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.

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?

molten metal has to solidify while it's falling to create spheres. it must fall far enough that it cools while still falling.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

(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]

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.

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]

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.

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.