Merged Molten metal observations

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.

Point is no one, including you, has come up with a mechanism by which widely separted thermite burns could accumulate molten steel in this one spot. Nor why it occured only in this particular spot, nor how enough thermite to produce such a large pool of supposed molten steel could be placed in this particular location.


GIVEN that this occured only in the one spot and GIVEN that only thermite is deemed hot enough to melt steel then one certainly CAN suppose that IF this is molten steel generated by thermite burning then it REQUIRES that more thermite be in this location than in any other since no other location saw such a phenomena.
Molten aluminum, or other lower temp(than steel) molten materials such as copper or glass, could flow to a partially collapsed floor section in the corner and be kept molten by the office fire heat. As the structure tilts further the pool then is also tilted and this allows a stream to escape the tower.

Molten steel , IF it did flow to a partially collapsed floor area COULD NOT be kept molten by the office fire heat alone(certainly not according to any 911 conspiracist since the office fires were not hot enough to melt steel).
 
Last edited:
The topic is on Molten Steel and fire metals melting points

Moderator please delete, found a new post on molten steel. I will post my comments their as a reply
 
Last edited:
Here is my take on that. Great video link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm8-COJwzis

The video above focuses on the fire, the molten steel for 3 weeks in the basements of all three buildings and molten steel coming from the window before the collapse. Only a dislodged Thermite pre-demolition cutter charge that was still operational could cause molten steel to come out of the window. It was one of the bloopers of the 9/11 planners that failed for those smart enough to understand what they are looking at, when they see the molten steel pouring out the window. It is the 9/11 smoking gun. Unpressurized Jet fuel burns at about 800 degrees. That's it 800 degrees tops, yet it takes 1600 degrees to melt steel. Watch the video at the top for more information. After you watch the 9/11 video at the top ask yourself then answer to yourself the following questions.

Question 1: What is causing the molten steel to pour out the window of the towers shown in the first minute in the video above?

Question 2: At what temperature does industrial grade structural steel melt?

Question 3: What is the highest temperature possible for Jet fuel?


For more click link below


http://propheticseasons.wordpress.com/911-truthers-911-truth-911-conspiracy/
 
Only a dislodged Thermite pre-demolition cutter charge that was still operational could cause molten steel to come out of the window.

The official version is that it's molten aluminum mixed with all of the other stuff inside the building and plane. You're building a straw man talking about "molten steel".

To find the version of events you're supposed to be debunking, go here, section 11.
 
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.


It could be a pooling right at the corner. Most buildings even when damaged could have enough lathing still in intact that would help direct any molten metal without requiring large pools. That of course is a speculation. If there wasn't so much molten steel in the basements of all three buildings after the collapse, then I would be one to do research what businesses were on that floor that might have metals in storage that had lower melting temperatures that could produce such large pools.

The molten steel or molten metal of some type coming out of the tower, would not mean very much to me by itself. But considering the amount found in the basements in each building it is clear it was cutter charges. Hence inside job, without any doubt. Why they did it I can only speculate about.
 
Last edited:
The official version is that it's molten aluminum mixed with all of the other stuff inside the building and plane. You're building a straw man talking about "molten steel".

To find the version of events you're supposed to be debunking, go here, section 11.

The fire in WTC did burn hot enough to melt light gauge aluminum. But most of that aluminum was on the outside of the building. Yes the plane would have brought some of it in with it but the fire did not burn hot enough or long enough to cause the molten aluminum to begin pooling.

You can melt aluminum in your barbecue if you stoke it long enough with lighter fluid. But within 20 seconds of the time you stop stoking it with fuel it stops melting and stops pooling and again becomes a solid. Since the 9/11 fire was was a very cool oxygen starved fire I find it impossible to believe that there was any metal of any type other that lead that could be melted at those low temperatures. Lead was mostly outlawed even when the towers were built, so that cannot be the answer.

It has to be Thermite of some-type. Nothing else could produce so much molten metal in the basements.

Now for those that just want facts remember the following. The facts for melting points of metals can be answered by any structural engineering or industrial welding corporation you call. These facts will be the same if you look for them in the 1960's, 70's *80's or 2011. Why, because the facts of question 2 and 3 have existed and been known since the 1940's. Steel temperature melting points is a science that has been studied since ancient times. In the last century it has become nearly a perfect science. So the facts about when steel melts at different grades is absolute depending on the grade of steel.

Once you have those facts then you will know for sure that there was nothing in the towers that could burn hot enough to cause molten steel to pour out of the tower. Once you know these facts then it is just a process of elimination and logic on what was melting the steel in the towers. That should make it much easier to determine what possible things exist in the world that could cause molten steel to pour out while the tower is still standing. The facts regarding metals melting points are not open to debate, they are known and have been known and accepted as facts longer than you and I have been alive. So focus on the facts, not all the other disinformation. Then from there work yourself through the other questions.

The people responsible for 9/11 want you to wear yourself out and to get lost in all the other theories so you do not focus on the absolute facts that are already known about metals melting points. All the proof you need is right here in and the video at the top. If you don't understand this, then any other research on 9/11 would be pointless. Stick with the facts that cannot be ruled out by anyone no matter how many other points of view are presented.

Metal's melting point are are well known fact and a true science that has been known in the modern age for most metals for over 100 years. Jet fuel temperatures are well known for the last fifty years. The history of structural steel buildings collapsing due to fire for the last 100 years is also well known, none had ever collapsed before 9/11 and none has collapsed since 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Just an empty claim on your part to salvage what's left of his position.

You will never present a draft,you haven't got a clue. Drivel away to Eschat. He's an end of the world fundie,your intellectual equal.
 
You seriously think there was still thermite reacting and oxidizing three weeks after it was set off?
 
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.

The resultant liquid metal could not have come from any other site. It could not have croosed concrete floors from the core to get there. Unless the interior were as hot as the furnace in a foundry, it would cool and solidify on the way there. It just doesn't get that freaking HOT.

Once again debunker logic at its best.
:dl:
 
(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.)

One of the reasons I find the thermite claim to be without merit in this case is because it IS so bright that any camera pointing at it with an automatic exposure setting will decrease the exposure time (increase the shutter speed) as much as the device allows.

A good analogy to this would be:
http://youtu.be/zhJF_hTJ2Rw

and before somebody says "this doesn't happen w/thermite/exposure is not a factor...

http://youtu.be/YVbMKElfRUw

Anyway, the exact source of the sparks may never be known for sure, but thermite it is not.
 
It also could be as simple as the planes set off a few of the thermite cutter charges before the predetermined demolition times.

It could be what we are witnessing is pre demolition cutter charge that was placed to pre weaken the building before the main demolition. The cutter charges (if a cutter charges) may have been dislodged from their original positions by the plane crash yet remained operational. So when the pre demolition weakening sequence was started we see it in real time, just as many other witnesses heard explosions long before the collapse.

It could be a simple as getting your hand caught in the cookie jar when mom said no.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, the exact source of the sparks may never be known for sure, but thermite it is not.

This that I will present next is most unlikely, but under certain conditions it could be possible. In order for sparks to be caused by electricity you would need a 880 volt current fuse to fail. In other words the line itself would begin to melt and because of fuss failure you could under extreme conditions also see sparks if the line was severed in the right position, maybe even molten metal. If you have ever had a serious vehicle electrical fire I think you might understand what I mean.

I offer this above as a speculation only, this in the order make the attempt to consider everything.

I'm firmly convinced it was cutter charges and Thermite, not my electrical speculation above.
 
Last edited:
Could be could be could be could be, but without hard evidence it doesn't get much passed that.

Speaking of which,
just as many other witnesses heard explosions long before the collapse.
I don't know about you but I'd be shocked if there weren't any explosions reported in a multi-floor, multi-acre fire fueled by accelerants and hydrocarbons. Find a fire of comparable size to the WTC that didn't have reports of explosions, "I think you might understand what I mean."

Also, thermite doesn't burn for 3 consecutive weeks, well it can but the amount should make you reconsider applying the theory to the WTC
 
Last edited:
Could be could be could be could be, but without hard evidence it doesn't get much passed that.

Speaking of which,
I don't know about you but I'd be shocked if there weren't any explosions reported in a multi-floor, multi-acre fire fueled by accelerants and hydrocarbons. Find a fire of comparable size to the WTC that didn't have reports of explosions, "I think you might understand what I mean."

Yep I agree with you on that.
 
It also could be as simple as the planes set off a few of the thermite cutter charges before the predetermined demolition times.

It could be what we are witnessing is pre demolition cutter charge that was placed to pre weaken the building before the main demolition. The cutter charges (if a cutter charges) may have been dislodged from their original positions by the plane crash yet remained operational. So when the pre demolition weakening sequence was started we see it in real time, just as many other witnesses heard explosions long before the collapse.

It could be a simple as getting your hand caught in the cookie jar when mom said no.

Except for the slight problems:
1) There was no demolition except in the fevered imagination of truthers and trolls;
2) Nor any "pre-demolition cutter charges"


...but don't let reality get in the way.
 
Should have known better than to be vague in the 9/11 section ;)
I should've known better than to hope for a discussion of the Buick 215 in the 9/11 section. I mean, guys, really, what's more important, 9/11 or cars? ;)
 
Question 1: What is causing the molten steel to pour out the window of the towers shown in the first minute in the video above?
why do you assume its steel?

Question 2: At what temperature does industrial grade structural steel melt?

See above, why do you assume its steel?
Question 3: What is the highest temperature possible for Jet fuel?

Given that the jet fuel had burned off well before this molten matter was seen why even ask about jet fuel?
 
This that I will present next is most unlikely, but under certain conditions it could be possible. In order for sparks to be caused by electricity you would need a 880 volt current fuse to fail.

You obviously know little or nothing at all about electricity
first of all current is measured in Amperes not volts so right off the bat you are very obviously technically wrong.
Second Arc welders do not require 880 volts yet are quite capable of creating 'sparks'. In fact having worked in the field of electronics for 3 decades I can tell you that even 120 volts on a 15 amp circuit is quite capable of creating large sparks.
In other words the line itself would begin to melt and because of fuss failure you could under extreme conditions also see sparks if the line was severed in the right position, maybe even molten metal. If you have ever had a serious vehicle electrical fire I think you might understand what I mean.

No, I do not know what you mean especially given that an automoble uses a 12 Volt DC circuit. Though a common auto battery is capable of delivering 100 Amps.
Yes a severly overloaded circuit could melt the line but its uncommon since the fuse or circuit breaker will throw before that occurs. OTOH if the current remains below the breaker threshold the cicuit can still continue arcing and sparking and NEVER cause the wiring to melt.


I offer this above as a speculation only, this in the order make the attempt to consider everything.
Your speculation is apparently based upon a complete non-understanding of electricity. I hold no reason to believe then that you have any better grasp of any other technical concept involved.

I'm firmly convinced it was cutter charges and Thermite, not my electrical speculation above.

Given your complete and utter balls-up of any understanding of electricity I find that all you have done is destroy your credibility. There is no reason to suspect you are any better with cutter charges or thermite.
 
Except for the slight problems:
1) There was no demolition except in the fevered imagination of truthers and trolls;
2) Nor any "pre-demolition cutter charges"


...but don't let reality get in the way.
.

You know people want to believe good things about those who govern us, me included. I believe 9/11 was a false flag attack, and inside job with mostly good intentioned people. I also believe this attack represented only a small part of the American government that was involved. I also believe the honest parts of our government thwarted it once revealed to them.

If I was part of the honest portion of American's government then I would cover it up and deny it as well. Hands down absolutely I would cover it up. It would serve no good purpose to the national and economic security of the United States to confirm that America suffered a treasonous attack at the hands of a few corrupt government officials and some corrupt elite bankers pushing their new world order agenda. My purpose of trying to to reveal that 9/11 was an inside job is the attempt to educate people to make sure in the future that they, as much as humanly possible, look deeper and become more involved in serious investigation of all things related to our government and freedom. It keeps our government more honest.

If a larger part of the government was involved, then the only alternative left is civil war to remove them. So even if that was the case at this point I would still cover it up. A civil war would be a waste of time and a blow America could not survive. The only way to stop or prevent this type of thing in the future is education and serious political action that is legal.

Lastly, we can debate 9/11 for 10 more years. No one in the government is going to tell you the truth, even if they wanted too. So the best I can hope for is to cause people to dig deeper and become more involved. I don't have any problem with anyone who seriously considers all the facts and still disagrees with me. However I do have a problem with those who don't even know or care what the questions are.

In the 100 year history of structural steel buildings, none has ever collapse due to fire. Of the structural steel buildings that have burned by fire with much hotter temperatures and much longer time frames, none of them had pools of molten metal in their basements. This simple paragraph should cause any thinking person to pause. Historical fact and precedents matter. No matter the evidence a person presents, you cannot ignore the history.

Why has no molten steel in large quantities ever been found in other structural steel building fires that burned hotter and longer?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom