'Molten' metal found at WTC 1, 2, and 7, 8 weeks after 9-11?

fkwebinash

DEFINITELY not a paid disinfo agent
F
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
254
This twoofer showed me these two videos of 'molten' metal found at Ground Zero 8 weeks after the 9-11 attacks.





What's your take on this one? Can you give me an explanation about this?
 
Nothing to see here. Just molten aluminum flowing like lava for weeks after the collapse....:boggled:
 
This video just pushes old, long answered canards.

First of all, molten metal could indeed have formed in the rubble piles post collapse. KBR SH&E recorded underground temperature ranges "to more than 2,800F" (Professional Safety, May 2002, "SH&E at Ground Zero). So that's no surprise. It doesn't butress the theories of thermite one whit, since the metal could have easily melted post collapse, and the thermite/thermate theories still suffer from all the arguments against them, not to mention the lack of any characteristic signatures on the debris that was recovered and studied. The burden of proof still rests on the fantasists to prove that thermite/thermate was used in the towers collapse, and this video isn't it.

Also, note how Steven Jones jumps from "molten metal" to "molten steel". Steel wasn't the only metal present in the towers. That's a handwave right there. The entire facade, if I remember correctly, was aluminum (others can either correct or go into more depth for me).

On top of that: Thermite burns out in seconds. By admission, the pools were witnessed weeks after the collapse. What kept them molten? The hot fires mentioned above. Why couldn't they have been molten prior to settling in the debris piles? I don't know, but the burden of proof about that rests on the truthers, and they're trying the reverse here: Use these sightings as proof steel melting caused the collapse. These sightings do not support that.

And: Thermate? Where's the barium signature then? This cherry picking of characteristics was debunked a long time ago. The sulfur noted could have come from various, more probable sources: Drywall, acid rain, computer monitors, diesel emissions...

There's really nothing new here. Just search this forum for "molten metal" and "molten steel", thermite, thermate, sulfur, etc., to see the arguments. And note the dates; I'm not kidding when I say this is old fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Ask a CTist to show a single instance of controlled demolition that produced this effect. Never happens. Maybe it had something to do with the fires and all the flammable material that was left from the collapses.
 
Last edited:
Ask the guy why the video of molten metal has no video of molten metal in it.

And this video is by a woman who's proof of a controlled demolition is that most people can't say "kunkity-klunk) for each floor in the time the buildings collapsed. A woman who's claim of thermite is the sulfer found. The most common material found in constructions.
 
Well, it shows that any molten metal was not the product of therm(insert vowel of choice here)te, since that carries its own oxidizer, and burns out very quickly.
However, oxygen-starved fires, such as those in the rubble piles, or underground garbage fires other places, or even underground coal seam fires, can burn for a very long time. They can get very hot, because unlike a fire out in the open, they lose the heat they generate very slowly, since they are insulated by the stuff covering them. Their hot exhaust products work their way slowly through the surrounding pile, heating it instead of losing the energy immediately to convection. Incoming air is also warmed as it works its way slowly through the hot pile. They don't generate heat as fast as a stoichometric burn would, but if they lose heat slowly enough, temperatures become very high in spite of that.
There were many materials in the towers that melt at much lower temperatures than steel. Lead from computer UPS backup batteries, copper from pipe and wiring, aluminum from the external cladding. So molten metals of some description are not completely unlikely. Melted globs of copper and aluminum are found after conventional house fires, for example.
OTOH, many of the stories seem to be of the "somebody told me they saw" variety, rather than well documented testimony.
So could there have been pools of metal? Possibly.
Were there pools of metal? I don't know. It doesn't do anything to increase the probability of a government conspiracy even if there were.
 
This video is proof of controlled demolition the way an episode of Superman is proof Kryptonians can fly.
 
lets see what we got here. A burning pile of debris fueled by plastics carpets, furniture, av gas, in a sub grade slurry wall bathtub. Partially collapsed sub basements and concourse levels. intersecting subway, pedestrian, utility and path tunnels. which makes it a what?

A puddling furnace!

reverbpuddlingfurnace.gif
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Nothing to see here. Just molten aluminum flowing like lava for weeks after the collapse.
Click to expand...


Is there any reason to think that this phenomenon is incompatible with a non-conspiratorial sequence of events?
 
Pato2747 said:
This twoofer showed me these two videos of 'molten' metal found at Ground Zero 8 weeks after the 9-11 attacks.





What's your take on this one? Can you give me an explanation about this?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent question and one that has been asked repeatedly. As yet I have not seen an adequate answer.

How does molten metal of any description, found weeks after the towers collapsed in anyway add to the plausibility that they were brought down by CD? I simply cannot see how it does, I cannot see how explosives/thermite/space beams or whatever the twoofers suggest brought down the towers can in anyway contribute to molten metal weeks afterwards.

Maybe somebody will explain why it is important.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
This is an excellent question and one that has been asked repeatedly. As yet I have not seen an adequate answer.

How does molten metal of any description, found weeks after the towers collapsed in anyway add to the plausibility that they were brought down by CD? I simply cannot see how it does, I cannot see how explosives/thermite/space beams or whatever the twoofers suggest brought down the towers can in anyway contribute to molten metal weeks afterwards.

Maybe somebody will explain why it is important.
Click to expand...


Yeah the only way to make this relevant is to show other collapsed buildings and see if there any similarities. Just looking at this one pile can't really prove anything, yet I wasn't aware that it was ever considered a strong point in the CT community
 
thebestodb said:
Yeah the only way to make this relevant is to show other collapsed buildings and see if there any similarities. Just looking at this one pile can't really prove anything, yet I wasn't aware that it was ever considered a strong point in the CT community
Click to expand...
It's and oldie but goodie. They connected the hydrocarbon fires couldn't get hot enough so how did the piles get so hot. Had to be "thermite". I think it was Jones that included it in one of his earlier papers.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
This is an excellent question and one that has been asked repeatedly. As yet I have not seen an adequate answer.

How does molten metal of any description, found weeks after the towers collapsed in anyway add to the plausibility that they were brought down by CD? I simply cannot see how it does, I cannot see how explosives/thermite/space beams or whatever the twoofers suggest brought down the towers can in anyway contribute to molten metal weeks afterwards.

Maybe somebody will explain why it is important.
Click to expand...

Jone's response to that is that Thermite melts steel and thus the melted metal would be explained by the use of thermite.
 
stateofgrace said:
This is an excellent question and one that has been asked repeatedly. As yet I have not seen an adequate answer.

How does molten metal of any description, found weeks after the towers collapsed in anyway add to the plausibility that they were brought down by CD? I simply cannot see how it does, I cannot see how explosives/thermite/space beams or whatever the twoofers suggest brought down the towers can in anyway contribute to molten metal weeks afterwards.

Maybe somebody will explain why it is important.
Click to expand...


You raise an important point. Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. wondered why the loons keep ranting about pools of molten metal when this phenomenon is NEVER associated with a controlled demolition.
 
A simple office fire can reach temperatures well in excess of the melting point of aluminum. And when I say "excess", I'm talking like +500-F. It's literally trivial for molten aluminum to form in such a situation. Trivial.

Throw an aluminum can into a good campfire.
 
remember kiddies that metal=steel. Therefore molten metal is molten steel. All those other metallic elements in the periodic table and metal alloys don't count.:rolleyes:
 
stateofgrace said:
Maybe somebody will explain why it is important.
Click to expand...
You are thinking way to logically. Think like a CTists. To them, everything can be used as part of the CT. Their goal is to create uncertainty and doubt. If they can ask a question you can't answer, to the CTists, that calls into question your credibility.

It doesn't matter how lame, unimportant or picayune the question. They expect answers to every one of them. What caused the inner hole in the Pentagon. Who f'ing cares? This goes back to the heart of how I deal with them now. I don't give a **** about their questions. Come to me with a positive statement about what they think explains something, supported by evidence, then we'll talk otherwise, go away.
 
As I've pointed out here before, even underground nuclear tests don't create steel-melting temperatures that last for weeks afterwards. Try hours.

This phenomenon CANNOT be linked to any type of explosive activity whatsoever. Forget it. Whoever thought this up was a 100% pure, USDA-certified Grade A moron.
 
Here's an angle I don't quite understand. OK so they want to argue that the molten metal was steel. Well if the steel melted, the of course all the other metals with much lower melting points melted too. I think it's safe to assume they would agree with this. And I think it would be safe to assume that they would agree that that other melted metal would end up in the same location and mix together or what not. Since we know the other metals are definitely going to melt if Steel does, how much of that other metal in the buildings and plane existed roughly? And how much of the area of those supposed pools would it take up? How do they determine the percentage of melted steel vs all other metals with lower melting points?

And I seem to recall their determining it as being steel because of the color. But would not the contamination of the metal with various other materials make that impossible to determine? And if their claims were correct, then what happened to those other metals like Aluminum?
 
pomeroo said:
You raise an important point. Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. wondered why the loons keep ranting about pools of molten metal when this phenomenon is NEVER associated with a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

B...b...but the Thermite! ;)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
This video just pushes old, long answered canards.

First of all, molten metal could indeed have formed in the rubble piles post collapse. KBR SH&E recorded underground temperature ranges "to more than 2,800F" (Professional Safety, May 2002, "SH&E at Ground Zero). So that's no surprise. It doesn't butress the theories of thermite one whit, since the metal could have easily melted post collapse, and the thermite/thermate theories still suffer from all the arguments against them, not to mention the lack of any characteristic signatures on the debris that was recovered and studied. The burden of proof still rests on the fantasists to prove that thermite/thermate was used in the towers collapse, and this video isn't it.

