Molten metal in basement of WTC

Iggy

Banned
I
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
49
Can someone explain to me what molten metal was doing bubbling under the WTC for weeks afterwards? I am new to the 9/11 truth theories and this bothers me. After watching the BBC documentary I believe 9/11 was an inside job.
 
Hi Lizzy

I think the molten metal was the result of fires which continued burning under the rubble for weeks after the collapse.

There was a long discussion of it here a while ago. Something to do with ovens and insulation.
 
Right, answer given ^^

Will you ignore it...or do you have another conclusion as to the molten metal?
 
Brainache said:
Hi Lizzy

I think the molten metal was the result of fires which continued burning under the rubble for weeks after the collapse.

There was a long discussion of it here a while ago. Something to do with ovens and insulation.
Click to expand...

Fires would not cause a scenario of lava like proportions. What ovens, what insulation? Fires would cool down long before. Oh pleeease.
 
PerryLogan said:
The bad guys were leaving clues. They like to leave a lot of clues.
Click to expand...

I am sorry I do not understand your point? Even a member of NIST denies that fire alone would create temperatures to cause pools of molten metal.
 
Read:

R.Mackey said:
We need only discuss "thermite." "Nano-thermite" supposes an ultra-fine grain, designed to burn with extreme speed, and is the opposite of what you'd need to heat the pile in the months after the collapse. Thermate includes barium oxide as a major component, and there is no evidence whatsoever for a barium signal. I have looked at Steven Jones' papers claiming all kinds of wild things, and he doesn't see this either, and immediately launches into wild speculation, postulating some custom blend using zinc or some other metal... But zinc, indeed every single elemental species he claims to find, are well within expectations. Iron and aluminum and their oxides, on the other hand, are such ubiquitous compounds that we cannot immediately discard the thermite hypothesis. So, let's take a look at that.

As others have noted, smoke did indeed escape the pile for weeks after the collapses.

If smoke was getting out, air was getting in. Smoke is particles borne by the air. The premise that only anaerobic chemical reactions are valid mechanisms is, therefore, wrong.

This doesn't rule out thermite, but it does open the field to more mundane explanations, like the fuel pipelines that flowed unchecked into the collapsed basement for weeks afterwards. All that fuel either burned as we suggest, or it would have been superheated -- but oxygen starved -- and would have immediately burst into flames once it was exposed to open air, as the thermite proponent suggests. Clearly this did not happen, so at best the thermite reaction heated the steel in addition to the ConEd fuel, not instead of it.

Now for the coup de grace. There is very little (possibly none) evidence of molten steel from Ground Zero. What few unconfirmed observations we have are all focused on the structural steel. But this is a secondary effect. Molten iron is a required product of the thermite reaction itself. Since the amount of thermite required to do this is extremely large, measured in the hundreds of tons or more, we must find upwards of fifty tons of puddled iron, in addition to any structural steel melted as a consequence.

We do not.

While Dr. Greening and others have argued that some localized, purely accidental thermite reactions are possible, and I agree it is possible, there is absolutely no evidence for any large thermite reactions. Certainly none large enough to have actually caused the collapse, and most definitely none supporting the post-collapse fire hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
Fires would not cause a scenario of lava like proportions. What ovens, what insulation? Fires would cool down long before. Oh pleeease.
Click to expand...


Well the fires continued to burn slowly under the rubble pile. That rubble pile also managed to trap a lot of the heat. When heat is trapped(or insulated) a natural oven is formed. The heat can become intense.

I don't know where your lava like scenario is coming from.
 
In case Firestone's post was too long, here's the punchline:

There is very little (possibly none) evidence of molten steel from Ground Zero.
 
Who is R. Mackey?

This is a lie for a start.
Now for the coup de grace. There is very little (possibly none) evidence of molten steel from Ground Zero. What few unconfirmed observations we have are all focused on the structural steel. But this is a secondary effect. Molten iron is a required product of the thermite reaction itself. Since the amount of thermite required to do this is extremely large, measured in the hundreds of tons or more, we must find upwards of fifty tons of puddled iron, in addition to any structural steel melted as a consequence.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence of large amounts of puddled iron. There is video evidence of firemen and engineers who were on the scene stating these facts.This appears to be merely someone's opinion and explains zilch.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
Who is R. Mackey?

This is a lie for a start.


There is plenty of evidence of large amounts of puddled iron. There is video evidence of firemen and engineers who were on the scene stating these facts.This appears to be merely someone's opinion and explains zilch.
Click to expand...
Would a reference be too much to ask for?
 
Lizzy this is the point where you would actually present the evidence you have.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
Who is R. Mackey?

This is a lie for a start.


There is plenty of evidence of large amounts of puddled iron. There is video evidence of fireman and engineers stating these facts.This appears to be merely someone's opinion and explains zilch.
Click to expand...

R.Mackey is just this guy, you know?

So you've seen pictures of firemen saying they saw ??

What exactly? Rivers of lava?

Maybe a few hot spots with puddles of molten stuff at the bottom?

Did they say it was iron?

Might it have been metal from things other than steel collumns?
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
R.Mackey is just this guy, you know?

So you've seen pictures of firemen saying they saw ??

What exactly? Rivers of lava?

Maybe a few hot spots with puddles of molten stuff at the bottom?

Did they say it was iron?

Might it have been metal from other things than steel collumns?
Click to expand...

I have footage of a NIST spokesman admitting fires would not create molten metal. I have footage of a NIST spokesman squirming like a worm on a hot tin plate when been asked questions about the lava like scenario by 'Pilots for Truth'. If you understand body language you will see that this man is lying through his teeth and proved to be doing so. There are so many lies surrounding 9/11, anyone who does not see these lies is either mentally ill, a moron or an agent. Period!
 
I am so glad there is a 9/11 Movement. My father is a policeman and he believes it was an inside job too.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have a four minute video but it I am not allowed to show it until I reach 15 posts. Why?
Click to expand...
I think it's to help stop drive-by spamming of links. Try posting the link without the http bit (or knock out a quick 5 posts on the Humor forum).
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I am sorry I do not understand your point? Even a member of NIST denies that fire alone would create temperatures to cause pools of molten metal.
Click to expand...


Ummm. From NIST:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
Click to expand...
Is this the video you are talking about:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en


Cheers,
SLOB
 
Last edited:
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have a four minute video but it I am not allowed to show it until I reach 15 posts. Why?
Click to expand...
If this is the one where the claw is picking up red hot metal you might want to look up the difference between "red hot" and "molten".
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have footage of a NIST spokesman admitting fires would not create molten metal. I have footage of a NIST spokesman squirming like a worm on a hot tin plate when been asked questions about the lava like scenario by 'Pilots for Truth'. If you understand body language you will see that this man is lying through his teeth and proved to be doing so. There are so many lies surrounding 9/11, anyone who does not see these lies is either mentally ill, a moron or an agent. Period!
Click to expand...
Yes, "Pilots for Trooth" is an excellent source of lies about 9/11.
 
I have studied body language as part of my nirse training and the NIST man in this video is lying so much. It is such a giveaway, even with the sound down. Why is he lying. Why are spokesman of NIST who were responsible for finding out the truth about 9/11 lying?

They are ALL lying.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have studied body language as part of my nirse training and the NIST man in this video is lying so much. It is such a giveaway, even with the sound down. Why is he lying. Why are spokesman of NIST who were responsible for finding out the truth about 9/11 lying?

They are ALL lying.
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud. This is a skeptic board. If you have real evidence of wrong doing give it up, but please don't try to accuse innocent people of mass murder because you have "studied body language as part of my nirse training".

Nobody's going to buy that crap.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have studied body language as part of my nirse training and the NIST man in this video is lying so much. It is such a giveaway, even with the sound down. Why is he lying. Why are spokesman of NIST who were responsible for finding out the truth about 9/11 lying?

They are ALL lying.
Click to expand...
That's some training - I wish I could always tell when people are lying to me!
Oh, and NIST were responsible for finding out why the buildings collapsed, which is only part of the truth.
 
Lizzy Dripping said:
I have studied body language as part of my nirse training and the NIST man in this video is lying so much. It is such a giveaway, even with the sound down. Why is he lying. Why are spokesman of NIST who were responsible for finding out the truth about 9/11 lying?

They are ALL lying.
Click to expand...

Well, was that the video you were talking about? If so, could you please quote, verbatim, the question "Unknown man" asks at the beginning, regarding this liquid?

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Please note the title of that video and stop confusing STEEL with METAL.

There is no evidence there was molten steel. Eye-witness who said they saw molten steel were mistaken (an easy and highly forgivable mistake). The fires were plenty hot enough to melt aluminum. There was plenty of aluminum. Your NIST quote, as usual, is severely misinterpreted.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. So, please do not tell me there wasn't fire in the rubble when there is smoke coming out of it.

I understand you've done some "research" on some trashy websites but I assure you that this nonsense you are spouting here is well debunked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom