AE911Truth still claims CD=Molten Metal...

[WildCat]

I've wasted enough of my time for today.

Damn! I was looking forward to you providing examples of CD's that resulted in molten metal.

 

[boloboffin]

Where there are eyewitnesses, there is plenty of oxygen.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It is misleading to say "we have no way of knowing for sure what was burning underground", because we do know what was there. We may not have the precise quantities or ratios between specific components, but it's absolutely obvious that the rubble of the Twin Towers contained flammable office contents, such as furniture, temporary wall separators (i.e. "cubicle" walls), ceiling components, carpeting, wiring, office equipment such as computers, etc. Unless someone can generate a reasonable explanation for where such contents went, it is incontrovertible that such contents ended up in the rubble pile.

We also know there were fires under the rubble. Daily measurements by Bechtel's SH&E group showed temperatures in some areas up to 2800 F, and it has been documented that these fires burned for 100 days. That was published in Professional Safety in May of 2002. Arguments about the availability of oxygen are irrelevant; the magnitude of the heat released by the fires was measured, so regardless of the availability of O2, enough was there to account for the observed temperatures. The fires were recorded to be up to 2800 degrees in some spots, regardless of whether the combustion in those areas was efficient or restricted.

Now, knowing the duration of the fires, and knowing that among the rubble there were flammable office contents - furniture, drywall, equipment, etc. - why is there any question as to what fed the fires? Office contents are the only flammables that can reasonably be hypothesized; we know they were there. External sources of fuel or energy must be proven. Besides, any hypotheses using explosives or incendiaries does not explain the heat weeks later; such explosives or incendiaries release all their energy in a very, very short period of time. Even if someone posits that they set contents aflame and are responsible for the later rubble fires, that proposal must still be supported with evidence, as there is no evidence that there was any prior planting of any such material; no, the "power outage" in the south tower is not sufficient proof. On top of that, it must be demonstrated how the effect of explosives or incendiaries in starting the fires is significant in the face of the jet fuel released by the planes impacts.

Furthermore, a "new investigation" is hardly necessary to determine what in the rubble might have been burning. All that is necessary is a survey of cleanup workers of what they found. Or a survey of what was left over in the "dumping" areas after the last of the steel was removed. Not all that was flammable ended up burning; all documentation I've seen says the fires were extinguished, not that they burnt themselves out, so it's reasonable to assume that flammable material was left in the rubble and eventually removed in the cleanup. So in short, it is possible to answer the question of what was burning without resorting to a "new investigation". We should take care when trying to use challenges over a single issue as a surrogate for opening a broad investigation. That's not objective, nor is it scientific, nor is it justified, as answers to such questions can be determined with far more targeted studies. Plus, regardless of the agitation the conspiracy peddlers here exhibit, there is much good information in the currently built body of knowledge so far; throwing all of it out on the basis of isolated objections, most of them built on misunderstandings or misrepresentations to begin with, is excessive.

 

[PugsOnAPlane]

I love that LC used the American Free Press to cite this even when there were people who claimed to see molten metal in other, more reputable sources. I fell out of my chair laughing when I saw AFP being taken seriously, and I hadn't even heard of it- it was just so clearly not a reliable source.

 

[boloboffin]

Yes, AE911Truth does the same thing. It's because the quote is purportedly from Peter Tully. For them, having the name is worth the risk of the few who will investigate the source of the quote.

 

[twinstead]

So here is an example of somebody touting some condition that doesn't support their theory in an attempt not to actually present a coherent alternative theory and provide evidence to support it, but 'chip away' at the 'official story' in hopes to sneak their theory in by default.

Yea. The scientific method hard at work.

 

[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.

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.

Astonishing. Just astonishing.

The "official story" is that the Pile burned for weeks afterward. The total amount of consumable material amounted to terajoules of energy, and since oxygen was restricted and heat mostly contained in the Pile, this energy released over a period of weeks. In this situation, local temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius or higher are plausible. That fits the observation to a T.

The "Truth Movement story" is that the molten material is evidence of a "controlled demolition." That means that, instead of fire releasing this heat over weeks, it was all released in a matter of seconds by explosives, and even after weeks of cooling was still in the several hundred degrees Celsius range.

The "Truth Movement story" is among the stupider ideas ever conceived by modern humans. As I have shown here before, there are no explosives that generate such a high temperature. Not even nukes in a confined space will do this. The hotter something is, the faster it cools, so you reach the point of diminishing returns.

If you can't figure this out, you should not pretend to be a researcher. You simply are not ready.

 

[Blender Head]

deep44:

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

[qimg]http://www.petit-fritsen.nl/images_2/gietengecompr.jpg[qimg]

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

I notice Deep missed this post, so here it is again.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I notice Deep missed this post, so here it is again.

you wont get a response (as if you thought you would, lol)

i happen to know what it is, but only because i have a hostory of posting this picture
http://lawrenceport.com/images/chuquiLiquid.jpg

 

[1337m4n]

I don't know what happened on 9/11 - that's why I support a new investigation.

I've caught you lying, deep44:

Considering the fact that NIST didn't investigate anything after "collapse initiation", nor have they released their much-anticipated report on WTC7, you're pretty much relying on blind faith to explain the anomalies. I, on the other hand, have 381 archite- oops, actually, make that 384 architects and engineers who agree with what I've said.

I think you do have a theory as to what happened on 9/11. Otherwise, how could you possibly know that AE911Truth agrees with you?

 

[Blender Head]

I got a reply:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for pointing out the problem with the wording on our website.
Correcting it slipped through the cracks until now.
We have qualified our wording, noting that some of the characteristics we list
(molten metal, and perhaps others, to be more accurate) are "non-standard characteristics".
We are also looking at this further, and may change the wording in the future,
or make other appropriate changes.

Bill

 

[boloboffin]

All taken care of! The front page now reads:

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

Molten pools of iron, you see, is a non-standard characteristic of controlled demolition.



ETA: "Correcting it slipped through the cracks until now."



These guys -- I tell you what. We dig deep enough and we're going to find the Onion's at the bottom of this.

 

[Blender Head]

All taken care of! The front page now reads:



Molten pools of iron, you see, is a non-standard characteristic of controlled demolition.



ETA: "Correcting it slipped through the cracks until now."



These guys -- I tell you what. We dig deep enough and we're going to find the Onion's at the bottom of this.

These guys will say anything to anyone so long as they make them believe 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Molten pools of iron, you see, is a non-standard characteristic of controlled demolition.

"Here you see a classic example of a non-standard characteristic of an off-spec controlled demolition made to look like a collapse due to structural damage and fire, captured on film for the first time ever. "

ETA:
Or (Monty Python mode): "And now for something completely irrelevant..."

 

[beachnut]

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?

What would burn for weeks in a pile?

What about 110 acres of office materials?
All squished up below the massive debris of the WTC towers. Can you quantify in TONS of TNT heat energy 110 floors of office junk burning? Or in joules your choice.

Were there cars in the basement? Oops, gasoline, rubber, plastic, ahhhhhhh! Was there any sugar or oil in the towers? Any chocolate chip cookies, they have more energy per pound than gasoline?



darn, I was looking at old Deep44 junk, and posted to it. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[nicepants]

We have qualified our wording, noting that some of the characteristics we list
(molten metal, and perhaps others, to be more accurate) are "non-standard characteristics".

The stupid....it burns.

I should send some cookies over to AE911truth...chocolate chip but with red pepper flakes instead of chocolate chips. (Hey, it's just a non-standard characteristic of chocolate chip cookies, after all!)

 

[Disbelief]

The stupid....it burns.

I should send some cookies over to AE911truth...chocolate chip but with red pepper flakes instead of chocolate chips. (Hey, it's just a non-standard characteristic of chocolate chip cookies, after all!)

No, no, no. Do like my friend did and cut up chocolate ex-lax to use as chocolate chips.