Meteorite proof that there WAS molten steel

Here is proof that the molten metal was unlikely to be Molten steel.

image one shows the flow of molten metal down the front of the tower.



From image 2 we can see where the flow originated from:



Look where the metal is flowing from??? Just happens to be the Plane impact area..
Note also the running molten metal, as it is cooling and coming to a halt it is quite shiny in colour, we all know that Molten Steel is black when cooled, so the idea this Molten metal is Steel, looks more than unlikely, in fact it would be the first and last time in history that molten steel cooled was the colour in the image..

Originally posted by Fowl Play
If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt there was molten steel, i will change my opinion

Watch the videos in the OP. It shows a meteorite that is a mass. No paper in it etc. It also shows the slag that everyone wants to see.

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

Because coal mine fires smolder at only 540 C (1000 F). The temps at the trade center were higher than this.

The task of extinguishing underground coal fires, sometimes exceeding temperatures of 540 °C (1,000 °F), is both highly dangerous and very expensive.[1]

Successes include the 2004 mine fire at the Liuhuanggou colliery near Urumqi in China's Xinjiang province. It had been burning since 1874.

Source: Wicki

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Here is proof that the molten metal was unlikely to be Molten steel.

image one shows the flow of molten metal down the front of the tower.



From image 2 we can see where the flow originated from:



Look where the metal is flowing from??? Just happens to be the Plane impact area..
Note also the running molten metal, as it is cooling and coming to a halt it is quite shiny in colour, we all know that Molten Steel is black when cooled, so the idea this Molten metal is Steel, looks more than unlikely, in fact it would be the first and last time in history that molten steel cooled was the colour in the image..

When did we start talking about the molten battery metals that poured out of the 85th floor? Just curious.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Here is proof that the molten metal was unlikely to be Molten steel.

Oh ok, CDI must have just mistaken the molten metal from the sheeting of aluminum on the outside of the towers for steel then. Maybe some of it was from the what would have been surely an enormous amount of soda cans as well. I'm sure experts in demolition clean up would make that mistake all the time, considering they probably had to lift it and haul it and all.

This debate is pointless. Here is molten steel that has cooled. As stated in the video of a government employee (I assume) that states it is steel and concrete fused together from the heat. He obviously is an expert. He obviously has described this object as molten steel. The picture shows slag. There are no papers in it.



I can believe that the other meteorite that BsBray showed could be from pressure alone. This meteorite though is a different story. Please people, don't confuse the two.

Can we now agree that there was molten steel observed?

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Griff]

Wow, I didn't even realize those were two completely different pieces of debris. Shows how closely I was watching those YouTube videos.

Oh,

I just thought you were showing other pictures of other meteorites. No big worries. They both are anomolies that should have been explained but yet here we sit still scratching our heads.

Originally posted by Griff
This debate is pointless. Here is molten steel that has cooled. As stated in the video of a government employee (I assume) that states it is steel and concrete fused together from the heat. He obviously is an expert. He obviously has described this object as molten steel. The picture shows slag. There are no papers in it.

I can believe that the other meteorite that BsBray showed could be from pressure alone. This meteorite though is a different story. Please people, don't confuse the two.

Can we now agree that there was molten steel observed?

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Griff]

Griff , can i see a full photograph of that please. Also if possible , can you show it came from ground Zero... i cannot tell what it is in an image so small.
I will agree with you mate if thats what i feel it is
Glad you agreed on the primary " Meteorite", its place of keep would hardly be disclosed if it could be evidence for CD

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Griff , can i see a full photograph of that please. Also if possible , can you show it came from ground Zero... i cannot tell what it is in an image so small.
I will agree with you mate if thats what i feel it is

Glad you agreed on the primary " Meteorite", its place of keep would hardly be disclosed if it could be evidence for CD

I haven't really seen a good close up of it. It is in the video I posted. You have a point that we need to find out that this is actually from ground zero. An assumption I made probably from my own bias. Cheers. Now, we need to find out if it actually was from ground zero.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Griff , can i see a full photograph of that please. Also if possible , can you show it came from ground Zero... i cannot tell what it is in an image so small.
I will agree with you mate if thats what i feel it is

Glad you agreed on the primary " Meteorite", its place of keep would hardly be disclosed if it could be evidence for CD

I haven't really seen a good close up of it. It is in the video I posted. You have a point that we need to find out that this is actually from ground zero. An assumption I made probably from my own bias. Cheers. Now, we need to find out if it actually was from ground zero.

Thats the first thing i thought of Pal, reasoned debate coming from conflicting sides can find a solution.....
We need an enlarged picture of this if anyone can do it, and to ascertain, in reality if this was in fact from Ground Zero or not..

Does anyone know where the original footage for the videos came from? Thanks. I should have made positively sure that they are from ground zero. My bad in that. I just don't have the time at the moment to research.

Originally posted by Fowl Play

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Fowl,

That is no answer at all.

What do you mean? Legible writing on paper means that there was no molten steel, the meteorite was created by the force of the collapse and is highly compressed material..
Think about it, if it could be used to rubbish the official story, do you not think it might be destroyed instead of keepin it at a hanger at an airbase??
There isnt a Conspiracy everywhere, although i do believe there is a few for 9/11, this is not one of them

Jimc
My reason for wanting a jackhammer to tear that mass apart is to find out if it is being held together by a material that melted or if the sand from the concrete was holding everything together by being sintered..

That is a good question but the concrete, how did it get 'reshapened' ? Only high temperatures could explain this and I'm going to have to look into 'sintering' a bit more before I'll go along with that. Also Jim, It's obvious that all the metal in the heap didn't melt but it does appear that some bits did.

Still no cigar Fowl.

"legible writing on paper means that there was no molten steel"..

Really? that's a gross simplification and everyone here with half a bird brain knows that. And that's only HALF of the error of this response.

Fowl Play
You must admit that the Metrorite has bee debunked by earlier post in the thread?

Must admit because why? As Griff and Twitch have clearly illustrated, you have been kept clearly in check.

Why does great compressing force destroy concrete into dust in some cases, but then fuse it into a big lump with steel in other cases?

There's an inconsistency here that requires at least one other variable to come into play. Heat, maybe?

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

Originally posted by Fowl Play

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Fowl,

That is no answer at all.

What do you mean? Legible writing on paper means that there was no molten steel, the meteorite was created by the force of the collapse and is highly compressed material..
Think about it, if it could be used to rubbish the official story, do you not think it might be destroyed instead of keepin it at a hanger at an airbase??
There isnt a Conspiracy everywhere, although i do believe there is a few for 9/11, this is not one of them

Jimc
My reason for wanting a jackhammer to tear that mass apart is to find out if it is being held together by a material that melted or if the sand from the concrete was holding everything together by being sintered..

That is a good question but the concrete, how did it get 'reshapened' ? Only high temperatures could explain this and I'm going to have to look into 'sintering' a bit more before I'll go along with that. Also Jim, It's obvious that all the metal in the heap didn't melt but it does appear that some bits did.

Still no cigar Fowl.

"legible writing on paper means that there was no molten steel"..

Really? that's a gross simplification and everyone here with half a bird brain knows that. And that's only HALF of the error of this response.

Fowl Play
You must admit that the Metrorite has bee debunked by earlier post in the thread?

Must admit because why? As Griff and Twitch have clearly illustrated, you have been kept clearly in check.

That first meteorite is proper debunked, Griff even acknowledges it, its on display, molten steel is black, that "thing" was made by sheer forceful compression.
No ones kept me in check, because noone needs to.. i get on fine with Griff and Twitchy.. Its called debate btw, if you learn how to, maybe join in if you can drop the derogatoriness.. if not, theres always night school...
Regards
p.s. if your a bit slow on the uptake, it is the 2nd meteorite in discussion now, Griff is having a look to see if he can prove its from Ground Zero..
Get your studying hat on

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why does great compressing force destroy concrete into dust in some cases, but then fuse it into a big lump with steel in other cases?

There's an inconsistency here that requires at least one other variable to come into play. Heat, maybe?

Very good questions. If it was heat from the pressure or friction, that heat would have been present in all cases. So, I can't see it being just heat.

This is interesting. This is the same person talking about the antenna of WTC 1 and how it didn't melt. At least we have linked this expert as talking about GZ and it's wreckage. Not proof positive yet, but I'm getting close.

www.liveleak.com...


Edit: In my haste, I didn't notice that they showed his name. Bart Voorsanger. And he is an architect. This is getting more and more interesting.


[edit on 6/17/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/17/2007 by Griff]

Here's his company.

www.voorsanger.com...

Bart Voorsanger, “Artifacts, Memories and Memorials”

Mr. Voorsanger described his role as consultant charged with selecting artifacts and objects from the World Trade Center site for future exhibitions and a memorial by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He was hired by the Port Authority soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and began the process of collecting 9/11 materials.He stated that the World Trade Center site was a complete catastrophe. The questions he had to deal with were: What does one collect? What is the most valuable? Eventually Mr. Voorsanger came up with a list of different types of objects. They were divided into six categories: objects on site, salvaged objects off site, commissioned fine art objects, objects memorialized by salvage crews, photographic archives, and objects having social content. He then proceeded to describe what each category entailed. For the objects on site, he looked at the site, located objects, documented them and then those objects were given to the salvage crew to take away. Each object was described and its selection was justified. People who were working on the site became “curators” and offered Mr. Voorsanger suggestions for collection development. After starting this acquisitions process, Mr. Voorsanger decided that the intended collection needed to be rethought of as an archive and not merely a collection of objects for a memorial. He posed the question to the audience as to how long should we keep these objects because they can not be given away or sold. The objects are currently being stored at a hangar at JFK airport.

www.arlisna.org...

OK. I have identified the man speaking in the original video with the molten steel.

I have identified that he was consulted by the Port Authority as an expert.

He states molten steel.

I would say case closed. Any objections?

Fowl,

Any person aside, your own words and one simple fact keep you in check:

What is that simple fact? Until this meteorite is dissected and analyzed scientifically no one can debunk anything.

The moral of the story? I wish more people would ask questions and debate instead of acting like the debunking authority when in fact, there is no possible way for them to be.


Lots of good angles and bits here in the thread though and still mulling over them.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why does great compressing force destroy concrete into dust in some cases, but then fuse it into a big lump with steel in other cases?

There's an inconsistency here that requires at least one other variable to come into play. Heat, maybe?

I second that. Also, we are not entirely sure whats melted, what's not and what's compressed in this meteorite now are we?