Meteorite proof that there WAS molten steel

im with the belief that it was an isreali attempt using our preplanned military strategy offered to them, or its something kennedy heard about and jotted down, being some intelligence about isreali operatives perhaps. Either way thats the only logicial conclusion i can offer. The official story is definitely a wash job. And something dark and sinister is obviously being desperately avoided. Its possible that the closer america gets to trying to nab the constitution from the NWO crowd, the more they act like darth vader and destroy a planet. Or in this case a country or city.
but if we open our bibles, we see few verses that discuss these events in greater detail in the context of the writers vison alledgedly from god, or for my preference, its the 3rd eye. How the isrealis are chosen of God. Which to me cant just be coincidence and is not shameless self promotion from ego by jews. They have been attacked for a long time and it needs to end sometimes. But if 9/11 as there fault, it shows that they are still children, using childish ways to get their way, and same goes for all the jews oppressors, they themselves are disobedient children, raised to throw rocks in the street rather than dialogue and not pull shady mob style crap in the background either. Thats what the bible eludes to them as in that light i think to offer a general understanding. But definitely search the online kjv bible and look for keywords, and use a concordance to see the possible other meanings of the original text to make sure your not being tricked by the wolves in sheeps clothing as it were.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by mastermind77]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Griff,

I can't get around "molten concrete". Concrete doesn't melt. The sand in the concrete may melt (about 1000 deg. F), but concrete itself doesn't melt.

en.wikipedia.org...

if and when it melts, the result is a glassy substance. to say it does not melt sounds strange, because what else should happen with ever increasing temperature? granted, it might undergo chemical reactions before melting, but the mass is going to melt sooner or later, isn't it?

I think he means that if it melts, it'll be melted sand, not melted concrete.

Originally posted by Griff
I see what you're saying and it is plausible. But as far as the temperatures go, we know for a fact that the temperatures were well hot enough to melt steel. As seen by the satalite photos of the area where some spots were over 1800 F I believe (I'm going off memory).

I sometimes case harden steel at 1800 deg. F. That is after I machine it. Look up the properties of steel. Look for the word Carburizing.

I'm not denying the temperature, I'm saying that the temperature is too low for melting steel.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm not denying the temperature, I'm saying that the temperature is too low for melting steel.

And I'm saying you could be right. But, I'd like to know what other materials could be present in enough quantity for reports of "flowing like lava"? Aluminum? I listed the metals that melt at lower temperatures than steel in another thread but no one wanted to suggest which one of those metals could be in quantity enough for what was observed. Or would we just not consider eyewitnesses when it doesn't fit our theory?

And this really is an Occum's Razor. All things being equal, the simplest explaination is steel.

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Or would we just not consider eyewitnesses when it doesn't fit our theory?

One problem I have with the reports of large pools of molten steel or other metals is that eventually it would have cooled and likely would have formed large metal/steel masses in the rubble.

Where did these pools and flows go? The molten metal didn't just evaporate and I don't recall any reports of large previously molten masses of metal found at the site.

Originally posted by Skibum
Where did these pools and flows go? The molten metal didn't just evaporate and I don't recall any reports of large previously molten masses of metal found at the site.

Do you think they reported every single thing? But, I guess you are going to call all the eyewitnesses lyers then?

Funny how firefighters become structural engineers when it suits your needs (WTC 7 damage) but when they say there are pools of molten metal flowing like lava, they suddenly become idiotic bafoons.

See what I mean about picking and choosing? Thanks for illustrating my point.

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Griff]

so, the photos included at

www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

must be complete fakes then.

Originally posted by Skibum
I don't recall any reports of large previously molten masses of metal found at the site.

So I guess Mark Loizeaux of CDI, and other assorted FEMA and Rescue Workers just made it up, there was no molten steel if you don't recall them saying there was.

You must admit that the Metrorite has bee debunked by earlier post in the thread?
What this does not prove is if there was Molten steel or not.. But the actual thread has been debunked.
If there was Molten Steel, i wanna see total proof that it was definitely steel and not misidentified. Please show me some proof? this meteorite most certainly is not proof of molten metal, as there is none in the unusual feature.. You are hardly gonna get legible type on paper in it as well as molten steel?
If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt there was molten steel, i will change my opinion

Originally posted by Griff
Do you think they reported every single thing?

No, but if there were large pools of molten metal, there should be large chunks of metal roughly the same size as the pools after the pools cooled.
IMO enormous ingots of previously molten metal found at ground zero would be quite noteworthy, and would likely be talked about due to the fact that getting it out of the bathtub would have required a hell of a lot more work than simply cutting it up with a torch.

But, I guess you are going to call all the eyewitnesses lyers then?

No, I'm not calling them lyers, I'm not calling them liars, either. It is possible to be wrong without being a liar. I'm not even saying they are wrong, I'm pretty certain there was some molten metal throughout the wreckage, large pools though I'm not sure, it would have left significant physical evidence.

Funny how firefighters become structural engineers when it suits your needs (WTC 7 damage) but when they say there are pools of molten metal flowing like lava, they suddenly become idiotic bafoons.

You sure like putting words in others mouths.

Even if I were to call them liars or buffoons, it's a hell of a lot better than what many truthers like to imply or even outright say about them.

[edit on 16/6/07 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If there was Molten Steel, i wanna see total proof that it was definitely steel and not misidentified. Please show me some proof? ...If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt there was molten steel, i will change my opinion

Sadly, I don't have any proof that the sun is really made of hydrogen, nor do I have any proof that there were molten pools of steel in the WTC material. The proof was hauled off immediately, under the tightest security ever given to scrap metal in the entire history of modern construction, despite very public outcry from the general public and some pertinent authorites.
I do however have the public statements of Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions INC, in which he states quite clearly that there were indeed pools of molten steel found. I assume, and it seems to me to be a logical assumption, that the man would know steel from say burnt graham cracker crust or other materials as he was the man our trusted government contracted to clean up the site, and he had some experience in the area of cleaning up after terrorism (OKC).
There is no proof, but I sure would consider Mark Loizeaux to be a credible judge of what specific metal he spent months cleaning up.

Twitchy, with respect , i dont see how the presence or non presence of Molten steel at ground zero is comparable with the makeup of our Sun..
Would it not of been possible with the intense heat underground , acting like a kiln, because of the tunnels(acting like a Floo) for Steel to become molten after collapse? if indeed there was any molten Steel present?
I seriously dispute the presence of molten steel, but if there was could it not be explained like i have stated?

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Twitchy, with respect , i dont see how the presence or non presence of Molten steel at ground zero is comparable with the makeup of our Sun..

In other words I don't have any tangible evidence that the sun is made of hydrogen, and I don't have any tangible proof that there was molten steel. In the case of our sun, I have to rely on what astronomers tell me, qualified experts in the field. And they tell me that stars are indeed made of hydrogen. CDI, qualified experts in their field, said there was molten steel, why should I doubt them?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Would it not of been possible with the intense heat underground , acting like a kiln, because of the tunnels(acting like a Floo) for Steel to become molten after collapse?

Yeah, maybe in an oxygen furnace or a blast furnace, hardly seems likely to me in a pile of rubble and pulverized concrete, floo or no floo. There are however often pools of molten steel in controlled demolitions where columns are cut with thermite and the molten steel falls to surface and pools. It's quite common supposedly, in controlled demolitions that is.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I seriously dispute the presence of molten steel

Then you are putting aside the evidence and acting on your preconception. They, a very credible and seemingly unbiased 'they' I might add, said there were pools of steel. What more do you need than the man who cleaned that mess up telling you there was molten steel there? Do you think he was just lying to give conspiracy theorists a false flag, trying to slip out disinfo, or maybe the man didn't know what steel was? Why are you discounting what this man said?

how much does it cost to buy some steel and concrete similar to the one used in the WTC, put some kerosine on it and set it on fire? then we would see if steel melts or not and at what temperature.

Underground coal mine fires. How do they keep going after years?

New Straitsville was originally founded in 1870 as a coal mining town by the New Straitsville Mining Company. The town grew quickly and by 1880 the population was over 4000 people. The coal mining activity ended in 1884, when a labor dispute at the mine ended with a group of miners sending a burning coal car into the mine, igniting the coal. At one time the heat from the fire was so great that residents could draw hot water directly from wells to brew coffee. The fire in the New Straitsville mine burns to this day, making it the longest-duration conflagration in the world

source

The fire began in 1962 at the town dump and ignited an exposed coal vein, eventually forcing an exodus that emptied Centralia of more than 1,000 people, nearly its entire population. Almost every house was demolished; the U.S. Postal Service canceled the town's ZIP code.

source

And just odd trivia to the second quote for fun

I just wonder, if we underestimate what fire can do, and how hot it really can get???
I doubt there was Molten steel,every one seems to use the same answer as you Twitchy on every site.. should the word of one man not be disputed? has he got an agenda? did he make a mistake...?

meanwhile back on melting steel...

Feilding station officer Glenn Davies says the flames melted the steel shed causing it to collapse onto the bales, limiting the access for firefighters.

link
tvnz.co.nz...


[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Underground coal mine fires. How do they keep going after years?

Just a wild guess, but I'd say the Coal probably has something to do with it.

While one may not be able to "prove" molten steel, one can have good reasons for thinking it is. Molten Steel fits a lot of the data we have. I think it is pretty clear from so many different eyewitnesses.

Also, John Gross from NIST claims he hasn't heard of any eyewitnesses regarding the "Molten Steel" but when you watch the following clip there were a number of people claiming this, so him not knowing is certainly not believable.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Skibum
I don't recall any reports of large previously molten masses of metal found at the site.

Tell me then what this is. This is different than what BsBray posted. It is the meteorite in the origal video I posted. It IS molten steel that cooled. The official even states this.

This picture shows the slag that everyone wants to see.

Fowl Play....sorry but you have not debunked bunk.