Molten Steel

[A W Smith]

thousands of tons and still not one forensically examined.

You cannot know this. There could have been scores of those "meteorites" that were examined. In fact I would expect that there were many of these at the site. There is no need to examine every single remaining one of them including the only one or two left in a hangar.

 

[GeeMack]

I cannot prove anything sitting here behind my desktop, [...]

This bears repeating.

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm picking this out because it's a classic example of conspiracy theorist cherry-picking and elimination of context. Look at the date. This sort of quote is trotted out repeatedly to try to discredit work done after its date of publication. If you honestly think that no further investigation has been done into the WTC collapses since December 2001, then your position in this debate is laughably uninformed. If you recognise that further investigation has been carried out since December 2001, then you're fully aware that this quote is out-of-date, yet you've chosen to include it in your arguments. Either you haven't bothered reading it, or you sneaked it in to make it look like the New York Times was criticising the NIST enquiry. This discredits your entire position, since your only reasons for quoting it are incompetence or dishonesty. Which is it in this instance?

Dave

the article was posted because TAM claimed that the investigation was sufficient. but how could it possibly be sufficient when relevant pieces of evidence still remain to be examined?

the article crtized the removal and destruction of evidence. checking the date does make a damn bit of difference to this criticism even if the half baked investigation carried on afterwards with around 1% of the total wtc steel.

you must be blind because this was in the cherry picked article:
The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known

NIST ignored FEMA's recommendation for further analysis and investigationon the steel sample in appendix C! sufficient investigation...give me a break.

NIST never tested for exotic accelerants according to NFPA fire and explosion investigations eventhough three indications of there presence were observed.

your an arrogant and condescending person, congratulations

 

[tsig]

thousands of tons and still not one forensically examined.



lets not put the cart before the horse. first we have to sample the evidence to determine their chemical composition and what temperatures they were exposed to. after we do that then maybe the findings will support the case for eotioc accelerants. but until then i dont wish to speculate on much would be required.



i dont have a theory what i support is a hypothesis. forensic examination of relevant evidence will either confirm or reject that hypothesis. its real simple.

peace

" eotioc"? If you mean erotic then I suggest candy and liquor.

 

[rwguinn]

Now that's some funny [rule 10]. Thanks for that.

The proper phrase is:
"Now that's funny rat there, I don't care who y'are!"

 

[Gravy]

Former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. Quintiere, calls for independent review of World Trade Center investigation http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=3

Are you really unaware that Quintiere's own investigation indicated that the towers would likely have collapsed from the fires alone, without sustaining prior damage? Your comment on his investigation?

The New York Fire Department calls the investigation into the collapse of the WTC a “half-baked farce.” http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

Why do you lie so blatantly? The FDNY never said any such thing. Further, are you really unaware that Bill Manning, as editor of Fire Engineering, encouraged and welcomed the NIST investigation and was pleased with its results? Don't take my word for it: ask him.

And don't lie like this again.

 

[Gravy]

Without forensic examination of the meteorite is impossible to determine with empirical certainty what process caused its fruition. Do you agree with this statement?

Of course not. It is nonsense.

But let's say you're given access to this compacted rubble, and have competent scientists at your disposal with all sorts of equipment to do tests on it.

Now, where did these sections of floors originate, and exactly what do you think you could learn about the cause of the collapses by examining them?

 

[Gravy]

thousands of tons and still not one forensically examined.

Wow, you're ignorant.

Ground Zero cleanup, Fires in piles, Molten metals, Fresh Kills operations, Steel ID & scrap issues

Ground Zero worker health issues, Respirator use, Dust composition, Environmental Testing

9/11 Forensics and Victim Identification
​

 

[phunk]

Could a thermate reaction possibly produce a swiss-cheese effect on structural steel. Thats a yes or no?

No. The "swiss cheese" steel you're referring to was clearly eroded chemically. The sharp edges left on that steel by the process would have been melted away by thermite.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, but let me choose my words carefully. I am challenging you to produce a bright orange glow, as seen flowing from the south tower, from molten aluminium mixed with organics in daylight using temperatures no greater than expected from a hydrocarbon jet fuel fire.
Here take a look at NIST’s attempt trying to prove their own [im]-“possible explantion”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

I challenge you to write a sensible refutation of NIST's analysis and conclusions about the temperatures reached in that corner of the south tower. You have read that part of the report, haven't you? Then you must know what's wrong with it. Also, you're aware that that side of the tower was in the shade, aren't you?

Proceed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

the article crtized the removal and destruction of evidence.

The excerpt you included did no such thing. Since you didn't include a link to the article, it's reasonable to assume you posted the part that you felt supported your case, and all that your excerpt did was criticise the investigation done up to late December 2001. You've been caught out and you're trying to spin your way out of it.

checking the date does make a damn bit of difference to this criticism even if the half baked investigation carried on afterwards with around 1% of the total wtc steel.

Typical truther strawman. All the steel and debris was examined in detail, and a small proportion was chosen carefully as representative of the whole.

you must be blind because this was in the cherry picked article:
The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known

Then perhaps you'd like to show me where this text appears in the excerpt you quoted. Here it is again:

The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/25/2001]

Not there, is it? If it's elsewhere in this article which you didn't link to, how exactly was I supposed to see it? Unfortunately, I'm not as good as you at making up what I want to see. And even if it is in the article, so what? A newspaper reporter who, presumably, didn't realise the steel was being preserved for further examination, jumped to a conclusion.

your an arrogant and condescending person, congratulations

You're dishonest and abusive. In the circumstances, your poor opinion of me doesn't trouble me a whole lot.

Dave

 

[bje]

lets not put the cart before the horse. first a sample must be tested to determine if the metal was indeed melted at one point.

You still haven't addressed how Steven Jones can claim metal solidified around steel rebar without the rebar melting. Did Jones test it?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

and no, there are two items refered to as the "meteorite"

No, there is only ONE. You have yet to produce any statement or evidence that what is referred to as the "meteorite" is other than what Jones claims was molten.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to the question I've posed to you numerous times about THE "meteorite" rather than dance around avoiding it.

 

[funk de fino]

the article was posted because TAM claimed that the investigation was sufficient. but how could it possibly be sufficient when relevant pieces of evidence still remain to be examined?

the article crtized the removal and destruction of evidence. checking the date does make a damn bit of difference to this criticism even if the half baked investigation carried on afterwards with around 1% of the total wtc steel.

Page 8 Assertion 6.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

you must be blind because this was in the cherry picked article:
The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known

Page 8 assertion 6

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Please read it and explain what the forensic investigators were doing?

NIST ignored FEMA's recommendation for further analysis and investigationon the steel sample in appendix C! sufficient investigation...give me a break.

Except they tested further the other piece which showed the same effects and concluded it happened in the pile and it was because of the elements contained in the pile plus the heat from the fires. They knew where this pieve came from they did not know exactly where the other piece came from.

There were two pieces like this and they further examined one of them. I take it you read this part of the NIST report?

NIST never tested for exotic accelerants according to NFPA fire and explosion investigations eventhough three indications of there presence were observed.

The NFPA is not for NIST. It is for fire investigators when they suspect an arson crime has been committed and it is recomendations not regulations. this has been explained to you. Thermite was not even mentioned until Jones produced his junk and lies years later

Why are you ignoring things tlike this? Its almost like you do not want to know the truth?

 

[bje]

I am not making any conclusions i am advocating further investigation so i can reach a conclusion based on which hypothesis has been proven true or false. That is the logical and scientific thing to do.

No, it is not logical.

A logical approach would be to demonstrate a legitimate reason for anyone to open a new investigation by overwhelming refutation of the preponderance of evidence, analysis, and conclusions of the findings as well as finding fault with the methodology of the conduct and analysis of all of the evidence.

How do you expect that to happen irrespective of your own feelings?

 

[Gravy]

i dont have a theory what i support is a hypothesis. forensic examination of relevant evidence will either confirm or reject that hypothesis. its real simple.

What hypothesis do you support that is based on observations that are not demonstrably false and that don't come from crackpots?

 

[T.A.M.]

thwholesoul:

much of what you put to me as answers, has been addressed by others here, so I will not repeat, or go over it again. I will say this:

1. I do not oppose ANY INVESTIGATION so long as the following are followed:
(A) No financial requests are made of ordinary citizens, of which THE MAJORITY of which have not indicated that one is warranted.
(B) No emotional hardship is exerted on victim family members, or first responders (and their families) as a result. They have been through enough.
(C) Honest scientists with NO AGENDA (on either side) are used to conduct the science of such investigations. That eliminates all scientists in the truth movement.

2. The presences of flame, smoke, and molten metal do not INDICATE thermite, they are consistent with any form of extreme heat, which CAN INCLUDE a thermite reaction. That is not evidence in favor of such, but rather variables that are consistent with it.

3. The video by Ware is 2 small snippets of some person, whom we never see the face of, conducting an experiment, that in total video time is about 1 minute. While all of the text in the video MAY have been true, I would like to see (A) the entire unedited footage of his experiment, and (B) like to have some data variables, such as the temperature of the molten aluminum, whether or not the products he added were burned first, or added in fresh, whether any animal remains, computer biproducts, chemical components were added, or just carpets, plastics, etc...

4. If your suggested new "investigation" is to forensically examine the "meteorite", and only that, I see no reason why not...gather some money, some unbias scientists, and get permission to do it.

TAM

 

[GeeMack]

If your suggested new "investigation" is to forensically examine the "meteorite", and only that, I see no reason why not...gather some money, some unbias scientists, and get permission to do it.

No kidding. Do it, thewholesoul. Because, as you said yourself...

I cannot prove anything sitting here behind my desktop, [...]

 

[Kent1]

great, there is a possible explanation we can test. would you like to see your explanation tested?

you forgot to mention the bright flame and ejection of white smoke that preceded the molten flow. NIST hasnt even got a possible explanation for that. whats yours?

peace

If you want to test it maybe you could hire Stephen D. Chastain of Metal talk.
http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm
He was one of the people I interviewed about a possible explanation.


Seems clear to me if you watch the 6 or 7 different videos. I thought the puffs of smoke were due to the sagging floor giving away bit by bit which in turn caused the pooled material to fall out the window at different times. A large number of materials can cause white smoke so I'm not going to go into the color.

The bright flame that was closer to the corner was mentioned in the report as a metal fire, it wasn't from the same point where liquid was seen coming from the building. (Nor was it in the other flow area further to the right.) If you look at the photos and watch the video you can see the area where the white flame is from. Its looks like it's from a square shape in the corner.
I fail to see a connection. Again I see no large reaction or debris flying outward as you see with thermite reations.
As to what the metal fire may be, many metals will burn, Magnesium from the plane or building matericals could be one of many possible answers. Lithium is another possible answer although it wouldn't be my first choice.

I can't figure out how the thermite devices can survive the impact and fires of that location, Nor can I understand why thermite would be placed there.

Thermite doesn't seem to be a very good solution.
If you believe it is, you will have to pick far better people than Jones to work with and have them make some tests. BTW, how much thermite do you think was put there in that area?

 

[Gravy]

It is highly unlikely that any destructive testing of the rubble will be allowed, since it is being preserved for possible inclusion in the 9/11 memorial. A truly compelling case would have to be made that such testing is necessary because there's something suspicious about the rubble that cannot be explained without scientific examination. Having seen the rubble, I can say that there's nothing at all suspicious about it. If truther babble doesn't convince me, I doubt that it's going to convince the curators. That said, if the rubble isn't chosen for inclusion in the memorial/museum, perhaps then it may be available for superficial examination.

 

[RedIbis]

Having seen the rubble, I can say that there's nothing at all suspicious about it.

Wow, you must have some really strong eyesight.

I swear by whatever god or non-god you choose that if these words were uttered by anyone but Gravy, they would be stundified quicker than you can say electron energy-loss spectroscopy.