Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

They were not open air fires in the building they were in fact closed in. I don't see what the open air temperature of a fire has to do with that.

Oh, and perhaps you missed this question.

Originally posted by LeftBehind



How does the molten metal prove that the buildings had preplanted explosives on every floor and thermite to cut the core with no one noticing?

I've noticed that you've come up with a lot of excuses for not answering this one,but I have yet to see anyone answer it with a reasonable explanation.


And, WCIP, some of the NIST fire tests reached temperatures very close to 1000c.



[edit on 4-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They were not open air fires in the building they were in fact closed in. I don't see what the open air temperature of a fire has to do with that.

I seem to recall a lot of smoke pouring out of both buildings. Quite freely, in fact. Hm.

Oh, and perhaps you missed this question.

No one's missed it. It just doesn't fit in. Molten metal doesn't prove explosives on every floor. I don't even think there were explosives on every floor. But you know, various aspects of a theory tend not to individually prove the theory by themselves. Otherwise the aspects themselves would be theories.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And, WCIP, some of the NIST fire tests reached temperatures very close to 1000c.

Yes. The fires. Not the steel.

==========================================

I'm glad you raised those fire tests though, because NIST packed half a tonne of combustible materials into one workstation. Regardless, the whole thing peaked after 20 mins at an HRR of 8MW, and then rapidly declined once everything was burnt out.



And then they went ahead and assumed for their computer simulations that every square inch of floor was covered in half tonne workstations drenched with unburnt jet fuel. But there's a curious thing. Try as they might to pump up the heat, the core stayed quite cool.



Above is the (100% computer simulated) jet fuel-soaked impact floor at peak fire intensity.

And then after rummaging through all the real steel to find the real physical evidence to support their mega-tonne-offices and computer games, they found just two pieces of steel columns that had experienced temperature excursions over 250C (which they admitted could have occurred in the rubble pile anyway), and ZERO trusses. They musta been mighty pissed. I can imagine them standing around at the steel scrap yards, frowning, muttering, scratching their heads, and furiously scribbling nonsense on their clipboards.







[edit on 2006-7-4 by wecomeinpeace]

In a Thermite reaction, Aluminum Oxide sty material) and Molten Iron are the results when in contact with steel. So actually, the molten material seen coming out of the building could be molten iron.

That's what people like Steven Jones have been trying to get at. And it doesn't prove explosives were prioritized for every floor, but if thermite was placed in key areas, it might of leaked through from the core (possibly due to the plane hitting the core), by running down the box columns and onto the floors, and thus pouring out of he building.

I admit it was a mistake saying that it could of been steel but you, Left Behind, and Vushta, have yet to provide any decent evidence for what it could be.

I think the question thats always being avoided that LB is refering to and is not only relevant but absolutely crutial to the CD theroy is how were ANY explosives or thermite planted without anyone noticing?

This question--which if it cannot be addressed in any believable way--causes the CD theory to implode into its own footprint.

Hey, I'll address that but first.

Provide valid evidence for the the molten material could be, even days after the collapse, that was seen coming out from the wreckage, on the streets and seen coming out of the building.

Originally posted by Vushta
This question--which if it cannot be addressed in any believable way--causes the CD theory to implode into its own footprint.

Not at all. What's with the constant demands to solve the crime before the investigation begins? Is this an admission that the puzzle is solved except for the last piece? All that needs to be shown is that the official story doesn't add up and that a truly independent, thorough, perhaps even international investigation is required, whatever the outcome may be. That's the whole point and that's why most of us debate the issue. One would not have to solve the JFK assassination down to it's very last detail before a proper investigation is deemed necessary, one merely needs to show that Oswald was not or could not have been the perpetrator, and that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the event, the lead-up, and the aftermath. One does not need to provide the conclusion of an investigation before the investigation commences. We can leave such pathological science to the 911Com, FEMA, and NIST.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Hey, I'll address that but first.

Provide valid evidence for the the molten material could be, even days after the collapse, that was seen coming out from the wreckage, on the streets and seen coming out of the building.

O.K. ...but what are you looking for? The evidence of the "molten material" are pictures of glowy stuff.

You're looking for evidence to support....what?

Evidence to support what YOU feel the molten material could be.

EDIT: Yeah, WCIP, I tried explaining that to him in a PM, hope he got it.

Copy of the PM:

Because I don't feel like throwing the thread off, I'd like to address what you said.

What kind of time frame do you want? Do you think they did it within a matter of weeks before the collapse? Months?u' Can YOU or ANYONE really know for sure? No.

You're focusing on something the 9/11 conspiracy community isn't yet. We're looking for evidence of it before we consider how much, however there are people out there that have made assumptions and speculation.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by Masisoar]

oops..sorry to everyone I haven't replied to---I just noticed because of your post, that I've gotten 6 pm's. I never noticed that.

Evidence to support what YOU feel the molten material could be.

I believe its a mish-mash of various materials.
My evidence is visual which puts it on par with the folks who think its steel as far as what its made up of, but I don't even see it as "molten". I've seen pics of glowy stuff, but nothing that looks liquid.

What kind of time frame do you want? Do you think they did it within a matter of weeks before the collapse? Months?u' Can YOU or ANYONE really know for sure? No.

Any time frame.

It doesn't have any bearing on the issue to me. My position is that there is no evidence of it being done at all so the timeframe doesn't matter. Explain HOW it was done without notice.

You're focusing on something the 9/11 conspiracy community isn't yet.

I believe theres no focus on it because as soon as there is the theory will fall apart.
People are making real $$ and celebrity off this stuff.
I don't imagine they ever will address the logistic impossibilites of it.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


I'm glad you raised those fire tests though, because NIST packed half a tonne of combustible materials into one workstation.

Regardless, the whole thing peaked after 20 mins at an HRR of 8MW, and then rapidly declined once everything was burnt out.

And what do you expect to happen when you have an entire floor of these things burning. Read the report again, they did multiple fire tests.

Do you have a better fire test done by someone else?

And then they went ahead and assumed for their computer simulations that every square inch of floor was covered in half tonne workstations drenched with unburnt jet fuel. But there's a curious thing. Try as they might to pump up the heat, the core stayed quite cool.

Hmm, so they did tests simulating the conditions, and then they used those results in an expanded model? How unscientific.

What would you suggest they do? Assume thermite in the core, and explosives on all of the perimeter columns?

What method do you think would give more accurate results? Looking at pictures only?

And then after rummaging through all the real steel to find the real physical evidence to support their mega-tonne-offices and computer games, they found just two pieces of steel columns that had experienced temperature excursions over 250C (which they admitted could have occurred in the rubble pile anyway), and ZERO trusses. They musta been mighty pissed. I can imagine them standing around at the steel scrap yards, frowning, muttering, scratching their heads, and furiously scribbling nonsense on their clipboards.

Well if thats how it works then I suppose we can completely rule out thermite and molten steel? According to the logic presented above, no steel in the building ever reached over 250C.

They only examined a small fraction of the steel, so it's not surprising that they didn't find samples heated beyond 250c. It does not refute their research or their computer models.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Well if thats how it works then I suppose we can completely rule out thermite and molten steel? According to the logic presented above, no steel in the building ever reached over 250C.

Priceless!

Yeah, because we all know NIST is going to include information on the >1000 C molten material running out of the side of the building, and chunks of it landing in front of the 90 West Building. That would really support the case they were trying to make, especially since their fires could barely reach those temperatures.

Right,

None of that contradicts what NIST says Bsbray.

NIST fire simulations produced fires that reached 1000c, I think it's safe to assume that multiple floors made of similar materials easily reached these temperatures.

You have yet to prove that those images prove that the material is over 1000c. Even if it was, it does not contradict what it says in the NIST report. Their simulations show temperatues that hot.

Even if "barely" so. Is barely reaching 1000c similar to being barely pregnant?

Even if "barely" so. Is barely reaching 1000c similar to being barely pregnant?

Thermodynamics. No correlation to being pregnant, but nice job at being creative.

Chuck anything into a fire, and that thing will never be able to reach the highest temperatures of the fire heating it. Wouldn't even be close, really, because heat is being lost to all numbers of things besides the steel itself. The heat has to be "shared" between concrete, atmosphere and the smoke, panels, office materials, the steel itself as heat is conducted away from the source, etc.

It would've been impossible for the heat to have been totally absorbed by the steel alone. So the steel would never have reached anything near 1000 C, even if the fires somehow were. And I doubt there were half tons of combustibles conveniently laying around every office space.

Have you ever seen tests where they put steel directly into fires like that? The steel begins to sag and that's about it. It doesn't glow lemon like the metal from Ground Zero. Here are pages with information on steel heating in office fires.. The highest temperatures reached in the steel are more like 500 C - 600 C. The flames may have been approaching 1000 C, but the steel wasn't. I wonder why NIST gave us fire temperatures, and not steel temperatures? HMMMMMMMM......

And they only got 1000 C fires because, as WCIP point out, they crammed insane amounts of combustibles into a small amount of space and initiated a very productive fire. Under controlled conditions. They were just seeing how hot it could get, not trying to accurately recreate your average WTC office.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Whats with all the constant demand for an investigation before a crime is established to have taken place?

Not at all accurate. If it cannot be shown that a crime has even taken place there SHOULD not be ANOTHER investigation let alone one dictated by people who don't know what to look for or how to look for it, futhermore if the supposed crime cannot be shown to be even possible to accomplish from a logistic point, how can you expect someone to go on a wild goose chase funded by taxpayers dollars?

Is there ANY evidence of CD? If you have some please present it.


There IS no spoon--er--puzzle.

All that needs to be shown is that the official story doesn't add up and that a truly independent, thorough, perhaps even international investigation is required, whatever the outcome may be.

What exactly doesn't add up?

O.K. fine. Present a hypothesis claiming that the official investigation was flawed in some way, specifically state what those flaws are and then present some evidence to back up the claim.

Who would you suggest conduct this investigation?

One does not need to provide the conclusion of an investigation before the investigation commences.

But thats exactly what the CTs do.

First you have to make a valid case that ANOTHER investigation is needed.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Vushta]

They were just seeing how hot it could get, not trying to accurately recreate your average WTC office

And you know this ..how?


[edit on 4-7-2006 by Vushta]

Realize how often offices are loaded down with half tons of combustibles and it isn't a very difficult deduction.

Where do you get this half-ton of combustibles thing?

They did a series of tests under different conditions, they didn't just perform one test.

I think you are reffering to the "rubbleized" tests that were also soaked with jet fuel. If so, are you denying that such conditions could have existed after a plane filled with jet fuel crashes into an office building?

You guys are oversimplying what it says in the NIST report, and then twisting it to fit.