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.

 

Steel Piece Proves Lie - NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel

page: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Psynarchist
 


Sorry, simply stating that the military develops weapons does not give you license to declare anything is possible. It's a neat trick, but in the end it doesn't fly.

Likely is not the word, it is an absolute. You had burning material trapped under tons and tons of rubble. Smoldering for days and weeks. Real simple, happens all the time, no exotic super secret weaponry. Just plain old fire.


Buildings like WTC BUILDING SEVEN COLLAPSE EVERY DAY?
Come on swishie.
Actually every day is less often than all the time . So I'm good.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


What do you think we think?
Easy, just look at your stars.
Do you think Building seven was pulled like 1 and 2.
You know like the owner said.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So why exactly do the duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics think it is perfectly OK for John Gross of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), which is a US Government agency which operates using citizen taxdollars, to baldface LIE to the American people?



NIST Engineer John Gross refused to give the individual his email so the NASA AVIRIS hot spot images could be e-mailed to him, even though Gross asked him to during the meeting. Why do the American people get this deliberate lying from NIST?

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001





Hanger 17 Panoramic Interactive Display of a Few WTC Pieces

And then of course there is UnPopular Mechanics.




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Psynarchist
 


Sorry, simply stating that the military develops weapons does not give you license to declare anything is possible. It's a neat trick, but in the end it doesn't fly.

Likely is not the word, it is an absolute. You had burning material trapped under tons and tons of rubble. Smoldering for days and weeks. Real simple, happens all the time, no exotic super secret weaponry. Just plain old fire.


Buildings like WTC BUILDING SEVEN COLLAPSE EVERY DAY?
Come on swishie.
Actually every day is less often than all the time . So I'm good.

Problem with reading comprehension? Please show me in the statement above where I said that buildings like the WTC collapse every day. It doesn't, it is a just a ploy on your part to ignore the obvious, that burning building do collapse and depending on the size and structure they may smolder and slowly burn for days. In the case of the WTC just magnify that effect by a factor of a 1000 or so. Sorry, common human experience.

But what else can be expected from someone who falls back on the "government secret weapons" argument when they arrive at a logical impass.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
In the case of the WTC just magnify that effect by a factor of a 1000 or so...
But what else can be expected from someone who falls back on the "government secret weapons" argument when they arrive at a logical impass.

If you can look at these pictures and still believe in your heart of hearts that this is a 'fire related collapse', knowing that no steel framed high rise had EVER collapsed before these THREE buildings did so in one day two days after an unprecedented power down and removing the bomb sniffing dogs from their job despite an elevated security status, then perhaps he's not the only one who stands at a logical impasse.





Look at this one really good, see the center buckle first, then the subsequent footprint collapse. That's ONLY POSSIBLE with a carefully executed controlled demolition. You know, 'Pull It'...


Squibs, Lateral Ejection...


You probably know the BBC and CNN reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened, and the otherwise meticulous BBC has since 'lost' the footage. Also keep in mind that somebody told Mayor Ghouliani that he needed to evacuate the building because it was GOING TO collaspe.


Just a personal question for you Hooper, if you are so convinced that the official story behind those collapses is the god's honest truth, what are you doing here? Trying to save us from ourselves? Why linger on these threads when you know full well that this is a conspiracy site. What's your motivation?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

Why did NIST engineer John Gross feel the need to lie and deny proven WTC molten steel? Yep, the U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey still has the proof of molten metal under the WTC displayed on their very own website.

Images of the WTC Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001

Any of you duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics care to defend the lying of John Gross?

National Security?

Protecting the status quo?

Simply following orders?

Wants to keep his job even though his team was proven totally incompetent?

Surely some of you have a viable reason for John Gross to lie.

Dave? CameronFox? Swampfox? TaxiDriver? hooper? General? whacker? Joey?

He works for us on taxpayer dollars. Any of you guys care to defend the lying of John Gross to the American people?



NIST Engineer John Gross refused to give the individual his email so the NASA AVIRIS hot spot images could be e-mailed to him, even though Gross asked him to during the meeting. Why do the American people get this deliberate lying from NIST?





posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Rather than blather on and on and on and on ad nauseum, asking questions that have been answered eons ago, how about paying attention for once to what is being brought forward to explain yoru questions?

I, along with others, have already put forward explanations, backed with known facts and evidences that answered those questions of the hotspots many times. However, YOU ignore them constantly and return to asking the same question, as if the louder you yell and shout the question drowning out the good answer, the more likely you will get an answer that is more to your pre-determined idea.

