AE911Truth still claims CD=Molten Metal...

Blender Head

Muse
Blender Head
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
679
On their homepage, AE911Truth claim that molten metal is an indication of controlled demolition using explosives. Roughly a month ago I e-mailed them about the claim. A "Judy Shelton" replied thanking me for pointing that out and that they'd modify their website to remove the claim. Today I opened their page and noticed it's still there, so I e-mailed Judy back.

While I wait for a response, here's my initial inquiry:

"Hello,

On this site's homepage it suggests that "molten
metal" is a characteristic of a controlled
demolition using explosives. Could this
organization provide an example of such a
phenomena?

Thanks,
TSJ"
Click to expand...

And the e-mails back and forth:

Judy Shelton said:
Can you point me to the section you're referring to, so I can look at it?
Click to expand...

me said:
It is on the front page, number 13 of the list of CD characteristics:

"Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)"
Click to expand...

J.S said:
XXX, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:

"It might be easier to demonstrate that various aspects of the destruction of these buildings are incompatible with the official story than to demonstrate that they are aspects of a controlled demolition."

So that's probably what we're going to do in the future.
Click to expand...

me said:
What exactly will be fixed or changed from the question that I asked?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

J.S. said:
I think we're going to have to stop claiming that molten metal is one of the hallmarks of explosive demolition. It's more accurate to say that the molten metal is not explained by the official theory of how the WTC buildings came down.
Click to expand...

And my latest question

me said:
Dear Judy,

Roughly a month ago I e-mailed AE911Truth about a claim on your homepage regarding molten metal at the WTC rubble. I was told that indeed, molten metal was not indicative of a controlled demolition, and that the claim will be modified to reflect that. However, I have yet to see any such clarification. I was wondering when that will occur?

Thanks
Click to expand...

A video about my back-and-forth (heads up: music plays at the start)

 
A "Raging Debate" indeed.

As I've showed here before, even atomic bombs do not leave molten material for weeks afterward.

If you have a controlled demolition that leaves molten metal for weeks afterward, and is, by inference, billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb, then you should probably dial the gain back just a tad.

It should take all of two seconds to realize that this claim is a blatant lie, if they have even a modicum of intelligence between them.
 
Last edited:
It gets worse, BH. If you haven't seen it already, you've got to check out my correspondence with them about their 118 witnesses to the sounds of explosions "a full second prior to collapse" claim on their list of hallmarks. As with you, they said they "are fixing it". You're going to love what their definition of "fix it" is. (That is, add a second lie instead of correcting the first.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113334

Yes, it was your correspondence that made me think they might be willing to correct their mistakes. I don't see how anyone can take them seriously at this point.
 
R.Mackey said:
A "Raging Debate" indeed.

As I've showed here before, even atomic bombs do not leave molten material for weeks afterward.

If you have a controlled demolition that leaves molten metal for weeks afterward, and is, by inference, billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb, then you should probably dial the gain back just a tad.

It should take all of two seconds to realize that this claim is a blatant lie, if they have even a modicum of intelligence between them.
Click to expand...


It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

That's what the architects and engineers from AE 9/11 Truth are saying as well - the molten metal found at GZ is not compatible with the official story. That is true regardless of whether or not molten metal is a byproduct of controlled demolition.
 
deep44 said:
It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...
this is only the case if you assume all the heat was provided by a single event that preceded the collapses, as the CTers would have you beleive

once you realize there were fires burning for weeks under the debris high temperatures dont seem all that odd anymore
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

That's what the architects and engineers from AE 9/11 Truth are saying as well - the molten metal found at GZ is not compatible with the official story. That is true regardless of whether or not molten metal is a byproduct of controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Yes that would be true enough if they had some convincing evidence that truly 'molten' (ie 1300C+) steel was found at Ground Zero. Unfortunately there's never been any measurements any of us are aware of showing this. It is a contentious issue but there is no mechanism by which Thermite could keep steel molten for an extended period. It simply is not possible unless you are radically reinventing how this so called 'demolition' would work.

Seriously, how exactly is this going to happen? I've heard endless claims about thermite being insulated by all the steel, but then people talk about how steel wicks away heat so quickly! Please form a coherent theory and then call people a liar, not the other way around.
 
deep44 said:
It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...

No, he isn't saying anything of the sort. Why do so many truthers have such a hard time getting this one, unless they're actively trying to misunderstand?

There are two possible explanations for the high temperatures weeks after the collapses. Explanation no. 1 is that, during the collapse, the rubble was raised to a very high temperature, and after several weeks had only cooled to the temperatures of several hundred degrees seen in satellite imaging. This is the explosives/thermite argument. However, it requires an insanely high temperature in the rubble pile shortly after collapse, which is what Mackey is highlighting.

Explanation no. 2 is that, in the weeks between the collapses and the satellite imaging measurements, the temperature of the rubble pile was either maintained or increased by a heat source within the pile. This requires that something in the rubble pile was burning for several weeks and generating temperatures of several hundred degrees. This is what would be expected from a smouldering underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Not, incidentally, by the jet fuel, all of which would have burned off relatively rapidly.

Explanation no. 1 is the one claimed by the truth movement, and is insane. Explanation no. 2 is the one put forward by those who believe that there were no explosives or thermite used to collapse the Twin Towers, and is really fairly obvious.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Explanation no. 2 is that, in the weeks between the collapses and the satellite imaging measurements, the temperature of the rubble pile was either maintained or increased by a heat source within the pile. This requires that something in the rubble pile was burning for several weeks and generating temperatures of several hundred degrees. This is what would be expected from a smouldering underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Not, incidentally, by the jet fuel, all of which would have burned off relatively rapidly.
Click to expand...


Alright then. Since we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground, give me an example of the "perfect storm" that would produce a similar result.

In other words, tell me what combination of chemicals or materials normally found in office buildings would trigger an escalation from a normal, run-of-the-mill jet fuel fire all the way up to huge pools of molten metal, with little or no oxygen available.

Surely have already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?
 
Deep44:
Would you mind showing me evidence of these "huge pools of molten metal" (solidified would do) that they had to have found during the clean up.
 
Last edited:
e^n said:
Yes that would be true enough if they had some convincing evidence that truly 'molten' (ie 1300C+) steel was found at Ground Zero. Unfortunately there's never been any measurements any of us are aware of showing this. It is a contentious issue but there is no mechanism by which Thermite could keep steel molten for an extended period. It simply is not possible unless you are radically reinventing how this so called 'demolition' would work.
Click to expand...


There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.

Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).

So I'm sorry, but your argument that there was no molten steel does not match up with the available evidence. If it was one or two people, I might agree that it's not conclusive -- but like I said, there were dozens of eye-witnesses (not counting the countless others who never spoke to the media about it).
 
deep44 said:
Alright then. Since we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground, give me an example of the "perfect storm" that would produce a similar result.

In other words, tell me what combination of chemicals or materials normally found in office buildings would trigger an escalation from a normal, run-of-the-mill jet fuel fire all the way up to huge pools of molten metal, with little or no oxygen available.

Surely have already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?
Click to expand...
we first of all, "run-of-the-mill" office fires can get very hot to begin with, plus the "no oxygen" claim is a strawman, there was plenty of oxygen, however a slight reduction in how fast its delivered to the fire will actually serve to increase temperatures as it allows materials to heat beyond their autoiginition temps without igniting, and then they burn that much hotter when oxygen does reach them
 
DGM said:
Deep44:
Would you mind showing me evidence of these "huge pools of molten metal" (solidified would do) that the had to have found during the clean up.
Click to expand...


Yes, I would mind. I've personally been over this at least two or three times in the past. Use Google -- there were dozens or eye-witnesses. Look for the comments from FEMA representatives.

---

For your convenience, here is a partial collection of the media references:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
 
deep44 said:
There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Then you'll be able to post links to their testimonies. Let's see at least thirteen separate statements that there were "huge pools of molten metal".

deep44 said:
Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).
Click to expand...

These have been explained ad nauseam as the result of corrosion of steel in the presence of heat and sulphur. How many more times do you plan to refuse to hear the explanation?

Dave
 
defaultdotxbe said:
we first of all, "run-of-the-mill" office fires can get very hot to begin with, plus the "no oxygen" claim is a strawman, there was plenty of oxygen, however a slight reduction in how fast its delivered to the fire will actually serve to increase temperatures as it allows materials to heat beyond their autoiginition temps without igniting, and then they burn that much hotter when oxygen does reach them
Click to expand...


That's why I said, "little or no oxygen".
 
deep44 said:
There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.

Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).

So I'm sorry, but your argument that there was no molten steel does not match up with the available evidence. If it was one or two people, I might agree that it's not conclusive -- but like I said, there were dozens of eye-witnesses (not counting the countless others who never spoke to the media about it).
Click to expand...

deep44:

Can you tell me, just by looking, what the metal in this picture is:

gietengecompr.jpg


Can you find anyone who can (besides the webmaster of the image's source, of course)
 
deep44 said:
Alright then. Since we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground, give me an example of the "perfect storm" that would produce a similar result.

