• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any hypothesis on pools of metal?

Devil's Advocate said:
Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.
Click to expand...

I think much of the eyewitness testimony can be chalked up to confusion. There were even some engineers, and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, who were making snap judgments very shortly after the event, and had said that steel had melted, though we now know this to be false.

Many of the workers on sight would have assumed the pools were steel, given the info they had at the time. Though this testimony really can't be considered reliable, since its unreasonable to expect someone to be able to tell apart two different kinds of molten metal, just by looking.
 
It a key thing for me. I'm not sure about the rest of the forum, but if someone showed me a "pool" of molten metal the size of a Volkswagen at ground zero I have to rethink my whole opinion of what transpired! If it was shown to be steel then I would probably have to jump ship and get me a black t-shirt.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
So I guess the next thing to do is try to get an idea of how much molten material there was in 'pools.'
And that may prove difficult.
Click to expand...
Impossible! You'd need to know the type and quantity of the material. That information doesn't exist and can't be pieced together accurately.
 
cmcaulif said:
I think much of the eyewitness testimony can be chalked up to confusion. There were even some engineers, and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, who were making snap judgments very shortly after the event, and had said that steel had melted, though we now know this to be false.

Many of the workers on sight would have assumed the pools were steel, given the info they had at the time. Though this testimony really can't be considered reliable, since its unreasonable to expect someone to be able to tell apart two different kinds of molten metal, just by looking.
Click to expand...

Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero, NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment. Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?
 
The question I always ask twoofers when they bring up "molten steel" is "how much thermite would it take to do that?"
 
Ok, with the links that Revolutionary91 posted, there are a lot of accounts that there was molten material. A few said 'molten steel', but I have to agree that there is no way for them to know it was in fact steel without it having been tested. That was an assumption.

Was there anything in the debris like large lumps of dried material suggesting it had been liquid at some point?
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Ok, with the links that Revolutionary91 posted, there are a lot of accounts that there was molten material. A few said 'molten steel', but I have to agree that there is no way for them to know it was in fact steel without it having been tested. That was an assumption.

Was there anything in the debris like large lumps of dried material suggesting it had been liquid at some point?
Click to expand...
Please read the article I linked to. I work in ornamental iron and I can show you how to melt steel starting with a match. But, read the article first.
 
CHF said:
The question I always ask twoofers when they bring up "molten steel" is "how much thermite would it take to do that?"
Click to expand...

Come on, bro. Don't do that 'twoofer' stuff. Lets be civil about it all. I understand people get tired of one another, but we do not need to take anger to insult. It is unnesessary. I do not want people going on the defensive or assault. It is counter productive.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Was there anything in the debris like large lumps of dried material suggesting it had been liquid at some point?
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

moltennothing.jpg


ROTFLOL!

(Just so you know, that is not a chunk of slag. Closer inspection reveals it to be several concrete floor slabs pancaked together with rebar, pipes, etc.)

(But the good *Professor* Jones claimed it was molten slag)

ROTFLOL!
 
Gravy said:
There aren't as many accounts of pools as there are of running molten metal, but I think it's safe to assume that some of that running metal pooled up. Here's a link from my page Fires in the piles /Molten metal/ Eutectic reaction / Thermite theories
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Gravy. While I tentively agree that it has to have gone somewhere, most of the reports of "molten steel" are unsubstainiated in either that it actually was there (in a number of the quotes the person was quoting someone else), what it was (the assumptions made is that it was steel, the person there didn't actually test it, they saw a red hot liquid and assumed steel) and failed to give an estimate of the quantity involved. In many cases they didcribe it "dripping" rather then streams, and even streams might not be a huge amount capable of creating a large pool (maybe a puddle.) In a lot of cases it seems that they are simply speaking out of ignorance, claims of molten steel at temperatures well below the melting point of steel aren't exactly confidence inspiring. Saying that they found a "molten steel beam" isn't either. If it was molten, it wouldn't be a beam. Suggesting that the remains of a fire truck looked like a pot of molten steel is not the same as claiming t was molten either. It it had been molten, it wouldn't have been recognisable as a fire truck.

So in the end it comes back to the point that while there is evidence of molten metal, and there should have been at the temperatures given, there is no evidence of molten steel, and certainly no pools of molten steel.
 
Last edited:
(Just so you know, that is not a chunk of slag. Closer inspection reveals it to be several concrete floor slabs pancaked together with rebar, pipes, etc.)
Click to expand...

You forgot the burnt paper. ;)
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero,
Click to expand...
Glad to see you're not parroting that silly truther canard that Guiliani/NWO had everything carted away to China on the morning of the 12th.

NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment.
Click to expand...
Yes, they mapped the site.

Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should have sought the answer to this question before claiming that molten steel was definitely in the piles. Your question has been answered numerous times. Please read about what transpired at Ground Zero after 9/11, rather than making assumptions about what you think should hav happened. My site has numerous resources that discuss these things at length.
 
The pools of metal are from phreato-thermatic explosions.

---

Devil's Advocate,

MAX-MIHOP says that the molten metal is molten iron, the left-over product of phreato-thermatic explosions when the jets hit the towers.

I can't link yet (this is post 14)

So...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom