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

reply to post by JohnJasper


But, does it make any sense whatsoever that explosions went of so early if it was a CD?

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
Where is the "solid proof" that can be witnessed? David Griffin's talk about 'getting empirical' was cut off before any empirical things were discussed.
In the past, I have found him to be a lightweight when it comes to understanding technical details. He is a talking head and will gladly repeat what he has been told, often erroneously, by others. He does put a good face on the movement and seems far more reasonable and intellectual than Steven Jones or Richard Gage. Maybe that is why they keep him around.

Apologies! Here are the remaining parts of David Ray Griffins Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical

Part 2 of 9


Part 3 of 9


Part 4 of 9


Part 5 of 9


Part 6 of 9


Part 7 of 9


Part 8 of 9


Part 9 of 9

reply to post by -PLB-

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

But, does it make any sense whatsoever that explosions went of so early if it was a CD?

-PLB-, to answer your question...

Based on numerous eye-witness statements as well as video evidence available to us all, bombs were going off all over the place at the WTC that morning. If you accept this evidence instead of trying to explain it away as boiler explosions, overpressure from collapsing floors and such like, then you must logically conclude that bombs were planted in the buildings prior to the aircraft attacks. Once you accept that some bombs were already in the buildings, it's not a long stretch to multiply that number by that required to bring the buildings down especially when you find out that a re-cabling job had been underway leading up to the day.

In the end, you have 3 huge buildings imploded into debri-piles much smaller than expected for a CD and only physically-impossible official reasons for their collapse (in one case 80+ floors crushed by the top block of 12 floors!) I have no doubt whatsoever that the buildings were CD'd. The only questions remaining are Who, How and Why.

The answer to your question "Does it makes sense?" lies within those three questions. Except where evidence points in specific directions, we can only speculate on why "they" would have bombs going off ahead of the climax of each act of this staged event.

They might have been used to:

- visibly weaken the buildings so that it would appear that fire was weakening the structure

- weaken the structure surreptitiously when timed with other events that provided distraction (squibs seen in WTC1 simultaneous with aircraft impact on WTC2!)

Through both methods, they could achieve the desired result without giving too much away at the final moment. But this is just speculation on my part and doesn't take anything away from the facts.

reply to post by JohnJasper


But how does that explain the molten metal? That's what I have yet to see, and what I thought the main point of this particular thread was. We know there was molten metal, steel had gotten hot enough over weeks to become melted, and we know that underground fires are possible and often inevitable in collapses (and that they get extremely hot). Where do bombs factor into metal becoming molten?

reply to post by Varemia


Varemia, I fully comprehend your unberstanding of thermite reaction between aluminum and steel. And how you use it to explain, in conjunction with underground fires, the heat source of the pile.

Here is a question.

If the buildings were steel and concrete, where did the material come from to combust in the underground fires?

And there was water being doused on the pile from almost the time it hit the ground.

So explain the fire with no combustible matterial, and water being applied hourly.

And I will tell you now that I will disagree with your explaination.

reply to post by slugger9787


The buildings weren't just steel and concrete. Anyone knows that. As for the water and such, even if it was a nuke, the water would have done exactly the same thing to the heat unless I'm misunderstanding some after-effect of a nuke or whatever it is you are hypothesizing might have caused the heat.

I recall someone posting here who dealt with collapsed buildings from fire, and how they would douse the rubble in water, but if there was a basement, it would do no good.

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

But how does that explain the molten metal? That's what I have yet to see, and what I thought the main point of this particular thread was. We know there was molten metal, steel had gotten hot enough over weeks to become melted, and we know that underground fires are possible and often inevitable in collapses (and that they get extremely hot). Where do bombs factor into metal becoming molten?

Source: Geography and Map Division (Witness and Response: September 11 Acquisitions at the Library of Congress)

Please refer to the Aerial Views and Maps of the WTC - Thermal Imagery section of the Library of Congress source above. Note how the first image indicates the already extreme temperatures on 16 Sept 2001 which does not allow weeks for the temperature to rise. The later images indicate a quick cooling of most hot spots and all except the first image completely ignore any heat inside WTC 6. Matter of fact, this report shows a complete dismissal of the WTC 6 heat source. (Makes me wonder if the team were intentionally massaging the results and if that is so, can we trust the thermal imaging at all?)

As an aside, check out the LIDAR models below the Thermal Imagery section that depicts towers 1, 2 and 7 still standing and then equate their mass to the debris depicted in the remaining images. It's hard to imagine the towers being reduced to so little debri which is why you need complicated maths and models to get past what you're brain is telling you cannot happen.

But how did we get these hot spots and beyond that, molten metal. Considering that PETN's temperature at explosion exceeds 7500F (4186 K) and a nuclear explosion generates 100,000,000 K, either one could account for superheated metals.

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by Varemia

 

But how did we get these hot spots and beyond that, molten metal. Considering that PETN's temperature at explosion exceeds 7500F (4186 K) and a nuclear explosion generates 100,000,000 K, either one could account for superheated metals.

You might ask what PETN is used for. It is a booster explosive used in primacord and is not a main charge. When does it reach 7500 F? When it is expanding adibatically. How much heat can it transfer to a mass of metal? Estimate Cp's for the expanding gases and determine how much the metal would be heated. Answer: not much. The websites didn't know about this or didn't want to tell you.
The nuke is not 100,000,000 K. Many guessers are at about 1,000,000 but a more reasonable set of numbers is:

"Within 17 meters, the explosion temperature was 300,000 degrees Celsius. Within 50 meters it was
9,000-11,000 degrees, and at ground level beneath hypocenter the temperature exceeded 6,000 degrees."
hypertextbook.com...


Now ask the website what happened to the blast. Neither of these are the super secret noiseless explosives that people like to invoke when they can't explain their demolition theories.

reply to post by JohnJasper


Very speculative, and doesn't make sense to me. Having bombs explode early on is actually making the risk of exposure greater. And the buildings were not visibly weakened, except at impact point. Thats even one of the main argument I read around here for CD. The main problem with your hypothesis is that is does not pass the common sense test. You have to make up these weird explanations to make it fit, and all without any reference to actual research by experts.

reply to post by -PLB-

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

Very speculative, and doesn't make sense to me. Having bombs explode early on is actually making the risk of exposure greater. And the buildings were not visibly weakened, except at impact point. Thats even one of the main argument I read around here for CD. The main problem with your hypothesis is that is does not pass the common sense test. You have to make up these weird explanations to make it fit, and all without any reference to actual research by experts.

-PLB-,

With all due respect, you missed my point! Of course my thoughts were speculative as that is what I was doing? To even call it an hypothesis is going way overboard. And to critisize me for doing so when you asked the speculative question is definitely out of order. If you show me that you're not interested in working together to find the truth, then I will quit working with you and perhaps we both lose what might have been gained.

You cannot argue away overwhelming physical evidence of CD by saying that it doesn't meet a common sense test. You wouldn't acquit a serial killer because you can't understand why they kill so why apply a lesser standard in what is arguably a more reprehensible crime? If NIST can spend millions producing a complicated model of internal failure that doesn't even match the video evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, why can't I express my thoughts on why someone would try to cloak a CD operation?

Why do I need expert research to back up my speculative thoughts? If I was aware of expert research that contradicted my ideas, I would probably never state them or have stated them with reference to the contradicting research as a means of ticking off those possibilities.

Just a little helpful feedback for you. If you wish to continue in this business of debunking 9/11 threads, start taking better notes. You've just violated one of the major debunking arguments for WTC 7 and WTC 1 by saying "And the buildings were not visibly weakened, except at impact point" Much ado is made by debunkers about how both of these towers were leaning, bulging and so structurally weakened that collapse was imminent!

In conclusion, the evidence is what it is and whether it makes sense is for the independent inquiry (that we probably will never get) to assess. My concern is that the evidence was blatantly ignored in all previous inquiries and NIST manufacturered evidence was given priority. All of our speculation around the evidence mainly serves to keep the interest for justice alive but also promotes better understanding of our government's criminal behaviour in the absence of justice.

reply to post by JohnJasper


I indeed do not wish to conduct in this kind of speculative conversation, as I am in no way qualified to come with a good hypothesis and I have no access to evidence. To me this kind of speculation is totally useless, I have no illusions to find truth that way. Thats why I ask direct and critical questions. It is now 9 years later, and it seems to me even a basic explanation is missing in the truth movement. Most claim its CD, but the next question is answered by "don't know" or insults like "only fools believe the OS". Present to me a well worked out theory, backed up with evidence and experts, and I will seriously consider it. Till now I have seen only one "paper" claiming a top-down collapse is impossible. It was completely debunked, even I as non-expert could identify major flaws.

reply to post by -PLB-

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

I indeed do not wish to conduct in this kind of speculative conversation, as I am in no way qualified to come with a good hypothesis and I have no access to evidence. To me this kind of speculation is totally useless, I have no illusions to find truth that way. Thats why I ask direct and critical questions. It is now 9 years later, and it seems to me even a basic explanation is missing in the truth movement. Most claim its CD, but the next question is answered by "don't know" or insults like "only fools believe the OS". Present to me a well worked out theory, backed up with evidence and experts, and I will seriously consider it. Till now I have seen only one "paper" claiming a top-down collapse is impossible. It was completely debunked, even I as non-expert could identify major flaws.

By direct and critical questions, you mean:

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

But, does it make any sense whatsoever that explosions went of so early if it was a CD?

You are apparently a waste of space on this thread. You're not "qualified" to come up with an hypothesis, you have no access to evidence, you can identify major flaws in papers debunking the official story but are completely oblivious to the flaws in the OS itself. In short, you're background noise.

reply to post by pteridine


And the background noise just gets worse...

Originally posted by pteridine
...
The nuke is not 100,000,000 K. Many guessers are at about 1,000,000 but a more reasonable set of numbers is:

"Within 17 meters, the explosion temperature was 300,000 degrees Celsius. Within 50 meters it was
9,000-11,000 degrees, and at ground level beneath hypocenter the temperature exceeded 6,000 degrees."
hypertextbook.com...

So from a webpage that lists results of 10^6 K, 10^6 K, 10^7 K, 300,000 K, 10^6 K and 10^7 K, your judgement is that 300,000 celsius is more realistic. Good for you and thanks for sharing.

I wonder what we could melt with 300,000 celsius?

reply to post by JohnJasper


I guess you point out the problem with this whole topic, not just me. Its all background noise with no substance. Asking questions is not appreciated, just blindly accept that CD was used, and reject the OS. Sorry, I rather think for myself. You are just making assumptions out of the blue. What exactly in the OS is flawed which I am oblivious to? How do you come to this conclusion? What useful contributions are you making? Yep, questions again. Speculate away.

reply to post by JohnJasper


Just to voice some support for PLB here. I have just read the last few posts and it is evident that PLB has tried to engage in a rational, measured and polite way. What has he/she got in return ? bumptious self-importance.

If there is " overwhelming evidence of cd " lets hear it. Real evidence, not speculation about what fell where. Where the explosives came from, who installed them, who triggered them, physical traces of detonators etc.

reply to post by Alfie1

I think you should read this thread a little more carefully. There are many members here showing evidence of controlled demolition. The molten material, for example, is evidence of something other than office fires and jet fuel but you will have to read this stuff and decide for yourself.

JohnJasper made a valid point about -PLB-'s style of debate. I see a desire from too many for the negative, or to debunk, rather than a focus on what really happened. The fact is that there is too much obfuscation going on over this issue and any circle type arguments that are designed to confuse are a waste of time and nothing more than annoying noise.

What gets me is that I keep hearing all this talk about evidence of CD, and how the office fires burning underground for weeks couldn't have possibly gotten hot enough...

Yet, I haven't seen ONE poster come up with a list of possible actual explosives that could have been used. Well, perhaps the nuke guy, but even he doesn't have any clue exactly what type of nuke it could have been. He relies on the idea that humans constantly improve on old technology, coming to the conclusion that we must have nukes which act almost nothing like traditional nukes but contain the damage potential.

Was it C4, Thermite, TnT, High-grade Incendiaries? I want to hear what you think it was if it couldn't have possibly been the fire that made things hot.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I think you should read this thread a little more carefully. There are many members here showing evidence of controlled demolition. The molten material, for example, is evidence of something other than office fires and jet fuel but you will have to read this stuff and decide for yourself.

JohnJasper made a valid point about -PLB-'s style of debate. I see a desire from too many for the negative, or to debunk, rather than a focus on what really happened. The fact is that there is too much obfuscation going on over this issue and any circle type arguments that are designed to confuse are a waste of time and nothing more than annoying noise.

No, the "molten material", not having been identified is proof of nothing. There is not in fact a single shred of evidence for any cd at the WTC, The Towers plainly collapsed from the plane impact points and WTC 7 was clobbered by WTC 1 and burned for hours.

In the whole site not a trace of any demolition paraphernalia has been discovered and, of course, not a soul has admitted to having any knowledge of or taking part in rigging the buildings.

NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers ( some 120,000 strong) do not have a problem with collapses from plane impact and fires and it is bizarre and annoying that people who represent a minority view that there was cd complain that dissenters are an " annoying noise ".

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
What gets me is that I keep hearing all this talk about evidence of CD, and how the office fires burning underground for weeks couldn't have possibly gotten hot enough...

Yet, I haven't seen ONE poster come up with a list of possible actual explosives that could have been used. Well, perhaps the nuke guy, but even he doesn't have any clue exactly what type of nuke it could have been. He relies on the idea that humans constantly improve on old technology, coming to the conclusion that we must have nukes which act almost nothing like traditional nukes but contain the damage potential.

Was it C4, Thermite, TnT, High-grade Incendiaries? I want to hear what you think it was if it couldn't have possibly been the fire that made things hot.

Why do you want to hear what we think? What benefit does it give you if people speculate based on the minimal and suspect evidence to hand instead of just relying on an independent inquiry to fully investigate the event and report the findings?

reply to post by Devino


I am asking direct question of what is supposed to have happened, and why. It looks like the only reason these questions are not appreciated is because they do not have answers that make sense, making the idea of CD look bad. But that is the whole point of asking questions, to see if a hypothesis, or speculation as JohnJasper like to call it, withstands scrutiny. Just like people (including me) have asked questions about the OS. The only thing this type of debate is hurting some peoples believes.

How are we supposed to get to "what really happened" if we do not question our hypothesis/speculation?