In other words, tell me what combination of chemicals or materials normally found in office buildings would trigger an escalation from a normal, run-of-the-mill jet fuel fire all the way up to huge pools of molten metal, with little or no oxygen available.

Surely have already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?
Click to expand...

You first, since you're making the extraordinary claim. How much explosive was needed, or how much thermite, to heat the rubble pile to such a high temperature that it had not cooled below the melting point of steel several weeks after the collapses? In other words, tell me what combination of explosives and incendiaries would be capable of producing such an incredibly high temperature that huge pools of steel remained molten many weeks after the collapses?

Surely you already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?

Dave
 
defaultdotxbe said:
how much can you have and still be "little" because there was plenty of oxygen
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that there was as much oxygen down under all of the rubble as there was on the surface? It's a relative comparison, and a subjective one. I think it was little, and I'm not going to argue it any further, because I refuse to allow you to purposely waste any more of my time. We can agree to disagree, if that makes you feel better.
 
deep44 said:
[...] I'm not going to argue it any further, because I refuse to allow you to purposely waste any more of my time. We can agree to disagree, if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

I think that's an excellent idea. We'll stop presenting evidence for the generally accepted sequence of events on 9-11, you can stop trying to fabricate evidence that something else happened, we'll agree to differ, and there won't be a new investigation. Everyone's happy. Deal?

Dave
 
deep44, what do you think caused the high temps in the pile?

Maybe since truthburn and the rest of the pathetic truth movement completely failed to cut a column with thermite maybe you could use it to maintain high temps for weeks? Of course this will also end in complete failure since it rates somewhere between laughable and completely insane on the plausibility scale but it will sure give us a good laugh!
 
Dave Rogers said:
You first, since you're making the extraordinary claim. How much explosive was needed, or how much thermite, to heat the rubble pile to such a high temperature that it had not cooled below the melting point of steel several weeks after the collapses? In other words, tell me what combination of explosives and incendiaries would be capable of producing such an incredibly high temperature that huge pools of steel remained molten many weeks after the collapses?

Surely you already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?
Click to expand...


My "extraordinary" claim was only that molten metal and partially evaporated steel members were found at GZ. Both of those claims were backed up with the link I provided you earlier.

So not only are you unable to backup your statement about the corrosion, but but also can't explain to me how a fire could burn underground, escalating to the point that it could melt to the metal that so many people saw. Sadly, I'm not surprised - that's how you "debunk" - you make up things that sound like they might be true, and hope nobody asks you for any proof.

Oh, and I'm not claiming it was an explosive. I am claiming that it's not consistent with the official story.
 
deep44 said:
Yes, I would mind. I've personally been over this at least two or three times in the past. Use Google -- there were dozens or eye-witnesses. Look for the comments from FEMA representatives.

---

For your convenience, here is a partial collection of the media references:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
Click to expand...
I'm looking for pictures of these "huge" ingots (from the "huge pools") that would have to have been produced. None of those stories describe "huge pools of molten metal". You would think any one of the millions of pictures could have shown this (another "truther" curiosity?).
 
WildCat said:
deep44, what do you think caused the high temps in the pile?
Click to expand...


I have no idea. That's why a new investigation is necessary.

Since that is the 239,298th time I've said that here at JREF, maybe you could use the "search" function from here on out, before wasting any more of my time?
 
DGM said:
I'm looking for pictures of these "huge" ingots (from the "huge pools") that would have to have been produced. None of those stories describe "huge pools of molten metal". You would think any one of the millions of pictures could have shown this (another "truther" curiosity?).
Click to expand...


New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

First you claim there were no eye-witnesses.. so I give you eye-witnesses. Now you want pictures. I've proven what I claimed - feel free to use Google Images to do additional research.
 
deep44 said:
I have no idea. That's why a new investigation is necessary.
Click to expand...
:dl:

Since that is the 239,298th time I've said that here at JREF, maybe you could use the "search" function from here on out, before wasting any more of my time?
Click to expand...
And that's what makes it so funny! Basically, you're saying that since truthers are too stupid to understand what is obvious to the other 99% of the population millions of dollars of taxpayer money should be spent to confirm what is already known. And you guys would still refuse to accept the explanation!

Maybe you should use the search function to find examples of underground fires that have burned for centuries at high temps.
 
deep44 said:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
Click to expand...

Ten of these mention molten steel, so your "over a dozen" is an exaggeration. Of those ten, one is self-contradictory in that it mentions "molten steel beams", and the rest are not based on any chemical analysis but rather on eyewitness accounts of molten metal. So there's a possibility of molten steel, but it falls far short of proof.

Even if there were molten steel present in the rubble pile, though, it wouldn't be proof of explosives or thermite, because there has never been a plausible scenario advanced in which either of those agents would result in the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile.

deep44 said:
Proof, please.
Click to expand...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think that's an excellent idea. We'll stop presenting evidence for the generally accepted sequence of events on 9-11, you can stop trying to fabricate evidence that something else happened, we'll agree to differ, and there won't be a new investigation. Everyone's happy. Deal?
Click to expand...


What events am I fabricating, Dave? Unlike you, I've provided evidence to support every single claim I've made!

You'll notice that I don't go around claiming that the US Government was absolutely positively responsible for 9/11. I don't know what happened on 9/11 - that's why I support a new investigation.
 
deep44 said:
What events am I fabricating, Dave? Unlike you, I've provided evidence to support every single claim I've made!
Click to expand...
Really? Maybe you can provide an example of a CD which resulted in pools of molten metal?

You'll notice that I don't go around claiming that the US Government was absolutely positively responsible for 9/11. I don't know what happened on 9/11 - that's why I support a new investigation.
Click to expand...
Once again, your inability to understand simple concepts such as how when a burning 110 story building collapses in a giant heap the fires will continue to burn as long as there is fuel is not a reason for a new investigation you wouldn't understand nor accept anyway. And I sure as hell don't want to pay for it.

You want a new investigation, maybe you and your fellow truthers could put your allowances together and fund a new investigation.
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
Are you claiming that there was as much oxygen down under all of the rubble as there was on the surface? It's a relative comparison, and a subjective one. I think it was little, and I'm not going to argue it any further, because I refuse to allow you to purposely waste any more of my time. We can agree to disagree, if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...
im sorry you feel quantifying subject terms is a waste of time, since thats pretty much th ebasis of all science
 
Dave Rogers said:
Ten of these mention molten steel, so your "over a dozen" is an exaggeration. Of those ten, one is self-contradictory in that it mentions "molten steel beams", and the rest are not based on any chemical analysis but rather on eyewitness accounts of molten metal. So there's a possibility of molten steel, but it falls far short of proof.
Click to expand...


If you would actually take the time to read my messages, you would know that I said it was a partial list. I chose that wording very carefully, because I knew there were less than a dozen in that list.

I've wasted enough of my time for today. If you want to carry on a serious discussion, try reading my messages intead of making me waste my time repeating myself over and over again.
 
deep44 said:
... partially evaporated steel members ....
Click to expand...

deep44 has been throwing this phrase around quite a lot recently. Where does this claim come from?

Is there any evidence to suggest that something other than bog-standard oxidative corrosion/pitting is responsible for this?
 
There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Do any of these people think 9/11 was an inside job or the towers were bought down by "thermite bombs" ?

No? Why is that?
 
deep44 said:
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

First you claim there were no eye-witnesses.. so I give you eye-witnesses. Now you want pictures. I've proven what I claimed - feel free to use Google Images to do additional research.
Click to expand...
Still no "huge pools of molten metal".
 
deep44 said:
It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...

deep44 said:
What events am I fabricating, Dave? Unlike you, I've provided evidence to support every single claim I've made!
Click to expand...

See the above claim, which you've provided no evidence to support because it's patently false.



deep44 said:
I don't know what happened on 9/11 - that's why I support a new investigation.
Click to expand...

The fact that you're able to view the results of the investigations that have already been done and still claim not to know what happened are why I think that another investigation would be a waste of time. You'd simply reject any evidence and conclusions you didn't like, claim you still didn't know what happened, and demand a third.

Dave
 
deep44 said:
If you would actually take the time to read my messages, you would know that I said it was a partial list. I chose that wording very carefully, because I knew there were less than a dozen in that list.
Click to expand...

If we restrict it to testimonies that support "huge pools of molten metal" then there are very much less than a dozen. About a dozen less, in fact.

Dave
 
deep44 said:
First you claim there were no eye-witnesses.. so I give you eye-witnesses. Now you want pictures. I've proven what I claimed - feel free to use Google Images to do additional research.
Click to expand...

I want temperature readings, actual verified data. 'Truthers' in general refuse to accept eyewitness evidence which does not match up with their expectations, and so in these situations I refuse to do so entirely. I have no reason to believe these people were accurate with 'molten steel', there's plenty of other explanations which match the verified data we have at hand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom