In search of an explanation of molten metal in the rubble

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

In search of an explanation of molten metal in the rubble

Post by ian neal »

Prof Jones starts his paper thus

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide ... uality.wmv . The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition......

Does anyone know where I can find a explanation for this molten metal either in an official document or in a peer reviewed scientific paper?

Thanks a lot
User avatar
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 782
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:51 am

Post by DeFecToR »

If you'd like a hack job explanation then try this;

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Its pathetic i know, but hey, we're in critics corner!
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:48 pm

Post by Arkan_Wolfshade »

DeFecToR wrote:If you'd like a hack job explanation then try this;

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Its pathetic i know, but hey, we're in critics corner!
Perhaps you could provide something more substantive than, "Its (sic) pathetic" as a counterargument to the 911myths analysis.
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Post by ian neal »

No fair dues. I'd read this before but forgotten that I had. Note to self, check the myths site first.

What I conclude from this is that molten (ie liquid) is not an accurate description of the various accounts of red hot metal and that jury is out on what type of metal we are looking at, what was the maximum temperature it reached and whether this is compatable with the official account.

So from my point of view, I wouldn't say this is a smoking gun. It could fit with both controlled demolition theory or the fire induced collapse theory. There are so many alleged anomolies with the official account both with regards to both the tower collapses and 9/11 in general, that 'we' have no reason to scrabble around for evidence

Feel free to explore this some more, but I will look around for a smokier smoking gun
bill withers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:14 pm

Post by bill withers »

Can diggers extract molten steel?

I find this highly unlikely, although I admit this is conjecture on my behalf, as I have little knowlede of metals and mechanics, I am just saying that if any critics here do, they might be able to confirm my suspicion, that the heat transference from molten steel would incapacitate the hydraulics, and/or melt the diggers teeth.
User avatar
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:50 am

Post by item8 »

User avatar
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:50 am

Post by item8 »

User avatar
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:06 am
Location: One breath from Glory

Post by fish5133 »

bill withers wrote:Can diggers extract molten steel?

I find this highly unlikely, although I admit this is conjecture on my behalf, as I have little knowlede of metals and mechanics, I am just saying that if any critics here do, they might be able to confirm my suspicion, that the heat transference from molten steel would incapacitate the hydraulics, and/or melt the diggers teeth.
Possibly the fact that they can "extract" it implies that the temperature has dropped significantly for it to be a solid glowing mass and no longer at the temperature it would melt and flow so technically it is not extracting molten steel but steel that was molten and has cooled. ( the fire chief actually describes it as red hot) As regards the hydraulic cables if these were rubber and came in contact with the hot metal then yes that would be a problem but it would be possible to lift a chunk of glowing metal without the tubes coming in contact. They are designed to be out of the way as they can also suffer physical damage from rubble etc.
The evidence of molten metal is not solely based on the video clip of the machine lifting what looks like a chunk of glowing metal-- as as you suggest that could be debunked far easier than the eye witness accounts of the first responders and others not to mention the iron spheres found in the dust samples. Altogether IMO it adds up to a pretty convincing piece of evidence unlike perhaps the NPT.

Another consideration is why would these eyewitnesses lie about molten metal-- especially on camera. If and when it gets to court what are the perps going to say---"we set them all up to lie about molten metal to try and shake you off the case for what we really did"
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

I have not seen anything from the official sources trying to deny molten metal at the site. No one knows exactly what type of metal it was or mainly was.

I have never heard of CD causing metal to melt though??
James Allen
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:49 pm

Post by James Allen »

fish5133 wrote:
bill withers wrote:Can diggers extract molten steel?

I find this highly unlikely, although I admit this is conjecture on my behalf, as I have little knowlede of metals and mechanics, I am just saying that if any critics here do, they might be able to confirm my suspicion, that the heat transference from molten steel would incapacitate the hydraulics, and/or melt the diggers teeth.
Possibly the fact that they can "extract" it implies that the temperature has dropped significantly for it to be a solid glowing mass and no longer at the temperature it would melt and flow so technically it is not extracting molten steel but steel that was molten and has cooled. ( the fire chief actually describes it as red hot) As regards the hydraulic cables if these were rubber and came in contact with the hot metal then yes that would be a problem but it would be possible to lift a chunk of glowing metal without the tubes coming in contact. They are designed to be out of the way as they can also suffer physical damage from rubble etc.
The evidence of molten metal is not solely based on the video clip of the machine lifting what looks like a chunk of glowing metal-- as as you suggest that could be debunked far easier than the eye witness accounts of the first responders and others not to mention the iron spheres found in the dust samples. Altogether IMO it adds up to a pretty convincing piece of evidence unlike perhaps the NPT.

Another consideration is why would these eyewitnesses lie about molten metal-- especially on camera. If and when it gets to court what are the perps going to say---"we set them all up to lie about molten metal to try and shake you off the case for what we really did"
Hi fish5133 It's unlikely to be steel that has previously molten, then cooled, because the temperature readings from the air (discounting the NYPD helicopter readings, which are inaccurate, because the equipment is not designed, or calibrated for those temps) don't show temps high enough.

"Another consideration is why would these eyewitnesses lie about molten metal"

-They are not, they just did not see molten steel.

"not to mention the iron spheres found in the dust samples"

-The R G Lee group call the 'Iron-rich spheres" This means that they could be, for example, compounds of iron which melt at much lower temperatures.

- The R.G. Lee group published the fact that in office fires finding "iron rich microspheres" is expected.

-Friction

-Welding slag

-Iron workers with torches

- The ultimate "scientific" argument comes from Dr. Frank Greening : He tells us to look at McCrone's "Particle Atlas", pp 760 to 780, and note the EDX spectra for fly ash. They happen to match the EDX for the spheres Jones studied. And as Greening noted, fly ash would be a component of concrete. It doesn't get any more solid than that.
Barongreenstash
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:45 pm

I saw the red hot (possibly molten) steel from 31,000 ft

Post by Barongreenstash »

In 2001 i was travelling frequently to Mexico(Puerto Vallarta mostly), i had a method in place to get the cheapest tickets possible,of which there were many around that time (unlike today)Flights to Puerto Vallarta from Manchester always departed and returned on Tuesdays,i'd call the flight office monday afternoons and usually aquire a cheap ticket(lowest price ever paid was £65 return) the only time i failed to get a ticket was on Sept 10th to fly on Sept 11th 2001 due to the last ticket already being sold.This meant i had to wait until the next Monday to try for the next flight,Well we all know what happened on Sept 11th and as it turned out if i'd flown that day we would of been almost directly over NYC at the time of the attacks.Anyway the next Monday i called for a cheap ticket and because everyone was nervous i got one very quickly very cheaply and flew to Mexico on the 18th Sept,we were told we were the 1st charter flight allowed back in US airspace.On the outbound flight we flew through the smoke from the towers around 25 miles from the coast on the eastern seaboard at around 2pm in the afternoon GMT.The return flight however(3 weeks later) used to pass NYC around dusk,again 25 miles approx from the coast usually around 31,000 ft.On that return flight i decided to stretch my legs while we passed NYC so i could have a look at the scene in darkness.As i looked out of the small door window of the plane i could see the scene and what i saw can be described as looking down onto a pair of active volcano's,,2 huge bright orange pools of what looked like molten metal (but could have been just red hot metal) the image will stay with me forever, i couldn't take my eyes off it trying to work out what was where, there was a teenage boy stretching his legs at the same time and i turned to him and asked him to look out of the window, he did this and i said to him "remember what you've seen there as it's very important as it contradicts everything you're going to be told about it".At that point i already knew it was a false flag, on Sept 11th when it happened i knew it was a false flag and from 1995 onwards i was expecting this false flag designed to change the world forever as i had read their(American) plans that year.Just be thankful they didn't use NBC weapons as that was an option in the plan i saw myself in '95.
Just thought i'd add my account for anyone doubting the reality of these 2 pools of red hot metal.
User avatar
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:58 pm

Post by scienceplease 2 »

Hi Barongreenstash.

That's an extraordinary description of the scene. Two molten volcanoes? (Not three?)

Are you any good at drawing? Could you draw or Paint what you saw? Perhaps with a bit of computer graphics it could be another method of getting people's interest in the subject.

You very enigmatically added "Just be thankful they didn't use NBC weapons as that was an option in the plan i saw myself in '95." Can you expand upon that? What Plan? How come you saw it? What is the significance of the year?

My last point is to debunk James Allen and his take on the R G Lee dust analysis

"R G Lee group call them 'Iron-rich spheres" This means that they could be, for example, compounds of iron which melt at much lower temperatures." No, they were mainly iron - as Harrit, Jones and others have found.

"The R.G. Lee group published the fact that in office fires finding "iron rich microspheres" is expected" - Not true - the iron spheres were unusual and one of the key factors in their "morphology" report.

"Friction" - Friction? Oh come on. You would expect to see iron filing not microspheres. Iron filings were not mentioned.

"Welding slag" - as discussed by the BBC - Harrit, Jones et al collected dust samples derived from the day of 9/11 - not just from subsequent clean up days - welding would not produce consistent results in almost every sample.

"Iron workers with torches" - ditto

"The ultimate "scientific" argument comes from Dr. Frank Greening : He tells us to look at McCrone's "Particle Atlas", pp 760 to 780, and note the EDX spectra for fly ash. They happen to match the EDX for the spheres Jones studied. And as Greening noted, fly ash would be a component of concrete. It doesn't get any more solid than that."
- except that there is no scientific experiement to back it up perhaps? Cf Harrit, Jones etc have backed their arguments with scientific experiment. Science doesn't get any more solid than that!
:roll:
Barongreenstash
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:45 pm

Post by Barongreenstash »

'2 Molten volcanoes' is a misquote,yes i can draw but i'm not a performing monkey,'95 is significant because that's the year i read it and had it in my possession for a couple of weeks, whereas '47 was the year the original plan was drawn up and put into motion(a lot changed in '47)although i'm pretty sure there would have been many dynamic changes as there are to any plans and tbh although a lot of what was in the write-up turned out to be disinfo, this didn't (even though the reference covered just a few lines of a 50+ page document) it was possibly best described as a 'Masterplan' in the context of 'the story so far from '47 to post 9/11' as nothing was in the plan about any specific goals after 9/11,just the reasons and the effect it was hoped to have(the 'Great Event' went better than in their wildest dreams).I'm not particularly interested in getting 'attention' in fact quite the opposite.That's my experience take what you want from it.
Post Reply