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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


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.


The only reason I referred to the fake picture of firefighters, supposedly looking at molten steel, a second time was because Metal Head said " Truthers don't have to doctor evidence. We don't do that. We leave it up to debunkers for that. "

I believe the opposite of that is the truth and the firefighters pic is a case in point. It is relevant to your thread because going to the trouble of faking evidence suggests that there isn't any real evidence out there.

It is obvious that you are failing to make the case for molten steel because there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures in the rubble to sustain it.

The " meteorite " is a joke because it not only contains obvious unmelted iron reinforcing but legible printed paper material.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The video is linked directly in this thread and in the video he absolutely refers to it as molten steel.


I had to look up his name. Voorsanger. He says molten steel fused with concrete.

He was hired to get artifacts from the site for a memorial. The artifacts are stored at JFK airport. The metoerite with the paper and unmelted rebar is at JFK.

It is the same lump, just 2 different views.

Found this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Bart Voorsanger, “Artifacts, Memories and Memorials”

Mr. Voorsanger described his role as consultant charged with selecting artifacts and objects from the World Trade Center site for future exhibitions and a memorial by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He was hired by the Port Authority soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and began the process of collecting 9/11 materials.He stated that the World Trade Center site was a complete catastrophe. The questions he had to deal with were: What does one collect? What is the most valuable? Eventually Mr. Voorsanger came up with a list of different types of objects. They were divided into six categories: objects on site, salvaged objects off site, commissioned fine art objects, objects memorialized by salvage crews, photographic archives, and objects having social content. He then proceeded to describe what each category entailed. For the objects on site, he looked at the site, located objects, documented them and then those objects were given to the salvage crew to take away. Each object was described and its selection was justified. People who were working on the site became “curators” and offered Mr. Voorsanger suggestions for collection development. After starting this acquisitions process, Mr. Voorsanger decided that the intended collection needed to be rethought of as an archive and not merely a collection of objects for a memorial. He posed the question to the audience as to how long should we keep these objects because they can not be given away or sold. The objects are currently being stored at a hangar at JFK airport."




Now, does your interpretation of that mean molten=liquid, melted metal? Or just red hot?

Cuz if it's red hot, and under pressure, then these materials may easily be fused in some manner.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The " meteorite " is a joke because it not only contains obvious unmelted iron reinforcing but legible printed paper material.


You are thinking of two different meteorites.

The meteorite in the video of Bart Voorsanger AIA does not have any unmelted rebar showing from it.



Please show me the unmelted rebar sticking out of that.

The one that was saved at JFK airport does indeed have un melted steel in it. Does this prove that other parts of the steel weren't melted? No. Why?

Do a test. Heat an I beam of ice in a pot to 1C (34F). The ice will start to melt. About halfway melted, change the temperature to 0C (32F) and refreeze the water. Does the end sticking out of the pot that didn't melt still look like the original while the melted part became water and then refroze?

Also, look up a thing called icebergs. How can ice float in molten ice?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
It is obvious that you are failing to make the case for molten steel because there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures in the rubble to sustain it.


What about an ongoing eutectic reaction fueled by aluminum and gypsum?

Just to let you know. FEMA has already stated the steel melted due to this reaction.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Why retest something?

FEMA already did the tests. On the WTC steel itself no less.

They found a eutectic reaction that melted the steel at 1800F. Period.

Now, as far as a conspiracy. Molten steel does not equate to a conspiracy. As I have shown that it only takes powdered aluminum and gypsum (drywall) to start a eutectic reaction in the rubble piles that could very easily answer the molten steel question.

But, now the question is: Why has the government denied the existence of molten steel when even their own FEMA tested and reported on it?



Retest something because many people believe that when it has to do with 9/11 and it was said by the government or government agency like the FBI or FEMA then it was a lie.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Retest something because many people believe that when it has to do with 9/11 and it was said by the government or government agency like the FBI or FEMA then it was a lie.


You mean how FEMA said there was molten steel but no one from their own government to debunkers believe them?

Do you believe FEMA was lying when they reported the eutectic reaction that melted steel? If not, why are you arguing about molten steel?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

You are thinking of two different meteorites.

The one that was saved at JFK airport does indeed have un melted steel in it.


Voorsanger's lump is stored at JFK.

Check my post above.

It's the same lump. Just 2 different views.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
So it's proven that Voorsanger's lump is at JFK.

www.wnyc.org...

"NEW YORK, NY June 14, 2006 —Tomorrow, a developer named by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg will make his recommendations for revising the World Trade Center memorial design"


Voorsanger was collecting artifacts for the memorial.


"The task of sorting through the Trade Center remains is being led by Alice Greenwald, the new director of the Memorial Museum"


Greenwald is the new director of the memorial.


"One of the oddest shapes is called the compression........ It looks like a meteorite ........."


So what they call the compression is called a meteorite. And that is Voorsanger's meteorite.


"Charles Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the hangar and the Trade Center Site. Gargano says the compression is actually 4 stories that have been crushed into a jagged object four feet high."

GARGANO: This is metal that has been compressed again as the result of the collapse of these extremely tall buildings. And that is made up, composition of different materials steel, concrete and other materials and you can see how that was compressed.

Amazingly, it’s possible to make out individual objects. There are bathroom tiles, a pipe, and blackened pieces of paper carbonized by the heat. It smells like charcoal. Peter Gatt, who’s one of the preservationists here, points to the spine of what looks like a corporate report.

GATT: This is a book. You can find a book inside. You can read letters on these little papers and for some reason they’re still here.

BETH: You can actually make out words on some of these tiny pieces of carbonized paper. The word representative, action, employment.



Proven now that they are indeed the same.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Again. They are two different "meteorites".



If you can't see the difference, then I'm not going to argue with the blind.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by iamcpc
Retest something because many people believe that when it has to do with 9/11 and it was said by the government or government agency like the FBI or FEMA then it was a lie.


You mean how FEMA said there was molten steel but no one from their own government to debunkers believe them?


That's a pretty broad statement. There are people who believe there was and was not molten steel in the rubble. There are people who believe that molten steel in the rubble does and does not indicate controlled demolition.



Do you believe FEMA was lying when they reported the eutectic reaction that melted steel? If not, why are you arguing about molten steel?


I believe I don't know enough about the eutectic reaction to determine if it was or was not possible. They may or may not be lying. I don't know. I'm argueing about molten steel because that's the topic of this post.


Also because many people believe that the existence of molten steel indicates some sort of conspiracy or use of thermite.

Quoting the same fema report:
wtc.nist.gov...

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion... are a very unusual event.
No clear explanation fo the source of the sulfur has been identified...It is also possible that the phenomenon started proior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel"


en.wikipedia.org...

"In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur"

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

HMMM FEMA says that sulfer generated a eutecic system and we don't know where the sulfer came from.

It seems to me that molten steel from a sulfur eutecic system would support the theory that some sort of thermite or thermate was used which would indicate some sort of conspiracy theory.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Again. They are two different "meteorites".



If you can't see the difference, then I'm not going to argue with the blind.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]


Nutter, they both seem to me to have clearly unmelted iron sticking out of them.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Again. They are two different "meteorites".



1- do you agree that Voorsanger's lump is at JFK?

2- do you agree that he collected it for the memorial?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Also because many people believe that the existence of molten steel indicates some sort of conspiracy or use of thermite.


Not when you consider that aluminum and gypsum board can and do make a thermitic reaction. Of which there was plenty in the buildings and in the rubble piles.


It seems to me that molten steel from a sulfur eutecic system would support the theory that some sort of thermite or thermate was used which would indicate some sort of conspiracy theory.


I knew I would regret getting involved in a 9/11 thread.

I guess you missed the part where gypsum + aluminum can create a thermitic reaction? No need for a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

The only reason I referred to the fake picture of firefighters, supposedly looking at molten steel, a second time was because Metal Head said " Truthers don't have to doctor evidence. We don't do that. We leave it up to debunkers for that. "

I believe the opposite of that is the truth and the firefighters pic is a case in point. It is relevant to your thread because going to the trouble of faking evidence suggests that there isn't any real evidence out there.


You have zero evidence that a truther doctored it as I have already mentioned, nullifying your whole rant.


I had to look up his name. Voorsanger. He says molten steel fused with concrete.


Thank you, now confirmed by one expert, one twoofer, and one jfreffer.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


www.wnyc.org...

So its another compression object. No mystery.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by iamcpc



It seems to me that molten steel from a sulfur eutecic system would support the theory that some sort of thermite or thermate was used which would indicate some sort of conspiracy theory.


I knew I would regret getting involved in a 9/11 thread.

I guess you missed the part where gypsum + aluminum can create a thermitic reaction? No need for a conspiracy.



I guess you missed the part where fema said they can't explain where the sulfer came from. I guess you missed the part where fema said that it was possible that whatever happened to the steel happened prior to the collapse!

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion... are a very unusual event. No clear explanation of the source of the sulfur has been identified...It is also possible that the phenomenon started proior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel"

Where did the sulfer come from that caused the eutecic system? FEMA said themselves that "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"


[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Nutter, they both seem to me to have clearly unmelted iron sticking out of them.




Oh no. Unmelted ice. How can they say that the ocean this iceberg is in is melted ice when there is unmelted ice floating in it?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


Nutter, they both seem to me to have clearly unmelted iron sticking out of them.


Oops, he's right. There are 2.

Unfortunately, they both have unmelted rebar.

911conspiracy.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Lets look at it logically. You said that because some guy told some guy that he saw something, then that should be proof enough of seeing said object and should be almost unquestionable.


I never said that at all, not even close. You should use the quote option if you want to quote someone because your view of what I said was skewed, and I addressed this several time and elaborated. If you don't wish to debate seriously as adults please leave my thread. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The only reason I referred to the fake picture of firefighters, supposedly looking at molten steel, a second time was because Metal Head said " Truthers don't have to doctor evidence. We don't do that. We leave it up to debunkers for that. "

I believe the opposite of that is the truth and the firefighters pic is a case in point. It is relevant to your thread because going to the trouble of faking evidence suggests that there isn't any real evidence out there.


You have zero evidence that a truther doctored it as I have already mentioned, nullifying your whole rant.


I had to look up his name. Voorsanger. He says molten steel fused with concrete.


Thank you, now confirmed by one expert, one twoofer, and one jfreffer.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by jprophet420]


Well, I am not sure I ranted. But, as regards the fake pic, it is quite true that I dont know exactly who did it. So, I think we must consider, as truthers often point out, " Qui Bono ". Plainly the deception was intended to support a truther theory so it seems overwhelmingly likely a truther did it.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join