9/11: WTC High Temperatures & Molten Steel Video!

Originally posted by exponent
I'm reasonably sure these are the same item, but I will do some more research into it. I've certainly seen this video before being used to support theories using pictures similar to those posted above.

They are not. I can assure you. The man in the video is not some joe schmoo either. He is Bart Voorsanger, AIA. I recommend reading through the thread. Especially the part where I post the video of Mr. Voorsanger describing why the antennae of WTC 1 didn't melt but they were worried it was going to. BTW, that was steel.

Bart Voorsanger, “Artifacts, Memories and Memorials”

Mr. Voorsanger described his role as consultant charged with selecting artifacts and objects from the World Trade Center site for future exhibitions and a memorial by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He was hired by the Port Authority soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and began the process of collecting 9/11 materials.He stated that the World Trade Center site was a complete catastrophe. The questions he had to deal with were: What does one collect? What is the most valuable? Eventually Mr. Voorsanger came up with a list of different types of objects. They were divided into six categories: objects on site, salvaged objects off site, commissioned fine art objects, objects memorialized by salvage crews, photographic archives, and objects having social content. He then proceeded to describe what each category entailed. For the objects on site, he looked at the site, located objects, documented them and then those objects were given to the salvage crew to take away. Each object was described and its selection was justified. People who were working on the site became “curators” and offered Mr. Voorsanger suggestions for collection development. After starting this acquisitions process, Mr. Voorsanger decided that the intended collection needed to be rethought of as an archive and not merely a collection of objects for a memorial. He posed the question to the audience as to how long should we keep these objects because they can not be given away or sold. The objects are currently being stored at a hangar at JFK airport.

www.voorsanger.com...

So, why haven't we tested anything yet to see if it was molten?

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Why isn't one enough to dispell the myth of no molten metal at GZ?

Who's the guy talking?

How does he know that it's steel?

To me, it looks like aluminum, which would be expected to melt. I also wouldn't expect it to be all clean and shiny either.

Also, Ultima's 2nd photo looks like it could be aluminum. Notice the silver just in front of the glowing part?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Lighten up hoss.

Well we are here to talk 9/11 not photos.

You guys are always jumping on me to post facts and evidence, i expect the same.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Why? When someone presents things that are as factual or more then what you post you make excuses to not believe it or you ignore it. What's the point?

Originally posted by Griff

Thermate causes the exact same thing you describe here. Thermate has known properties and precedent to back it up. A natural, chaotic eutectic mixture not so much.

Logically, the thermate would be chaotic and mixed up too after the collapse.

So is there precedence for this?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

Why isn't one enough to dispell the myth of no molten metal at GZ?

Who's the guy talking?

Bart Voorsanger, AIA.

How does he know that it's steel?

Please show me how "molten metal" automatically equates to steel.

To me, it looks like aluminum, which would be expected to melt. I also wouldn't expect it to be all clean and shiny either.

Which would be molten metal correct?

But, I have to say, I can be pretty positive that the architect hired to collect steel (Bart Voorsanger) would know what molten steel vs. molten aluminum would look like.

reply to post by Griff


(So, why haven't we tested anything yet to see if it was molten?)

I think that is a good point, is there anyway to contact this man?
Maybe have a talk with him.
It would be great if we can have this stuff tested.

Originally posted by Griff


1-Bart Voorsanger, AIA.

2-Please show me how "molten metal" automatically equates to steel.

3-Which would be molten metal correct?

4-But, I have to say, I can be pretty positive that the architect hired to collect steel (Bart Voorsanger) would know what molten steel vs. molten aluminum would look like.

1-yeah, I just read the thread. Funniest thing in there was when Pootie came in and laughed at Fowl Play about how he didn't know about physics, etc..... AFTER everyone already admitted that the first meteorite wasn't melted.

2-It doesn't. I thought you were talking about steel. So what's the point of showing molten aluminum?

3-Yup

4- he's an architect. There's got to be a joke from your side of the job that says about how little architects know....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
4- he's an architect. There's got to be a joke from your side of the job that says about how little architects know....

Architects take more structural engineering classes than structural engineers take architectural classes. Plus, the AIA is more rigorous of an exam than the PE I've heard. So, I won't be making any jokes about architects.

Although, I admit, we (universal we) do have a love/hate relationship with each other.

Originally posted by scotty18
Why? When someone presents things that are as factual or more then what you post you make excuses to not believe it or you ignore it. What's the point?

Well if someone posted actaul facts instead of opinions and statements i would accept it.

But so far no one has shown any real facts due mainly to the fact that most of the facts have not been released.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scotty18
Why? When someone presents things that are as factual or more then what you post you make excuses to not believe it or you ignore it. What's the point?

Well if someone posted actaul facts instead of opinions and statements i would accept it.

But so far no one has shown any real facts due mainly to the fact that most of the facts have not been released.

BS. Facts have been presented over and over and you either make excuses or ignore them.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by scotty18]

Another Reminder...

Debate the issue and not the member...

Semper

Originally posted by scotty18Facts have been presented over and over and you either make excuses or ignore them.

Show me the actual facts or be adult enough to admit that most of the facts have not been released.

One explanation is that it is molten lead from a large UPS *Uinterrupted
Power Supply) room on the 81st floor occupied by Fuji Bank. The UPS
was confirmed by engineering plans which show the floor in the area
was reinforced to support weight of batteries and the associated
ventilation system.

Below is long post from Italian blogger (in English)

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

reply to post by thedman


NIST's NCSTAR1-1 report, which discusses structural alterations to the Twin Towers made by their tenants, shows that the part of the building where the glowing fountain occurred had been altered: specifically, the so-called "two-way trusses" (the trusses that span the corner area of each floor of the building) had been reinforced on the 81st floor in 1991 "in area occupied by United Parcel Service" (NCSTAR1-1, page 136).

Problem, I can not find pg 136 of this report. If you use Adobe page 136 it takes you somewhere else.

Any clues?

reply to post by cashlink


Hi,

report: NCSTAR 1-1
report page: 136
Adobe page: 196

"Structural Members that were Reinforced

Members were reinforced on the following floors during the following years:

1. Floor 96, 1993 (a number of floor trusses and their connections were reinforced in the
northeast quadrant of the building)

2. Floor 81, 1991 (two-way floor trusses were reinforced in area occupied by United Parcel"

Best wishes,
Henry62

Originally posted by scotty18
Every thread I have seen you in has had people present facts and you either ignore them or make excuses why they aren't facts.

Thanks for proving my point that you cannot show facts.

Originally posted by scotty18
Thanks for proving my points perfectly.

Its not my fault you and other believers cannot show facts and evidence, mainly becasue most of the facts and evidnece has not been released yet.

I have shown photos and a video of the temps at ground zero.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]