I have posted numerous times to you explanations for the hot-spots in the pile. But you ignored and hand waved away every single one with incredulity and ridicule. Rather than doing some real research into what I posted, you dismiss it outright because to you, anything intelligently giving answers that refute your ill-thought out scenarious, is a threat to your fantasy world preconceptions.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I, along with others, have already put forward explanations, backed with known facts and evidences that answered those questions of the hotspots many times.

Yeah? Well let's see what you've got then. Be advised however, I'm not an idiot. If you've explained the month long pools of molten steel then you've done something worth reposting and I'd like to see it.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Hey SPreston, why arent you showing the Ground Zero thermal map taken a week after that one?



And your lovely little photo was taken on the 16th. Hmm how can therm*te be able to stay molten for so long, and yet, never be noticed by anyone cleaning out the pile months later?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Month long pools? According to whom exactly? and why werent they ever removed by the construction and clean up crews?

I just posted a comparison picture of the site on the 16th and the 23rd. Notice how much cooler its gotten? Why doesnt SPreston show you the rest of the picture?

Here is one of my previous posts regarding the corrosion, oxidation, and the effects that would explain the heat, corrosion, and other things noticed at Ground Zero. Also explains the mechanisms of corrosion, how oxidation makes heat, and other questions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Here is more information I posted from a few months back on oxidation and some of the fire hazards there are when handling iron ore in ships:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Month long pools? According to whom exactly? and why werent they ever removed by the construction and clean up crews?

They were removed, just like all the other evidence from the crime scene, which is illegal and was done so despite the objections of a plethora of law enforcement and emergency response personell. Removed under the heaviest security ever given to scrap metal.
According to whom? The molten steel was widely reported and confirmed by both CDI and FEMA employees on site. That molten steel presents a real problem for the official lies we were handed so it is constantly under attack, but it was CONFRIMED, very publicly. Ever play 'whack a mole'? Like I have said before, if you have, then you will begin to understand the nature of truth and it's supression.

Some people just need a picture though....






Since you're obviously so adept at proving things, perhaps you can find a precedent somewhere in the history of modern steel framed construction where they have found molten pools of steel in the oxygen starved rubble of a conventional fire related golbal footprint collapse. Start looking and find it quick before the word 'unconventional' creeps into someone's head.


Originally posted by GenRadek
I just posted a comparison picture of the site on the 16th and the 23rd. Notice how much cooler its gotten? Why doesnt SPreston show you the rest of the picture?


Wow, you mean if you spray water on hot things for week, they cool off? I would never had guessed that in a million years. How about the elevated tritium levels or the micronized concrete, where's the energy for that concrete turning to particulate in the collapse models when the energy of mass has been converted to motion? What about those squibs? Pressurized air is it? How is that possible when the path of least resistance is going to be the rubble above instead of the intact structure below? How much kerosene and office furniture does it take to melt steel? I need to know because my trash barrell, as well as any other modern steel framed building could be in serious danger from uniform global collapse.


Originally posted by GenRadek
Here is one of my previous posts regarding the corrosion, oxidation, and the effects that would explain the heat, corrosion, and other things noticed at Ground Zero. Also explains the mechanisms of corrosion, how oxidation makes heat, and other questions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oxidation makes heat, well that's a fine point. Fire consumes oxgygen though, which gets pretty hard to come by after weeks of burning underground.
'Effects that would explain', yeah if we suspend the most basic laws of physics and ignore eyewitnesses, sure maybe. Another explination, far more plausible, is that heat is generated by a myriad of processes, several of which are used in demolitions. One of them is a nasty little device known as a SADM, or special atomic demolitions munition, some of which went missing before 9-11.
Of course these are just skimming the surface, we're not asking about why some guy at the airport went around cutting up taped conversations between air traffic control and the pilots despite being ordered to retain those records and depositing them into seperate trash cans, or why Condiliar Rice felt it was nessecary to warn her buddy SF mayor Willie Brown not to fly commerical flights that summer. I guess you've got all that stuff figured out as well so, for this thread, we'll stay with molten steel, and the lies to try to cover it up that are spewing now.
Find a precedent, bring it back here, and then we'll talk about conventional fires melting construction grade steel. The steel industry would pay big money for an office furniture furnace, they would save themselves billions.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek

I, along with others, have already put forward explanations, backed with known facts and evidences that answered those questions of the hotspots many times.


posted by twitchy

Yeah? Well let's see what you've got then. Be advised however, I'm not an idiot. If you've explained the month long pools of molten steel then you've done something worth reposting and I'd like to see it.


Sorry twitchy but the General will not be reposting explanations of the molten metal under the WTC because the General posts gibberish and flees from such matters.


posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston
 

Hey SPreston, why arent you showing the Ground Zero thermal map taken a week after that one?


I gave the link General. Anyone can look themselves. Obviously the hot spots were much hotter between September 11 and September 16, before the AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) images were taken, were they not General? The pools of molten metal were cooling weren't they as water and rain was added and debris was removed?




On September 20, 2001 there was a significant rain storm that washed away some of the dusty debris

Images of the WTC Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001


It takes thousands of degrees to melt structural steel as the firemen on site testified. You were not there General; they were and they described the molten metal as lava, flowing like in a foundry, like from a volcano.



If you were not too lazy to read the entire description of the AVIRIS images of the hot spots, you would have seen the answer directly below the image you posted.



Thermal Figure 1. Hot spots show as orange and yellow areas. Dozens of hot spots are seen on September 16, but most had cooled or the fires had been put out by September 23.

Images of the WTC Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001


Most General; not all. As reported by the firefighters, some pools of molten metal lasted for months. The images are surface images General, of the heat emanating from the molten pools below. Obviously the deeper pools down in the deepest sub-basements covered by greater amounts of pulverized concrete would reflect less heat to the surface to be picked up on the AVIRIS images.

The deeper more densely covered pools of molten metal would appear cooler on the surface to the spectral radiance imager at 6,500 feet wouldn't they General?

Are you calling the eyewitness firemen and 1st responders liars General? Are you claiming they saw no pools of molten metal? Are you claiming they felt no heat from the pools of molten metal which officially melted their heavy firefighting boots in a short amount of time? Liars General?

And your proof is what; deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny?

You got nothing else General?

Geeze General, you sound just like the proven liar John Gross from NIST. Explain where pools of molten metal like lava came from, and without any of your magical rust nonsense please.




[edit on 8/26/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


www.ae911truth.info...


are you serious? Like I mean really? You mean to tell me, you are going to use THAT picture as "evidence" of molten iron and steel? Boy oh boy, how long have been on the 9/11 Truther wagon? If you are new to this, well it maybe excusable.

That photo allegedly shows "molten steel", however, its the best representation of Truthers posting pictures without even knowing whats going on. You mean to tell me those firefighters are standing over molten steel with temps over 2,800F in T-shirts, and regular firefighting cloths, and a cloth facemask?
I'm surprised they are not incinerated or dead in that photo. No sir, that photo is a picture of rescue personnel with a high-intensity flood light, being used to illuminate the area they are digging in. Lets be serious here, have you ever seen a steel mill before? ever notice the special gear they wear when around caludrons of real molten steel? Wonder why?

The fact you got this picture off a TRUTHER site just proves to me they are still peddling disinfo and misinfo on purpose to sucker more people like you into their grasp.

Hey here is a clearer video of that:


But hey, I guess those people at ae4t are not too interested in telling you the truths. I mean if they are lying to you about something like this, I wonder what else are they being dishonest about?

www.rebelforgod.com...


Ah yes, the molten ANYTHING that was seen dripping out from the corner of WTC prior to collapse. Now people have debated what that was, and here is the kicker. No proof that was molten steel whatsoever. Rather, it could have been molten aluminum, or even liquid from the UPS battery vault located in that area.

Also more info on that exact picture here:
Molten Steel?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


But SPreston, where oh where was all this "molten metal"? Couldnt it have been the fires burning for months afterwards creating that heat? The fact that 2x 110 stories of office supplies burning and crushed wouldnt burn for a long time?

Since when does molten steel stay molten for weeks and months without additional sources of heat to keep it above the melting point of steel? It solidifies rapidly once the high temps go away. I have read the accounts from the firefighters in the areas underneath the WTCs. So you mean to tell me these guys managed to walk around next to temperatures above 2800F without the special thermal suits that are commonly worn in steel mills and when sampling lava from volcanoes? With "molten steel" dripping all around them, those temps had to have been no lower than the melting point of steel, to keep the steel molten. NO HUMAN would survive even wearing a firefighter's coat and gear, in temperatures at or above the melting point of steel. I do not doubt the fact that there was GLOWING debris in the pile, and the appearance of molten objects, but then again no actual MOLTEN STEEL was ever discovered.

Oh and again with the firefighters' boots melting on the debris? Ever checked what firefighter boots are made of? Specifically the soles. Then do some research as to what temperature that material can melt at. hint: it starts with an "R" and ends with an "r". In the middle you have "ubbe"

[edit on 8/26/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Honestly, I quit listening to you as soon as you used the word 'truther'. The word truth has no negative connotations outside of spin.
I will use the word pundit, and until you provide some reasonable explination as to how office furniture and kerosene melt structural steel, then touche' and adieu.
You can bash and debunk all you like, but molten steel was confirmed, photographed, and widely reported. By credible, sources. Mark Loizeaux for example, who has since gotten his own television show, somehow.
It's not going away until it is sufficiently explained. It hasn't been, and won't be by any conventional means.

Edit:

Originally posted by GenRadek
no actual MOLTEN STEEL was ever discovered.

So why are you going on and on in the other threads about how piles of rusty iron spontaneously combust? You come on one thread saying there was no molten steel, then on another, you are trying to explain how the steel gets that hot? I smell something here and it isn't rusty compost.

Now let's see, molten steel was reported by Steve Tully of Tully Construction who were ON SITE and probably know what steel looks like. Mark Loizeaux of CDI, who probably knows molten steel from hot rust, even though he got wrist slapped for some ploitical 'contributions', Waste Age said NYC sanitation department were removing molten steel from the site, Greg Fuchek said they were pulling dripping molten steel beams out of the ground, "Toolie" O'Toole, a NYC firefighter said molten dripping steel beams, Herb Trimpe the chaplain ON SITE there said contractors were finding molten beams, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine said molten steel was being found, Ron Burger a public health advisor for the CDC said he saw molten steel, Leslie Robertson one of the guys responsible for designing the WTC said he saw running molten steel 21 days after the attack (there's your month later, friend, just like I said).
There's more where that came from as well.
Yes Molten Steel, a month later. We should take your word for it though, because you're... what exactly?

[edit on 26-8-2009 by twitchy]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hmm how can therm*te be able to stay molten for so long, and yet, never be noticed by anyone cleaning out the pile months later?


Let's see.

Thermite gets hot.

Thermite does it's job.

Building collapses on molten steel and insulates it.

Being insulated, it stays that hot for that long.

I would bet my next pay check that my scenario works a hell of a lot better than yours of silly fires "burning down there for weeks".



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Do we ever see the molten steel in the piles? No. Do we ever see the molten steel once it solidified? No. Do we have any pictures taken by any of the workers in Ground Zero during the clean up of the molten pools? No. Why the hell not? I mean if it is such a sinister, smoking gun evidence, something that is so strange, so out of place for such a seemingly simple case of building collapse after plane impact and structural failure, you mean to tell me not a single person had an idea to take a picture of any of this? Sure they mention molten "metal", but was there a metallurgical analysis of the "molten steel" or molten whatever? No. Why didnt anybody take a picture during the clean up? Why didnt anyone do a metallurgical analysis of the alleged molten steel? And dont say, because the secretly spirited it away and hid it. Thats a load of hooey.

Molten beams. Ah yes molten beams. So molten that they still manage to keep their shape. But wait a minute here. How can a beam be molten, but can be pulled out in one piece? Like have you ever tried holding a melted icicle in your hand? Wait its melted, in water form, liquid. how can it be held in your hands? Oh unless you mean they used special buckets to pull the MOLTEN beams out. Ok maybe that is it. You see, there is a difference between something molten, and something retaining its shape. I'll bet the steel and debris was glowing hot. Red hot. Sure. Molten? Doubt it. If its molten, you cant grab it in one piece. A molten beam? Well its not really a beam now is it? Its melted, so it is now a liquid. And a liquid cannot hold a shape on its own, in this case, a beam. So obviously, they were referring to glowing red hot beams, and this can be easily mistaken or offhanded identified as "molten beams".

A little more info about Leslie Robertson and his alleged "quote" about molten steel:
Leslie Robertson

OH by the way, its not Steven Tully, its Peter Tully. I thought the Truthers we all about facts and truth. Can't even get the names right. No wonder I couldnt find Steven Tully, except for on Truther and conspiracy sites. I had to get the correct name from a "debunking" site.

Little more info on reports and who reported what on "Molten steel"Molten steel reports

So were there really liquid steel everywhere? Not according to the actual reports and accounts. Sure there was glowing metals and steel beams. Even red hot. But in order to have liquid steel, you need temps ABOVE 2800F. And yet, there was absolutely no evidence of this sort of extreme heat ANYWHERE. Also therm*te burns over 2800F. Why then didnt they find a single beam or anything that showed such extreme temps? Highest temps discovered were all up to 1800F.

I was posting on corrosion and oxidation because those two things are the better examples and more reasonable explanations for the events discovered in the pile weeks and months later. You have thousands of tons of steel, heated, piled in a large heap, with water being poured onto it, drywall decomposing, and fires from the WTC still burning debris. You have circulation to allow oxygen into the system. What is going to happen? This is exactly why I posted all that information on corrosion, sulfidation and oxidation. It also explains the eutectic mixture. And the temperature of the mixture found on the steel was never above 2000F. How can that be therm*te if it never got above the operating temp of therm*te?

Therm*tes are the most improbable explanations as to why there was such heat. Therm*te burns over 2800F. However, the source of the heat is the reaction between the iron oxide and aluminum powder. It produces the high temps to cut through metals and become molten. However once the reaction ceases, thats it. No more source of heat to stay molten. The steel cools rapidly. And no, it will not be "insulated" for so long by the debris.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


I'm just a regular joe, but there's only a few things I can think of that would hold those kinds of temperatures for a month in this context, one of them is an ongoing insulated thermitic reaction like you said which is possible, then there's the distinct possibilty of a nuclear device.
Yeah I know it sounds pretty wild, but take a look at this pic...



When I first came across this theory, I was pretty much in the school of 'whatever dude', but then it hit me that just prior to EACH collapse, all the surrounding area lost radio communication and cell phones etc. the instant before the collapses began. Odd that. We're told by Pundits that 'of course they lost communication because one of the towers had antanae on it'. Yeah, ok I could buy that, but what about the loss of communication just before other tower fell? An EMP perhaps, or a huge radio signal interference from a controlled demolition. Ever wonder why you're not supposed to use a CB radio in a blast zone? Either way, that's one little unresolved question nobody wants to answer in any official capacity.

Then you find out about the elevated tritium levels found in the debris. Pundits say this is because of exit signs and watches people were wearing. They don't mention these exit signs had to be removed back in the eighties because they had tritium in them, and well, watches? Did they give Tritium watches out to employees there or something? I haven't seen one of those watches since break dancing was still in.

And then of course the missing 'suitcase' nukes, some of them are otherwise known as SADM's, Special Atomic Demolitions Munitions, or nukes designed to demolish large structures.

Still speculation of course, but then you see the Pallisades Seismic data that shows us two big spikes just PRIOR to each collapse and hear about all the lung diseases rampant in the clean up and rescue people, frankly, they sound alot like the same kind of horrible stuff inhaling depleted uranium causes.
A nuclear device generates unimaginable heat, that, if insulated, IMO, could probably retain that kind of heat. Uncle Sam's magical flaming rust is a nice fairy tale. The process they are talking about causes scaling on the surface, not some new easily melted alloy and it sure as hell doesn't happen in a few hours of a conventional fire or create flowing rivers and pools of molten steel a month later.
Construction Grade Steel, not Iron Ore mind you general.
The molten steel is a major leaking hole in the official story that must be stamped out in order to sell their conventional fire causes symmetrical failure jibe talk. The spooks and mooks know this, which is why thread after thread on site after site and blog after blog, they simply say there was no molten steel hoping repetition will take hold. Unfortunately for them, we aren't that stupid.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


But how do you put therm*te on a vertical box beam? How do you make it cut horizontally? How come Mythbusters couldnt cut a truck in half with 1,000lbs of thermite? I mean, it didnt even cut through the roof.

And where were these thermites set? I thought there were special high explosives all over the place? Or was it magical super-dooper paint-on really really really thin thermite chips on the steel beams? Its like the goalposts are moving all over the field. Its quite ridiculous when the truthers cant even decide on which thing to agree on. All I hear is, Oh it was thermite! Thermite was used! Well how? Where?

Maybe you Nutter, can explain how you can control a thermite reaction. Hmm? How about it? Also show us other instances of thermite being used in demolition of buildings. Also explain how thermite can cut horizontally and angles cleanly.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join