Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

The ultimate point is the HEAT required for the molten metal, be it aluminum or steel or whatever.


The fact that the material pouring out of the side of the WTC is a bright yellowish (in broad daylight, not just a dark room) is an indication that it was heated beyond what hydrocarbon fires can possibly do. Just molten aluminum only glows a silvery color, not bright yellow in broad daylight. That comes with much higher temperatures.

So same ultimate problem.

So I guess all the planes in history that burned up,even with out the fuel ignition could not have melted their aluminum skin either.You funny!!

You hate this page ,but look at the melted planes,even without fuel for ignition source.

www.geocities.com...

One of the arguments for thermite conspiracy theorist use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum which suggest they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet airliners aluminum outer skin have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...

"it was heated beyond what hydrocarbon fires can possibly do"
Are you forgetting all the polycarbons,oxygen generators,and all the other plastics,computers etc...

Not to mention that stuff was mixed into the toxic mess melted togeather in the molten aluminum.

NO BLINDERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

One more thing,from an old thread

Aluminum glows yellow greenish and steel glows red-yellow at different temperatures. Also this website makes a good point: www.geocities.com...

It states that there wasn't just pure steel or aluminum. There where many other metals and chemicals which could change the color with which a metal glows. Fireworks basically depends on color specific oxidation, a puddle of molten aluminum could have gotten other substances mixed in and glow with a different color.

Credit to Nobodyreally

Your first three posts read as if you didn't pay a damned bit of attention to what I posted, so I'll ignore them and focus on your second two.

Are you forgetting all the polycarbons,oxygen generators,and all the other plastics,computers etc...

A page you link to shows an oxygen generator burning. As the site itself points out, they are wrapped in aluminum. So where is the bright yellow, molten aluminum in that video?

The plastics and computers (essentially more plastics -- or at least the parts that would burn, aside from other hydrocarbon circuit boards) would qualify as hydrocarbons, unless there were large stores of special kinds of plastics on the impacted floors.

Hydrocarbons are of prime economic importance because they encompass the constituents of the major fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas, etc.) and biofuels, as well as plastics, paraffin, waxes, solvents and oils.

Source

It states that there wasn't just pure steel or aluminum. There where many other metals and chemicals which could change the color with which a metal glows. Fireworks basically depends on color specific oxidation, a puddle of molten aluminum could have gotten other substances mixed in and glow with a different color.

What additives in the aluminum and/or steel at the WTC would be comparable to chemical additives in fireworks?

[edit on 14-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Im not convinced bsbray. 911 happened like 5 years ago, and this pic is just now surfacing? lol.

That pic can so easily be faked, that I bet you can give me any pic you like of a pile of garbage or whatever, and I can photoshop some glowing stuff that appears that it is molten steel. And it will be convincing to people who are unaware that it was just a fake to prove a point. try me.

Originally posted by bob2000
Im not convinced bsbray. 911 happened like 5 years ago, and this pic is just now surfacing? lol.

That pic can so easily be faked, that I bet you can give me any pic you like of a pile of garbage or whatever, and I can photoshop some glowing stuff that appears that it is molten steel. And it will be convincing to people who are unaware that it was just a fake to prove a point. try me.

Could be faked, or as I pointed out in a previous post I believe its completly without precedent to try and color code a temp/material from an "any 'ol pic" with any degree of accuracy.

Can anyone produce a picture and documentation where this has been done?

Your suspicion that the whole photo was faked seems a bit much to me. In this thread, it's already been reasonably shown that the building in the background was 90 West Building, right across the street from WTC2, and that the firetruck in the photo is from a station in the area. The debris itself (steel beams, lots of dust, paper, etc.) also fits the setting.

Can you find any images to show from where all of these things would have been brought into the image (if it was photoshopped), or another photo that can be shown to be the original, or some other proof of this image being derived?

If not, to take you up on your challenge, I'd like to see a photo of similarly glowing steel in front of the WFC American Express building, with fitting debris (the paper, concrete powder, etc.), and a local engine in the background.

There isn't a cammera created that can verify"melted steel".There are thermal imagers that can give you temp.As most cams give nice photo evidence when you are sure what you are looking at.Glowing matter even liquid, does not prove what is melted in a picture,or film for that matter.You would also need to know what color correction was being used to even be sure of some colors.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Duhh]