Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 1
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+47 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
There has been some debate as to whether molten steel was found in the WTC rubble, with most official conspiracy theorists arguing that molten steel is a myth. It would seem that it is pretty difficult to debunk the issue of molten steel, so instead of even considering it, ignoring it and/or denying it seems to be preferred.

Before we begin, I'd just like to present this video:



The devil is in the cover-up.

As we all know, the melting temperature of steel (iron + carbon) is approx. 1532 C, or 2790 F and since hydrocarbon fires can't approach these temperatures, then there had to be something else that could. Because the official story, 9/11 commission itself and NIST reports fail to even acknowledge that "something else", I think it's safe to suggest that a real independent investigation is warranted.







 
 


A common argument made by most OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists), is that we can't claim both thermite/thermate reactions and explosions, since thermite doesn't explode. They argue that we must pick one or the other, as both certainly wouldn't be used.

My simple rebuttal is that there is no reason to suggest that both processes couldn't be used or even combined. You use explosives where explosives are needed, such as joints and other key parts of the infrastructure, while using thermate at points where explosions wouldn't tow the line. Thermite could also be added to explosives for a more effective blast or blast properties. According to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos, states that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders to very the energy release states, which allows the substance to be used in various explosives for a whole range of different effects.

Such an argument seems to be designed to appear as if it's suggestive against the idea of thermite, while not addressing it at all. Because it's hard to address the plethora of evidence supporting molten metal and its implications of thermite, you either ignore it ot bring up points that only seem to combat it. It would be like arguing against an elderly victim of robbery by stating that nobody in their right mind would rob an elderly person.

If there is a valid argument against the molten metal that was apparently in abundance at Ground Zero, I have yet to hear it and would love to do so. I'm not against admitting I'm wrong and adjusting my line of thinking and theories in accordance with corrected data or holes poked into said theories. I simply want to get down to the truth, whatever that truth is. In fact, the cover up is almost more damning that the actual event itself, as it implies something more vast than we would ever like to realize.

No matter what you believe happened on that day or who was behind it, we should never ignore the evidence, as that is only proliferating ignorance.



Further reading:

  • Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
  • Molten Steel Found at Ground Zero Weeks After 9/11
  • KMPH Fresno
  • Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple
  • Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


    Sources:

  • Military Reloads with Nanotech
  • DETONATION PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAINING NANOMETRIC
    ALUMINUM POWDER

  • Molten Metal
  • Metals - Melting Temperatures
  • Fire Exposure
  • The Open Chemical Physics Journal


    Further evidence through photos:














    --airspoon






    edit on 16-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



  • +5 more 
    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:15 PM
    link   
    S&F.


    More evidence of molten steel, described by FEMA in their own report on the WTC collapses, from appendix C:


    Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation 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. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.


    wtc.nist.gov...


    I'm not sure about the exact configuration of iron sulfide they found there, but certain forms of iron sulfide decompose around 400 C. If that decomposition applies to this form of iron sulfide then that is evidence that this steel was NOT subjected to prolonged heating in underground fires (which shouldn't have heated the steel to 1000 C anyway!) or else the iron sulfide would have been significantly reduced. It would seem to indicate a rapid reaction followed by exposure to a relatively cool environment.



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:45 PM
    link   
    reply to post by bsbray11
     


    Do you ever wonder if they are going to use the truth about 9/11 to "crash" America?
    Dont get me wrong, I want answers, we deserve them, I am seeing the truth get out a little more each day.

    Given the fact that same people still run the show, I am very suspicious of all of the press 9/11 truth has been getting.



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
    link   
    the steel didn't melt, it turned to dust. that is why there are no pictures showing large quantities of molten steel. there should be much more molten steel than that "pile", so where did it all go? The steel turned to DUST, it was not melted. Wake up people! Perception management at its finest in this thread. The steel and concrete turned to DUST, while aluminum was bent or burnt, and paper was unharmed. Look:



    If Dr. Judy Wood is wrong, then why are Wikipedia, AE911Truth, and many other people, censoring any discussion of her? Why are they trying to prevent people from looking at the overwhelming amount of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, she has gathered and displayed on her website? Full article here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

    Peace,

    -Abe

    Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
    M2 Medical Student
    B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

    edit on 16-9-2010 by PookztA because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:55 PM
    link   
    reply to post by airspoon
     


    Just to start this off, would it be too much to assume you know the difference between heat and temperature?

