!

So while their testimonies gives you some insight into what could have been perceived, it's ultimately like asking a musician to analyze the workings of a jet engine.

I have heard testimony of this molten metal running like lava. What other metal would be found in the towers in enough volume that would look like molten steel that would run like lava? I have asked this question before but have gotten no answer. Not specifically to you Johnmike

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If the temperature was hot enough to melt steel, you would expect to see the rebar taper inward at where it enters the mass. The rebar has a consistant diameter where it enters it.

I see what you're saying and it is plausible. But as far as the temperatures go, we know for a fact that the temperatures were well hot enough to melt steel. As seen by the satalite photos of the area where some spots were over 1800 F I believe (I'm going off memory). That is a government source. So, if you don't believe that there were some areas of molten steel, you are saying the government is lying. There are also government documentations of quotes from respectable people saying that there was molten steel. Are all these government agencies lying then?

I'm not really sure how the "meteorite" happened, but I do think it's a telling point that has been brought up a couple times here:

If indeed this item is smoking gun proof of demolition devices in the basement...or of ANY controlled demolition at all...why was it not carted away in secrecy as soon as it was found?

The fact that it was left on display for all to see when it could have EASILY been removed from the scene, unnoticed, among the other rubble...it's just not consistent with most conspiracy theories.

I also think it's worth noting that we've never seen this size of building collapse like that...should we really be that surprised that the result of the collapse is something we've never seen before?

Good points Essedarius,

My only point was that it is proof of molten steel. The government has already stated that there was molten steel. The temperatures were well hot enough to melt steel as seen by NASA (a government agency). So, why would they need to cart it off anywhere when they have already accepted that there was molten steel?

I agree it's not a smoking gun, but it is interesting to hear people say that there was no molten steel when in fact the government has already admitted molten steel. See my point?

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Essedarius
I'm not really sure how the "meteorite" happened, but I do think it's a telling point that has been brought up a couple times here:

If indeed this item is smoking gun proof of demolition devices in the basement...or of ANY controlled demolition at all...why was it not carted away in secrecy as soon as it was found?

The fact that it was left on display for all to see when it could have EASILY been removed from the scene, unnoticed, among the other rubble...it's just not consistent with most conspiracy theories.

I also think it's worth noting that we've never seen this size of building collapse like that...should we really be that surprised that the result of the collapse is something we've never seen before?

simple answer, not every government agency is totally corrupt! They done a good job of getting rid of the steel though, don't you think?


[edit on 15-6-2007 by VicRH]

I argued with a member named howardroark for several pages about the pools of molten steel that were found on the site. I found it almost funny that he was so vehemently claiming that there wasn't molten steel, when Mark Loizeaux of controlled demolitions inc., and others who were there including some firefighters and FEMA people, clearly and quite publicly said that there were. I guess howard was not only there in person, but somehow his own expertise on molten metals outweighed Loizeaux's.
I always thought it was an odd cooincidence that a controlled demolition company was contracted to clean up the WTC site in the first place, let alone it being the same Controlled demolition company that was contracted to clean up the murrah federal building in OKC.

Originally posted by twitchy
I always thought it was an odd cooincidence that a controlled demolition company was contracted to clean up the WTC site in the first place, let alone it being the same Controlled demolition company that was contracted to clean up the murrah federal building in OKC.

The reasoning I have heard is that CDI is the only demolition company in the country with security clearance. Since the Murrah and WTC 7 had classified documents in them, they had to have a security clearance to clean up. Now, that seams sensible but there were also firemen and police and all other sorts that were there without clearance, so I don't know.

Originally posted by Griff
The reasoning I have heard is that CDI is the only demolition company in the country with security clearance.

I had never heard that before, interesting little tidbit, I'll add it to my 'things to look into' list for sure. I do know that the metal scrap was hauled off under the highest security ever given to scrap metal hauling in history, one driver was apparently fired for taking an unauthorized pee break or something to that effect. Even with security clearance issues, that always seemed to be a little excessive to me for a load of scrap metal. IMO, they needed to get that metal out of there before it could be tested properly for explosives residue, but perhaps their scrap metal secuirty measures were some kind of contractual stipulation of their security clearance? Donno, interesting though.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by twitchy]