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.

 

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

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by slugger9787
 


People tend to die. It does happen.

In the case of Jennings it's unfortunate but hardly suspicious. And if they're busy knocking off everybody then why is Kurt Sonnenfeld still alive? Why are Richard Gage and Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo, with their dangerous insight into the truth, allowed to carry on?


I agree. These questions must be asked and investigated. We must take nothing at face value. We are dealing with a nest of vipers, chameleons who are willing to play any role to achieve their ends, and carry out any deception and any violence.

Therefore I wouldn't necessarily agree with your logic in this statement, or your conclusion, but I would indeed carefully examine the premise.




edit on 17-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Before this goes any further stop all thought process and think about this.

My point is not to debate the points, it's to debate the choice in points.

This is a war patriots. A war on our minds. Hate to coin alex here because the guys a fear monger, but an information war is fitting.

Now riddle your head with this. If this is a war then it has weapons. What weapons are you bringing to the battlefield today? When I go to war I would bring only with me weapons that ensure my survival and have the best chance at defeating my opponents. Why then do we keep bring flimsy weapons that can be easily fought off when you have a stack of strong superior weapons available?

To put it in other words, why are you leaving the freshly cleaned M16 on the ground and picking up a rusted 6 shooter? Just toss that rusty 6 shooter aside, pick up your M16 and shoot them till they are dead. Don't think because your first 10 shots only wounded them that you need to switch weapons, stay the course. Your M16 will win in the long run vs their sword. And believe me friends, they only have swords vs your long ranged rifle, you will win the battle in time.

We spent our entire lives being trained to think the wrong way.

Never underestimate, your enemy or yourself =)


edit on 17-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?



Thanks Ciphor for this post.

It's good to have that reminder. This is a war on our minds. Their weapon is sleight of hand, deception, playi on word meanings, mixing truth and lies together, illusion and pantomime and inciting fear, insecurity and intimidation.

They are capable of the kind of deceit and deviousness we can barely imagine.

Logical, objective analysis, clarity, common sense, co-operation in uncovering the truth, are all things they fear and despise.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ciphor
It is indeed a neat optical illusion. However it is just that, an optical illusion.


And what's that supposed to mean? It doesn't exist? Really?

I've had psychology classes, this stuff is taught in psychology, it is really more like biology, it is a fact of our physiology and the way our eyes interpret data.

I am telling you, the introduction of sunlight diminishes the effect produced by the glowing, as compared to when it's in the dark. Just think about it for a second. It's really not that hard to see why this would be the case, no pun intended.


of course it exists. My point was however that it can only exist under specific conditions. The optical illusion you have shown does not occur naturally very often. If you have an example of that occurring naturally I am willing to debate it with you, however in it's current form I think it is not applicable to the discussion we are having. That is all, no offense meant, I am blunt at times.

I agree, sunlight diminishes the effect of the glow produced by the heat. Now that we agree, let's move on and determine to what *degree, it diminishes. I think when you bring the topic into this realm you will realize what I already have... it is a fruitless debate.

Does a camp fire burn hotter then molten metal? Of course not. Can you see a fire in broad daylight? Of course you can. Is it brighter at night? Of course it is. I like analogies, they really shed "light" on a topic that was badly in need. I understand the properties of a camp fire and a molten metal are different, and light will react differently. However they are similar enough that they are comparable. Both are sources of light caused by extreme heat.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Molten lead has already been shown to glow red. Any metal can glow red depending on the temperature it is heated to you. You are VERY foolishly assuming that lead stops heating up past it's melting point. I think if you are going to try and discredit other peoples information with provided sources, you need to at the very least provide a source and not just a 2 sentence "No it's not nuh uh".

You are another prime example of people on the side of truth being worse then the enemies we are fighting. Stop defeating yourself. Pure insanity.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The "molten steel" image is a fake:

Fake:





Original:





notice how the firefighters are in the exact same positions.


EXACTLY why using images off the web as evidence is such a horrible idea.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
of course it exists. My point was however that it can only exist under specific conditions. The optical illusion you have shown does not occur naturally very often. If you have an example of that occurring naturally I am willing to debate it with you


It's caused by the way your eyes work, not whatever you're looking at externally. So it doesn't only exist under specific conditions, it exists all day while your eyes are collecting "data." It is inherent to the entire way you see. If you surround something light with even more light, it appears less light by comparison. On the other hand, if you surround something dark with even more dark, that thing will appear lighter by comparison. That's all I'm pointing out.


I agree, sunlight diminishes the effect of the glow produced by the heat.


And that is all I am saying. And this is why it matters whether the glowing aluminum is photographed in a dark room, or out in broad daylight. It doesn't change the photon radiation of a molten metal, only how brightly our eyes perceive it to be.


Now that we agree, let's move on and determine to what *degree, it diminishes. I think when you bring the topic into this realm you will realize what I already have... it is a fruitless debate.


Someone else might argue that the whole 9/11 discussion in the first place is a fruitless debate. It's a matter of personal opinion I suppose.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Yo airspoon, get a job!!! Every time I look around you've got another awesome thread out!!

Nah just kidding bro, again, nice work.

My thoughts on Molten Steel at GZ? Well, the fact that this has been completely denied, ignored and whitewashed by NIST and the OS is the biggest elephant in the room IMO. I mean seriously, if half a dozen firefighters saying they saw "molten steel running like in a foundry" isn't at least cause for further investigation then I don't know what is.

yet they somehow ignore this. Now I don't say this is proof of thermate, CD or anything, just that ANY SCIENTIST worth his salt should look at the evidence at hand and go on from there. NIST didn't, I can only assume because they were scared of what they may have found.

It's an elephant in the room, doing big fat round steamy elephant turds my friend.


Great thread, s+f!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Can someone please tell me where I can find the evidence that there was molten metal. I know it seems widely acknowleldged that there was molten metal, but I would really like to know what the source of that information is. If anyone could post it I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by reeferman
 


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


Tungsten? Do you realize that Tungsten has a HIGHER melting point than steel? Tungsten melts at 3,422 °C, 6,192 °F. The free element is remarkable for its robust physical properties, especially the fact that it has the highest melting point of all the non-alloyed metals and the second highest of all the elements after carbon. LINK

Other's say "lead" -- nope, that gives off a Bluish-White color when melting; LINK

I don't know of anything that we would expect in an office tower OTHER than molten steel that has that characteristic "red to yellow" hue. At it's hottest it can become white. Various metals all have a specific light they give off when heated. And in case you are wondering, molten Aluminum is either white or silver.

>> There seems to be a lot of "grasping" for some alternative to the OBVIOUS conclusion that it was molten steel. So how did the steel melt and how did anything get that hot?


A good overview of "blackbody radiation" can be found here; LINK



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


I have tried to maintain a civil attitude in this thread so , why do I detect a hint of contempt in your post towards me ?

I am all about the truth . I have no motive or desire to support anything that's been proven to be false , so , let's not go there , okay ?

Furthermore , if I happen to point out the flaws and misconceptions in the TM , how does this hurt the TM ? Would you rather to attempt to push forward with theories that have been proven to be false , or would you instead consider looking at all of the evidence and dropping those theories that have been shown to have no merit and serve only to stain your quest ?

How am I able to answer you in regards to whether or not I support the OS , when no one has ever agreed upon exactly what the OS consists of ? If I ask 100 truthers what constitutes the OS , I will most likely get 100 different answers so , how can I answer that question ?

Tell you what , you define the OS for me , point by point , and I will tell you whether or not I agree with it . Fair enough ?

What I believe :

The angled cuts were made during cleanup .
Passenger remains and I.D. were found at WTC and the Pentagon .
Aircraft parts , consistent with Flight 77 , were found at the Pentagon .
It was possible that the Highjacker managed to crash into the Pentagon , regardless of all the arguments against it .
It is possible to plausibly explain the molten material without assuming it was thermite .
It is probable that the towers collapsed without controlled demolition .
It is probable that WTC7 collapsed without the use of controlled demolition .
I have no definitive opinion on Flight 93 , as I'm not totally convinced by anything put forth from either camp .
Alex Jones is a liar .
Steven Jones has not presented " the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth ".
Dr. Judy Woods has presented no solid evidence to support her assertions .
There were no nukes involved .
The steel did not turn to dust .
Steel can , has , and will , be weakened by fire to the point of failure .
The meteorite can be explained without thermite .
There were massive intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 .
Those responsible for those failures would naturally cover their asses .
The U.S. Government did not orchestrate 9/11 .
No opinion on Mossad .
I have no problem with a new investigation . If nothing to hide , nothing to lose .
There are three other men in my town who share the same first and last name as myself . Highjackers still alive theory needs more than this to show merit .
Truthers are their own worst enemy .
My opinions are not based on NIST , FEMA , or 9/11 Commission Report , as I've never cracked the seal on any of them .
The pre-emptive report of the WTC7 collapse was in error , and is not an isolated occurence . Let's not forget Truman vs. Dewey . This type of reporting is commonplace in the media .

There , that covers a bit of what I believe . If you have questions , don't hesitate to ask . Put me on ignore if you so choose . I feel like I make valid contributions to these threads .

Simply because I am not a truther , does not negate the validated evidence that I try my best to present . If I'm wrong , SHOW me where and how I am wrong , don't just assume that I will take your word for it . And , don't assume that I won't check it out to see if it can be confirmed .

You should actually be thankful for analytical minds .

No science has ever been proven by all of those involved agreeing on what the outcome should be .

An intelligent , analytical , somewhat-informed debunker could turn out to be one of your best assets .





edit on 17-9-2010 by okbmd because: spelling



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Your absolutely correct. Nothing is worse then when a truther is provided with evidence and they commit the same foul that the debunkers do in ignoring it as valid.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The "molten steel" image is a fake:

Fake:





Original:




What alternative do you suggest??
second line



notice how the firefighters are in the exact same positions.


EXACTLY why using images off the web as evidence is such a horrible idea.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Can someone please tell me where I can find the evidence that there was molten metal. I know it seems widely acknowleldged that there was molten metal, but I would really like to know what the source of that information is. If anyone could post it I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.


I'm no expert, but I think the fact that it glows orange/white, is indicative of super heated molten metal. Organic material would burn not liquefy, plastics would just melt then burn, it isn't a luminescent orang liquid stored in a tank somewhere as this a) doesn't exist and b) it would have been destroyed in the explosion of the aircraft or collapse of the building (depending on which picture you're referring too). From most of the pics you can see it's a) very hot, b) liquid and c0 glowing, I think molten metal really ticks all the boxes.

But as I said, I'm no expert!!


edit on 17-9-2010 by kiwifoot because: spelling



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Can someone please tell me where I can find the evidence that there was molten metal. I know it seems widely acknowleldged that there was molten metal, but I would really like to know what the source of that information is. If anyone could post it I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.


Look at the very first reply to the OP man. It's appendix C of FEMA's report describing a steel sample they had from the WTC, that had suffered its iron melting and running between the grains, further destroying and rendering the steel completely compromised structurally.



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...



This is what remained of the steel beam:






Before it was melted, it would have looked like this:




Since when does fire cause that to happen to steel?


“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”


buildingwhat.org...


Molten steel at Ground Zero... probably one of the biggest reasons for this:






edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Thank you for your explanation. You sound like you know this field like the back of your hand. Let me be clear I side with you, that most likely that is not molten lead or aluminum. My point was purely to demonstrate that however unlikely it is, there is still a small possibility. I'm sure you feel as I do in that, we do not have the complete picture yet. Till we do, speculation is dangerous and we have seen why. Who knows what was happening. I'd love to know. Till we do know it is possible that something super heated aluminum like a furnace.

Just my thoughts, not debating what you said at all. That was very enlightening and appreciate your detailed reply a lot. We need more posts like that one to help a good thread develop where people can learn and not just argue.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thank you bsbsray. That's great. Just what I wanted to know.
second line



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



Thanks, kiwifoot. Me neither, I'm no expert and I'm trying to get my head around all this metal/molten metal stuff. It's hard work!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



Thanks, kiwifoot. Me neither, I'm no expert and I'm trying to get my head around all this metal/molten metal stuff. It's hard work!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
So it looks like we are back on topic.

Do any of you debunkers have anything, anything AT ALL to debunk the presence of molten metals that require heats far greater then the NIST story has explained?

If not I think both the truthers and debunkers can share a conclusion that the molten iron phenomenon is genuine and indeed needs re-investigated.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> There seems to be a lot of "grasping" for some alternative to the OBVIOUS conclusion that it was molten steel. So how did the steel melt and how did anything get that hot?




You are right. There is only one explanation for the 911 event. It was an act of GOD (UFO/ET/Alien). It did not happen due to the OS nor did it happen by controlled demolition -- it couldn't have -- for many reasons.

1) Free Fall of all three buildings -- one not even hit by a plane.
2) The molten metal -- where did it come from, where did the energy come from to make it molten -- how did it stay molten for days?
3) The dust -- where did the energy come from to turn the building to "Dust"?
4) The planes -- lots of unexplained (unexplainable) things about them.
--- the list goes on.

911 was impossible – Impossible is the specialty of GOD.

Also, acts of God are often surrounded by lots of controversy -- or totally blocked out of everyone’s mind.

I've worked with the ET's on a daily basis for 25 years. See the websites listed before. Search for some of the words associated with 911 --- “like implosion”. 911/2001/AD = "Religion" according to God's hidden language in the English language.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join