Giving this one more go.... molten metal

Originally posted by jthomas

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

www.serendipity.li...

You guys really do clutch at straws with your denial of circumstances responses.

A few facts regarding the collapses and combustibles.... High rise towers used as offices, with a large populace are subject to stringent rules and regulations regarding safety at work, offices that are furnished with flammable materials would fail each and every guideline set by insurance companies and safety at work executives.

80% of the towers and contents was ejected outside of their footprints, so here we have 20% of mostly none combustible items being forced down elevator shafts, due to the now proved none existent pancake affect, thus causing steel to become molten... priceless

A few more debunkers pearls of wisdom....

The B.B.C`s bulletin depicting the collapse in explicit detail 22 minutes before it happened in identical fashion..... brushed aside as `Just another news broadcasting goof`.

Bush`s detailed assessment of exactly what he was doing when he saw the 1st plane hit, as he thought to himself `What a terrible pilot`, observed in his own words in a corridor of a school that did not and never has had a T.V. in that area, at a time when the only known video footage of the 1st impact was at least 12 hours away from release, again put down as `Just another Bush goof`, well you know Bush, bless him.

503 First responders 20000+ pages of testimonies mostly depicting events that have been completely neglected and overlooked by the respective agencies, put down as none significant.

Bin Laden`s denial of anything to do with 9/11 was faked but the videos and radio broadcasts which a fool can see is not him are the real McCoy, even though a very early video has him praising one of the alleged terrorists that is by all accounts alive and well and was wrongly accused in the 1st place.

Seismic data recording two events, 14 and 17 seconds before each impact, even though there are several eye witness accounts detailing explosions pre impacts, these once again have been brushed aside as none significant and data that has been recorded that uses explicit time stamps to the second via the U.T.C. as prone to be incorrect, how the most accurate clock in the world that every single corporation, agency, military, organisation whose collectable data incorporates time stamps all use, is once again, deemed unsafe in the eyes of debunkers is beyond me.

And so much more.

reply to post by Seventh


Aww, Seventh. You're being a little harsh. They've got to have something to believe in to convince themselves of how the steel melted. We know that furniture in Class-A buildings like the WTC was fire resistant. We know the kitchens used electricity for cooking, not any kind of gas.

On the other hand, if we keep etching away at those false beliefs that their denial allows them to hold so dear, then one day they will see the light and realize that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly have been in those buildings that required little oxygen to burn hot enough to melt steel, or even aluminum for that matter, and maintain those temps for weeks and months.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

They've got to have something to believe in to convince themselves of how the steel melted. On the other hand, if we keep etching away at those false beliefs that their denial allows them to hold so dear, then one day they will see the light

Says the "honest researcher" that makes such a horribly inaccurate statement about the color of liquid aluminum, that another truther feels it necessary to correct him on his mistake.

Horrible research like that is bound to get you labeled as a disinfo artist, and get you thrown into the trash along with the no planers.

But maybe you're honest. But unfortunately for those that read your posts and believe them, it is YOU that hold false beliefs.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

They've got to have something to believe in to convince themselves of how the steel melted. On the other hand, if we keep etching away at those false beliefs that their denial allows them to hold so dear, then one day they will see the light

Says the "honest researcher" that makes such a horribly inaccurate statement about the color of liquid aluminum, that another truther feels it necessary to correct him on his mistake.

Horrible research like that is bound to get you labeled as a disinfo artist, and get you thrown into the trash along with the no planers.

But maybe you're honest. But unfortunately for those that read your posts and believe them, it is YOU that hold false beliefs.

Here we have an excellent example of debunking 9/11 in all it`s glory, you pick up on one error made by Bonez and over emphasize it to the point that this alone debunks the whole molten metal fiasco, here`s a challenge if you are so concerned of errors and mistakes.... NIST`s assessment of events then and now, see how many *mistakes* have been rectified to fit the OS glove, a few prime examples here are WTC7 and freefall speed, and the pancake collapse theory.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Look up underground fires. High temperatures must be maintained for months and thermite obviously can't do it.
I also note that the pictures of 'meteorites' posted earlier show twisted re-bar amongst concrete. If these were ever 'molten' as claimed, why is the rebar still recognizable as such?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, on page 1 you quoted what you purported were the contents of an e-mail from Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc, dated 12/13/2003.

The full e-mail is quoted, amongst some other interesting stuff, in this article :-

www.911myths.com...

You will see that you have omitted the first two sentences in which Mr Loizeaux makes clear he never saw any molten steel himself. " I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Centre. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. " The inclusion of these sentences now makes sense oh his final sentence " Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation " which you did include.

So, so far, you are mistaken about the possible colours of molten aluminium, you post a picture for which there is good evidence it is photoshopped and an e-mail from which relevant sentences have been cut out. It doesn't inspire confidence in your case.

Originally posted by Alfie1
You will see that you have omitted the first two sentences in which Mr Loizeaux makes clear he never saw any molten steel himself.

I have to say, people can't debunk the evidence, so they attack instead. Thank you and Joey for showing you can't debunk the facts and therefore, are only left with attacking. I'm not surprised in the least.

If you were paying attention to this forum at all, you'll know I posted the email here along with the link where I got the email from and nothing was omitted. It was copied directly from the website that I linked to. So, I'll accept your apology on that note for accusing me of omitting things.

But getting back to the facts of the matter, the president of CDI said that images and videos exist of the molten steel being lifted out by buckets of excavating equipment and I posted one of the many images of the molten steel being lifted out by a bucket of excavating equipment. Numerous dozens of witnesses saw the molten steel with their own eyes, firsthand. It's time to stop denying the facts and stop calling the witnesses liars.

And it does not matter in the slightest whether the president of CDI himself saw the molten steel or not. He has verified that images and videos exist of the molten steel. There are plenty of other witnesses that did see the molten steel. So let's stop focusing on this meaningless point.

Originally posted by Alfie1
you post a picture for which there is good evidence it is photoshopped

I already posted that there is no good evidence at all. He can't find a steel beam amongst a debris pile of nothing but mostly steel beams, so therefore the image is faked according to him. That is opinion only. There isn't a single shred of provable evidence that image was faked. Someone's opinion doesn't prove fakery.

Originally posted by Alfie1
you are mistaken about the possible colours of molten aluminium

We all make mistakes, don't we? You'll find I make very few of those.

Originally posted by Seventh

Here we have an excellent example of debunking 9/11 in all it`s glory,

You betcha.

Bonez has tried repeatedly to try and set himself up as some type of authority by declaring himself a "thorough and honest researcher", and as someone who has " researched for years and found the OS to be baloney", and by declaring things like " there was molten steel and the debate is over" , and by making statements like " my mockumentary that I will release this year will leave zero doubt that explosives were used to demolish the 3 towers".

Once one tries to establish oneself as an authority, it behooves the skeptical amongst us to examine whether or not his own self determined statement to be an honest and thorough researcher to be true.

I have shown overwhelming evidence that one or the other cannot be true when he made the statement about the aluminum. He was either not thorough, or is being dishonest. You may introduce a third alternative. I even had a truther beat me to the punch on that particular faux pas.

At this point, one starts to wonder if there is an element of self promotion to these decrees that puts him in the same league as the no planers have, when they decree themselves "experts" and "honest researchers" about such things as video analysis, mass psychology techniques, and video fakery.

You can be your own judge.

I have made my point. There is zero credible evidence of pools of liquid, molten steel; nor for ANY amount of liquid, molten steel.

Most interesting, of course is the truther answers I've read over the years about what could cause that. The answer I've always seen is an appeal to secret stuff in the military. Otherwise recognized as an appeal to magic by the rational amongst us. Which is why NOW, you never see this answered. Instead, it is used as proof for the need for a new investigation, disregarding that the purpose of the question was to determine whether or not that liquid, molten steel is even scientifically feasible.

IOW, the TM avoids putting together ANY type of hypothesis regarding just one narrow aspect. My sig explains why this is.

In the thread, "Somebody called me a truther for the first time", I showed this morning how and why _BoneZ_ and all others cannot support the claim that there was "molten steel."

Truthers have their work cut out for them.

reply to post by jthomas


Even FEMA's own report, Appendix C, shows steel samples that were recovered that were melted.

And that was 2004 wasn't it? So let's see. You were stuck in the mud intellectually at least back before that.

Originally posted by jthomas
In the thread, "Somebody called me a truther for the first time", I showed this morning how and why _BoneZ_ and all others cannot support the claim that there was "molten steel."

Boy, you sure did.

Here's my prediction though. Truthers will NOT address the errors in their beliefs and just go along singing LALALALALA with their fingers in their ears.

Just like BsBray's response above, where he thinks that a hot corrosion attack equals melting. Or rivers of steel. Or pools of steel.

Nothing can break through the psychological armour they have erected to protect their delusions.

Well, you can't reason a guy out his beliefs when they never reasoned themselves into it in the first place.....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Just like BsBray's response above, where he thinks that a hot corrosion attack equals melting. Or rivers of steel. Or pools of steel.

In FEMA's own words it is melting:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.

www.fema.gov...

It doesn't matter what you want to say caused it.

It melted.

To pretend you know it happened in the debris pile somehow and then to equate that in some back-ass way with there being no melting in the first place, then I don't think any of us really have trouble seeing why you in particular have so much difficulty with all of this. Or maybe you just have an awful memory.

Nothing can break through the psychological armour they have erected to protect their delusions.

Well, you can't reason a guy out his beliefs when they never reasoned themselves into it in the first place.....

I suggest you look up the term "projection" in psychology. You are mirroring your own self onto others because you are too confused and trapped in a herd mentality to do otherwise.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jthomas
In the thread, "Somebody called me a truther for the first time", I showed this morning how and why _BoneZ_ and all others cannot support the claim that there was "molten steel."

Boy, you sure did.

Here's my prediction though. Truthers will NOT address the errors in their beliefs and just go along singing LALALALALA with their fingers in their ears.

Just like BsBray's response above, where he thinks that a hot corrosion attack equals melting. Or rivers of steel. Or pools of steel.

They keep forgetting this:

web.archive.org...://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf

reply to post by jthomas


And you keep forgetting me. Probably because I'm on ignore now I guess.

I just linked you to FEMA where even they confirm the fact that steel was melted. Did you read it? No.

This is what pisses me off you guys are doing it again, im going to quote myself

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
Arguements I have herd....

denial of molten metal - im sorry, video/picture proof + witnesses, nice try and if anything there is undeniable proof of temps exceeding what an office fire can produce. Look at the glowing rock you guys like to say is not molten metal, its tempature cannot be denied.

can we stop the same old arguements?

I've been researching the 911 conspiracy theories a lot. I saw a few youtube videos and was instantly convinced. Everything made so much sense. They posed a lot of questions that I wanted answers to when they gave evidence that indicated building demolition caused the WTC collapse. I started researching a little further and am very disappointed to have more questions about the theories than about the collapse.

Step 1: Theorists give evidence of demolition: (explosions, Thermite, etc)

Step 2: Sources say that evidence of demolition is not valid (explosions, thermite, etc) and give specific reasons why. Refuting the conspiracy theroy.

Step 3: I've been trying desperately to find theorists evidence to refute (what seems to me as proof) that there was no evidence of demolition and I'm unable to find ANY. Can anyone who is well researched on this topic please PM me so we can go over the facts?

Example: Theorists say the molten metal could not have been aluminum because aluminum is silvery and the molten metal pictures are not silvery.

1. A googl search will explain that airplanes and various components are not made of 100% aluminum. They are made of an aluminum alloy which looks different than 100% aluminum when molten.

Originally posted by bsbray11

In FEMA's own words it is melting:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd reread that, this time for comprehension.

I'll help you out:
1- the steel experienced oxidation and sulfidation. The part that is missing from this passage is that it then bacame a eutectic mixture. IOW, it is no longer steel, but something else.

2- it then underwent intragranular melting. The part that is not in this passage that proves your lack of understanding is where they mention that this happened at around 1000C. Now you know at what temp steel melts at, and it is much higher.

How can you continue to claim that steel melted at around 1000C?

Logic MUST be telling you by now that there is a flaw in your belief.

The 2 are 100% incompatible.

reply to post by iamcpc


stop asking for what type of metal it is, it doesn't matter what it is, I will even say stop argueing over what is molten and whats not. These derail the real issue.

what the hell made that glowing rock that temp? molten or not, (personally I think anyone who done any work with metal can obviously see thats molten, even a high school metal shop student, but w/e argue over it and ignore the real issue), the an office fire cannot do it, so what did? That is the proof that I have yet seem to be refuted.

This is undeniable. I am not sure how anyone can even deny this after listening and hearing the eyewitness testimony of these NY fireman.

You get down below, and you'd see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channels.... See this link below first.

Live Video Link - Must See




Cheers-
Phil

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Phil Jayhan]

The youtube video of this on my forums is dead now, but we have screen-shots and I will try to find this video again. But check out this moving pool of molten something which was indeed moving slowly over the sidewalk and into the street;

Edit; Found the video again;



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7446dd129309.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is a link where we have most of the screen shots of the video all together and you can at least see the movement of this metal in the pictures. Not quite as good, but is is fairly self evident anyways.

Molten Metal Pictures

Cheers-
Phil








[edit on 1-5-2010 by Phil Jayhan]