    Like when you say "the melting temperature of steel (iron + carbon) is approx. 1532 C, or 2790 F", doesn't mean I can throw a bunch of sparklers which give off sparks that can reach up to 3000 C and expect to melt it.


    It would seem that it is pretty difficult to debunk the issue of molten steel, so instead of even considering it, ignoring it and/or denying it seems to be preferred.


    Denying the existence of something which has no evidence is the only option. One of the main truther lines is how fire can't melt steel, which would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that it probably wasn't steel, rather something else that was melted, not just jump to the conclusion that thermite did it, especially when you consider what a fun time you would have melting this "abundance" (your words) of steel with thermite.


    A common argument made by most OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists), is that we can't claim both thermite/thermate reactions and explosions, since thermite doesn't explode. They argue that we must pick one or the other, as both certainly wouldn't be used.


    I've only heard truthers get into secondary explosives etc claims after their thermite argument falls apart. I think your confusing debunkers being against the truther story of explaining what happened by jumping all over the place with no coherent theory rather than this idea that "well if thermite couldn't do it, secondary explosives must have been used, if they couldn't do it, mininukes had to have been used, if they couldn't do it, god damn NWO deathstars did it" and so on with one thing in common, they have no evidence and are ridiculous to begin with.


    Because it's hard to address the plethora of evidence supporting molten metal and its implications of thermite


    Not really...


    It would be like arguing against an elderly victim of robbery by stating that nobody in their right mind would rob an elderly person.


    What does this even mean?


    Couldn't I then conclude that the robber wasn't in there right mind...?


    If there is a valid argument against the molten metal that was apparently in abundance at Ground Zero, I have yet to hear it and would love to do so.


    You state fire can't melt steel and seen a red substance pouring out of the tower, I would say it's safe to conclude that fire didn't melt steel into a liquid but rather fire melted some other substance with a lower melting point, no? Maybe it's your mind seeing what you want to see?



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by airspoon
    Further evidence through photos:




    A photo of a piece cut off during the cleanup.... what did you show that for?






    how about showing the photo before it was photoshopped






    another photoshopped photo - by Greer, I think






    you do not pick up molten metal with one of those - your hydralics would melt






    probably molten lead - that floor had the backup batteries

    edit on 16/9/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)


    +12 more 
    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:17 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dereks
     


    So I take it you did not watch the video of the WITNESS'S... you know the people cleaning it up... that were there...



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:30 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by PookztA
    If Dr. Judy Wood is wrong....


    Well she is.. Isn't she the wackjob that said there was no molten metal at ground zero?

    She literally called all those firefighters and clean up crews liars considering the amount of evidence we have that there was molten metal at GZ..

    She is a liar plain and simple.. I am trying to dig up where she said there wasn't molten metal at gz. apparently she took it off her site but this is what i get from google look..



    Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (hour 2) on "The Dynamic Duo" ..... Man in suit: There's this fused element of - of steel, molten steel and ... In NO WAY am I saying the fireman was lying about "molten metal"! ...


    I will have to pull up old So911 posts to confirm this.. I believe one of her cronies stated this also..

    edit on 9/16/2010 by ThichHeaded because: I R NOT GOOD SPELL0Rz


    ::EDIT::
    Here is it..



    Link for google

    In NO WAY am I saying the fireman was lying about "molten metal"! In addition, memories can be manipulated. See false memory syndrome for more information.)

    We're talking about the biggest psyops of all time. The designers of this psyops know how the human psyche operates. Immediately after an event like this, humans need answers. As soon as they're given an answer, they latch onto it and don't want to look back. To look back could be to relive the most horrible moments in someone's life. How many would want to do that? So, they may blindly keep repeating this answer over and over again. Perhaps this is what "brainwashing" looks like, but in a way a lot of this seems self-induced by human nature -- which I believe has something to do with why this world-wide psyops worked so well!


    She is saying that the firemen are suffering from psyops or something..

    Anyway She is a wackjob plain and simple.. I dont care of she took god to court cause he didn't make the sun.. She don't know her ass from a hole in the ground and her wacked out theories only make the truth movement look like a bunch of morons rather than helping them..



    edit on 9/16/2010 by ThichHeaded because: Editing sucks



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:36 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by airspoon
    That big blob of stuff melted together at the minute and a half mark may have some steel in it, but that doesn't mean it's molten steel. Other materials with lower melting temperatures could have fused together such disparate materials as they describe which includes not only steel but also concrete. I really don't see any molten steel anywhere and the guy saying he saw molten steel could have seen molten metal, but maybe it wasn't steel but lead.

