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 Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Instead of starting a new thread, I figured I'd post this here instead.

Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire


Kanzius, 63, invented a machine that emits radio waves in an attempt to kill cancerous cells while leaving normal cells intact. While testing his machine, he noticed that his invention had other unexpected abilities.

Filling a test tube with salt water from a canal in his back yard, Kanzius placed the tube and a paper towel in the machine and turned it on. Suddenly, the paper towel ignited, lighting up the tube like it was a wax candle.

"Pretty neat, huh?" Kanzius asked WPBF's Jon Shainman.

Kanzius performed the experiment without the paper towel and got the same result -- the saltwater was actually burning.


Given that radio waves can ignite salt water, does this give the energy beam theory more credibility?


Kanzius said the flame created from his machine reaches a temperature of around 3,000 degrees Farenheit. He said a chemist told him that the immense heat created from the machine breaks down the hydrogen-oxygen bond in the water, igniting the hydrogen.


That's hot enough to melt steel. Any thoughts?

www.wpbf.com...

BTW, I didn't find this. This is from another thread on here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: Or could the antennae on WTC 1 (radio antennae) have helped the collapse?

[edit on 8/8/2007 by Griff]




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   


The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information.


Construction workers used cutting torches and thermal lances (lenghts
of pipe filled with aluminium/steel rods and fed with pure O2 - it was lit
by torch and burned at 7000 F) to cut away the steel debris - think that is
hot enough to create molten iron and slag particles.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   


Construction workers used cutting torches and thermal lances (lenghts
of pipe filled with aluminium/steel rods and fed with pure O2 - it was lit
by torch and burned at 7000 F) to cut away the steel debris - think that is hot enough to create molten iron and slag particles.


True, but it wouldn't explain the abundance of thermite properties, including in the the dust found in an apartment away from the cleanup.

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Construction workers used cutting torches and thermal lances (lenghts
of pipe filled with aluminium/steel rods and fed with pure O2 - it was lit
by torch and burned at 7000 F) to cut away the steel debris - think that is
hot enough to create molten iron and slag particles.


You think that's hot enough to create microspheres?

I'm not sure temperature has everything to do with it, but I know you're going to explain to me your solid reasoning on how the microspheres can be produced by thermal lances anyway. Right?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
molten metal has to solidify while it's falling to create spheres. it must fall far enough that it cools while still falling.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
There are no pictures of molten metal in the ruins at Ground Zero.

There was no molten metal in the ruins at Ground Zero.


I guess you haven't seen the molten metal that flows from WTC 2 before it fails then? This is the most unethical, disingenious, untruthful pair of sentences I have ever heard. Next to Ferretman2 saying he was there and there were absolutely no explosions.



If you took the time to read my article you'd see evidence showing the video/photo is fake.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sad Lil Alex
man i read your articles... they really didnt seem very trustworthy... or whatever u might call it... but i just didnt like them.. lol... idk...i dont believe alot of the officail stuff... hell (can i say that?) im not even that up to date of this stuff anymore... (nothing new ever seems to appear)

sometimes you have to think.... MAYBE SOMONES TELLING THE TRUTH .... man not everyone in the world is out to make you life suck.... we arent all lying to you... i garuntee you half the people who make those claims of boots melting.... DONT CARE ABOUT THE NATION ENOUGH TO GO WITH A LIE TO COVER IT UP....

comon... im sooo sick of this childish stuff man




Why should it be "trustworthy"? Don't you have thinking abilities? You should look at and analyze the information yourself.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Statemetns like---


If 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators obviously have total control of the media.


Are not true, 9/11 could be an inside job without "TOTAL" control of the media. Futhermore the word "MEDIA" is kicked around forgetting that the people that day were part of the MEDIA. In order for the first part of what the OP says to be true then the MEDIA which includes the people would be under "TOTAL" control which then self-refutes his own point since there is no reason to trust him either!

Since he could be under the very control he speaks of!

My guess on the motive on posting this and other things that the 9/11 researchers group does is to try and sow seeds of doubt on everyone practically that the end user is left believing no one.

The fire-figthers saw and reported Molten Metal and that is good enough for me.


[edit on 8-8-2007 by talisman]



My motive is to get people to use their brains and look at evidence for themselves instead of believing whatever they're told.

If you're gonna just believe something based on the words of a few firefighters, especially when it's contradicted by all the other data, then it's obvious what your motive is.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
My motive is to get people to use their brains and look at evidence for themselves instead of believing whatever they're told.


Then why don't you do less telling and show us the evidence? You just keep saying everyone is lying and that the videos are faked when anything contradicts you. Do you not understand how ridiculously weak your case is when that's all you say, and you don't even bother to try to prove it?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
Molten Metal: Fact

*snip*
CB, why is it that you try to prove 9/11 was an inside job with fake evidence (no planes, space beams, TV fakery) and cover up the real evidence like molten steel? It's called disinformation.




Arabesque is using clear disinformation tactics and I will explain exactly how:

First, I should note that Arabesque is a regular on 911Blogger, which has turned into a ban-happy moderated site. All comments must now be moderated before appearing. Jim Fetzer was banned from 911Blogger.

Second, Arabesque is asking the reader to take the "scientific findings" of Steven Jones as fact. Why should anyone believe a scientist like Steven Jones when his research has been proven faulty? The evidence showing this is childsplay and people need to start looking at evidence for themselves instead of simply believing someone. Check out the information in my original post. The evidence is clear. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to look at the evidence for yourself and exercise your brain. Jones is asking you to "believe" and to "trust" that his laboratory finding are real. Why would anyone do this? Who would trust someone who doctors photos, hides the fact that they were doctored, and use them for scientific analysis? That's exactly what Jones did and the proof is in my article.


Third, Arabesque attempts to trick people into thinking that "no planes, space beams, TV fakery" are disinfo, when he provides no evidence whatsoever. Bottom line is that TV-Fakery/NPT has already been definitively proven by the Laws of Physics. Arabesque will obviously respond by linking to many NPT "debunk" articles in an attempt to further trick people. But the fact is: not one of those debunk articles explains how an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone can glide through a steel/concrete building.

The directed energy weapon theory is being taken seriously by those who actually look at the evidence. Dr Judy Wood and her attorney, Jerry Leaphart, are already discussing it with professionals, such as a government official at the Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base.

Arabesque then continues to try to trick people by saying there's clear evidence of molten metal when the facts show otherwise. The only "evidence" Arabesque has shown comes from Jones and those who work with Jones. But Jones uses doctored photos. So, why trust his dust/metal "samples"?

If Jones was soooooooo confident is his molten metal and thermite, why didn't he mention them in his Request for Correction to NIST?

Dr Wood mentioned DEW in her RFC, which is why her research is picking up and picking up fast.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque


Construction workers used cutting torches and thermal lances (lenghts
of pipe filled with aluminium/steel rods and fed with pure O2 - it was lit
by torch and burned at 7000 F) to cut away the steel debris - think that is hot enough to create molten iron and slag particles.


True, but it wouldn't explain the abundance of thermite properties, including in the the dust found in an apartment away from the cleanup.

www.journalof911studies.com...



If someone tries to deceive you, would you trust them? Of course not. SJones said he found evidence of "thermate" by analyzing samples in a laboratory. This is hardy something any of us could verify on our own. So the question is, should we trust Jones??

Well... let's see...

Jones used this picture in his paper with the caption:

“Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.”

My question to the readers is: would you put your face over a boiling tea kettle? Obviously not. Water boils at 212 deg F. But the orange-ish color in Jones' photo above indicates a temperature of over 1500 deg F!

Now... does anyone actually think that the photo above is genuine?

Jones photo has been doctored. The original is archived on hereisnewyork.org. As can be seen, the workers are using search lights. They are not “peering into a hot core”:



So, why should anyone trust SJones when he says he found evidence of thermate? Why?


The above is just one example of numerous deceptions by SJones. See my original post for much much more. I'm not asking anyone to believe me.... just look at the information I provide in my article and see for yourself.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
(Snip)

Really.. You are not proving anything useful here.

Bray over at So911 asked you a simple question to prove you lame Space beam theory and you didn't do it.. I was still waiting for it..

You have no basis on anything you say, the (snip) you spew is about as good as 19 Arabs crashing planes into the towers.

You really expect us to fall for some stupid (snip) just cause you tell us?

Then you go and call FDNY and NYPD and others liars. hmmmm.. sure..

I only see 1 liar in this, and its not them..

SHOW US THE PROOF. How many times do we have to tell you. PROOF SPEAKS and people like you disappear.

[edit on 8/9/2007 by ThichHeaded]


Mod Edit: Removed inappropriate text.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chissler]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
(Text Removed)

The above post speaks for itself.


btw, the site admin at so911 threatened to ban me for ad hominems. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? (Obviously a pot filled with molten metal.) That guy is deranged and I have no plans on posting there again.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]


Mod Edit: Removed inappropriate text.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chissler]

[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 9-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Let it be known that personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. If anyone here has any problem with any other member, please contact the staff via u2u or complaint.

Personal attacks and insults will be dealt with accordingly.

Please discuss the issues, and not one another.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Given that radio waves can ignite salt water, does this give the energy beam theory more credibility?


You know how much water it would take to do that??

Besides its Space Beams not water beams.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.



A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
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 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of 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." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:



[edit on 9-8-2007 by Pootie]

Mod Edit: Shortened Quoted Text

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chissler]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
why would particle beam, or microwave or laser beam weapons NOT produce molten metal? why if thermite was used could a beam weapon not be used in concert with planted bombs?
the presence of molten metal is the presence of extreme heat, and the source of that heat does not change the fact that there was molten metal in the debris pile, and microspheres in the dust.

i agree with judy wood that the cylindrical holes have not been satisfactorily explained by ANY theory, INCLUDING 'space beams', because we don't know if space beam technology even exists at that power ouput.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   


True, but it wouldn't explain the abundance of thermite properties, including in the the dust found in an apartment away from the cleanup.


Problem with the apartment sample is that the windows were open for
several weeks after 9/11 - more than enought time for smoke and dust
to enter from WTC site. Remember here in NJ smelling the smoke
for weeks afterwards - burnt acrid smell. During this time had people
cutting up steel for debris removal.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.



A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
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 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of 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." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:



[edit on 9-8-2007 by Pootie]

Mod Edit: Shortened Quoted Text

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chissler]




Are those sources trustworthy?

Is the statement from Tully Construction Company trustworthy? Or is it propaganda?

Are we really supposed to trust a statement promoting molten metal from the President of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI)? Didn't CDI help cleanup Ground Zero after an inside job terrorist attack? Is the president of that company supposed to be considered trustworthy? He sounds like just another member of the Global Elite to me. Why do his statements contradict the other data?

Waste Age is a media source. Is the media trustworthy?

Should we trust the Vice President of Sales for LinksPoint? He sounds like a member of the Global Elite. Why do his statements contradict the other data? Who do the Global Elite represent? Us, or themselves?

Did the Bronx firefighter really know what he saw? Don't people make mistakes? Aren't people human?

Why should we take their molten metal stories as fact when all other data contradicts it?

If there was really molten metal at Ground Zero, why would the media report it? Isn't the media controlled? They cover up the truth of 9/11, don't they? Aren't they known for planting propaganda? Should we really trust the media?


People said the ground was so hot that firefighters' steel-tipped boots melted. Is that even possible?

If the ground was so hot that it melted those high-quality, tough, heat resistant steel-tipped boots, the firefighters' feet would have been incinerated. Do we agree on this?

The boots could not have melted. What might have happened is the chemical properties of the boots changed due to molecular dissociation, as Dr Judy Wood explains in her paper: Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt.

My OP shows all of Steven Jones' motel metal evidence to be fabricated. Can't people see we are being tricked?


[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
why would particle beam, or microwave or laser beam weapons NOT produce molten metal? why if thermite was used could a beam weapon not be used in concert with planted bombs?
the presence of molten metal is the presence of extreme heat, and the source of that heat does not change the fact that there was molten metal in the debris pile, and microspheres in the dust.

i agree with judy wood that the cylindrical holes have not been satisfactorily explained by ANY theory, INCLUDING 'space beams', because we don't know if space beam technology even exists at that power ouput.



The temperature at Ground Zero was not that hot. The molten metal evidence has been shown fabricated.

Dr Wood coined the term "dustify" to describe what happened. See my post here for videos of the steel core turning to dust and trickling down. It doesn't melt, it turns to dust!

Be warned: some people (such as Steven Jones) try to trick people into thinking the steel core "collapsed", instead of turning to dust. But we know Jones is lying because... if the core collapsed, it would be visible in the debris pile. It is not.

People fear believing the "turning to dust" videos because it suggests an unknown technology.

But this technology (and other similar types of technology) are very very real. Go to google video and see for yourself!!!

Race To Zero Point

and

Heavy Watergate


One final note: you should not use the term "space beam". That term narrows the directed energy weapon theory to a specific source: a beam from space. But Dr Wood does not say the weapon was definitely in space. She considers it a possibility, but is not 100% convinced.

The term "space beam" was coined by Steven Jones for the purpose of discouraging people from considering the directed energy weapon theory. (Documented proof of this is here.) Let's not forget that Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.

Drs Wood/Reynolds didn't even know the military had directed energy weapons until they looked at the WTC data and concluded that directed energy weapon were used. (They say this at the end of their Star Wars Beam Weapon paper.)


[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join