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

Originally posted by Mythkiller
I'm going to throw a real spanner in the works...

Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation
www.henrymakow.com...

So your saying that we have already seen
the antichrist call fire from heaven before the eyes of man?

Seems doubtfull.


David Grouchy

Not really on topic but....

Whenever I see the photo of the firefighters and the beams and people "debunk" it as being newly cut I always ask myself.....

Why would they use ladders to cut the beams...something they had to do otherwise they wouldnt be able reach to where the cuts were performed.....?????

And how did they stand their ladders up given the uneven nature of the ground....????





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c83e307dfb.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Mythkiller


You are derailing and chances are it will work. I am attempting to remove the fuel, you have recognized this, and grabbed a can of gas to throw on the fire. Crafty. I would say I am curious to see if the truthers will bite your lure, but I am not and am almost certain you will land many fish with that.

Let us hope I am wrong.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Aluminum.

You notice the suits those guys are wearing?

It isn't exactly 70 degree weather in there, nor is it broad daylight inside that building, nor is its temperature compatible with what an open-atmosphere fire could produce. You notice they are in a foundry.

See this?:



Notice those men aren't in sci-fi looking suits?

I'm sure it's still putting off heat but nowhere near what's present in your photo.

Same here:

reply to post by bsbray11


I never disagreed with that and you know it =)

I disagreed only with the choice in debate.

Originally posted by benoni
And how did they stand their ladders up given the uneven nature of the ground....

Who said that they used ladders - look at picture 9...

layscience.net...

reply to post by bsbray11


It has nothing to do with being indoors or outdoors. It glows regardless when super heated. I cannot verify the images or person(s) who presented them. I have already seen them and dismissed this as it is not from a creditable source. However the indoor vs outdoor argument to me seems fruitless.

www.drjudywood.com...

reply to post by Ciphor


It's fine. Further investigation is my bottom line too.

I'd even support further investigation along MythKiller's line of inquiry, though at this point it would be very hard to prove anyway because there are few rare earth elements that would still exhibit radioactive isotopes above background levels.

The one thing you'll never see me claim is that I know exactly why the Twin Towers or even WTC7 fell. The most I can say is that it wasn't the fires and plane impacts alone, that much is sufficiently apparent.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Ciphor

 

It's fine. Further investigation is my bottom line too.

I'd even support further investigation along MythKiller's line of inquiry, though at this point it would be very hard to prove anyway because there are few rare earth elements that would still exhibit radioactive isotopes above background levels.

The one thing you'll never see me claim is that I know exactly why the Twin Towers or even WTC7 fell. The most I can say is that it wasn't the fires and plane impacts alone, that much is sufficiently apparent.

To that I will say goodnight as I agree full-heartedly.

Just remember they want to drag you into topics that can be debated and steer away from the ones that cannot. This is their power. Don't play their game, it hasn't worked for us and never will. I am all for a new game =)

Hard, undebatable facts.

Jet fuel fire/office fire = 1400
Steel converted into molten iron = 2700
Molten Iron confirmed by FEMA and other independent organizations/researchers that also agree this needs further investigation. This is the key to the answers. This one they can't explain away. So they will steer away instead, and drive towards nukes, aluminium color, what things "look like" etc.

Originally posted by Ciphor
It has nothing to do with being indoors our outdoors. It glows regardless when super heated.

There is one difference. The "competition" of photons which are entering your eyes.

Ever seen something like this?



en.wikipedia.org...

"A" and "B" are the same color. In the same way, you can take one of these images that show aluminum glowing really bright, put it outside, and suddenly it's not so impressive. Especially when it's daylight. Then the Sun is a competing source of photons and it effectively makes the aluminum look like less of a light source to the human eye/brain. That's why I bring it up.

I also doubt we would disagree that being exposed to 70 F air, and especially free-falling through it, would cool the surface of the metal immediately.

Originally posted by Ciphor
Jet fuel fire/office fire = 1400
Steel converted into molten iron = 2700
Molten Iron confirmed by FEMA

Exactly.

That's why I don't mind getting into these "side-debates" if you will, because the existence of molten steel/iron has already been proven, case closed. It was proven and published in May of 2002 with the FEMA report, and everyone since then who has claimed no steel was melted (whether it was then molten steel or molten iron is a semantic issue imo as it is understood what is physically meant either way) has just been ignorant of this.

FEMA was clear about what they found, and went into plenty enough detail to prove this happened conclusively.

WOW!!
that optical illusion is amazing!!

Airspoon great thread! S&F! The molten steel and all the other discoveries have been spun so many times that a new investigation is warranted,sadly 9/11 has become a political hot potatoe so as always it won't benifit the crooks we have in power DC and then there are people who think since an "government" body supposedly already looked into it we sholud just accept thier conlusions and leave it alone.We must continue to press the issue.

The weasel at the beginning ! Body language ! Look at his ! Its all wrong folks ! That guy has serious issues with not telling the truth and it so very much displays it self in his body language...

Some questions for people who believe thermite charges were used:

Why was it only visible in one or two places?
What is the reason that particular spot would have a thermite charge?
Was the scenario ever reconstructed to see if it looks the same?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ciphor
It has nothing to do with being indoors our outdoors. It glows regardless when super heated.

There is one difference. The "competition" of photons which are entering your eyes.

Ever seen something like this?

en.wikipedia.org...

"A" and "B" are the same color. In the same way, you can take one of these images that show aluminum glowing really bright, put it outside, and suddenly it's not so impressive. Especially when it's daylight. Then the Sun is a competing source of photons and it effectively makes the aluminum look like less of a light source to the human eye/brain. That's why I bring it up.

I also doubt we would disagree that being exposed to 70 F air, and especially free-falling through it, would cool the surface of the metal immediately.

It is indeed a neat optical illusion. However it is just that, an optical illusion. I'm not sure how applicable that is for our discussion. The image in discussion is not an optical illusion and even more, the item in the image is glowing from intense heat, something you cannot simulate in the way you have shown. The reason A and B appear so different in that image is due to the other items around it, and the way it is presented. If you remove the items from that image that make it an illusion you are left with 2 blocks the same color.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Some questions for people who believe thermite charges were used:

Why was it only visible in one or two places?
What is the reason that particular spot would have a thermite charge?
Was the scenario ever reconstructed to see if it looks the same?

I think staying on topic is a better course of action. I would be glad to theorize with you in another thread or you can PM me. But basically you are operating under the assumption that this was like any ordinary controlled demolition. If you are operating under the assumption this was a controlled demolition, then you must see the realization that they would make a serious effort to conceal that and find new ways to collapse the building without giving away to much to the controlled aspects. In a debate of this nature, it is asinine to assume that a secretive controlled demo would resemble a planned one with nothing to hide. Just another reason a debate on that topic is fruitless. It is purely speculation that has in my personal opinion, run it's due course.

(I am not saying I support a controlled demolition theory)

Originally posted by bjsmi2
The weasel at the beginning ! Body language ! Look at his ! Its all wrong folks ! That guy has serious issues with not telling the truth and it so very much displays it self in his body language...

Exactly. I know for a fact we aren't the only two people who can see this.

So you see where we are at here. On one hand we know exactly which treasonous asses to tear into first with subpoena and federal police investigative power, while on the other hand you have millions of people who are still too emotionally traumatized to even rationalize what happened without becoming incredulous, who don't even want to hear this stuff.

Originally posted by Ciphor
It is indeed a neat optical illusion. However it is just that, an optical illusion.

And what's that supposed to mean? It doesn't exist? Really?

I've had psychology classes, this stuff is taught in psychology, it is really more like biology, it is a fact of our physiology and the way our eyes interpret data.

I am telling you, the introduction of sunlight diminishes the effect produced by the glowing, as compared to when it's in the dark. Just think about it for a second. It's really not that hard to see why this would be the case, no pun intended.

reply to post by Ciphor


I do not operate under that assumption. These questions seem relevant to the topic as thermite seems to be the prime suspect for the presumed molten steel.