9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Prove that the molten stuff is steel.

Pretty much common sense that it is steel. But then again common sense is not in much use on here.

I can post evidence, Now i need to see evidence to prove me wrong.

www.historycommons.org...

Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]
Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [US News and World Report, 9/12/2002]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
Entity Tags: Ken Holden, Frank Gayle, Lee Turner, Leslie Robertson, Ron Burger, Steven E. Jones, Alison Geyh, World Trade Center, William Langewiesche, Joe O’Toole


[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


So how does any of this prove it was molten STEEL? You are so fussy about evidence, paperwork, etc. So where are you demanding lab reports on the material that was suspected of being steel? Or do you just have different standards for stuff that bolsters your particular brand of fairytale?

Originally posted by hooper
So how does any of this prove it was molten STEEL? You are so fussy about evidence, paperwork, etc. So where are you demanding lab reports on the material that was suspected of being steel? Or do you just have different standards for stuff that bolsters your particular brand of fairytale?

Well all of these statements along with the several agancy reports would hold up in court

Even you should know we have the FEMA reports on the steel and the material found on the steel showing the temps of the steel.

reply to post by REMISNE


So where are the lab reports on the molten stuff these people are claiming is steel? Where is the chain of custody documents? Who performed the lab tests? Where are there lab certifications?

Originally posted by hooper
So where are the lab reports on the molten stuff these people are claiming is steel? Where is the chain of custody documents? Who performed the lab tests? Where are there lab certifications?

I suggest you start with Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

So funny when you have to keep asking for stuff from me when you know you cannot prove me wrong. When are you going to post anything to try to prove me wrong?

reply to post by REMISNE


So? How do you connect that directly to what was observed in the statements you posted? Why aren't you demanding the chain of custody docs wherein it is unequivocally stated that samples were withdrawn from a specific observed point and tested? Isn't that YOUR standard?

Sorry, I forgot - your standards are a little flexible.

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, I forgot - your standards are a little flexible.

Funny comming from someone who has yet to post anything to even debate what i have posted.

Please show your evidence aganist what i have posted or it will show you are wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
So how does any of this prove it was molten STEEL? You are so fussy about evidence, paperwork, etc. So where are you demanding lab reports on the material that was suspected of being steel? Or do you just have different standards for stuff that bolsters your particular brand of fairytale?

In truth, I really don't get why so much ado is being made over whether it was steel, aluminum, or chocolate bars. Any demolitions technology that creates enough heat to generate "rivers of molten steel" would necessarily have melted the whole flipping building, not just support beams here and there. Whatever created these supposed rivers of steel, it was created as a direct result of, and due to, the collapse. The collapse was NOT a direct result of the steel being turned into molten rivers, regardless of what that religious kook pretending to be an explosives expert wants us to believe.

We may see someone being shot and then falling down becuase they were shot, but these damned fool conspiracy web sites will see someone falling down mysteriously and then a bullet mysteriously entering the body, all entirely so they can say "something mysterious is going on". The only thing mysterious is how any otherwise intelligent, rational person would take any of their horse [censored] seriously.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The only thing mysterious is how any otherwise intelligent, rational person would take any of their horse [censored] seriously.

Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.

2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.

3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.

So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

Originally posted by REMISNE
So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

Here we show the conspiracy theorists lack of logical thinking - nothing could keep steel at molten temps for several weeks without a constant huge energy input - their claims of thermite/thermate would involve hundreds of tonnes of the stuff, even a nuclear blast can not do that

So the steel can not have been molten, as my sources show. But the conspiracy theorists ignore that, and still claim it was molten for weeks!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Wrong. Silverstein said "Pull it" as in "pull the firefighter operation out of the building". The only people who ever claimed "pull it" means "blow somethign up" are- you guessed it- the damned fool conspriacy web sites.



Well, according to Controlled Demolition inc. The term 'Pull it' is an abbreviation of pull it down, commonly used in controlled demolition.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.

Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent? The argument is over whether fires were able to sufficiently undermine critical structural supports, not how long it would have taken to undermine them.

2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.

Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.

3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.

Your obervation has no basis in fact. Recently released photos taken from NYPD helicopters showing that raging fires were still burning until the moment of the crash have already been posted elsewhere, so I will not repost them here.

So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.

Originally posted by MocHolliday

Well, according to Controlled Demolition inc. The term 'Pull it' is an abbreviation of pull it down, commonly used in controlled demolition.

I know exactly what it is you're referring to and you are taking their quote out of context. "Pull it down" refers to pulling it down literally, as in with cables, which is exactly how they demolished WTC 6. Therefore, "Pull it down" is a term commonly used by, well, everyone actually, including you.

Unless you're claiming Silverstein told the New York Fire Department to secretly pull down WTC 7 with cables, you're going nowhere with this.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Agreed. The only thing that gets me is the constantly swinging standards of proof.

Anything, without regard to source or context or author, if it bolsters the fairytale is accepted as holy gospel. If it detracts from the veracity of the fantasy then it must be carved in stone by God almighty and hand delivered.

I have no doubt that in the millions of tons of rubble there was burning material in insulated pockets that caused various materials to stay red hot for days. Anybody who has ever seen a culm bank burn or been to Centralia, Pa knows about this.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent?

Because other steel buildings have burned a lot longer and did not collapse.

Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.

I have sveral reports from experts that state the fire was oxygen starved.

Your obervation has no basis in fact.

Photos and videos show the fires burning out before the collapse.

The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.

But what caused the heat, we all know that fire in the buildings were not hot enough to cause the molten temps?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I know exactly what it is you're referring to and you are taking their quote out of context.

Building 7 was brought down due to th fact of te fire fighters being out of the building before the call to Silverstein. This is supported by the statements of 2 fire chiefs.

So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by REMISNE
So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

Here we show the conspiracy theorists lack of logical thinking - nothing could keep steel at molten temps for several weeks without a constant huge energy input - their claims of thermite/thermate would involve hundreds of tonnes of the stuff, even a nuclear blast can not do that

So the steel can not have been molten, as my sources show. But the conspiracy theorists ignore that, and still claim it was molten for weeks!

yes you need a huge energy input say from explosives. it does not need to be constant, once the energy is applied and then buried it has no where for the energy to go, or atleast it takes alot of time for to dispate that energy. if this is false then explain to me what constant energy is keeping the molten rock under the crust of the earth... well molten.

and even if my thinking about the earth is wrong....look at how long it takes for a big block of steal takes to cool down after its made. I've worked in steal mills, forge a block on wensday you can't even go within 10 feet of the thing, on monday you still can't touch it. and those were blocks I would say no bigger than 10x 10 in open air and thats after its not molten. steal mills prove your lack in logical thinking. I could only imagine how long it would take to disipate all that energy buried under a bullding that used to stand that tall.

and im not posting video or pictures right now, maily because this is a new computer and I don't have any bookmarks :-) but im not trying to prove anything to you, your mind is obviously made up. there was molten steal. there plenty of pictures, atleast 1 video and witnesses, thats enough proof for me. im also not trying to prove to you that what the liquid was, was in fact steal. samples were taken. It was steal. It enough proof for me. you guys will take apart any aspect you can about who did the tests, just like the dude that found the thermite in the dust. and really I see no point in me trying to dig up all the links I used to have just to start the same crap and you guys to dodge the question.

This is why my question always seem to get derailed and you guys seem to dodge it everytime. Its back and forth about about this crap. so maybe I can get the answer I want this way.

hypothetically if the what was under the WTC 1 2 and 7 was molten steal. can something account for how it became molten steal that fits with the OS or something non-demolition related?

if yes, please explain

really I would love to think the OS is correct or atleast something non-demolition, government killing its own related. But really I can't be convinced otherwise. I'm not trying to prove it to you, I want you to prove it to me.

Originally posted by dereks
So the steel can not have been molten, as my sources show. But the conspiracy theorists ignore that, and still claim it was molten for weeks!

The following video shows ho hot the steel was up to 6 weeks later.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ohhwataloser


If you can show me a picture of molten steel puddles...

hypothetically if the what was under the WTC 1 2 and 7 was molten steal. can something account for how it became molten steal that fits with the OS or something non-demolition related?

Well, I could be wrong, but I think the reaction between the hot steel and air could have caused iron oxidation, or water reacting with the hot iron, to cause a flow of molten iron.

But really, explosives aren't going to create molten steel.

there plenty of pictures, atleast 1 video...as in fact steal. samples were taken. It was steal.

Can you post any links in regards to those?

reply to post by REMISNE


Quote from your video:

See the stuff he's pulling out, it's red hot

As in the steel is hot, turning red. As in not molten.

Molten metal = liquid
Hot metal = solid