Merged Molten metal observations

mike3

Master Poster
M
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,466
I just noticed something about the famous "molten metal flow" video, and would like to hear some comment. It looks like the melt is flowing from a "solid" something of the same color temperature, almost like one was looking into a crucible that had been heated to the same temperature and was dumping its contents. (I don't think that's what it really was, of course, but it's interesting, and doesn't seem to work with the 'thermite' thing, since then we'd likely see a flare-up, not an emission from a steady-temp place. Also, the color temp looks too low for thermite, which is VERY intense.)

This is a good clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BZUR8JQ13U&playnext=1&list=PLD5BDF224DFA0FF8C

As we see, near the beginning, there is an orangish glowy spot that seems to be fairly steady, out of which the "molten" stuff is dropping. That's what I mean by the "crucible effect". Also, at 0:44 there is something that 'flares'. What is that? The color spectrum suggests reflected sunlight but I'm not sure. (Though that doesn't mean thermite.)

Would a good hypothesis here be that there is some part of the building that was being kept hot somehow (note that, again, that doesn't mean thermite!) wherein metal was melting down that then may have shifted and then started dumping, kind of like a "crucible"? Any critique?

Then there's this uglier video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg&feature=BF&list=PLD5BDF224DFA0FF8C&index=6

which shows it as brighter at one point (and also a seemingly more intense "flaring") but I think that's more due to this one being more washed out than anything ominous so it's probably not a good data point for anything.
 
Justin39640 said:
Yup, Rovers are Buicks.
Click to expand...
Owned a Buick. Full-size station wagon (does anybody still call them "shooting brakes?"). More luxurious than my living room, until the floor began to leak.

Want my MIL's Roadmonster wagon. Too much car plus a detuned Corvette engine. Wife borrowed it once and found it excessive.

As if there could be such a thing. :D


ETA: Owned another, one from '61. Pretty much a stripper, but a nice car. A Boss 302 Mustang challenged me. I beat it to the speed limit but didn't push on, figuring he could take the ticket. I'd made my point. Like I said, a nice car.
 
Last edited:
The key issue which seems to have received little attention is "No matter what the molten material how does it all get to be in one place to pour in a single cascade?"

No thermite obsessed truther has ever explained how the molten material from multiple alleged thermite cuts at varying distances from the discharge point could be brought together to flow out in a single cascade.

Truther idiocies aside I know of no detailed explanation from rational people either - other than suggestions that sloping floor slabs acted as some form of channelling.
 
Last edited:
That corner was opposite the impact zone, so most of the plane and materials inside the building were jammed into the corner. That's why it got so hot there and served as a fulcrum point when the building toppled over when it collapsed. I'd imagine that tightly packed section of materials was what was fueling the steady flow. I can't find anything about wtc 2 leaning over into that direction before the collapse, but I know for sure that the top of wtc 1 was leaning before it fell. All in all, not much of an anomaly.

NIST talks about it here, section 11.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
The key issue which seems to have received little attention is "No matter what the molten material how does it all get to be in one place to pour in a single cascade?"

No thermite obsessed truther has ever explained how the molten material from multiple alleged thermite cuts at varying distances from the discharge point could be brought together to flow out in a single cascade.

Truther idiocies aside I know of no detailed explanation from rational people either - other than suggestions that sloping floor slabs acted as some form of channelling.
Click to expand...

You raise an obvious and, and I agree, mostly unmentioned point. There are two logical possibilities for the flow to emenate from a single location:

1. The material was molten there at the same rate that it flowed from the corner
2. It was pooled there, from a slower process, and released when the dam broke

In case 1. it would be clear 100%, and in case 2. most likely (>90%) that the material originated from the same region - same floor, and same corner of the building - that it flew from. So IF thermite played a role there, we would see a large excess applied in that corner - and see no trace whatsoever in the other corners, or the centers of the four faces, or on any other floors. Which would mean that the NWO cabal that rigged the towers with thermite either did so very unevenly out of sloppiness (despite working otherwise perfectly strealthy), or rigged that one corner of one floor only (in contradiction to the usual truther mechanics that presume a tower could not fall straight down from a single point of failure only).

Any way you look at it, now truther yarn could be spun fom this glowing flow that would support any truther theory on the horizon today.
 
Joey McGee said:
That corner was opposite the impact zone, so most of the plane and materials inside the building were jammed into the corner. That's why it got so hot there and served as a fulcrum point when the building toppled over when it collapsed. I'd imagine that tightly packed section of materials was what was fueling the steady flow. I can't find anything about wtc 2 leaning over into that direction before the collapse, but I know for sure that the top of wtc 1 was leaning before it fell. All in all, not much of an anomaly.

NIST talks about it here, section 11.
Click to expand...

1. "That's why it got so hot there" - do you imagine that, or do you have a source on that? For example, did NIST, in their analysis of the fires, determine that fires in that corner got hotter than in the other corners due to higher density of plane and office material?

2. "I'd imagine" - that's your imagination against truther imagination :boggled:

3. "wtc 2 leaning over into that direction" - what's the relevance of that here? Do you think the material pooled in that corner because the tower was leaning that way? I think sagging of floors would play a larger role locally. Even with a perfectly horizontal floor, the flow could have emanated there once the outer wall opened.
 
Oystein said:
...Any way you look at it, now truther yarn could be spun from this glowing flow that would support any truther theory on the horizon today.
Click to expand...
The "tactics of debate" issue is that so often "debunkers" let the truthers set the ground of debate and are prepared to debate on that truther defined ground. Lousy military strategy if nothing else. Turn in your grave Sun Tzu

So, currently on another thread, people are responding to every red herring issue that Christopher7 throws at them. His job is easy - just reflect back the last statement, pick one minor element and ask the debunker to prove/disprove it. And most of us do just that.

Now on the molten whatever it was flow issue tens of thousands of words have been wasted arguing the colour therefore temperature therefore steel or not steel etc. A total wast of time.

The truthers implied position is that it is molten steel coming from multiple thermite cuts used to initiate collapse. There is simply no way that molten material from multiple thermite cuts spread across the fire zone could accumulate to one corner UNLESS each small sample was carried there by fire suited and invisible suicide workers either carrying it in ladles or erecting sloping channels - all complete with "in transit" heating to keep the steel molten.

There is one simple word to describe that --- "impossible" -- and forget all the pseudo scientific objections to impossible.

So all the discussion as to whether it was steel, lead, aluminium, some mixture is irrelevant. Whatever it was it was not accumulated meltings from multiple thermite cuts used to initiate collapse.

And that is the real question. ---- answered. :rolleyes: Why waste time answering the truthers' red herrings?? ;)



er....[/rant] :o
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like molten glass. Based on personal experience, I expect there to be molten glass at the scene of any large fire, even in a single-storey house. That is might have pooled in that corner is not a great mystery, since one of the floors in that area was especially burdened by a humongous battery bank. That that floor might have collapsed and let out the flow is surely within the range of probability.

The one oddity that does bnother me, though, from the Luigi Cazzoniga video, at about 0;51, is the apparently cylindrical object which is seen falling from that area, emitting a streamer of glowing sparks behind it.

I rule out any possibility that this is a thermite cannister of some sort specificly because it is not also emitting smoke.

Any theories? Could it be a bit of aluminum cladding in which a significant pool of molten glass accumulated before it broke free?
 
Oystein said:
...
2. It was pooled there, from a slower process, and released when the dam broke

I... 2. most likely (>90%) that the material originated from the same region - same floor, and same corner of the building - that it flew from. So IF thermite played a role there, we would see a large excess applied in that corner - and see no trace whatsoever in the other corners, or the centers of the four faces, or on any other floors. Which would mean that the NWO cabal that rigged the towers with thermite either did so very unevenly out of sloppiness (despite working otherwise perfectly strealthy), or rigged that one corner of one floor only (in contradiction to the usual truther mechanics that presume a tower could not fall straight down from a single point of failure only).
Click to expand...

Totally wrong. Accumulation in one corner of the structure means just that accumulation. You can not conclude that more thermite was applied there. You can only conclude that accumulation occurred there. Thermite could have been equally applied to other areas, but molten material just didn't accumulate there. Or maybe it did, but just flowed in another direction when the "dam" broke. Namely away from the perimeter walls and was not caught by the cameras.

Once again debunker logic at its best.
 
Java Man said:
Totally wrong. Accumulation in one corner of the structure means just that accumulation. You can not conclude that more thermite was applied there. You can only conclude that accumulation occurred there. Thermite could have been equally applied to other areas, but molten material just didn't accumulate there. Or maybe it did, but just flowed in another direction when the "dam" broke. Namely away from the perimeter walls and was not caught by the cameras.

Once again debunker logic at its best.
Click to expand...

Logic is good. Give it a go someday.
 
mike3 said:
if any old random mix can do that, then there's utterly no reason whatsoever to assume it must be iron. As that's all that needs to be shown: that a random mix that would occur in the chaotic environment of the fire could glow the necessary color.
Click to expand...

Molten, contaminated (e.g not pure, since it's aluminum scrap from a computer ) aluminum:
pouringaluminumoutsider.jpg


Molten glass:
54478811_bf0c4784c3.jpg

molten-glass_4322_r2.jpg


Now, consider a mixture of the above together. Also, it's important to know that when you just heat aluminum toward and to melt it'll oxidize when exposed to air, and its emissivity is .44 whereas regular steel is at .35. Therefore, if a degree of impurities (oil, plastic, glass or other metallic blends in the mix) is present this can notably affect the colour of the 'glow'.
 
Last edited:
Should have known better than to be vague in the 9/11 section ;)

Oystein said:
1. "That's why it got so hot there" - do you imagine that, or do you have a source on that? For example, did NIST, in their analysis of the fires, determine that fires in that corner got hotter than in the other corners due to higher density of plane and office material?
Click to expand...

The way NIST's explains it, because there was more debris in the corner, the fires there burned longer and therefore it would be hotter there than the rest of the floor in the time before the collapse.

3. "wtc 2 leaning over into that direction" - what's the relevance of that here? Do you think the material pooled in that corner because the tower was leaning that way? I think sagging of floors would play a larger role locally. Even with a perfectly horizontal floor, the flow could have emanated there once the outer wall opened.
Click to expand...

It looks like what actually happened was that some of the floor trusses broke. The fuselage entered the 81st floor but the drips come from the 80th floor. That's how it's framed in this RKOwens4 film on the subject, which contains pictures that illustrate that theory(time stamped to relevant section)

I thought that if the building was leaning it's weight onto that weak spot that it would be crushing the floors down slightly but that doesn't seem to be relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom