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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


It certainly wasn't 'molten' steel , according to this chart :www.beautifuliron.com... .

There are other color charts available , if anyone wants them ?




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Even better is when another truther debunks the whole dripping steel fantasy, and exposes the photo Bonez is showing as a fake:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:187



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
I am still hoping that you can offer some clarification on what your position is , exactly .

You have stated that you didn't believe thermites/thermates were involved.

No, I've stated that thermxte were not used to bring the buildings down. Thermxte could have been used in the impact areas to accelerate or give the appearance of a fire-induced collapse. We have no idea of where or what capacity thermxte was used at the WTC.



Originally posted by okbmd
You have shown that you lean towards conventional explosives having brought the towers down

Not just "lean towards". More like 200% absolutely certain, as in there is no doubt about it.



Originally posted by okbmd
And now you favor the 'molten' metals claim.

I've never not believed in the claims of molten steel.



Originally posted by okbmd
My question still is ... What type of conventional explosives do you propose was responsible for the 'molten metals' ?

More than likely, explosives weren't the cause of the molten steel. Some other incendiary like thermxte would likely have been the cause of the molten steel.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So how hot would you say that this "dripping steel" is?

911research.wtc7.net...

1700-1800F ?????

Then it wasn't steel, was it?

That chart is not accurate. Firstly, it says "metal". Different metals have different melting temps. Secondly, that chart more closely resembles a flame color chart, but it most certainly isn't a color chart for steel.

Here's a real steel color chart:




And here's a better image of the molten steel being picked out of the debris pile:




Now, if you go look at images of molten steel, it's really bright yellow, just like the bright yellow that's dripping from the steel in the above image. As the steel cools, it will turn a darker orange and red, just as is shown in the image above. The further away from the dripping yellow steel you get, the cooler the steel and the darker the color.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Explain this leap in logic.

It was sufficiently explained in two separate posts. If you still don't understand it after two posts explained it, then you probably shouldn't be posting here. I'm not going to hold your hand. Go back and reread both posts above.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Even better is when another truther debunks the whole dripping steel fantasy, and exposes the photo Bonez is showing as a fake:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:187

Did you even read that "debunking"? It's all opinions and guessing. He says "proposed" this and "proposed" that. And comparing the molten steel image to images that were taken later is hardly a comparison. Some of that material could have been removed from the cleanup process and that's why he can't be certain about his claims.


And by saying "dripping steel fantasy", you're calling dozens of witnesses, first responders, and the president of CDI, all liars. Seems like your claims are the only fantasy here.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I'm still unconvinced that the photo shows molten steel .

In my opinion , it could very well be aluminum instead of steel .

Here is one more link to a picture of molten aluminum : www.energysolutionscenter.org... .

Can you , or anyone else here , honestly say that it's impossible that it is aluminum instead of steel when comparing your photo with the one in this link ?

What you said about the colors of molten steel , applies to the colors of molten aluminum as well . In the true molten state , aluminum shows to be a bright yellow color and as it cools , it goes from yellow to yellow/orange to bright orange to orange to orange/red to red ...

So , you can't rely on the colors of the material in the photo you posted as proof that it is steel and not aluminum .

In order to prove that photo is of molten steel , you would need to know the temperature of the material in the photo , something we don't have .

You , and others , have dismissed the 'opinions' of myself and others in more than one of these 9/11 threads , arrogantly telling us that opinions are not facts and should not be considered in these debates .

And yet , here you are , claiming molten steel based solely on your opinion and the opinion of others who say they witnessed molten steel .

Those eyewitness testimonies are nothing more than opinions . None of those witnesses did any tests to prove it was steel instead of aluminum .

None of those witnesses took temperature readings of the molten material .

And , without professional analysis , none of those witnesses would be able to look into a vat of molten material and tell you if it was steel or aluminum .

Firefighters ? They fight fires , they don't work in steel mills or smelters .
How often do you suppose that they encounter molten steel while fighting fires ? How often do they encounter molten aluminum ? How would they KNOW the difference , by simply observing the colors represented above ?

It would be interesting if someone would take the image of molten aluminum in the link I posted above , and show it to some firefighters . Ask them what it is . How many could correctly identify it as aluminum and how many would tell you it is molten steel ?

So , until you can prove that the photo is molten steel , it is nothing more than your opinion .

That would leave you with two options . (1) Say that it is your opinion only , instead of touting it as fact . (2) Stop dismissing the opinions of others as irrelevant ., practice what you preach .

You have not proven molten steel , you have not proven controlled demolition .

Until you have PROVEN one , or both , you have no facts .

Instead , you have nothing but opinions , like those of us you so casually dismiss .

[edit on 16-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Even better is when another truther debunks the whole dripping steel fantasy, and exposes the photo Bonez is showing as a fake:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:187

Did you even read that "debunking"? It's all opinions and guessing. He says "proposed" this and "proposed" that. And comparing the molten steel image to images that were taken later is hardly a comparison. Some of that material could have been removed from the cleanup process and that's why he can't be certain about his claims.


And by saying "dripping steel fantasy", you're calling dozens of witnesses, first responders, and the president of CDI, all liars. Seems like your claims are the only fantasy here.






BoneZ, I think you are resolutely turning a blind eye to the evidence that your picture of the machine is a fake.

What heightens the suspicion is that yet another picture which Steven Jones uses to support his claims of molten steel is indisputably doctored because we have the original video from which it came. It is the famous picture of firefighters peering into a glowing hole with the implicit suggestion from Steven Jones that they are looking at molten steel. In this short vid you can see that Steven Jones picture is from a video of firefighters using a flashlight to examine a hole and has been doctored. I venture to suggest that Steven Jones must know this :-

www.youtube.com...

If evidence for molten steel is out there why have people been busy faking stuff ?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


" If evidence for molten steel is out there why have people been busy faking stuff ? "

Because there is no evidence , they MUST fake stuff to support their claims .

It has become a religion to the truth movement . They MUST believe in molten steel , CD , or whatever it is that each individual chooses as truth .



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
And yet , here you are , claiming molten steel based solely on your opinion and the opinion of others who say they witnessed molten steel .

You know, that's a two-way street. You debunkers ignore the opinions of others and the physical evidence to support your molten aluminum claims. In fact, the only piece of "evidence" you have that it's aluminum instead of steel is the "reported temperatures". That's it!



Originally posted by okbmd
None of those witnesses did any tests to prove it was steel instead of aluminum .

They wouldn't need to. You keep forgetting the fact that there would have been either cooled aluminum or cooled steel around the molten material to determine whether the material was aluminum or steel. Any person with the slightest amount of training would know that and what to look for to determine what material was melted.

FEMA did a somewhat sufficient job testing steel samples and they also found "intergranular melting" and other high-heat effects that "liquefied" the steel.

And don't forget about the molten concrete also!




To melt concrete, it takes temperatures of 1600 to 1750 degrees C (2912 to 3182 degrees F). So, obviously there were temperatures that were near 3000 degrees F to fuse molten steel and concrete together.



Originally posted by okbmd
you have not proven controlled demolition

You won't be saying that once my documentary is complete. Controlled demolition has been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
BoneZ, I think you are resolutely turning a blind eye to the evidence that your picture of the machine is a fake.

There is not a single shred of evidence that the image is fake, and nobody has proven otherwise. I'll refer you back to the president of CDI who has said in 2003 that images and videos exist of molten steel being "dipped" out by machines. Just like the very image posted.



Originally posted by Alfie1
What heightens the suspicion is that yet another picture which Steven Jones uses to support his claims of molten steel is indisputably doctored

Can you prove that it was doctored? In fact, there was nothing doctored in that image. The only thing that is different is the color/contrast is off. The color/contrast could have been accidentally altered any number of ways. As videos are spread around the internet, compressed, decompressed, copied over and over, screenshots taken, enlarged, reduced, etc. There's no telling exactly how the color/contrast was altered.

But I guess it's far easier to say that it was purposely altered to attempt to discredit credible peoples' research.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
BoneZ, I think you are resolutely turning a blind eye to the evidence that your picture of the machine is a fake.

There is not a single shred of evidence that the image is fake, and nobody has proven otherwise. I'll refer you back to the president of CDI who has said in 2003 that images and videos exist of molten steel being "dipped" out by machines. Just like the very image posted.



Originally posted by Alfie1
What heightens the suspicion is that yet another picture which Steven Jones uses to support his claims of molten steel is indisputably doctored

Can you prove that it was doctored? In fact, there was nothing doctored in that image. The only thing that is different is the color/contrast is off. The color/contrast could have been accidentally altered any number of ways. As videos are spread around the internet, compressed, decompressed, copied over and over, screenshots taken, enlarged, reduced, etc. There's no telling exactly how the color/contrast was altered.

But I guess it's far easier to say that it was purposely altered to attempt to discredit credible peoples' research.











BoneZ, that is very disingenuous. It is obvious to anyone that the white light of the firefighters flashlight has been changed to a warm amber and the flashlight has been kept from sight.

You say it may have happened by accident; how ? and why ?

It has been well known for a long time that Steven Jones picture has been taken from that video so why is he still using it.

You pose as a serious researcher but if you are supportive of this fakery why should I give you credence for anything ?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
It is obvious to anyone that the white light of the firefighters flashlight has been changed to a warm amber and the flashlight has been kept from sight.

That may very well be. But you can't automatically assume that the color was purposely changed, and you most certainly can't automatically assume that it was done by Dr. Jones or anyone in the truth movement.

Take the following images, for example:




The colors are clearly not identical in the two images above. The images were taken from two different sources.

You have absolutely no idea how the colors of the image you speak of were changed. To claim purposeful fakery as the only option is petty and below the belt.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ, it is entirely obvious to anyone who cares to look that the picture of firefighters looking into a hole has been taken from a video and doctored.

I can't say that Steven Jones did it personally but I can say that, if I know it he must also know it, but he continues to use the fake pic



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Now, if you go look at images of molten steel, it's really bright yellow


Which means it wasn't dripping steel even according to your chart.Any rational person would acknowledge that it might be aluminum, or glass, or a mixture of any number of things.

And of course this raises the question of color balance in the photo. Is it correct?

You do not know this answer.



It was sufficiently explained in two separate posts. If you still don't understand it after two posts explained it, then you probably shouldn't be posting here. I'm not going to hold your hand. Go back and reread both posts above.


I read it, and it doesn't make a lick of sense to the rational.

He may or may not have been correct about which tower would collapse first, and why.

He may or may not have been correct about molten steel after the collapse.

Rational folks, if they spend more than a nano second thinking about it, rea;ize that they are 2 separate issues.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Did you even read that "debunking"? It's all opinions and guessing.


Yes, and we allknow why he must resort to photo analysis. Cuz there's zero physical evidence of liquid, melted steel that has run to form solidified steel blobs.

IOW, he has the same physical evidence that you do.

Therefore, all you have is your opinion too.


And by saying "dripping steel fantasy", you're calling dozens of witnesses, first responders, and the president of CDI, all liars. Seems like your claims are the only fantasy here.


False.

I'm saying that they are most probably wrong, given that there is zero physical evidence to support what they have believed to have seen.

As pointed out many times, it may be aluminum or glass or some mixture of all kinds of junk.

The only lying done here, or anywhere else that I can see, is when truthers state that statements from first responders, etc, are proof, when the identity of the material seen is in question by the rational.

For you to believe it at this point, with all the challenges made to your beliefs, tells me that you are not skeptical in the slightest bit about this. Very telling. It is positive proof that you are ready to believe anything that supports your fantasy.

Another telling point is that when these first responders make multiple statements about 7 creaking and groaning and tilting, and that they believed that it would fall, their beliefs are thrown out. this is cuz they DON'T support the common CT fantasy that 7 was blown up.

You cannot deny this. It is obvious to all who read your posts.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bonez,

Has any of the molten materials that were witnessed at ground zero been analyzed for it's chemical composition?

If not, you must admit there is not any verifiable evidence to say what the material was or wasn't.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I can't say that Steven Jones did it personally but I can say that, if I know it he must also know it, but he continues to use the fake pic

I will personally be contacting him about the images and let everyone know his answer if he responds.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Which means it wasn't dripping steel even according to your chart.

The colors in the chart are obviously not as accurate as they could be because all one has to do is Google molten steel to see what color it really looks like.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cuz there's zero physical evidence of liquid, melted steel that has run to form solidified steel blobs.

Did you see the video I posted above of the molten steel/concrete "meteorite"? It takes about 3000 degrees F for something like that to happen.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I'm saying that they are most probably wrong

All of them? Every single person that says they saw molten steel is wrong and you debunkers are correct? How does that possibly make any sense in a logical, rational mind?



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
when the identity of the material seen is in question by the rational.

So, you debunkers are "rational" and the firefighters, engineers, CD experts are all irrational for claiming to have seen molten steel? Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy that line?



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
For you to believe it at this point, with all the challenges made to your beliefs, tells me that you are not skeptical in the slightest bit about this.

I'm not skeptical about molten steel, and neither have I ever been skeptical about how three WTC's were brought down with explosives. That will never change as long as I breathe oxygen.

But I will say this: If Dr. Jones will not remove the image of the firefighters with the light shining down in the hole, I will jump on the discredidation bandwagon myself.


There's something else I've discovered while I've been typing this. Take a look at the following image again:




See the red-hot "metal" that is orange/red color that is in solid form? There is even some yellow "metal" that is in solid form as well before getting to the bottom of it that is dripping "metal".

I looked around a bit and I can't find any images of aluminum in its solid form while still being red or yellow. I can only find molten aluminum in those colors. Steel can be solid and still be red-hot and yellow. I can't find where aluminum can also.

So, unless you or anyone else can find aluminum in the color of red/yellow and still be in it's solid state, then I think we can finally conclude that the above image does, in fact, show molten steel, just like everyone there said they saw.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Has any of the molten materials that were witnessed at ground zero been analyzed for it's chemical composition?

Yes. FEMA did a chemical composition on some steel samples and found that there was "intergranular melting" of the steel as well as the "formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Now, what does the sulfur in thermate do to steel?

The sulfur generates a eutectic system when molten thermate interacts with iron or steel, lowering the melting point of iron or steel.
Source: Wiki

So, basically what FEMA described is exactly what would happen to the steel if thermate interacted with the steel.

We even have a professional blacksmith/metallurgist in this thread here who goes by the name of "ibiubu". He actually uses thermite and thermate and he also confirmed from his own experience that what FEMA describes is a thermate reaction to the steel.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yes. FEMA did a chemical composition on some steel samples and found that there was "intergranular melting" of the steel as well as the "formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."


That's not what I asked you Bonez. We are talking about a picture you have posted, you are also talking about several witnesses. The material witnessed in a molten state.

So please, lets agree that none of the materials that were witnessed in their molten state were not verified.

Back to your point though, as I don't want you to think I am running away.

First question that has to be asked...and again, can not be answered easily, if at all.

When did the eutectic reaction take place?

Was it prior to collapse or post collapse?

What caused the reaction?

Professionals are saying it could be as simple as acid rain.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join