Were there pools of molten steel or not?

I have read through a number of threads that talk about pools of molten steel found in the rubble of the three trade towers but none seemed to address the sources of that information. Like this one.. If there were pools of molten steel then airplanes didn't do it. Having done a fair amount of welding I know that steel would never melt in the kind of fire we all observed in trade tower seven. And if the fires in towers one and two somehow melted steel (which I doubt) it would have been scattered and dispersed in the fall. Ever see molten steel hit the floor in a welding shop? So were there pools or not?

This picture should help, yet is the only one I have ever seen to confirm the pools of molten steel.



Sorry it's not bigger and in better quality as I have seen, but that is definiteley molten and dripping.

Also watch this vid from ground zero - plaguepuppy.net...

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Xeros]

Yes there were pools.

Video interviews with firefighters + some photographic evidence:
infowars.net...

Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.” Fuchek said.

www.gcn.com...

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Pootie]

I realy remember seeing a picture of the puddles of molten steel when they where cooled off allready.
I have been searching a couple of times to find the picture again but with no results.

When i have a good look around now, i cant realy find any pictures of puddles, only the ones shown here where you dont see the puddles them selves.

I do find stories now claiming that there where no puddles at all ?!?!?

It would be good if we could clear this one more up with this topic

When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.

911research.wtc7.net...

The photo on the bottem of the page, is that molten steel i see there as the white stuff or is that something else ?

Like the man is telling in the article he could still feel heat from the site in januari, that is months after !?

So according to many witnesses there was melting steel all over the basement.

This is very strange to have so much molten steel around on a pancake jetfuel site in my opinion.

One of the firefighters said that when they peered into where the basement area was, it "was like a foundry"...

Shame thermite/thermate can't keep steel molten for months. It mite be the most unpopular theory, but the micronukes in the basement does fit with all the evidence. There is also evidence to show these devices have been used before (bali, london 1993, Oklahoma).

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Shame thermite/thermate can't keep steel molten for months. It mite be the most unpopular theory, but the micronukes in the basement does fit with all the evidence. There is also evidence to show these devices have been used before (bali, london 1993, Oklahoma).

Moot point. If the molten metal exists, the gov't story is blown thermate/nuke/lasers/God fart.... doesn't matter. All that matters is that something that is not in the gov't story generated all that heat and must be investigated.

Originally posted by Pootie

Moot point. If the molten metal exists, the gov't story is blown thermate/nuke/lasers/God fart.... doesn't matter. All that matters is that something that is not in the gov't story generated all that heat and must be investigated.

Exactly, I think you summed it up right there.
I would specifically like more corroboration on the pools of molten steel in the tower seven collapse.

Originally posted by RedPill
I would specifically like more corroboration on the pools of molten steel in the tower seven collapse.

Found some:

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven basement levels," Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

edit: it's about time someone fixes this buggy text editor

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Shroomery]

Well, for one, it certainly is not impossible for steel to have melted, even if it is very unlikely.

More importantly, the people claiming to have found molten steel have no way of really knowing what type of metal they were seeing, they simply assumed it was steel.

In science, the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is because it is often faulty and inaccurate. The only real evidence would be metallurgy testing. If one is going to claim proof of molten steel simply because a firefighter said so, then that is being extremely dishonest and would not hold any water in science.

On this site here www.studyof911.com... Go down the right side there are 3 videos that show people talking and/or videos of molten metal.

We cannot say conclusively that IF pools exist THEN ....

Its pure conjecture. And I'm a conspiracy fiend!

There is literally an infinte number of possiblities and scenarios pertaining to the enviroment after the collapse. Who is any of us to say that we knew exactly what went on inside the rubble or the conditions that existed?

This whole point is useless to talk about imo. It is much easier and realistic to attempt to rationalize the collapse of the towers. I think you can get closer to the real cause looking at the collapse, there are less unknowns

Originally posted by plopunisher
We cannot say conclusively that IF pools exist THEN ....

We can say: If there was molten steel, then something capable of burning at that temperature was present. If jet fuel does not burn at that temperature, then the steel was melted by something else. If it can burn hot enough to melt steel, then there is a limited number of substances that could have done it.

Its pure conjecture. And I'm a conspiracy fiend!

There is a large amount of conjecture but a few things we know: Like collapsed buildings don't normally have red hot I-beams weeks afterward.

There is literally an infinte number of possiblities and scenarios pertaining to the enviroment after the collapse. Who is any of us to say that we knew exactly what went on inside the rubble or the conditions that existed?

You are correct, we can't know but if a poor college student runs out of a conveniences store with a case of beer and a store clerk in hot pursuit we can be reasonably sure of what happened. Even though there are literally an infinite number of possibilities and scenarios that could explain how he came into possession of said case of beer.

This whole point is useless to talk about imo. It is much easier and realistic to attempt to rationalize the collapse of the towers. I think you can get closer to the real cause looking at the collapse, there are less unknowns

I agree that looking into the collapse is likely more viable but since we are all sitting here talking about this, there is nothing wrong with exploring every angle we can think of. It will be like this indefinitely, just like JFK. Nobody is going to fess up one day and say "Dang you nailed us". If nothing else, by talking about this, we will discover that the smoking gun is not here.

How thick are you people!?

JET FUEL CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES MELT STEEL.


And here we have molten steel. The offical story doesn't mention it, the 9/11 comission report doesn't talk about it, or WTC 7.

Do you need it poured on your faces before you'll accept that there is a coverup here?

All you doubters need to watch this 18 minute documentary on the construction of the world trade centers 1 and 2:

video.google.com...


Once you are clear on the facts of the construction of the buildings come back and tell us how plausible you really think it is that a couple of plane crashes could bring the buildings down into their own footprints in 10 seconds flat.

Originally posted by Yandros
How thick are you people!?

Just two questions for you. Do you know how they make steel? And do you know how an oven works?

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by Yandros
How thick are you people!?

Just two questions for you. Do you know how they make steel? And do you know how an oven works?

Yes. Whats your point?

Originally posted by snoopy
Well, for one, it certainly is not impossible for steel to have melted, even if it is very unlikely.

More importantly, the people claiming to have found molten steel have no way of really knowing what type of metal they were seeing, they simply assumed it was steel.

show me anywhere in the NIST reports where they provide a heat source hot enough to maintain ANY abundant metal in the structure in a molten state for weeks.

I am going to hold you to the eyewitness comment you have made in this thread. NEVER attempt to use eyewitness testimony to support your case as this thread will be referenced. WAIT A MINUTE... the whole NIST "story" is based on THEIR EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS... guess those can be tossed. The 9/11 Comission report relies on testimony... that can be tossed...

So, what is the official story then snoop dog?

Originally posted by Pootie
show me anywhere in the NIST reports where they provide a heat source hot enough to maintain ANY abundant metal in the structure in a molten state for weeks.

If anyone's interested in this challenge, lol, NIST didn't even analyze the actual collapses. None of them. They only tried to explain what led up to the collapses. Once they were in motion, NIST backed away and hand-waved it off, simply saying that these never-before-seen phenomena were "inevitable".

Does that kind of "research" really cost $15 million?

This is after their fire tests and computer simulations failed to support their critical hypotheses.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by bsbray11]