Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

Before the trivial is posted (source):

mol·ten
[...]
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).

Here's the photo:



That was taken on Cedar Street with 90 West Building in the background. You can tell it's 90 West Building by looking at the window apparent in the background and comparing with this known photo:



And this one (notice the windows on the ground floors; look closely and you'll recognize the same window patterns in the above two photos):



There's a page of 90 West Building photos here, and also do some Google image searches if you'd like.

The photo must've been taken from Ground Zero, immediately after a building collapse, as attested by the firetruck in the background with headlights still on, concrete dust, paper, steel debris, etc.

90 West Building's location is circled in red on this photo:



Here it is to the left and across the street from WTC2:



A third photo. Find it yourself this time, and note Cedar Street in front of it:



We've seen pics of molten steel from Ground Zero before on ATS, but what makes this one special is that, as impossible as any kind of natural-occurring furnace would have been at the WTC, this photo obviously did not have any such thing in it. There is no fire heating the steel, and I would bet a hell of a lot of money that there was solid ground under that debris.

From color charts I've found online, that steel must be damned near melted.



And notice the light gray smoke, compared to the smoke from a thermite reaction on the right.


So, if not some naturally-occurring super-hot furnace under Ground Zero, then where was this molten steel coming from?


Edit to add a cute newspaper icon to the thread subject.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by bsbray11]

What is the source of the photo?

I found it here.

I'd seen every pic on that site already except for this one, so I emailed the author to ask him where he got it. He said he got it off a CD collection of 9/11 photos, but since I can't verify a CD collection for anyone with anything other than my personal word, I included the photos of 90 West Building to show, along with all of the other evidence within the photo itself, that this is indeed from the WTC.

I would need to verify the source. The image looks a bit funny...and the lighting dynamics do not appear to be correct.

I could be wrong, but without some supporting testimony, I can't make a claim that its accurate.

Look through these photos and you'll notice the same things:

911research.wtc7.net...

Doesn't strike me as anything unusual as far as Ground Zero photographs go. Keep in mind the effect the dust clouds had on the amount of sunlight that made it through, especially immediately after the collapses.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by bsbray11]

This pic definitely looks interesting. Never saw this before. Looks almost as though it were cut. You can see the melted metal on it still and it looks like a perfectly cut angle.


www.explosive911analysis.com...

Without supporting evidence of authenticity, I could never convince anyone that the photograph is genuine.

If I can get that evidence, then I would be in a position to use the photograph as scientific evidence.

I believe there was some inside things going on, but that picture of the molten metal is utter crap. Especially the thermite smoke comparison.

Someone wants us to find a supposed "smoking gun" so badly that they are willing to manufacture shoddy evidence.

I think this is a counter intelligence job, trying to make the people who question it sift further to find that this is manufactured, thus "exposing" it as a hoax and further supporting that the government's official version was true all along.

If the spooks come knocking at my door, or looking through the trojans I pick up from porn sites, I know I've hit the nail on the head, lol.

-ADHD

Someone wants us to find a supposed "smoking gun" so badly that they are willing to manufacture shoddy evidence.

I think this is a counter intelligence job, trying to make the people who question it sift further to find that this is manufactured, thus "exposing" it as a hoax and further supporting that the government's official version was true all along.

That's what all the drip feeding is about. It is so that they can try plug holes in their theory before it goes public, or obscure the information. The NIST and FEMA reports use 'loose' language to imply certain things without pointing out the flaws.

Its really poor science, its more of a political document.

There is a lot of solid scientific evidence. I have grouped together a lot of material at my site where you can examine videos and confirm molten metal for yourself.

www.gieis.uni.cc...

In Part 2 of the analysis, you will find a video of molten copper pouring from the side of WTC 2 for 12 minutes prior to the collapse. You don't need to download the videos, everything runs from the site.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by MMC]

There is a lot of solid scientific evidence. I have grouped together a lot of material at my site where you can examine videos and confirm molten metal for yourself.

This comes from your site:

For this to occur the temperature locally had to exceed 1084.62°C. There is no evidence to suggest temperature were anywhere near that high. NIST has no samples that were subjected to temperatures above 600°C and stated that most areas only saw temperatures of 250°C.

This event is physically impossible without some form of localised additional heat source, an accelerant.

You conclude that the metal pouring down from the tower is molten copper, meaning that the temperature in the tower must be in excess of copper's melting point.

You then say that the temperature in the tower was nowhere near that high, meaning that the metal could not have been molten copper.

But you then make another u-turn, saying that there must have been a localised heat source, making the temperature high enough for the copper to melt.

Which obviously means the temperature in the tower WAS high enough to melt copper.

Am I the only one to spot confused logic here?

(edit: tag errors)


[edit on 21-6-2006 by joxang]

I'm not trying to answer for MM but I think the logic is not confused. The temperature of most of the steel did not get that hot. Localized spots did though as was found by NIST and others....i.e. vaporization of localized spots on the steel etc. I think that's what he/she is trying to get at.

For proving the authenticity of this photo, just look at the fire truck and the numbers on it and find out if you'd find a fire truck that A) looks like that in any of the fire deparments in the area and B) see if the numbers show a truck that might belong to a department near by.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's the photo:

That was taken on Cedar Street with 90 West Building in the background. You can tell it's 90 West Building by looking at the window apparent in the background and comparing with this known photo:

Excellent work!

I saw those videos of what looked like thermite burns near the impact zones and realized that if it was true, there would be molten, or cooling lumps of steel seen out away from the buldings footprint. Looks like you've got it there.

this pretty much clinches it that there was thermite further up in the tower used to direct it's descent.

Do I get it right that the steel was photographed south and west of WTC 2?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

It's funny how the paper in the foreground is not smoldering in the presense of that "molten steel."

In fact, I don't see any flames or smoke from the debris adjacent to that "molten steel."

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It's funny how the paper in the foreground is not smoldering in the presense of that "molten steel."

In fact, I don't see any flames or smoke from the debris adjacent to that "molten steel."

So you think it's a fake?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
This pic definitely looks interesting. Never saw this before. Looks almost as though it were cut. You can see the melted metal on it still and it looks like a perfectly cut angle.


www.explosive911analysis.com...

That is a salvage cut done by a torch. There is a small hole in the top, back of the column. That was cut first and a straight salvage torch inserted inside the column and the lower facing side was cut. The sides are cut leaving one tab in one corner (depending where the excavator with the grapple is going to remove it to) then the back is cut the rest of the way.

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It's funny how the paper in the foreground is not smoldering in the presense of that "molten steel."

In fact, I don't see any flames or smoke from the debris adjacent to that "molten steel."

So you think it's a fake?

Well it is definitely not a "normal" photograph. The yellow values are way oversaturated.

Let's just say it has been altered and therefore is not indicative of anything.

Originally posted by Masisoar
For proving the authenticity of this photo, just look at the fire truck and the numbers on it and find out if you'd find a fire truck that A) looks like that in any of the fire deparments in the area and B) see if the numbers show a truck that might belong to a department near by.

This is why I included all the stuff about the 90 West Building in the first post. I was trying for confirmation from another angle:

A) Look at the windows in the background of the image. They appear to have three sections of glass: two thin ones on the side, and wider one in the middle.
B) The images match with windows on the bottom floor of 90 West Building.
C) 90 West Building was directly across the street from WTC2.

But for a second angle for verification, here it is from the truck.

From the C & B Fire Department website:



For a preliminary visual confirmation, this is close enough, don't you think?

The numbers on the side are 212, and there is an Engine 212 in Brooklyn, New York, which is just minutes away from Ground Zero, and was most certainly there on 9/11.

You can find an interesting article on Engine 212 here. An excerpt:

Last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was pretty obvious why the city suddenly removed a rig from Engine 212, the shuttered Williamsburg firehouse:

“We need that engine to protect the people of the city,” Bloomberg said last week. “And so we've moved it to a place where we can better use it.”
[...]
Where exactly? The activists decided to find out, and through the rumor mill, heard it was temporarily moved to an FDNY storage facility known as Red Square.

A firefighter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, checked it out and said he couldn't believe what he saw.

"There's all kinds of ladders, pumpers, chief's cars,” he said. “But it's in the corner, all the way in the back of the building in the corner, covered with a big huge canvas. And I did a little peeking around. The headlights are broken, the bumpers pushed in, the doors out of line – there’s a lot of damage to the rig."

"No pictures, no cameras, nothing,” he continued. “They practically searched me to make sure that I didn't have a cell phone that takes pictures."

Odd as hell, don't you think? But nonetheless, the number on the firetruck checks out, as does its make, apparently. So there you go.

Originally posted by Christophera
Do I get it right that the steel was photographed south and west of WTC 2?

Between WTC2 and the 90 West Building (shown in maps/diagrams on the first post).

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]

I suppose the light from the headlights is oversaturated as well?

Here is a picture of paper burning:



Can you see it?



And I don't know how far 218°-246° C will radiate, but that's about the temperature at which paper combusts (source). The paper right up on the steel probably is burning.

Something still is: there's smoke.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]