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.

 

Can't prove "thermite", but molten steel is undeniable.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
"Well I am a paid " government disinfo agent " obviously, but my pay is sadly in arrears."

If you're not and you're sitting here day in and day out defending the Official Story without getting any benefit from it, I'm sorry to say you are not very intelligent. People who have a brain get some benefit from spreading other people's propaganda.




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I will take the word of the firefighters saying it looked like lava
over you any day."

"There was lava at the WTC??"

This is why people should learn how to read before they attempt to write. I see you like to make a habit of putting words in people's mouths. I wonder why?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


Lava, what is that supposed to mean ? Lava is ejected from volcanoes.

I personally don't doubt the presence of molten metal at the WTC but I have seen nothing to indicate that it was molten steel. Much more likely aluminium, of which there was plenty.

If there was clear evidence of molten steel why doctor pictures ?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I will take the word of the firefighters saying it looked like lava
over you any day."

"There was lava at the WTC??"

This is why people should learn how to read before they attempt to write. I see you like to make a habit of putting words in people's mouths. I wonder why?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


If I were you I'd learn to think. Although this may not be possible.

The poster reports that firefighters saw something resembling "lava" at the WTC. He asks us to take this as evidence of something other than lava. Perhaps you can see why that's amusing.

Or perhaps you can't.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Well I am a paid " government disinfo agent " obviously, but my pay is sadly in arrears."

If you're not and you're sitting here day in and day out defending the Official Story without getting any benefit from it, I'm sorry to say you are not very intelligent. People who have a brain get some benefit from spreading other people's propaganda.


Do you get a slice of the take on any (Architects/Firefighters/Policemen/Lion Tamers) for 9/11 Truth mugs and t-shirts? Because if you don't then you're wasting your time spreading "other people's"... well, you get the picture.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Alfie1
 


This thread is a plethora of good evidence that there was molten steel at ground zero. Thanks for stopping by.


Where ? have I missed something ?


I can't make you read, watch the videos, or look at the pictures. Its obvious that you don't want to see what has been placed in front of you. Intellectual honesty is not a requirement here unfortunately. If you don't consider direct testimony by multiple witnesses and multiple expert witnesses sufficient evidence then its alright if you come out and say so. However to deny that the information has not been presented is the ludicrous.

I will point out however that in a court of law it is quite sufficient, not to mention tried and trued (sic).


So you think, in a court of law, someone saying they saw molten metal, or molten steel, without any analysis, would be proof positive ?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

So you think, in a court of law, someone saying they saw molten metal, or molten steel, without any analysis, would be proof positive ?

No, but I think the combined testimonies of expert witnesses combined with the physical evidence and video/pictures would be enough to convince any jury of peers beyond a reasonable doubt.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
You can't convince some people their burning when their hair is on fire. After 9/11 there were A LOT of people talking about the molten metal beneath the wreckage, unfortunately no one walked up to it and took a sample so you can have your proof it was "steel". The temperatures themselves support explosives i.e. thermate. Yes, thermate was discovered microscopically in the dust of the WTC. The molten metal thing was never even debated except apparently by you. Truthers don't have to doctor evidence. We don't do that. We leave it up to debunkers for that. Why alter the truth when it proves you debunkers wrong to begin with? You people need to step out of the denial zone and in to reality I'm sick of hearing your incessant drivel, and so is the American people. Look at CNN, they went from 3 million viewers to just a million. Other major news networks show similar declines. People are catching on to your bull#.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks. ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."



If the temperature at the core of the pile is near 2000 degress Farenheit days after the attacks and, according to this source:

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

The melting point of steel is 2600-2800 degrees then that is evidence that supports that there was no molten steel in the WTC rubble. The temperatures were simply not hot enough!

Why would the title of this post be that molten steel is undeniable when it presents evidence that there was no molten steel?????



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metal Head
You can't convince some people their burning when their hair is on fire. After 9/11 there were A LOT of people talking about the molten metal beneath the wreckage, unfortunately no one walked up to it and took a sample so you can have your proof it was "steel". The temperatures themselves support explosives i.e. thermate. Yes, thermate was discovered microscopically in the dust of the WTC. The molten metal thing was never even debated except apparently by you. Truthers don't have to doctor evidence. We don't do that. We leave it up to debunkers for that. Why alter the truth when it proves you debunkers wrong to begin with? You people need to step out of the denial zone and in to reality I'm sick of hearing your incessant drivel, and so is the American people. Look at CNN, they went from 3 million viewers to just a million. Other major news networks show similar declines. People are catching on to your bull#.


Who doctored the picture of the firefighters supposedly looking in a hole at molten steel when they were really using a flashlight ? and why is Steven Jones still using this fake pic ?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Actually, USGS put the temps in the pile considerably lower :-

pubs.usgs.gov...



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Actually, USGS put the temps in the pile considerably lower :-

pubs.usgs.gov...



So were the temps in the pile 2000 degrees or 2900 degrees?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
It is kind of interesting how the "meteorite" is brought up and touted as "proof!" of molten steel in WTC.

But why do people overlook the more obvious and mundane reason why it was formed? What about this? The force of the collapse squished many floors together due to tremendous forces. Floors "pancaked" onto each other, were pressed together and then buried by hundreds of tons of more debris. They were then heated by fires burning underground and also by other chemical reactions one would expect in such an enviornment (oxidation of the steel beams, break down of gypsom, SO2 and SO4 production, etc) things that would directly attack and corrode the steel and the debris, creating such a "lump" of squashed floors. Corrosion is a simple and complex thing.

The "meteorite" has unburned papers in it, unmelted steel truss members, and other debris. if it was really exposed to 4,000F then it would be just one amorpheous blob with nothing recognizable, and no unburned papers in it either. One thing I know about paper, it aint gonna survive 4,000F of molten steel being poured on it.

[edit on 6/21/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

So you think, in a court of law, someone saying they saw molten metal, or molten steel, without any analysis, would be proof positive ?


Hey then that means, When I saw Elvis running from the basement of the WTC right before the crashes, carrying a lunchbox in one hand, and a detonator in the other, its more than enough proof that Elvis brought down the WTC! Awesome!


I saw him there I tell ya. Why doesnt any one believe me? I saw him. he was there! That should be more than enough proof too right?













posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

It is kind of interesting how the "meteorite" is brought up and touted as "proof!" of molten steel in WTC.


Why is it interesting? An expert confirmed it. Whats interesting is that when a "truther" makes a claim it holds no water under the lack of authority fallacy but when an expert confirms it debunkers cry "thats appeal to authority" fallacy and then character assassinate the expert.

No man, its not interesting at all. I trust the architect who has owned his firm since the 70's over any anonymous poster on the internet including myself.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by jprophet420
The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks. ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."



If the temperature at the core of the pile is near 2000 degress Farenheit days after the attacks and, according to this source:

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

The melting point of steel is 2600-2800 degrees then that is evidence that supports that there was no molten steel in the WTC rubble. The temperatures were simply not hot enough!

Why would the title of this post be that molten steel is undeniable when it presents evidence that there was no molten steel?????


So your logic is that when a firefighter estimates the temp and reports it back to the news you believe it, but when i firefighter claims molten steel was flowing you do not believe it.

Lets take a look at this first of all, I am assuming you believe the OS, forgive me if I am wrong. The temp of 2000 degrees is unattainable by jet fuel, it maxes out at 1800 degrees in a perfect environment. The firefighters were reporting back from a far less than ideal environment. Therefore if you do believe the reports that the temp was 2kf, you cannot possibly believe the OS.

Please tell me why you disbelieve every witness included in this thread, and please tell me why you believe the firefighters that said the temperature was near 2kf but not the ones that said there was molten steel flowing.

Then please answer what metal you think it was that was flowing, and keep in mind the answer is not aluminum.

Thanks.

And now I will answer your question. I think it is undeniable because the 2kf temp was;
1. quoted as "near" 2k. 2600 is only 25% off.
2. It was obviously not the absolute temp of everything.

Secondly, as I have said, they recovered a ball of cooled molten steel. That is up for debate amongst some apparently.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

It is kind of interesting how the "meteorite" is brought up and touted as "proof!" of molten steel in WTC.


Why is it interesting? An expert confirmed it. Whats interesting is that when a "truther" makes a claim it holds no water under the lack of authority fallacy but when an expert confirms it debunkers cry "thats appeal to authority" fallacy and then character assassinate the expert.

No man, its not interesting at all. I trust the architect who has owned his firm since the 70's over any anonymous poster on the internet including myself.


It's interesting to me becuase people are saying molten steel and people are saying molten aluminum and all people have to do is answer the question:

What was the temperature in the rubble when and where the molten metal was found?

I have struggled to find a source that said the temperature in the WTC rubble was 2800 - 2900 degress.

I've found sources that say the rubble was far too hot for far too long. I've found sources that say the rubble was 2000 degrees and this that and the other. So lets look at the information available and discuss what temperature the rubble was. That's the sure fire way to know what kind of molten metal it was.

We must trace back to when the reports of molten metal were made and who all was able to analyze the temperatures. I agree the fires were hot for far too long. But being hot for far too long does not answer the question:

What was the temperature in the rubble when and where the molten metal was found?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No man, its not interesting at all. I trust the architect who has owned his firm since the 70's over any anonymous poster on the internet including myself.


IIRC, Voorsang says it is fused, not melted.

There's a difference.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

If I were you I'd learn to think. Although this may not be possible.

The poster reports that firefighters saw something resembling "lava" at the WTC. He asks us to take this as evidence of something other than lava. Perhaps you can see why that's amusing.

Or perhaps you can't.


If you cant comprehend his statement you don't deserve to post on ATS. The firefighters made the reports directly first of all. If you don't have the respect to at least look at all the information before posting please don't respond to my posts or threads. Its insulting to both me and the first responders. Second of all if you don't know what molten steel looks like you have zero business posting in a molten steel thread. Lastly, if you don't know that molten steel and molten lava look similar and have been compared for ages, then you simply aren't up to speed on the subject you are attempting, but failing, to debate.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Alfie1

So you think, in a court of law, someone saying they saw molten metal, or molten steel, without any analysis, would be proof positive ?


Hey then that means, When I saw Elvis running from the basement of the WTC right before the crashes, carrying a lunchbox in one hand, and a detonator in the other, its more than enough proof that Elvis brought down the WTC! Awesome!


I saw him there I tell ya. Why doesnt any one believe me? I saw him. he was there! That should be more than enough proof too right?












I addressed that directly and you choose to mock the answer you wanted to hear rather than address what I said directly.

Your wear your true colors on the outside good sir and for that I applaud you.













Because if I was that ignorant I would be too ashamed.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   


Who doctored the picture of the firefighters supposedly looking in a hole at molten steel when they were really using a flashlight ? and why is Steven Jones still using this fake pic ?


Its not relevant to this thread even tho you keep mentioning it. This isn't about Jones or doctored pictures. Its about why you believe or don't believe there was molten steel and the evidence for/or against it.

So far the only evidence against it at all is presented by pc, who says recorded temps weren't high enough.

I respect that but don't agree that one temp reading represents the temp of all of ground zero.

Back to your statement, I am just dying to hear you say you don't think there was or was not molten steel because Stephen Jones used a doctored picture, so that every single person with an I.Q. of over 80 can have agood laugh.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join