Also, note how Steven Jones jumps from "molten metal" to "molten steel". Steel wasn't the only metal present in the towers. That's a handwave right there. The entire facade, if I remember correctly, was aluminum (others can either correct or go into more depth for me).

On top of that: Thermite burns out in seconds. By admission, the pools were witnessed weeks after the collapse. What kept them molten? The hot fires mentioned above. Why couldn't they have been molten prior to settling in the debris piles? I don't know, but the burden of proof about that rests on the truthers, and they're trying the reverse here: Use these sightings as proof steel melting caused the collapse. These sightings do not support that.

And: Thermate? Where's the barium signature then? This cherry picking of characteristics was debunked a long time ago. The sulfur noted could have come from various, more probable sources: Drywall, acid rain, computer monitors, diesel emissions...

There's really nothing new here. Just search this forum for "molten metal" and "molten steel", thermite, thermate, sulfur, etc., to see the arguments. And note the dates; I'm not kidding when I say this is old fantasy.
Click to expand...

what is the source for that 2800 °F?
 
A W Smith said:
lets see what we got here. A burning pile of debris fueled by plastics carpets, furniture, av gas, in a sub grade slurry wall bathtub. Partially collapsed sub basements and concourse levels. intersecting subway, pedestrian, utility and path tunnels. which makes it a what?

A puddling furnace!

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/reverbpuddlingfurnace.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

and what is one of the most important things to make your iron molten?

oxygen?
 
The reports of "molten steel" went on for much longer than 8 weeks.

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948
Click to expand...

If we're to believe all quotes about "molten steel" then this shows it was present maybe 5 months after the attacks. And actually after I thought the fires had gone out. But hey, that thermite reaction is still going, right?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
fires?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean - what was the heat source, not what was the source in a journalistic sense. In that case: Yes, as has been pointed out here about a million times, underground fires can burn slowly, with combustion rates limited by the supply of oxygen diffusing to the source of combustion, and yet continue to burn and achieve very high temperatures because the heat generated cannot escape. Since there was a large amount of unburnt fuel in the rubble pile - mainly furnishings from the 100 or so storeys that weren't involved in the fires prior to collapse - and there were plentiful sources of heat for ignition, long-lasting underground fires involving very high temperatures are an expected result. Since the high temperatures can simply be explained as a result of the collapse due to impact and fire damage, there is no scope here for challenging the generally accepted sequence of events on 9-11 in the absence of an alternative hypothesis. If you can come up with a specific hypothesis that fits the data better, then there may be scope for reappraisal, but note that due to its extremely high combustion rate - due to the fact that it contains its own oxygen source and therefore cannot be slowed by limiting the supply of external oxygen - thermite fails utterly to explain the persistence of high temperatures for months after the collapses. Any thermite present in the rubble pile would be fully consumed in a matter of seconds once ignited. Precisely the same is, of course, true of explosives, but even more so as their combustion rates are even greater.

Dave
 
What amazes me is after 5-6 years of pushing the "Thermite" issue to no avail, with NO REAL proof (sorry, S.Jones garbage does not count), the CTers have not developed a new theory, such as "The govt used a secret chemical, never seen before, never used before, to cause the collapse of the twin towers".

TAM;)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
The periodical "Professional Safety", May 2002. The specific article was titled "SH&E at Ground Zero".

Unfortunately, the article is not published online; I had to resort to going through the local university's library to obtain a .pdf copy.
Click to expand...

You know it makes me reflect when someone uses the word "resort" with reference to using a REAL LIBRARY for research.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
You know it makes me reflect when someone uses the word "resort" with reference to using a REAL LIBRARY for research.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Hehe :D

You know, I'm actually not opposed to using internet sources in arguments when they're primary sources. It's just that most teachers/instructors have a damn solid point when they forbid students from using the internet as the only source. A professional periodical that happens to put their content online is a perfectly acceptible source; PrisonPlanet and OpEd News is by far not (*shudders*).

And come to think of it, I never actually set foot on the "local university library" to get the article. As both a resident of the state, and an employee, I have access to their online collection, and that's what I went through to get the article; I was actually sitting on my couch at home when I read Dr. Greening's citation and went hunting for it; I just had to log in to my university's main library catalog to get at it (and figure out how to find the blasted thing in their voluminous collection!). So I guess in a sense I'm sort of wrong about saying it's not available over the internet. Rather, it is if you are allowed access to the collection.

I wonder if other state universities allow similar access to their collections. Regardless, most folks would have to go through their local libraries in some fashion to get the article; it's not like you can just Google the name and title and get the whole thing.
 
Controlled demolitions do not melt anything.

With Controlled Demolitions one way or another, structural damage is deliberately induced in such a way that a controlled collapse will occur, so that surrounding buildings - and more importantly members of the public - are not put at risk as it collapses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom