Agreed, but the slivery color of molten AL vs. the bright orange color of molten FE is very different indeed. It seems more different that photographic inaccuracies would allow for.SDH said:
WTC Stuff...
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
if you are basing an argument on molten steel, i´d say we are back to point 1, where it would be more logical to assume there is a rational non-conspiracy explanation rather than a huge elaborated plot made of thousands of ifs and maybes.
And that rational, non-conspiracy explanation is?????ALEXIS_DH said:
Oh come on.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDH
Melted steel in the clean up picture:
Fire, fuel source (gas lines and O2 from subway tunnels) and confined space are the ingredients of a furnace! Not to mention the additional pressure and the time it took to get to those levels. The ground was even hot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renegaderick
No disagreement here. I find this extremely plausible.
He gave you an answer you appearently liked.....why are you still hashing this point?
Originally Posted by SDH
Melted steel in the clean up picture:
Fire, fuel source (gas lines and O2 from subway tunnels) and confined space are the ingredients of a furnace! Not to mention the additional pressure and the time it took to get to those levels. The ground was even hot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renegaderick
No disagreement here. I find this extremely plausible.
He gave you an answer you appearently liked.....why are you still hashing this point?
Couple things that I think of when reading this thread:
a) A thermite reaction would be hot enough to melt the steel. Only problem is this: you need aluminum (that's there from the airplane) and iron oxide - aka, rust. I doubt that there was much of that present.
b) Burning jet fuel might have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel enough to bring the building down, fine. But there is a huge problem with that, and nobody seems to pay it much attention. The majority of the jet fuel was probably burned up via the giant fireballs that happened during the initial impact into the towers. We've all seen those photographs.
c) The gas lines in the basement theory/subway/whatever doesn't hold any water. Even if the blaze was intense enough to draw enough oxygen to it from the subway, the combusting gasses wouldn't be hot enough to melt the steel to the extent that it was found, especially given the fact that should a completely open tunnel be there, it'd be filled with all sorts of debris and dust. Not really ideal components for an inferno
I don't know, though. I'm just a mountain biker.
a) A thermite reaction would be hot enough to melt the steel. Only problem is this: you need aluminum (that's there from the airplane) and iron oxide - aka, rust. I doubt that there was much of that present.
b) Burning jet fuel might have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel enough to bring the building down, fine. But there is a huge problem with that, and nobody seems to pay it much attention. The majority of the jet fuel was probably burned up via the giant fireballs that happened during the initial impact into the towers. We've all seen those photographs.
c) The gas lines in the basement theory/subway/whatever doesn't hold any water. Even if the blaze was intense enough to draw enough oxygen to it from the subway, the combusting gasses wouldn't be hot enough to melt the steel to the extent that it was found, especially given the fact that should a completely open tunnel be there, it'd be filled with all sorts of debris and dust. Not really ideal components for an inferno
I don't know, though. I'm just a mountain biker.
C'mon, it is not that simple. There are many factors playing in (and not just looking at WTC but the whole 9/11). Some doubtfull and some obvious and many in between.ALEXIS_DH said:
Some of the more obvious WTC ones are:
The the towers fell just as fast as if they had been "pulled". I think this close up shows an explosion, http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm wouldn't that corner bend instead or somthing, ****ing anything but expload ;
The owner, Silverstein, who said that they decided to "pull" buiding 7. I saw that come down and it definately looked like a controled demolition. The fires were totaly insignificant;
The melted steel in the basement that was beeing cooled of for days. Isn't that a sign of explosives?
There is probably more.
As I mentioned before, everything that happened that day must be taken into consideration. These are not isolated events. We gotta remember one thing; This administration has no problems lying, decieving and killing. They are fanatics on a mission and they belive in the evil they are doing. Lord Sidious would have a hard time matching the dark side of the Bush administration.
I am willing to accept the "pressure and time" answer SDH provided in explanation of the molten steel found in the basements (even in light of Radarr's post), but it does not work as an explanation of molten steel found dripping from the WTC.PsychO!1 said:
Identifying the temperature of metal based on color appears to be a relatively common thing. This site http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm, and others like it shows what color metals would be at what temperatures.
SDH suggested that there could be issues of exposure or color temperature comparing a photo of this molten metal to know the type of molten metal in the photograph. All I can say to defend this is that there are several different sources of photos and videos cited in his paper and I find it unlikely that they would all exhibit the same types of "errors."
Thermite would require powdered AL, not just chunks ripped from the plane on impact.Radarr said:
Especially in the 2nd tower the off center hit caused that fireball we have all seen. That indeed was the jet fuel. If it had blown up here, it could not have been feeding the fire. Much has been written about this. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.htmlRadarr said:
Here is a photo of that jet fuel exploding (relatively) harmlessly outside the building:
And even though WTC2 had less burning fuel in it, it collapsed sooner.
I would like to concede this point to SDH, but your arguments are good too. It would be hard to deliver oxygen to the fire in these conditions. However if I may quote from Dr. Jones Paper, "Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered..."Radarr said:
Amen!Radarr said:
You could concieveably do the reaction with a larger chunk of aluminum than powder, but it would not react nearly as well/probably not go to completion. And the thermite reaction only contains a little bit of oxygen - moreso than not, it actually produces the oxygen by taking it out of whatever is near it - water, biological matter, etc., and that's what'll fuel athe thermite reaction further. To get the amount of steel that we're talking about here, there'd have to be truckloads of aluminum and Fe2O3 (rust). Then it's all good and well to describe the big molten pots of steel found.RenegadeRick said:
The only problem with that is that even if you have the aluminum accounted for (albeit in non-ideal physical state) you still are lacking the truckloads iron oxide (which was more my point with the first statement, not the physical state of the aluminum).
That's just what they WANT you to believe....ohio said:
um....
the O3 in Fe2O3 is OXYGEN. 2 parts iron, 3 parts oxygen.
don't know why it would need to pull it out of other things. don't know why it matters anyhow...
If you watch the videos of the WTC1 collapse, it is pretty clear that the collapse did not begin at the point of impact. It is apparent that the collapse actually began at the top of the building and moved downward.
This video clearly shows the antenna beginning to drop first, and then the building starting to collapse from the top down.
THAT video you linked clearly shows the collapse start at the point of impact. As the building starts to collapse from this point, everything above it (including the antenna) falls simultaneoulsy.
If you watch closely you can see the antenna start to fall first.
Watch again in slomo...
That interview both sickens me and makes me laugh. Why are government agencies classifying/hiding evidence about this? Can it be anything else than that they are covering somthing up? Skeletons in the closset? What have they got to be ashamed of?
All nice long questions and all short answers to them, like he was unwillingly talking about his sexlife with his wife.
"CG: Its not the evidence weve seen that were concerned about, its the evidence we havent seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense . The evidence is abundant "
LOL, what is this, the Stephen Colbert show? Which evidence is he refering to, the four slides from the security camera on the Pentagon that showed the date of September 12!!! There is probably a perfectly good explanation to that. I just can't think of what it can be. Can someone help me?
The "evidence is abundant" but he doesn't want to talk about it and government agencies are holding a lot of them undisclosed.
What conlusions can be drawn from this?
All nice long questions and all short answers to them, like he was unwillingly talking about his sexlife with his wife.
"CG: Its not the evidence weve seen that were concerned about, its the evidence we havent seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense . The evidence is abundant "
LOL, what is this, the Stephen Colbert show? Which evidence is he refering to, the four slides from the security camera on the Pentagon that showed the date of September 12!!! There is probably a perfectly good explanation to that. I just can't think of what it can be. Can someone help me?
The "evidence is abundant" but he doesn't want to talk about it and government agencies are holding a lot of them undisclosed.
What conlusions can be drawn from this?
I don't have a slowmo and watching in real time I can't say either. Although one can clearly see the debris from the explosion just when the building goes. Debris is thrown tenths of feet out in the air from the pressure and I fail to see how a pannkakkka can make that happen. The other vid you posted show this better with a close up.If you watch closely you can see the antenna start to fall first.
Watch again in slomo...
I started making a slomo version of this video with showbiz this AM. I slowed it down to 2/10ths speed.
When I watched it, even though it is evident that the antenna starts to fall just a tiny bit before the rest of the building, the thing that struck me most was how the entire top of the building simply turned to dust.
I don't know how this can be explained. :huh:
Um, I graduated as a chemistry major about 3 months ago, so I know what I'm talking about. I know that O is oxygen. Like my post said, the thermite reaction will pull oxygen out of outside sources as well as using the oxygen contained in the iron oxide. For the reaction to go to as close to 100% completion as possible in the hottest, fastest means (like the kind that will produce large vats of molten iron), there has to be an outiside source of oxygen.
Not only have I done thermite reactions (mostly as demonstrations for kids because there's a big flash and it's fun to watch melt through things), but I've studied the chemistry of them.
And you've really been missing the point - I am not really talking about the oxygen/lack of other than the gas fires described in my first post. What I've been saying is this: there wasn't ever a source of iron oxide described to account for this as a plausable reason for the molten stuff found at the bottom of the towers.
Sorry, I am a bit slow.
Are you saying that SDH's explanation of time and pressure cannot explain the molten steel?
What is your explanation for the molten steel at the bottom WTC 1, 2, and 7?
There wasn't enough time or pressure to melt the steel. Think about this: some mines go 2 miles deep into the earth and they don't run into molten anything. People can go down there. No way that a tiny building (in geologic terms) is going to create the needed environment to create that sort of a situation.
As for what I think happened, well, I really don't know. Nor do I care all that much. Whether or not it was purely an act of terrorism, or there was a huge cover-up, or a combination of both, it won't change the fact that I still hate this administration, and in concurrence with current world politics, am embarrassed to call myself an American anywhere but with of my gun-toting, flag-waving, conservative Christian group of friends.
I just saw the documentary "Loose change 2nd edition" and it was the best one I've seen so far on this subject. A lot of new (to me) facts were presented and some times shown compared to other similar situations. Will try and post some of the whitness statements in the documenatry during this weekend.
People you've just got to see this one!
Download it from somewhere; piratebay, dc++
http://www.loosechange911.com/
People you've just got to see this one!
Download it from somewhere; piratebay, dc++
http://www.loosechange911.com/
This article from the Daily Mail states that remains for 42% of WTC victims have not yet been identified:
And yet 100% of the hijackers were identified almost immediately. Remember this?
Has anyone heard any follow up on how they were identified so quickly?
Passenger flight lists.
Once they have your name and CC number they basically know everything about you. Cross this with watch lists and terrorsit lists and whamo you can reasonably conclude who the terrorists were...
Once they have your name and CC number they basically know everything about you. Cross this with watch lists and terrorsit lists and whamo you can reasonably conclude who the terrorists were...
Didn't you morons watch last night's NOVA on PBS..????