Molten Steel

[Grizzly Bear]

but talking about the second meteorite (M2) maybe is was fused rapidly and cooled rapidly through a sudden burst of extreme temperature? i cant be sure as no tests have been conducted on the piece of evidence in question.

but because no analysis has been conducted you cant be sure either.

I can state with certainty that the "meteorite" as you seem to be such a fan of calling it, (the one referred to here) is compressed flooring from the towers. The individual structural components are enough to establish this, particularly if you're already familiar with the construction of the towers. And yes I am sure about the composition of this one... as for the other one, commented on by Voorsanger, well you already know my answer... Since you appear to be taking Voorsanger at his word, would you assume there to be any reason why he did not consider the same suspicions as yourself, just out of curiosity?

 

[thewholesoul]

It's pretty clear to me that you are looking for a justification for a new investigation, using standard cherry-picking methodology. You are actually behind the times on the subject and apparently bought into Steven Jones claim that molten metal could solidify around steel rebar without the rebar melting - an anomaly Truthers usually focus on if it supports their desired conclusion. In this case, of course, Jones was taken to task shortly after his paper came out and only recently modified - slightly - the description of the "meteorite" so that those gullible enough could still beleive it is "solidified molten metal."

Nonetheless, the Truther attempts trying to get a "new investigation" always fail on the evidence, or rather, lack thereof, for whatever claim is made. And truthers have always let slip that the purpose of a "new investigation" was the end result of a kangaroo court.

The statement you made, "defenders of the official conspiracy," is a favorite canard of 9/11 Tuthers in their ever forceful attempts to hide the weakness of their claims. You gave yourself away too easily, I'm afriad.

Do get back to us on the claim that molten metal can solidify around steel rebar without melting the rebar. I've always been curious how the defenders of the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale" can never offer any explanation whatsoever.

Thanks in advance.

yet another JREFer confused as to what meteorite i am refering to. there are two different meteorites. here are the links
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w...eature=related http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=swH1Wa...eature=related

well your argument was based around the wrong meteorite so there is not much point in responding however you say

the Truther attempts trying to get a "new investigation" always fail on the evidence, or rather, lack thereof, for whatever claim is made.

it is important to understand that an investigation is just that...an investigation you do not need overwhelming, undisputable evidence to test for high temperature accelerants.

would you agree if M1 was analysed to determine if it experienced extreme high temperatures, or not?

peace

 

[bje]

like mark roberts you are under the impression that the meteorite i am refering to was the one that appears to be the result of compression. i am talking about the one in the following link. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w...eature=related

Please refer to Steven Jones paper:

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

See page 9:

The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:

Please explain, TWS.

 

[bje]

well your argument was based around the wrong meteorite so there is not much point in responding however you say

Incorrect. There is only one piece referred to universally as the "meteorite" and it was referred to by Steven Jones in his paper I just quoted as well as the video you posted. No other piece has been photographed as representing the "meteorite" and none is referred to other than this piece by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Please explain why Steven Jones calls it "now-solidified metal with entrained material" when he was asked immediately after his paper was originally published how it was possible for molten metal to solidify around steel rebar without melting the rebar. Steven Jones has evaded the question ever since and you are doing the same thing now.

Are you going to continue to defend Steven Jones's statement, TWS, or are you going to stand up and admit that Jones cannot be right?

 

[T.A.M.]

i argue that the meteorite should be analysed. I provided 6 reasons to support this argument:

1 it is in accordance with the scientific method
2 it is in accordance with the NFPA 921 standard for fire and explosion investigations
3 it is a relevant piece of evidence
4 there is testimony and evidence to assume that it was formed by extreme heat
5 to know the truth and end speculation
6 it is the moral thing to do

If anyone agrees with Mackey and dismisses further analysis of the meteorite please address one or all of the 6 reasons i present in favor of its analysis.

peace

for starters, your youtube link to the "meteorite" comes back with "malformed ID" on it.

Now addressing your points above.

1. The premise to have the meteorite analyzed is not in keeping with or in opposition to the scientific method.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is an approach to an investigation of hypothesis, once a DECISION has been made to do so. Making that decision has nothing to do with the method.

2. You have still not provided a link to the NFPA 921 standard, and as I told you, a link from "firefightersfor911truth" is not IMO a reputable link. Until you provide a link to this standard, so I can see for myself the wording and the context of the standard, I am sorry, but I cannot take your word (or the firefighters for 9/11 truth either).

3. It is not relevant to the collapse initiation, and therefore not relevant to the NIST investigation. Actually, it only seems to be relevant to those who suspect the USG "dunit".

4. Like I said, extreme heat could have been caused from the pressure exerted on the materials in question during the collapse itself. There was also plenty of sulfur within the contents of the building, therefore, there is a logical answer that is in keeping with the collapse as NIST proposes, that does not involve wild and exotic CTs.

5. So will you begin your quest for evidence that unicorns existed, or did not? I mean if is all about knowing the truth of silly, irrelevant things, then there are lots of myths, and legends you can pursue.

6. No, the moral thing to do, is to accept the plethora of evidence that supports NIST's explanation of the collapse, and to let the memories of those who died REST IN PEACE.

TAM

 

[Sunstealer]

how it was possible for molten metal to solidify around steel rebar without melting the rebar...

/TM mode on. It's super nano-memory-metal-steel. You can do anything to it and it will always go back to rebar shape. /TM mode off.

Why are these people soooo stupid? The fact that the photos plainly refute any notions regarding liquid/molten steel I just cannot understand how they can be so blatant. The answer is literally staring them in the face, but they just refuse to acknowledge it.

Thewholesoul - you have been shown Sherman "neckties" before and therefore you know that steel does NOT need the sort of temperatures that you quote being needed.

When we work steel we always try to do it at the minimum temperature possible because this reduces costs. We take extreme care to get the processes correct so as not to deform the material too fast in order to stop cracks forming at these lower temperatures. Have you ever heard of "Creep Forming"? So please learn something and stop repeating falsities.

 

[T.A.M.]

not impossible, improbable this is an important distinction to maintain.
there was plenty of opportuntity to plant explosives, there were power downs, evacuations, and a fireproofing upgrade prior to 911.

peace

Please. Powerdowns...evacuations, fireproofing upgrades?

You think the buildings were completely abandoned for any of the above. Even the evacuations would have left supervisors and others within the buildings, and how long would these evacuations have lasted? How long did the powerdown last? Who was left in the buildings during the powerdown? I am guessing many people. Fireproofing, so you think the re-fireproofing was a cover for explosive planting? You have even a single shred of evidence for that, or does it sit with leprachauns?

Please.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

It appears that anyybody can turn the impossible into the improbable if he just makes stuff up.

 

[Gravy]

(c) Standing beside an 8 ton steel I-beam bent into horseshoe like shape during the collapse an expert states “I find it hard to believe that it actually bent because of the sides of it and how theres no cracks in the iron, it bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this.”

(d) A second individual standing beside the deformed 8 ton I-beam in agreement states “typically you’d have tearing and buckling on the tension side. Theres no buckling at all.” You can watch the video in full on the following link http://drjudywood.com/media/horseshoe.mov

No buckling at all? Three out of the four sides of the "horseshoe" box column (not I-beam) are completely severed. There is only one slab of steel holding the piece together.

Looks like the "tension side" had a little problem there, doesn't it?
​

Do you believe that architect's statement that it takes thousands of degrees to bend a piece of steel like that, thewholesoul? If so, on what science to you base your claim? Hint: you might want to look into the role of pressure. You might also want to read the NIST reports. You might also want to consider what made this column in WTC 5 buckle:

​

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,17616.photogallery?index=31

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. (Photo by Lane Johnson)

 

[Gravy]

A correction to my post 469: I couldn't view the Judy Wood video and thought the subject was the same Hangar 17 "horseshoe" column dishonestly presented by Richard Gage:

No buckling? Gage chose a view of this column that obscures its three completely separated sides.

Questions for thewholesoul:

1) What is the minimum temperature and force necessary to bend the I-beam into a horseshoe-shape? Show your figures.

2) How can it have been heated to "thousands of degrees," as the ironworker says, while retaining the rest of its shape? Might the ironworker be mistaken about that?

3) Is there any evidence of thermite use on these columns?

4) What caused the column in WTC 5 to buckle? Any evidence of thermite use there?

5) What caused these I-beams to assume a horseshoe shape? Thermite?

6) This I-beam was wrapped around a tree after a tornado. Do you think thermite was involved in this event?

7) The huge steel beams of this Miami transit system were curved without the use of heat. How is that possible?

 

[bje]

/TM mode on. It's super nano-memory-metal-steel. You can do anything to it and it will always go back to rebar shape. /TM mode off.

Why are these people soooo stupid? The fact that the photos plainly refute any notions regarding liquid/molten steel I just cannot understand how they can be so blatant. The answer is literally staring them in the face, but they just refuse to acknowledge it.

It's for the same reason that charlatans like Steven Jones can get away with making ridiculous claims: there is no shortage of gullible Truthers to believe whatever unfounded assertion he wants to make.

 

[rwguinn]

....

but talking about the second meteorite (M2) maybe is was fused rapidly and cooled rapidly through a sudden burst of extreme temperature? i cant be sure as no tests have been conducted on the piece of evidence in question.

WTF?
"A sudden burst of extreme temperature?

but because no analysis has been conducted you cant be sure either.

so given that i attempted to answer your question. maybe you can reply in kind. tell me how M2 can be seen glowing in the rubble pile seen in the following BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm

is that what normally happens when materials compress? they glow for hours afterwards?

peace

Amazing how the firefighters are gathered around it, and how "the glow" seems to illuminate stuff it could possibly illuminate...

Welcome to ignore...
Ignorance is curable. What you have, unfortunately, you are stuck with forever.

 

[Senenmut]

Well, to me it looks like crunched concrete being held together by steel reinforcing mesh such as you might find in a concrete floor slab.
But if it isn't, it's even more amazing. A large glob of molten steel that wasn't able to melt the thin wire mesh containing it.
This inexpensive method of containing molten metal could revolutionize the casting industry.

so are u saying the concrete is blackish in color?? i see the steel mesh and it could be in the blackish colored solid. do u remember the "slag" that consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen as sisson stated that caused the "attack" on the steel which could have started prior to collapse. it didnt have to melt the steel mesh, just "attack" it. so i dont see a problem with it not "melting". also check out the waves in the pile of solid. they are more concentated at the bottom when it came into contact with the ground.

 

[A W Smith]

The Whole Soul gets donkey punched

so given that i attempted to answer your question. maybe you can reply in kind. tell me how M2 can be seen glowing in the rubble pile seen in the following BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm

is that what normally happens when materials compress? they glow for hours afterwards?

peace

Hate to burst your bubble
Here ya go

 

[R.Mackey]

Good form Big Mac

Without (a) contacting the author of the article in the Professional Safety magazine, without (b) locating the source of the raw data for the 2800 F claim made by that auther, without ([c]) establishing what actual instrument was presumably used by the DEA helicopters and firefighters and (d) without any evidence to support your claim that the firefighters hired the AVIRIS flights - i still find myself being convinced by your argument.

Well, I'm glad you got something useful out of my explanation. If it helps you remain comfortable with that decision, I should point out that (a) through (c) are not my problem -- that's a shifting burden of proof. The AVIRIS data is fully sourced and is therefore more reliable, period, until evidence surfaces that supports an alternate viewpoint. Regarding (d), I honestly don't understand what the problem is. There is no question that AVIRIS operated in the Ground Zero area, and offhand I'd guess that system costs somewhere in the $20-50K range per flight hour. They don't have it standing by, ready to respond to emergencies, like an air tanker or rescue helicopter. It isn't that kind of asset.

Firstly, i would just like to say that for someone who claims to have training and expertise in the scientific discipline dismissing a legitimate opportunity for applying the scientific method does not say much about that training or expertise. If you believe that by not testing the meteorite is somehow congenial to the scientific method please provide your reasons.

Attacking me does not further your argument. The simple fact is that the true nature of your "meteorite" is not what you claim it is. You should be able to view it yourself, with minimal effort.

Regarding your other concerns, let me poke at a couple:

(e) Professor Astaneh-Asl involved in examining the WTC steel remains further suggests that the WTC steel indicates exposure to high temperatures, addressing one particular piece he states “you cannot bend steel like this without cracking it unless you warm it up.” You can watch the video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related [and two similar concerns]

It may interest you to know that Ron Wieck has been in conversation with Dr. Astaneh-Asl of Cal, and if we can work something out he may appear with Ron or even with me on Hardfire. He also in no uncertain terms does not agree with your interpretation of his comments, and greatly wishes the Truth Movement would desist.

This is a classic example of "cherry picking." This is also why relying on second-hand accounts, and mistaken impressions of comments made by experts rather than the experts' opinions themselves, is not conducive to understanding. The AVIRIS data is totally unambiguous and rules out molten steel in the Pile. There's no way to spin it. That's why I prefer it in this discussion.

 

[Gravy]

WTF?
"A sudden burst of extreme temperature?


Amazing how the firefighters are gathered around it, and how "the glow" seems to illuminate stuff it could possibly illuminate...

Welcome to ignore...
Ignorance is curable. What you have, unfortunately, you are stuck with forever.

Those are ironworkers. Note the round, short-brimmed helmets, and note the caption that cleanup was in progress. Most likely they are cutting away debris with torches. Similar scenes are seen in many photos.

thewholesoul, please point out the details in the photo that enable you to identify it as "M2 glowing in the rubble pile." I await your reply. Thanks.

 

[Senenmut]

here is an interesting piece from the rj lee report:
4.2. Volatilized lead
The RJ Lee report notes “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead
to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].” Again, “metals were
vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event and either deposited on WTC Dust or deposited directly onto
surfaces in the Building [1].” Where do the requisite high temperatures come from?
An additional characteristic of WTC Dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers. The coatings
vary in thickness from monolayers to finely-dispersed sub-micron sized particles. The coated particles
have been detected by low voltage back-scattered electron imaging, x-ray microprobe analysis, and
high resolution x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) as illustrated as an example in figure 3 and
figure 4. Figure 3 shows traces of lead compounds identified on the surfaces of mineral wool by XPS,
and the analysis of x-ray photoelectron spectra led to the identification of two peaks containing either
lead oxide or lead sulfate (figure 4). The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool
indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated “extremely high temperatures during the collapse” is offered in the RJ Lee report.

1,740 C........i bet that kind of temp could melt steel.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

 

[twinstead]

Way to change the subject Senemut. Can I assume you have admitted that the previous 'evidence' submitted in this thread is crap, and you wish to submit some more 'evidence'.

You aren't just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping some of it sticks, are you?

 

[R.Mackey]

RJLee Report is from nine months after the collapse, and after the cleanup. Melted metals are spume from cutting torches used in cleanup.

We've been over this five hundred times.