WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

Originally posted by Pootie
A tornado can push a piece of straw though a tree... MASS x ACCELERATION = FORCE.

Here is a board through a tree.. just for example (i a m lazy today):
[image snipped from reply]

Those boards can be deadly weapons all right. But a wooden board penetrating a wooden tree as seen in the photo is a poor example, for several reasons, including:

1. Wood penetrating wood is not the same as aluminum/plastic penetrating steel/concrete.

2. The board didn't disintegrate into nothing like the alleged plane did.


Let's say you took the piece of wood and carved it into the shape of an airplane, would it still glide into the tree?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
1. Wood penetrating wood is not the same as aluminum/plastic penetrating steel/concrete.

2. The board didn't disintegrate into nothing like the alleged plane did.


Let's say you took the piece of wood and carved it into the shape of an airplane, would it still glide into the tree?

You are talking far larger energies with the WTC impact, and for starters the WTC, unlike the concrete block the F4 was demonstrated impacting, was not completely solid. In fact, metal can bend, particularly when you hit it with a 500 mph aircraft. It's strange, people insist a tiny squib can help bring down the WTC but that a 767 couldn't penetrate couldn't penetrate the facade.

I can't understand why everyone says that a plane can't do that. Well, it did. In fact, that plane which skidded into a building wrecked the building and that was going far slower.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
In the video of the F4, the wings don't slice through the concrete, they just disintegrate.

I beg to differ. In the clip (where the jet is comming from the left), if you watch the wing, it slices a considerable way through the concrete.

Here's what I'm talking about. Unless I'm looking at it wrong.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
1. Wood penetrating wood is not the same as aluminum/plastic penetrating steel/concrete.

The fuselages were aluminum, there were titanium bars supporting the wings and I think for the fuselage's supporting structure, and the engines probably had large amounts of steel in them.


Physics tells us there is no difference between a 767 hitting a WTC Tower at 600 MPH, and a WTC Tower hitting a 767 at 600 MPH. I agree that the plane would probably be shredded before it made it very far into the towers, but I think the columns where the plane entered were weakened beforehand, and there's supposed to be evidence that charges can actually be seen exiting the facade as the plane is entering. I've never cared enough to look but references to some earlier discussion are made every now and then on the STJ911 forums, if that's worth anything.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
In the video of the F4, the wings don't slice through the concrete, they just disintegrate.

I beg to differ. In the clip (where the jet is comming from the left), if you watch the wing, it slices a considerable way through the concrete.

Here's what I'm talking about. Unless I'm looking at it wrong.

i think what you've labelled 'wing' is going around the concrete block, not through. the block looked pretty intact after the plane shredded into confetti.

unless i'm looking at it wrong. (i didn't review the video, and am just going by memory.)

[edit on 16-8-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
i think what you've labelled 'wing' is going around the concrete block, not through. the block looked pretty intact after the plane shredded into confetti.

You could be right. That's why I said I might be looking at it wrong.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by billybob
i think what you've labelled 'wing' is going around the concrete block, not through. the block looked pretty intact after the plane shredded into confetti.

You could be right. That's why I said I might be looking at it wrong.

that plane sure did turn into confetti, though. no doubt about that. too bad we can't see a three story perimeter tree with spandrels subjected to the same test. i would expect the concrete block to be far more damaged from that impact, eh.

like at a riot, when the police shoot rubber bullets vs. lead bullets. the plane doesn't have anywhere NEAR the density of steel.

I do believe there was molten metal at ground zero.I've seen the thermal pictures,photos, and videos of those who worked there and they stated there was molten metal.There is simply too much evidence out there.
I don't even think debunkers could deny this.
Steven Jones has done much work to try and prove the origins of the molten metal and it's a shame that he gets shot down by so many.
Building fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel and anyone who says any different hasn't researched.
You'd need a smelting facility or chemicals to produce that kind of heat/reaction.

Edited because it's my keyboard's fault.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by citizen truth]

reply to post by citizen truth



You need to look more closely through the link in my Original Post