Any hypothesis on pools of metal?

[Dave Rogers]

I'm in a mood where I just want to lay around all day scratching myself while saying,"Ahhhhh..."

Thank you so much for putting that image in my head. I'm glad your avatar's just an outline - a clearer picture is just what I don't need right now.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Oh, but, there is some masonic symbolism in Washington. I will never deny that. One guy was telling me about the Pentagon with relation to some Satanic verse of some sort, that "The center of power should always be pointing north." Something to that effect. Something about a Pentagram.

Sure thing, man. Keep on tryin'.

I think it is important from the start of the question, because according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.

The metals, assuming there WERE pools of molten stuff, may have melted AFTER the collapses. The fires did go on for quite a while after that.

Would the fires have been able to maintain that temp after the jet fuel had been exhausted?

Why are you coming across like you are somehow superior to me in any way?
Your condescending reply did not answer my question.

Actually, it did.

I cannot recall if it mentioned any O2 starvation that seemed to be evident in the thick black smoke from the towers.

Brick walls, the lot of you. Did you EVER see a bunch of tires burning ?

Perhaps there is no furniture because it was all crushed in the collapse?

Yeah. And we all know that once a piece of furniture is crushed it is afterwards IMMUNE to fire.

Thermite/Thermate.

Thermite + Gravity = Down.

 

[Belz...]

The statement that "Buildings are full of combustible material which will readily fuel a fire; if they weren't, then buildings wouldn't burn and there'd be no need for fire departments" had nothing to do with my question.

Well... once the fuel was burnt out, the REST of the stuff that you know exists in a building will continue to burn. How did that NOT answer your question ?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sure thing, man. Keep on tryin'.



The metals, assuming there WERE pools of molten stuff, may have melted AFTER the collapses. The fires did go on for quite a while after that.









Actually, it did.



Brick walls, the lot of you. Did you EVER see a bunch of tires burning ?





Yeah. And we all know that once a piece of furniture is crushed it is afterwards IMMUNE to fire.



Thermite + Gravity = Down.

Man, don't cherry pick my posts and line them up to make it seem as if it was not a chain of posts over a long period. That is not cool.
I addressed you on each point throughout the thread.
Read the thread again if you got confused.

My main question in some of that was the effect of the fires temp when the FUEL burned off (if it had any effect), not if building material continued burning after.

 

[Belz...]

Man, don't cherry pick my posts and line them up to make it seem as if it was not a chain of posts over a long period. That is not cool.

These were YOUR words. You're the one who asked a question, YOU are the one who misunderstood Corsair's answer. It was quite clear : lots of stuff in office buildings can burn. If only jet fuel burned in offices, there'd be no firefighters.

I addressed you on each point throughout the thread.
Read the thread again if you got confused.

No, I'm quite lucid.

My main question in some of that was the effect of the fires temp when the FUEL burned off (if it had any effect), not if building material continued burning after.

That was ALSO answered. Petroleum-based materials burn very, very hot.

 

[Belz...]

Baleeted.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

These were YOUR words. You're the one who asked a question, YOU are the one who misunderstood Corsair's answer. It was quite clear : lots of stuff in office buildings can burn. If only jet fuel burned in offices, there'd be no firefighters.



No, I'm quite lucid.



That was ALSO answered. Petroleum-based materials burn very, very hot.

Yeah, they were answered already. I didn't need you taking my posts and stringing them out of context after I had the answers already.

And the point about the floors crushing the furniture was a counter to someone implying explosives was the cause that you could not find anything but little pieces of office material. Because the floors crushed them. Get it now?

The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.

 

[T.A.M.]

D.A.

This place has become florid with "pretenders" and "just asking questions" types that quickly reveal they are full blown Woo.

As a result, i suspect you are being treated this way. Devil's Advocate I doubt plays too well here, or anywhere where such an invasion of woo is so common, and so F&*King annoying.

TAM

 

[Devil's Advocate]

D.A.

This place has become florid with "pretenders" and "just asking questions" types that quickly reveal they are full blown Woo.

As a result, i suspect you are being treated this way. Devil's Advocate I doubt plays too well here, or anywhere where such an invasion of woo is so common, and so F&*King annoying.

TAM

Thanks for the warning/ info.
I think I have an idea what someone is trying to do. And I hope they realize it will not work.

 

[T.A.M.]

I suggest a truce...but thats just me.

TAM

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I suggest a truce...but thats just me.

TAM

I had no intention of causing anyone problems here, but then again, I didn't cause them to begin with.

While in Atlanta I heard a phase, "Don't start nothing, and there won't be nothing."
That about sums it all up.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Thank you so much for putting that image in my head. I'm glad your avatar's just an outline - a clearer picture is just what I don't need right now.

Dave

Don't pretend that you don't like it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just something else that has popped up a few times over the last few days. A 767 has over 100 oxygen generators onboard. In NTSB testing after the crash of Flight 592 were one being transported in the hold activated and caught fire, they found that these devices can create and feed fires that burn at temperatures up to 3,000°C. While they wouldn't have added to the overall fire by a huge amount, these could have created locatised hotspots that certainly would have melted steel.

 

[njslim]

One explanation for the "molten metal" is lead from batteries. Many of the
tenants at WTC, both tower 1 &2, were finance and securities firms with 24
hour operations. It is likely that many of these firms had UPS (uninteruptable
power supply) for their most critical operations. The famed photograph of
molten liquid running out of south tower windows shortly before the collapse
was supposedly lead from melted batteries from FUJI BANK ups system. I
wonder how many other UPS systems there were in the building.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I had no intention of causing anyone problems here, but then again, I didn't cause them to begin with.
*snip*

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Perhaps I should just leave it there, but you say you are here to learn, so I don't think you should miss this lesson.

A "Devil's Advocate" is someone who takes upon him/her to defend the opposition (hence "Devil's"). That means that the devil's advocate not only represents a well-defined standpoint, but has a well-defined one of his/her own.

Compare this with your own entrance here: You call yourself Devil's Advocate, and claim to be that, but claim to have no position, or at least refuse initially to disclose your position, and you preceed to pitch in for both sides.

In other words, you give strong, but inconsistent signals about who you are and what you stand for, so you can't blame anybody for filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly.

You have had a bit of a rough start here, and can only blame yourself. Now, I suggest we all get over it, and proceed .....

Hans

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, they were answered already. I didn't need you taking my posts and stringing them out of context after I had the answers already.

Out of context ? You want me to quote every post that's related to whatever you say ?? That'll make for very long posts. Why don't you simply use your memory, instead.

And the point about the floors crushing the furniture was a counter to someone implying explosives was the cause that you could not find anything but little pieces of office material. Because the floors crushed them. Get it now?

Yeah, sure.

The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Perhaps I should just leave it there, but you say you are here to learn, so I don't think you should miss this lesson.

A "Devil's Advocate" is someone who takes upon him/her to defend the opposition (hence "Devil's"). That means that the devil's advocate not only represents a well-defined standpoint, but has a well-defined one of his/her own.

Compare this with your own entrance here: You call yourself Devil's Advocate, and claim to be that, but claim to have no position, or at least refuse initially to disclose your position, and you preceed to pitch in for both sides.

In other words, you give strong, but inconsistent signals about who you are and what you stand for, so you can't blame anybody for filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly.

You have had a bit of a rough start here, and can only blame yourself. Now, I suggest we all get over it, and proceed .....

Hans

Sorry, I do not let things go when people are mistaken like this....

Your definition of a Devil's Advocate is wrong.
Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

So in that, debating an issue for one side or another is not inclusive of commitment to a side, it is simply to determine the validity of the cause or position.

I cannot blame people for "filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly" ?
Why can't I?
I said I came here to learn, and that is exactly what I have been doing. I said I did have questions about 9/11, and hoped I could be shown ways to have those questions answered. And what happened when I asked my very first question? I got attacked and labeled as a CT guy playing a game.
And you're saying that is my fault?
Did I not say that is what I was going to do from the start?
So where is my blame?
Is my blame deserved because I said what I was going to do and then did it, or was it because some people got the false impression and needlessly attacked me, my honesty, and my motives?
Again, where is my blame?

I cannot control someone's paranoia and or false impressions. That is up to them, not me. And then I am supposed to sit back and take it, or back down, when I am falsely labeled?
Would you?

If I bruised an ego in the process then that is their problem, not mine. I told no lies, I held no secret agenda, nor have attacked anyone.
All I did was exactly what I said I would do, and that is ask questions about things I had incomplete knowledge of.
So, I think you're mistaken upon whom blame should be placed.

 

[Belz...]

Why can't I?

You can. But that's not what you're doing. You're throwing arguments of both sides into the mix for no reason.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You can. But that's not what you're doing. You're throwing arguments of both sides into the mix for no reason.

Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

That applies to both sides.
Just because some people may not like it does not mean I deserve to be falsely painted as one thing or another.
One could simply say that they do not like it, and me for it. That I can accept.
Being falsely accused and expected to accept it as if I did something wrong I cannot accept.
And I think a logical person would agree.

I think the fact of the matter is, some do not like the questions I have asked because they seem to be questions that CT people use as 'proof' of conspiracy. And in that, people think I am trying to trap someone into something with it. Which is not the case.
I ask questions about things I do not have as much information on. I was encouraged by some to ask questions and people would help me with sources to answer my questions. I do not see my fault or failure in any respect.

 

[A W Smith]

So, given the fact that it is clear that there was *some type* of molten material, then what could be the reason it remained so hot for so long?

Because the heat didn't have anywhere to go. The debris acted like a big blanket that kept the heat in, it's the same principle as many of the first steel forges were based on.

Conditions in the debris pile could conceivably mimic the schematic of this puddling furnace. Utility and subway tunnels could have supplied combustion air.