Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor

 

" Do any of you debunkers have anything, anything AT ALL to debunk the presence of molten metals ... "

My search also showed that at least 99% of the columns at ground zero broke along the welds , none having shown any signs of a cutter charge or other form of cut .

After my thorough search , I can say in all honesty that I saw NO photos or images that even remotely resembled molten material .

So , where is the original source for these images to be found ? Please note , I said ORIGINAL source .

Molten metals:
The stuff drizzling down the cut not broken column that looks melted is what I believe they are referring to as steel melting. Now, you may not agree with this, but think for a second - when does anything break like its been sliced at an angle? Those angle cuts were done to remove the obvious appearance of melting. Go look at the picture, the stuff is still there.
Molten may not be the correct word here for you since the stuff was already cooled by this time, except that which was still at the very bottom - so there was enough distance for the firefighter not to get burned.
And the original sources were confiscated. You won't even find the photographer. How's that for suspicious?
But lets remove ourselves from bickering for a second and look at the big picture. In a court of law, with that picture, you would be hard pressed to convince a jury that there was nothing more to that shot especially with the drizzle and the angel cuts.
IMO, this is the real reason why they won't let the families of the victims sue - they know their arguments would not stand up in court and all that "TRIFECTA winnings" would have to be returned.
That would be the true test wouldn't it?

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor

 

Why do you feel the need to respond with such hostility and bad manners when I am remaining civil ?

I have posted legitimate sources and have asked valid questions .

What causes you to feel like you need to "rip me a new one" ?

Throughout this thread , you have called for logic and civility and now you resort to this type of response . Why ?

I want you to read my reply then explain to me in a "civil" manner just how any of those were valid questions to ask ME? I ripped you a new one because you didn't read before you wrote. I can read this whole thread in 15 minutes tops. I suggest you do that, then reply. If you do not have the decorum to read a thread before you ask an essay of questions then you really shouldn't post. Sorry but no excuse dude. I am civil with those who deserve it. Unlike most here and the staff I do not believe everyone deserves respect and civility. These things are earned in a discussion and you have not earned them with an opening post like this. Tired of being nice.

And I know I'm not the only one. If the mods feel I am out of line they will edit me. I doubt they do given how rude it was of you to inquire with me things I have made clear. You miss-represent me completely replying with questions like that. I do not support that crap. Of course I am offended.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor

 

" There are a LOT of people locked up in prison wrongfully because of eye witnesses, we better hurry up and pardon them before people find out eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!!11!!! lol. "

You are correct , there are indeed a lot of people who have been incarcerated wrongfully due to eyewitness testimony that was accepted as evidence in courts of law .

PROVING that not all eyewitness testimony is accurate and valid .

Self-defeat is a real bummer , is it not ?

Just stop. You are upsetting me now. I said "eyewitness accounts are not evidence"

Is English your primary language? ARE NOT EVIDENCE, is not the same as SOMETIMES FALSE EVIDENCE

The two are not one and the same. I bolded are not again because you need to learn what it means. I said EVERYONE needs let go, not the ones locked up based on false testimonies.

Please. Don't reply to me anymore.

reply to post by DaWhiz


Can you please edit your quote. I messed up a code and his quote got left out of quote. Those are not my opinions or words.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by DaWhiz

 

Rumsfeld had already announced on Sep 10th, that $2.3 trillion (with a "t") USD was "unnaccounted" for in the Pentagon budget. Please don't mistake this for the black budget, as that is something entirely different. Furthermore, CBS ran a piece about how 25% of the entire Pentagon budget goes missing on an ongoing basis. Considering that the US has a bigger military budget than all other countries of the planet combined, this is a lot of money that is in effect, "disappearing". More money goes missing at the Pentagon every day, than most countries spend on their entire defences in a year.

It sure is awfuly convenient that he announced this money on the 10th of September and after the attacks, it was pretty much excused and forgotten.

--airspoon

p.s. run a google search on the missing money and a CBS source should top the list. That's the CBS piece I'm talking about.

I never said a thing about black budgets. I said this was a heist. Robbery. Stolen gold. yada yada.
And yes it was very convenient that all the WTC buildings that had anything to do with DoD went up or were "pulled" the very next day after someone said "AUDIT"
Black budgets are another story for another thread.

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by DaWhiz

 

Can you please edit your quote. I messed up a code and his quote got left out of quote. Those are not my opinions or words.

sorry but I suck at the quote thing too. messed up plenty in my time.
(edit) Was just trying to get to what I wanted to address that's all.
But if those weren't YOUR words, just leave it at that.

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

.

Also you said

though I still haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, just witness statements about molten metal that wasn't tested to find out what kind of metal it was.

Again, and again, and probably 400 times more, the FEMA initial reports show examples of the severely melted steel and collected samples of molten Iron.

Where are the examples of "severely" melted steel in the FEMA reports? The report you referenced shows the results of hot corrosion and the only melt described in the report was an intergranular iron-sulfide-oxide; this is a slag-like material that increased the corrosion rate.

reply to post by DaWhiz


Oh I think it is quoting him and I'm being a tard anyway.

Says reply to ciphor, originally posted by other guy. I think failing to read is a disease and it's spreading to my brain. I'm going to go read some khalil and get my head back.

Originally posted by airspoon
Rumsfeld had already announced on Sep 10th, that $2.3 trillion (with a "t") USD was "unnaccounted" for in the Pentagon budget.

Why do truthers keep repeating this lie, that has been debunked many times here before?

This is one reason truthers have zero credibility, they post a lie, it is thoroughly debunked, they ignore the facts and some time later they repost the same lie!

Here is what Rumsfeld ACTUALLY said

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

So the money is NOT missing like the truthers claim! "In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information."

More info here
www.911myths.com...

reply to post by DaWhiz


Sorry guy , that picture would do nothing to convince a jury or a court of anything other than a cut made by a cutting torch . The "drizzle" you refer to is actually known as "slag" . It is the result that you get as you cut through metal .

There is no doubt in my mind about that .

Anyone not having experience with torches might see it as suspicious but , anyone who has ever been around fabrication shops will recognize it for what it is , slag .

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by airspoon
Rumsfeld had already announced on Sep 10th, that $2.3 trillion (with a "t") USD was "unnaccounted" for in the Pentagon budget.

Why do truthers keep repeating this lie, that has been debunked many times here before?

This is one reason truthers have zero credibility, they post a lie, it is thoroughly debunked, they ignore the facts and some time later they repost the same lie!

Here is what Rumsfeld ACTUALLY said

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

So the money is NOT missing like the truthers claim! "In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information."

More info here
www.911myths.com...

You already posted this too didn't you? It's like the lies can't be washed away on both sides of the discussion. They are just barfed back up on threads over and over again.

reply to post by okbmd


Not to mention you can plainly see the snap point in the welding cut where they stopped cutting so it wouldn't fall on the cutter.

Awww give it a rest for fuk sake.Howmany of these pointless 911 threads are you people going to make.Anyone with a brain can see clearly a staged terrorist attack by the us government.Those who deny it are hopeless, dim individuals.
The fact is, its now history and no number of threads on above top secret are going to wake anyone up who is worth waking.The world has moved on and so should you.FACT!

Obviously, this is a controversial topic with much evidence/counter-evidence. There were many, many dynamics taking place when the twin towers fell. It's difficult to tell, with any degree of certainty, what really happened regarding molten steel, etc. Was it in fact steel? Sometimes we dig too deep into the intricate details and forget about the obvious. We don't really need to concern ourselves with the minute details that can be disputed. We need only look at the obvious facts.

The most obvious fact has to do with pure physics; the rate at which the buildings fell. Both buildings fell at virtually a free-fall speed. This would be impossible without some assistance, aka controlled demolition of lower levels. Furthermore, a fire has never caused a skyscraper to collapse. The hotel in Vegas, the Empire State Building, etc, etc. The fire may have caused extensive damage but the the skeletal structures, at a minimum, remained intact.

I believe the argument stops with the rate of fall/acceleration. You can't argue with physics.

Much of the "evidence" of the twin towers isn't really evidence but rather circumstances that tells us something isn't right. For one, the fires in the towers. Where was the fire in Shanksville? Other than a few puffs of smoke here and there, there was no fire and no smoke! And the craters created by the wings? They were there before the plane crashed as evidenced by USGS data. Finally, in the worst air disasters in history there have been more remnants than what was shown at Shanksville. The Pan Am flight over Lockerbie had the entire nose section blow off at cruise altitude, descended to earth and the cockpit was still intact. We were actually told by the MSM that the Shanksville plane burrowed itself into the ground! Then the fact that there were pieces of the Shanksville plane miles away. The ONLY way that could happen is if it was destroyed at altitude.

Does anybody remember when the space shuttle disintegrated on re-entry? There were more remnants of that than what was shown in Shanksville! Am I to believe that the Shanksville plane underwent more violence and trauma than the space shuttle? I don't think so!

Then there's the Pentagon. Lets stick with the obvious. That section of the Pentagon had recently been renovated and fortified to protect against attacks yet an airliner was able to penetrate three layers? And then, the hole that was in the innermost layer was nice and circular! After going through the two outer layers! Sorry kids, but commercial airliners are NOT that rigid. It would crumble like tin foil before it got through the first layer.

Finally, the flight data that was obtained by the pilots for 9/11 truth clearly shows that at the rate of speed and descent in the final moments, the aircraft would have had to be at an altitude between 300 and 400 feet when it crossed the highway yet the light poles that it took out are only 20-30' high! Then there's the circumstantial evidence of the precision of flying that would have to be executed to hit a target the size of the side of the Pentagon without touching the ground before hitting the building! And this was one of the worst pilots of the whole bunch according to reports.

These are just a handful of obvious bits of evidence that makes the smaller, intricate details moot. Don't get me wrong, I'm appreciate the effort put into that evidence but with the obvious "in-your-face" evidence out there, I've seen all I need to see.

reply to post by Ciphor

Let's not be too quick to call this a lie, that the money wasn't really missing.
I run a business, and if you cannot account for where the money went adequately (the key word here), that means you could very well be lying about how it was spent, or whether it was really spent at all. Dummy invoices would be easy to print, and putting forth excuses for why you cannot account for money are just that, excuses.
As far as the I.R,S. is concerned, were this a business, it is income buddy.

reply to post by dereks


what you are saying is inaccurate, that the money is still there in the pentagon they just have to take a while in order to process it, the money has never been processed, otherwise you would have heard Rumsfeldt saying "oh yeah about that 2.3 trillion, we found it now." they are concealing it from the audits for the only reason anyone conceals from an audit, because they do not want to account for it, so the money is as good as stolen. Even if the money was still there, Rummsfeldt has more to worry about than just 2.3 trillion, namely saying that flight 93 was shot down.

reply to post by Stewie


No argument there. But he proved that quote to be a lie. He showed context, and how it was taken out of context.

I like to kill beers, does not mean "I like to kill".

If you said I said that, I would of course call you a ____.

I would say our government having trillions of dollars unaccounted for is fact. I don't need any amount of quotes to convince that. It's pretty much common knowledge =p

I know the truth behind 9/11.......GET READY.... Two planes crashed in to the World Trade Center......The only conspiracy is the one perpetrated by Al Quada. The level of stupidity on this topic never ceases to amaze me.

reply to post by dereks


The Figure Three photo shows a 45 degree cut. For a controlled demolition to control the path of the collapsing structure a 45 degree cut is made on principle supporting members. This is one of the really big beams that 'failed'. If you wish to cut a piece of steel with a torch after a demolition you burn straight across.
It's far more efficient to cut at 90 degrees when you are cutting anything. You don't do miter cuts for trashing something.
I saw the full photo of this back in '04. It convinced me that this was an op by insiders.
Perhaps someone out there can prove me wrong? Someone who cuts heavy metal for a living preferably would do so.
Thanks.