AE911Truth still claims CD=Molten Metal...

[Blender Head]

On their homepage, AE911Truth claim that molten metal is an indication of controlled demolition using explosives. Roughly a month ago I e-mailed them about the claim. A "Judy Shelton" replied thanking me for pointing that out and that they'd modify their website to remove the claim. Today I opened their page and noticed it's still there, so I e-mailed Judy back.

While I wait for a response, here's my initial inquiry:

"Hello,

On this site's homepage it suggests that "molten
metal" is a characteristic of a controlled
demolition using explosives. Could this
organization provide an example of such a
phenomena?

Thanks,
TSJ"

And the e-mails back and forth:

Can you point me to the section you're referring to, so I can look at it?

It is on the front page, number 13 of the list of CD characteristics:

"Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)"

XXX, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:

"It might be easier to demonstrate that various aspects of the destruction of these buildings are incompatible with the official story than to demonstrate that they are aspects of a controlled demolition."

So that's probably what we're going to do in the future.

What exactly will be fixed or changed from the question that I asked?

Thanks.

I think we're going to have to stop claiming that molten metal is one of the hallmarks of explosive demolition. It's more accurate to say that the molten metal is not explained by the official theory of how the WTC buildings came down.

And my latest question

Dear Judy,

Roughly a month ago I e-mailed AE911Truth about a claim on your homepage regarding molten metal at the WTC rubble. I was told that indeed, molten metal was not indicative of a controlled demolition, and that the claim will be modified to reflect that. However, I have yet to see any such clarification. I was wondering when that will occur?

Thanks

A video about my back-and-forth (heads up: music plays at the start)

 

[Brainache]

Three words: Pope, Bears, Franco.

 

[Blender Head]

Three words: Pope, Bears, Franco.

James Franco is dead?!

 

[R.Mackey]

A "Raging Debate" indeed.

As I've showed here before, even atomic bombs do not leave molten material for weeks afterward.

If you have a controlled demolition that leaves molten metal for weeks afterward, and is, by inference, billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb, then you should probably dial the gain back just a tad.

It should take all of two seconds to realize that this claim is a blatant lie, if they have even a modicum of intelligence between them.

 

[Blender Head]

It should take all of two seconds to realize that this claim is a blatant lie, if they have even a modicum of intelligence between them.

Or honesty.

 

[RKOwens4]

It gets worse, BH. If you haven't seen it already, you've got to check out my correspondence with them about their 118 witnesses to the sounds of explosions "a full second prior to collapse" claim on their list of hallmarks. As with you, they said they "are fixing it". You're going to love what their definition of "fix it" is. (That is, add a second lie instead of correcting the first.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113334

Yes, it was your correspondence that made me think they might be willing to correct their mistakes. I don't see how anyone can take them seriously at this point.

 

[deep]

A "Raging Debate" indeed.

As I've showed here before, even atomic bombs do not leave molten material for weeks afterward.

If you have a controlled demolition that leaves molten metal for weeks afterward, and is, by inference, billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb, then you should probably dial the gain back just a tad.

It should take all of two seconds to realize that this claim is a blatant lie, if they have even a modicum of intelligence between them.

It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

That's what the architects and engineers from AE 9/11 Truth are saying as well - the molten metal found at GZ is not compatible with the official story. That is true regardless of whether or not molten metal is a byproduct of controlled demolition.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

this is only the case if you assume all the heat was provided by a single event that preceded the collapses, as the CTers would have you beleive

once you realize there were fires burning for weeks under the debris high temperatures dont seem all that odd anymore

 

[e^n]

It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

That's what the architects and engineers from AE 9/11 Truth are saying as well - the molten metal found at GZ is not compatible with the official story. That is true regardless of whether or not molten metal is a byproduct of controlled demolition.

Yes that would be true enough if they had some convincing evidence that truly 'molten' (ie 1300C+) steel was found at Ground Zero. Unfortunately there's never been any measurements any of us are aware of showing this. It is a contentious issue but there is no mechanism by which Thermite could keep steel molten for an extended period. It simply is not possible unless you are radically reinventing how this so called 'demolition' would work.

Seriously, how exactly is this going to happen? I've heard endless claims about thermite being insulated by all the steel, but then people talk about how steel wicks away heat so quickly! Please form a coherent theory and then call people a liar, not the other way around.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It only took me one second to realize that your claim is a blatant lie, because what you're essentially saying is that a jet fuel fire (with office supplies mixed in!) can burn billions of times hotter than an atomic bomb.

No, he isn't saying anything of the sort. Why do so many truthers have such a hard time getting this one, unless they're actively trying to misunderstand?

There are two possible explanations for the high temperatures weeks after the collapses. Explanation no. 1 is that, during the collapse, the rubble was raised to a very high temperature, and after several weeks had only cooled to the temperatures of several hundred degrees seen in satellite imaging. This is the explosives/thermite argument. However, it requires an insanely high temperature in the rubble pile shortly after collapse, which is what Mackey is highlighting.

Explanation no. 2 is that, in the weeks between the collapses and the satellite imaging measurements, the temperature of the rubble pile was either maintained or increased by a heat source within the pile. This requires that something in the rubble pile was burning for several weeks and generating temperatures of several hundred degrees. This is what would be expected from a smouldering underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Not, incidentally, by the jet fuel, all of which would have burned off relatively rapidly.

Explanation no. 1 is the one claimed by the truth movement, and is insane. Explanation no. 2 is the one put forward by those who believe that there were no explosives or thermite used to collapse the Twin Towers, and is really fairly obvious.

Dave

 

[deep]

Explanation no. 2 is that, in the weeks between the collapses and the satellite imaging measurements, the temperature of the rubble pile was either maintained or increased by a heat source within the pile. This requires that something in the rubble pile was burning for several weeks and generating temperatures of several hundred degrees. This is what would be expected from a smouldering underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Not, incidentally, by the jet fuel, all of which would have burned off relatively rapidly.

Alright then. Since we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground, give me an example of the "perfect storm" that would produce a similar result.

In other words, tell me what combination of chemicals or materials normally found in office buildings would trigger an escalation from a normal, run-of-the-mill jet fuel fire all the way up to huge pools of molten metal, with little or no oxygen available.

Surely have already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?

 

[DGM]

Deep44:
Would you mind showing me evidence of these "huge pools of molten metal" (solidified would do) that they had to have found during the clean up.

 

[deep]

Yes that would be true enough if they had some convincing evidence that truly 'molten' (ie 1300C+) steel was found at Ground Zero. Unfortunately there's never been any measurements any of us are aware of showing this. It is a contentious issue but there is no mechanism by which Thermite could keep steel molten for an extended period. It simply is not possible unless you are radically reinventing how this so called 'demolition' would work.

There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.

Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).

So I'm sorry, but your argument that there was no molten steel does not match up with the available evidence. If it was one or two people, I might agree that it's not conclusive -- but like I said, there were dozens of eye-witnesses (not counting the countless others who never spoke to the media about it).

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Alright then. Since we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground, give me an example of the "perfect storm" that would produce a similar result.

In other words, tell me what combination of chemicals or materials normally found in office buildings would trigger an escalation from a normal, run-of-the-mill jet fuel fire all the way up to huge pools of molten metal, with little or no oxygen available.

Surely have already have this information, otherwise how would you know it's even possible?

we first of all, "run-of-the-mill" office fires can get very hot to begin with, plus the "no oxygen" claim is a strawman, there was plenty of oxygen, however a slight reduction in how fast its delivered to the fire will actually serve to increase temperatures as it allows materials to heat beyond their autoiginition temps without igniting, and then they burn that much hotter when oxygen does reach them

 

[deep]

Deep44:
Would you mind showing me evidence of these "huge pools of molten metal" (solidified would do) that the had to have found during the clean up.

Yes, I would mind. I've personally been over this at least two or three times in the past. Use Google -- there were dozens or eye-witnesses. Look for the comments from FEMA representatives.

---

For your convenience, here is a partial collection of the media references:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.

Then you'll be able to post links to their testimonies. Let's see at least thirteen separate statements that there were "huge pools of molten metal".

Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).

These have been explained ad nauseam as the result of corrosion of steel in the presence of heat and sulphur. How many more times do you plan to refuse to hear the explanation?

Dave

 

[deep]

we first of all, "run-of-the-mill" office fires can get very hot to begin with, plus the "no oxygen" claim is a strawman, there was plenty of oxygen, however a slight reduction in how fast its delivered to the fire will actually serve to increase temperatures as it allows materials to heat beyond their autoiginition temps without igniting, and then they burn that much hotter when oxygen does reach them

That's why I said, "little or no oxygen".

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's why I said, "little or no oxygen".

how much can you have and still be "little" because there was plenty of oxygen

 

[deep]

Then you'll be able to post links to their testimonies. Let's see at least thirteen separate statements that there were "huge pools of molten metal".

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

These have been explained ad nauseam as the result of corrosion of steel in the presence of heat and sulphur. How many more times do you plan to refuse to hear the explanation?

Proof, please.

 

[1337m4n]

There were over a dozen credible eye-witnesses to the molten steel. We're not talking about regular rescue workers - these were professionals who are qualified to make that determination.

Additionally, partially evaporated steel members were also reported by at least one credible source that I can think of off the top of my head (probably more).

So I'm sorry, but your argument that there was no molten steel does not match up with the available evidence. If it was one or two people, I might agree that it's not conclusive -- but like I said, there were dozens of eye-witnesses (not counting the countless others who never spoke to the media about it).

deep44:

Can you tell me, just by looking, what the metal in this picture is:

Can you find anyone who can (besides the webmaster of the image's source, of course)