See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1830
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-43) not displayed.
.
.
.
#44. To: Red Jones, All (#43)
BAC is off the radar, negotiating a peace treaty with Goldi. {:-)) They deserve each other.
Damned good question, BAC - it wasn't jet fuel or burning furniture! Well ......? (Aren't you glad you brough it up?)
The details are unimportant, BAC, the fact that it was confirmed is quite enough. Something is radically wrong in the 'official' story. (Aren't you glad that you brought it up?) Well, ....., your queerness? Got an answer?
It's not an animal, it's a dog!! If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty.
.
you are a complete idiot. Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it. I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical. and I've been telling you that this is a smoking gun which means beyond a shadow of a doubt that the buildings were sabotaged by forces unrelated to the jet airplanes that crashed into them. And you are now saying that there was no molten steel because molten steel could not have been caused by jet fuel and jet fuel is the only solution to the problem you think. I've said 'NO!!!!!' - there was thermite also and it was put there by the saboteurs who were in league with the terrorists. It is the only logical solution to the problem we're presented with. While I solve the problem and you say that I'm a liar you are busy denying that the evidence is the evidence.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If there was molten steel, then all of the other metals with lower melting points would probably have alloyed with it. Copper, tin, lead, bronze all melt at much lower temperatures than steel. A puddle of molten steel buried in construction debris would probably have other metals from conduits, nails, wirs and such melted in with it. The point is chooser's allegation that it was "metal" and not 100% pure virgin steel is just a diversion from the real issue.
.
If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty. LOL!
This picture shows well that when a male has no heart, they say the Pledge of Allegiance with hand over stomach. ;-D [BAC #42] Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. According to #38 and #40, posters reported you are a Treasonous FELLOW. Are you a FELLOW? Regarding the USS Liberty, I asked BAC if, "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." BAC responded that he had "No Opinion." Have you been able to nut up yet and form an opinion? Or do you still passionately cling to "No Opinion?" According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says. Perhaps 12 posts a day are more than BAC can handle. There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the ." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of ." [11]
Look what BeAChooser posted the other day over on Log Cabin .... #29. To: Muscle Butt (#17) I'm not really attacted to women, but I do like Goldi over on LP. I guess this is because she sort of looks like a guy. I have a fantasy about giving her a blow job. But don't take that to mean I'm gay. BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-15 09:12:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
he doesn't even have to open his mouth to show how dopey he is.
I thought you claimed to be a Summa Cum Laude? I now question that since I suspect most with such credentials would have readily understood that I was referring to the type of metal. Did they test that? But thermite or thermate bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. So that can't be what kept the temperatures high enough to keep the steel molten (assuming it was steel) throughout that time? So what was that source of heat? Right. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state. There was a time when BAC did accept the witness statements, the photographs etc showing tht the steel was in a liquid state weeks after the event. and the only possible thing that could've kept it in that molten state was a chemical like thermite. which means absoluteproof, a smoking gun showing sabotage unrelated to the jet fuel. and we showed him this 4 years ago. and he's just realizing its true and now he must deny that there was molten steel in order to support his conspiracy theory. but there was molten steel. and even the workers & firemen on the job site where they removed the debris were freely saying that there was molten steel even 4 & 5 weeks after the event. he's reduced to having to change the known facts in the equation to fit his conspiracy theory.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC, they didn't have anything tested. they purposely avoided and prevented testing even. the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker. the authorities were purposely not allowing any testing to be done. now I'd think they refer to it as molten steel because it looked like molten steel. and the structure of the building was primarilly steel. this is kind of like 'obvious to the casual observer' stuff that doesn't require testing for one to think that it was molten steel. was it molten aluminum because there was a lot of aluminum on the exterior of building? Well these molten steel pools were found in the interior of the pile. and aluminum will look different than steel.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The sad part is that there is no scientific data available on the air contaminants at the 9-11 WTC. BAC screwed up by addressing the topic, but the long-lasting thermal signature poses as much a mystery as the two missing 9-11 aircraft. Those are two answers that I don't have.
well I wish you luck over at Log Cabin Club's discussion forum. If you like hanging out with Ralphie & Muscle Butt & Long-Joe or whatever his name is, and if you have this fantasy fixation for Goldi - well that's your business and I wish you luck. I just want to remind you that I told you the molten steel pools were a smoking gun 4 years ago. and you began to spam me like crazy with all kinds of ridiculous arguments. But you accepted that the molten steel pools were real because we showed you evidence of this. and now you've finally figured out (4 years later) that there couldn't have been any molten steel pools (or aluminum either you idiot) 4 weeks after the event unless a chemical was used to melt the steel and the chemical continually interacted. I know this because of my background in studying engineering at the university as I told you. and I realized this instantly and told everyone that it was a smoking gun. and you took 4 years to figure it out. and now in reaction to finally figuring it out you deny that the molten steel pools exist. That is why you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! I suppose if you want to continue having those exciting dates with Jeff Gannon as you told us, then you have to deny certain realities so that you can fit in politically with those Republican QUEERS! To be a Republican QUEER! is to be a TREASONOUS QUEER! by definition. and if it's your chosen lifestyle, then I say go for it. but how come you don't tell us whether you are the boy or the girl in these dates you have with Jeff Gannon and other Republicans apparently. Sure am glad Trace came on and confirmed this, I knew from the way you talked that you were TREASONOUS QUEER!, but Trace has confirmed it and now everyone knows.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Thank you for the kind words. BAC is a fun kind of guy. He will ignore or deny that another of his posts has been documented as nonsense. He really does not care. When I want to tweak him, I ask him about Jonathan Pollard or the USS Liberty or UN Resolutions that condemned Israel. The protocol his ilk follows does not allow him to respond or engage in argument on those subjects, or any subject that tends to cast Israel or Zionists in a bad light. It is sort of like sprinkling holy water on a vampire. "Be A Chihuahua" answers to some Big Dog who keeps him on a leash. There is a good vision of "Be A Chihuahua" - a little pipsqueak dog barking and making noise, and straining against his leash. His only accomplishment seems to be making noise and chihuahua poop.
Never mind that Jones is a physicist who spent the last 30 years looking at nothing but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Never mind that he's not a chemist or a metallurgist ... i.e., someone qualified to make such a determination. For the record, he didn't do tests that confirmed the material was molten steel (http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html ). And his tests for the presence of thermite/thermate consisted of looking for the compounds associated with thermite/thermate. But guess what? Those compounds existed in the very structure of the WTC towers in large quantities. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to detect them. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to produce a situation where those types of reactions could occur. This fact is carefully examined in the following article by Dr Greening who, unlike Ex-Professor Jones, really is a chemist with metallurgical experience. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf He doesn't rule out the possibility that aluminum related reactions occurred in the WTC rubble. On the contrary, he examines that possibility and finds that it was quite likely to have occurred. And he's not to first to suggest this. As noted in his article, "the idea that molten aluminum-thermite reactions may have been involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers is not new. It was first proposed by S. Ashley in an October 2001 article published in Scientific American. Ashley noted that the aviation fuel fires in the Twin Towers burned sufficiently hot to melt and even ignite the airliners". But Greening's work expands on that possibility, showing that "tinue to burn at high temperatures for weeks on end. As he concluded, "simply put, thermite-induced reactions WERE largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City -- but the fatal damage was NOT from deliberately planted thermite charges." But thermite bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. There is one of the fatal flaws in your thesis. Something else must have provided the heat to keep the steel (if that's what it was) molten throughout that time. What? I'm still waiting for an answer from you. No, I am not. I'm simply saying there's no definitive proof that the molten materials that were seen were steel. And that there are other ways that temperatures high enough to melt steel AND KEEP IT HOT could have been produced without resorting to thermite bombs and time-delayed thermite bombs. I'm saying that someone with the credentials of Dr Greening has a lot more credibility than someone with the credentials of Jones, when it comes to the chemical reactions that took place at the WTC site on 9/11 and thereafter.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact. The fact is that several individuals he quotes in his out of context fashion, have made statements in technical reports and other venues that directly contradict what Bollyn claims they said. You wish to ignore what I posted about that, fine. Ignore it but I'm sure any visitor to 4um who chances upon this thread will grasp the significance of you ignoring the criticisms I leveled about that claim. I'm curious, what is a molten steel BEAM? Didn't 4um's very own Summa Cum Laude just get done telling us that if something is molten it is a liquid? And how did Greg Fuchek learn this? Was he told this? Did he see the steel beams himself? Has he the training to know if it was steel? And perhaps it was. SO WHAT? You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel. Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
A "chemical like thermite"? Oh. So now you are postulating two different types of thermite related bombs in the WTC towers? One to burn quickly and cause the collapse and one to burn slowly over time and keep things hot. Now why would the folks who placed those bombs feel the need for this second type of thermite bomb, RJ? Or couldn't the chemical reactions Dr Greening discussed be the "chemical like thermite" you now see the need for? And if Dr Greening is right, then tell us why we need thermite to explain the molten steel in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That's false. The steel sample that Jones tested came from a "monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York", ACCORDING TO JONES. You can confirm this by going to Jones' own talks on this subject. You like to make up things. Just like that claim of 60 + POOLS of molten steel in the basement of the Towers that you repeated over and over at LP. You made that up, didn't you? You make up the claim about being a Summa Cum Laude too?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I thought he was only supposed to have 10 posts. What is he doing with 15? 15 is too many. He will get obnoxious again.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&search=thermite%20liquid%20nitrogen Youtube - Thermite vs. Liquid Nitrogen Thermite defeats liquid nitrogen. http://www.veronicachapman.com/checktheevidence/Thermite.htm side-by-side demo of molten metal falling from WTC-2, and a Thermite Reaction demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0a6eNw98A Yellow smoke emitted at ground level? Anybody have an explanation for this one? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg discussion in firehouse http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek: Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating. Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail. I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder: 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = - 853.5 kJ/mole. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal! The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated: None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis. Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.) ... Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 °C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite). ... We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 °C -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 °C) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse. ... THERMITE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Types Black or blue iron oxide (Fe3O4), produced by oxidizing iron in an oxygen-rich environment under high heat, is the most commonly used thermite oxidizing agent because it is inexpensive and easily produced. Red iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3, commonly known as rust) can also be used to make thermite and yields a significantly more energetic reaction. Other oxides are occasionally used, such as in manganese thermite and chromium thermite, but only for highly specialized purposes. Both examples use aluminium as the reactive metal. In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum. This is rarely done, however, because the properties of aluminium are ideal for this reaction. It is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2519°C, 4566°F) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[2] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2887 °C and 2582 °C respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1090 °C and 883 °C respectively). Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. Ignition Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature. Often, strips of magnesium metal are used as fuses. Magnesium burns at approximately the temperature at which thermite reacts, around 2500 K (4000 °F or 2204.44 °C). However, this method is notoriously unreliable: Magnesium itself is difficult to ignite, and in windy or wet conditions the strip may be extinguished. Also, magnesium strips do not contain their own source of oxygen so combustion cannot occur unless the magnesium strips are exposed to air. A significant danger of magnesium ignition is the fact that the metal is an excellent conductor of heat; heating one end of the ribbon may cause the other end to transfer enough heat to the thermite to cause premature ignition. Despite these issues, magnesium ignition remains popular amongst amateur thermite users, mainly because of its abundance and the fact that it can be easily obtained. The reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerine is used as an alternative to the magnesium method. When these two substances mix, a spontaneous reaction will begin, slowly increasing the temperature of the mixture until flames are produced. The heat released by the oxidation of glycerine is sufficient to initiate a thermite reaction. However, this method can also be unreliable and the delay between mixing and ignition can vary greatly due to factors such as particle size and ambient temperature. Apart from magnesium ignition, some amateurs also choose to use sparklers to ignite the thermite mixture. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample. However, not all sparklers work. Sparklers used for the ignition of thermite must contain a mixture of aluminium and an iron oxide themselves. This ensures that the reaction from the sparkler produces enough heat to ignite the thermite mixture. A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered Fe(III) oxide and aluminum may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.
Yes, you have a habit of concentrating on the irrelevant and making believe you are asserting some relevant point rather than BeAChihuahua poop. As is typical of your DISHONEST crap, you stopped quoting just before the quote destroyed the non-point you wished to make. In BeAChihuahua #42, You very selectively quoted as follows: Let us examine a more complete quote of what I posted at #33: Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. While those that I quoted noted what Christopher Bollyn had reported, those that I quoted, had you continued to the sentence after where you deliberately stopped quoting, rendered their opinion that the American Free Press report of Christopher Bollyn was suspect for two reasons, and then they provided those reasons. You may address Christopher Bollyn all you want. I did not quote Christopher Bollyn, and those I did quote rendered their opinion that the Bollyn report was suspect and used a source of doubtful credibility. Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
BeAChihuahua, how would you extinguish a thermite reaction that has a supply of fuel to burn? It does not need a supply of oxygen. It is impervious to water. Forget cold water, it can boil liquid nitrogen. A thermite reaction burns extremely hot. What method would you use to stop it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air.
Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat? While you are ever creative, I did not proffer any theory of what collapsed the towers. I have proffered the immutable truth that BAC is full of crap. Perhaps the molten steel at the WTC was not steel at all. Perhaps the building was secretly constructed of kryptonite and it was really molten kryptonite. What we can readily discount is the BAC bullcrap that it could have been aluminum, perhaps from a jetliner. The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel, your theory about forces unknown to any man other than Fox Mulder will only ignite a dim bulb such as yourself.
Who is the author of this? Ex-Professor Jones, SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE PHYSICIST? ROTFLOL! Except that NONE of the examples that follow that statement actually refer to molten metal IN THE BASEMENTS. I notice you didn't even try to tell me what continuing source of heat kept this molten steel in a molten state for SIX WEEKS after the collapse of the towers? Why not? Why do you completely ignore what Dr Greening (a real chemist and metallurgist) has to say? Or do you really think that it was so well insulated that it just retained the heat that it initially got from the thermite bombs? Is that your *theory*?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Listen-up, BAC, you asshole - You're apparently in league with the super-extended temperatures; so what would cause them, besides something on the order of controlled demolition - call it sabotage? Thermite? Thermate? Micro-nukes? What's your take, BAC? Well ....? You're endorsing the controlled WTC demolition, whether you like it, or not. (Bad to use the 'cheerleader' image on Christine, by the way. Coupled with your persistent refusal to capitalize her name, you're losing a lot of points.
Glad to hear you think Bollyn is not credible. Red Jones and others will be disappointed. Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site. Which reduces the rest of your post to wasted effort. What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
There's the rub, BAC. The required temperature would disintigrate anything near it. What could be so hot that any form of 'normal' temperature loss would be so slow. That defies anyone's imagination. Especially with so many millions of gallons of water being poured onto the site. My temptation is to discount the reported temperatures, but I keep seeing evidence that the temperature reports are correct. I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks. In any case, the issues totally destroy your assertions that anything expected could possibly do the damage to the WTC buildings. That takes us back to the Bush Cabal players and the Mossad. Well .....? Give us a clue, BAC - you're hooked-up.
And you don't pimp yourself out to pro-Israeli boiler-room operations either?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
wikipedia? ROTFLOL! Don't you find it odd that not one REAL expert in metals or chemistry or fire or structures or demolition has come forward to echo that claim ... which Ex-Professor Jones (sub-atomic particle physicist) makes? So let's examine that claim by quoting some former members of the 9/11 truth movement. ********** http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues, "…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])." We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature. At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it. Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained. If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C? Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature) Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a). Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures. Note that the emissivity of Aluminum increases with temperature. **************** And how about this? Ex-Professor Jones claims that "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." But that isn't true. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is very clearly silver ... NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying. Maybe Reynolds and Woods are finally right about something. ROTFLOL! But it does get consumed. So unless you are postulating (like Red Jones) a form of thermite that burns for a long time (weeks), you have a problem. You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. And again, you don't seem to grasp that I'm not arguing against a thermite reaction in the rubble pile. After all, I'm the one posting Dr Greening's work and he says that thermite type reactions played a role in what happened on 9/11. He just shows that the source of the chemicals needed for that reaction is a lot more mundane than the thermite bombs you postulate. But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site. Now it's your turn. Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You believe SKYDRIFTER, don't you nolu? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Did you have a part in killing this guy? Life is short, eternity isn't. ~ God
God is always good! How well aquainted are you with Achmed Chalabi?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Soft? Heck the video evidence is the best evidence out there that the government did 9/11. Citing people who don't believe the WTC towers were struck by planes doesn't help your credibility chooser. Oh, I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with knocking of 9/11 truthers, you are just a keyboard warrior.
God is always good! WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long. The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did. If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction? What chemical extinguishes a thermite reaction?
Comments (85 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#45. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#41)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#46. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#42)
#47. To: BeAChooser (#42)
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#42)
According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel?
#49. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#44)
They deserve each other.
#50. To: Red Jones (#48)
#51. To: ... (#47)
It's not an animal, it's a dog!!
#52. To: christine (#51)
#53. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Trace21231, ..., christine (#42)
Corroborating Reports
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding . [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the , the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
#54. To: Red Jones (#49)
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
#55. To: nolu_chan (#53)
#56. To: christine (#55)
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#58. To: Red Jones, ALL (#43)
did they have it tested? you are an idiot. You don't have to test such a thing. You just have to look at 2 things - the color and the state of plasticity or liquidity. If it is orange or red, then it is near molten and far hotter than any jet fuel can get it. and if it is liquid it is actually molten which is an amazing thing.
You ask 'what continuing source of heat kept this steel in molten state for weeks'. I have been telling you for 4 years that the only possible thing that could've done that is thermite or thermate or some other chemical related bomb.
You are an idiot BAC.
#59. To: SKYDRIFTER (#45)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#60. To: BeAChooser (#58)
#61. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#59)
#62. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#58)
#63. To: christine (#55)
#64. To: Red Jones, ALL (#48)
Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it.
I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical.
And you are now saying that there was no molten steel
#65. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#53)
According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press.
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
#66. To: christine, nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#55)
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
#67. To: Red Jones, ALL (#59)
"What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11? "
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state.
#68. To: Red Jones, ALL (#60)
the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker.
#69. To: Christine (#66)
(Edited)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#70. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Red Jones (#65)
'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#65)
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact.
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
#72. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Red Jones (#66)
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
#73. To: BeAChooser (#65)
You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
#74. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#70)
http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example,
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.
#75. To: beachooser, Christine, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#66)
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
#76. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#71)
Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
#77. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#76)
What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
#78. To: BeAChooser (#76)
Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site
#79. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#73)
The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite 
Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with. 
Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window. 
Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart 
Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart 
Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. 
Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69] 
Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" 
(a) Water at -10 to 0°C 
Some liquid at 25°C 
Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C 
Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C 
Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C 
Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). 
Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel
#80. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#77)
SKYDRIFTER - I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks.
#81. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Zebuhr
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: BeAChooser (#80)
#83. To: BeAChooser (#79)
He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#84. To: BeAChooser (#79)
But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site.
.
.
.