    Also I think the distinction needs to be made between molten steel and red-hot steel.

    www.911myths.com...


    Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams... The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.


    Here is a chart showing steel temperature versus color, and as you can see the steel glows well below 1,700°C.

    www.uddeholm.com...


    +4 more 
    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dereks


    how about showing the photo before it was photoshopped


    Why don't you show it before it was photoshopped?





    another photoshopped photo - by Greer, I think


    I've seen the original photo of this personally and very little is different about it. The light source could be fire just as well as it could be something molten, but nonetheless this is pretty much what it actually looked like there.





    you do not pick up molten metal with one of those - your hydralics would melt


    You just can't say this is another photoshop because it came from filmed footage of the clean-up work.

    What makes you think this guy picked it up intentionally? And no, it's ridiculous to claim it would melt the equipment when a beam could be molten on one end and cool on the other:


    A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:

    In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel


    911research.wtc7.net...

    That looks like exactly like what's happening in the photo. A beam is being pulled up that is molten on the end.





    probably molten lead - that floor had the backup batteries



    "Probably" is debunking now?


    Come on, if you still think you know everything about what happened, you're lying to yourself.



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:49 PM
    link   








    You have confused glowing tungsten with molten steel



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:58 PM
    link   
    reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
     



    "Probably" is debunking now?


    Come on, if you still think you know everything about what happened, you're lying to yourself.


    It is probable because the source doesn't any extraordinary jumps to thermite melting steel and other nonsense. Does that mean that it's 100% certain that the substance is lead? No, but it is probable and isn't unreasonable to assume.

    Unless you want to show us your theory on why it is molten steel / thermite, just having a baseless claim stating that it is thermite / molten steel is ridiculous.

    The burden of proof is on you.

    edit on 16-9-2010 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:59 PM
    link   
    reply to post by waypastvne
     


    you have confused witness testimony ...


    with your personal denial of facts...



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:01 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Whyhi
     


    No no...

    The burden of proof is on you.


    Where is your proof that "batteries" were kept on that floor in the first place for you to even speculate the molten material we all see is lead in the first place?



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:08 PM
    link   
    reply to post by reeferman
     


    I have not confused anything that is definitely glowing tungsten not molten steel.



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by reeferman
    reply to post by Whyhi
     


    No no...

    The burden of proof is on you.


    Where is your proof that "batteries" were kept on that floor in the first place for you to even speculate the molten material we all see is lead in the first place?


    11-settembre.blogspot.com...



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:15 PM
    link   
    reply to post by reeferman
     


    NIST Confirms "UPS" on 81st Floor of WTC2 Was Power Supply; May Explain Glowing "Fountain"


    Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.

    -Nist





    Where's your evidence that it is molten steel / thermite?

    edit on 16-9-2010 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)


    +9 more 
    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:21 PM
    link   
    Don't forget, the first responders who actually worked the pile also saw molten steel:






    Since firefighters are in the firefighting business, I think we can reasonably assume that they know what they're talking about when it comes to anything burning or melting.



    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:21 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ThichHeaded
    Well she is.. Isn't she the wackjob that said there was no molten metal at ground zero?

    She's a disinfo artist and likely a government plant designed to get the truth movement to stop looking at controlled demolition and instead look at magical space beams.



    Originally posted by ThichHeaded
    She is saying that the firemen are suffering from psyops or something..

    Thank you for posting that. It further proves she is not all there upstairs. And that she has no business being in the scientific or engineering field, much less actually teaching. I truly feel sorry for the poor souls that actually have her as an instructor. What a disgrace to the scientific community.







    edit on 16-9-2010 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


    +1 more 
    posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:22 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dereks


    you do not pick up molten metal with one of those - your hydralics would melt

    I don't know what fantasy world you got that information from. Do you see how far away from the hydraulics that molten steel is? It's not anywhere near the hydraulics to matter significantly.That's first.

    Second, the president of CDI commented about those buckets picking up the molten steel (although he didn't personally see it himself). The president of CDI also confirmed that images and videos do exist of equipment picking up the molten steel, just as is depicted in the image.





    new topics
     
    86
    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in

    join