Molten metal in basement of WTC

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...

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...

PerryLogan said:

The bad guys were leaving clues. They like to leave a lot of clues.

Click to expand...

PerryLogan said:

The more obvious the clues the better. That's the way the Black Brotherhood operates.

Click to expand...

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...

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...

PerryLogan said:

He probably works for the government, so you can't listen to him.

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...

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...

PerryLogan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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...

twinstead said:

Lizzy this is the point where you would actually present the evidence you have.

Click to expand...

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...