News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Firstly there is still no reliable evidence for molten steel at the WTC site. There may have been glowing metal, there may have even been a molten metal but we don't know if it was steel.

Second, what is the point of the molten steel angle? If an incendiary like thermite or a short, sharp demolitions explosive was used it would not create molten steel. So what is the theory here?
 
Ganymede said:
I'm not here to debate my credibility. I'm here to debate the evidence surrounding the events of 911. WTC7 is where Guliani's emergency command center was located. Along with an under cover spook operation inside the same building. And when WTC7 went down, so did any potential evidence from those offices along with it.
Click to expand...
The companies using the WTC7 building almost certainly had a DR plan where the systems full back ups were sent to another location. So blowing up a building will not destroy evidence. They can restore to the last full back up. Some hard drives were actually recovered with data on the anyway.
 
The compression of pockets of air in the collapse of the towers probably would have been enough to heat that air to steel melting temps, starting from cold steel.

Starting from steel already heated by fire, it's an inevitability.

That's without the compression and impact heating of the steel itself.
 
Steel melts at: 1370 degrees C (2500°F)
Boeing 747 normal fuel volume is at: 150,000 Liters
Boeing 747 fuel is: Jet-B or naptha-kerosene
Energy content of this fuel: 33.2 MJ/L

Total energy content within fuel of Boeing 747: (33.2 MJ/L)*(150,000L)=4,980,000 MJ=4.98*10e12 Joules

U=Thermal Energy=N*f*0.5*k*T
T=U/(N*f*0.5*k)=temperature=(4.98*10e12 Joules)/(Number of molecules * f * 0.5 * k)

Anyone knows whats f and k in that equation...cause I need it to calculate the temperature...?
 
Since everyone is on the subject of molten metal, here's clip specificaly on this area.
In it at the 5:15 second mark is one of the more serious displays of "wtf!" to me showing multiple steel core colums cut at decisive 45 degree angles....like seriously...wtf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: The thing that seemed the most suspect to me was the coverage of Bush while he was at that elementary school, and his aide whispered in his ear about the towers. The look on Bush's face when he... uh... got the news, looked as if he was told "mission accomplished." Of all places Bush could have been that moment was at a children's school. Why couldn't he have been in the Oval Office? I believe it was all set-up by the PTB.
Click to expand...

It was a remarkably perferct set up. In a school, with under privilaged Black Children. That was a political land mine set in place so know one dared to question the reason he wasn't in the oval office. They only questioned his reaction, which was gut wrenchingly incompentant.
 
This GARBAGE Conspiracy string should be in the 'Cesspool' where some Much More credible items are. It's inconceivable this board wants to have this stuff Mainstreamed in the 'Political' section.



Ganymede-runs-for-hills said:
With only 18 total post, you're obviously someones alt. I'm sure I've addressed your questions already. On ignore you go.
Click to expand...

I'm no one's alt. Google my handle goofy.
There's years of posts with it.
Your 'logic' is non-existant and your conclusion pure Nonsense. (Consistent with the string)
"All new posters must be previous posters"

And you certainly Have NOT addressed my issue.
I did however DESTROY yours.
Thus you must 'Ignore' as your whole string COLLAPSES if you acknowledge my post.

Panicky 9/11 truth Nutjobs debate Oakland gas tanker incident, see their WTC Conspiracy theories Collapse as quickly as that Highway did.

h*ttp://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2772159
Click to expand...

And you obviously have nothing to say now except a False accusation and a False claim.

Splash 1 !


This GARBAGE Conspiracy string should be in the 'Cesspool' where some Much More credible items are. It's inconceivable this board wants to have this stuff Mainstreamed in the 'Political' section.
 
Last edited:
moementum7 said:
Since everyone is on the subject of molten metal, here's clip specificaly on this area.
In it at the 5:15 second mark is one of the more serious displays of "wtf!" to me showing multiple steel core colums cut at decisive 45 degree angles....like seriously...wtf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
Click to expand...


The evidence is overwhelming isn't it! It's qutie revealing how shape charges are used to cut steel colums.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: The thing that seemed the most suspect to me was the coverage of Bush while he was at that elementary school, and his aide whispered in his ear about the towers. The look on Bush's face when he... uh... got the news, looked as if he was told "mission accomplished." Of all places Bush could have been that moment was at a children's school. Why couldn't he have been in the Oval Office? I believe it was all set-up by the PTB.
Click to expand...

The Parent - Teachers Board. Those cunning Lizardoids.

I believe Ganymede mentioned thermite above - first, you'd need massive amounts of it, which would be almost impossible to hide; second, I have a reeeally hard time believing anything Steve Jones publishes. I'm sorry, but I have no faith whatsoever in his scientific process.
 
Wether there was molten steel in the collapsed rubble after 3 days of fire is not relevant. NIST only studied the fires in WTC that led to the collapse. Even a thermite cutting apparatus (which would require operators) would not leave the steel molten after even one hour. Cutting steel is not the same as melting large quantities of steel, it's more focused.

[arrogant showboating] GAME OVER, MAN! :bawl::spank: [/arrogant showboating]
 
That's a good point; I didn't consider the "volume" aspect.

I think my post above illustrated why molten steel could occur through fairly simple chemical reactions in the rubble pile, and there is no way that steel could still be molten three days after a thermite cut. That's total nonsense.
 
And without testing it, there's no way to know if what they saw was steel or aluminum, or something else.
 
Exactly. I think there are some shots of silver molten metal streaming down, which would be aluminium, not steel. I'll send you the link.
 
...or copper from the wiring (unlikely). Or solder from plumbing, or lead, or zinc from galvanizing.
 
Apparently the orangy colour is from office gear contamination, too. I think Troofers tend to think of the burned matter as being separate cases of uniform, uncontaminated stuff, which just isn't so.
 
shaman_ said:
They did cut the steel columns as part of the clean up.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html
Click to expand...

Having torch and welding experience I can tell you that cutting those steel beams at an angle is unrealistic.
Cutting at an angle is just more unneccessary work and only makes the job of cutting it much more dangerous when in an upright position.

If you look at some of the other columns in those pictures you can see how they would have been cut in real world/ordinary situations....straight across or as straight as possible, but at a 45 degree angle?...no.
In the picture of the columns stacked in the warehouse is it a coincidence they only show one end of the columns and not the other?....maybe.

There is no practical reason what so ever to cut an upright steel column(or even one on it's side for that matter) at an angle, it's just too inefficient for any practical reasons.

If we have any other welders or torch workers, chime in.

Thanks for your time Shaman, I do appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Wether there was molten steel in the collapsed rubble after 3 days of fire is not relevant.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Can you please share with me what facts you're basing your hypothesis on? Molten steel is a result of thermate being used to cut the steel colums. It would take an abundant amount of thermate to bring down a structure that contained over 2 million tons of steel. That's why there was pools of molten steel. And the molten steel was there for several weeks as reported in the New Scientist article i linked. If you're going to debate me atleast read my points. So I don't have to keep repeating the same evidence over and over again.



NIST only studied the fires in WTC that led to the collapse. Even a thermite cutting apparatus (which would require operators) would not leave the steel molten after even one hour. Cutting steel is not the same as melting large quantities of steel, it's more focused.
Click to expand...

That's why the largest group of 911 families filed a petition with the N.I.S.T! They indicated that the N.I.ST only concentrated on the fires, and refused to consider other evidence that contradicted their report. Here's a list of the petition.

Family Members File Petition with NIST
News – "Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST's reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers."
Click to expand...

http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petition(redacted).pdf

Ha Ha, it's not arrogance spider, it's all in good fun my man


[arrogant showboating] GAME OVER, MAN! :bawl::spank: [/arrogant showboating][/QUOTE]

Funny shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top