WTC7 again.

[Rheghead]

And the pools of molten steel came from where?

Which pools of steel?

[fred]

Which pools of steel?

See what I mean roy?

A complete waste of time.

[crayola]

You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.

The only forces present on the day, according to the official story were heat in the form of carbon fires and gravity. Yet:

1. All three towers fell symetrically therefore all the support columns must have failed at exactly the same time, how is this possible?

2. Huge steel girders were ejected 600ft horizontally from the towers, how is this possible?

3. Most of the concrete in the towers was pulverised into fine dust, how is this possible?

4. The towers fell at almost freefall speed, how is this possible?

5. Pools of molten steel were found under the buildings, how is this possible?

Just the other day a former American four star General, Wesley Clark said in an interview that just days after 9/11 someone at the Pentagon showed him detailed plans for America to take out seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Afghanistan makes eight,
I don't believe plans to take out eight countries arose as a result of 9/11 or were concieved so soon after 9/11, logic tells me that 9/11 arose as a result of those plans.

fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of questions and present them as incontestable answers. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me?

[Rheghead]

It must have been real hot to make cuts like these.

I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.

[fred]

fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of questions and present them as incontestable answers. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me?

Oh I think I could snuck out without them noticing

[fred]

I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.

They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.

Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.

[Blazing Sporrans]

They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.

Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.

It might just be me fred, however this is where I perceive the problem is - the credibility of your sources. I have lifted this quote from the second link/article which you have posted;

"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."

The temperature must have varied much higher than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, else the workers could not have pulled a steel beam from the wreckage that was still dripping "molten steel". I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of metallurgy could be written on the rear of a postage stamp, however I'm sure I read somewhere on this thread that the melting point of steel was in excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, therefore you'll have to excuse my use of that information if it's wrong.

You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information and misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.

[fred]

You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information and misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.

There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.

[Rheghead]

They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.

Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.

What pools of steel in them links?

[Blazing Sporrans]

There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.

But he doesn't say that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to interpret it, hence my earlier comment. I would much rather have read somewhere in the article that in the core of the rubble, the measured temperatures reached in excess of 2000 degrees, however that fact is lacking from your quoted source. Also the variation of ground temperature between 1500 degrees and 900 degrees must have affected the core temperature in a similar way, assuming that the author is actually referring to the surface temperature at ground zero - which might be hard to believe given the high temperatures quoted. You have referred to the surface temperature in your response to me, however your quoted source doesn't use the word surface. At such temperatures those involved in the clear-up wouldn't have been able to get near the site. See fred, everything that's unqualified is open to individual interpretation.

Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs, because I prefer to deal in absolutes, i.e. when acknowledged experts reach a consensus of opinion on a subject or when I can speak to evidence through my own personal experience. Instead all I seem to see on this thread is something that at best can be summed up as "east is east and west is west"...

[fred]

But he doesn't say that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to interpret it, hence my earlier comment.

It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant. If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.

Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.

Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs,

You are splitting hairs, no doubt about it.

[Blazing Sporrans]

It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant.

Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).

That's what I love about your debating skills fred, your 100% belief in yourself. Don't get me wrong - that's a good trait to have - however it's often helped by being appropriately armed with facts rather than your own, self-endowed, expert opinion.

Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.

An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....

[Blazing Sporrans]

If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.

Of course he's talking about the surface, that's why he says ground frost, not underground frost

[fred]

Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).

It's just plain old common sense.

An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....

You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.

[Blazing Sporrans]

It's just plain old common sense.

You do yourself a disservice here fred, it's not common at all mate - it's almost unique to you

You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.

Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground. Try it fred and let me know exactly how long it stays red hot for. I remember my 'O' grade physics teaching me heat loss using the formula "delta h = c m delta t" but I can't even begin to fathom the original temperature required, or the mass of the heated object that would sustain heat loss, yet allow such a high temperature (surface or core) to persist for such a long time in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought you'd already decided that the combustion of kerosene was insufficient to reach the temperatures required to melt steel, so what is the heat source that allows the steel at ground zero to remain molten for so long afterwards? Planting explosives is one thing, but providing a huge fuel source is another entirely. But what do I know? After all, I split too many hairs to be able to comprehend the magnitude of fred's enlightened reason....

[fred]

Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground.

No, the concrete dust and the air trapped in it would have excelent insulating properties as does the ground. In the days before refrigerators they burried ice in winter and it stayed frozen all summer.

Look, they were pulling out lumps of red hot metal with molten steel dripping from it for weeks, there is masses of eye witness testimony, photographic and video evidence to prove it.

See this
video. There was molten steel flowing from the towers on 9/11.

See this
video. There were rivers of molten steel in the buildings.

See this video made 6 weeks later.

See this photo, it was taken 8 weeks later, they were still pulling out lumps of red hot metal dripping with molten steel then.


The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.

[Rheghead]

The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.

I think you have been had Fred. That picture is looks doctored to me.

[fred]

I think you have been had Fred. That picture is looks doctored to me.

I think you are just in a state of denial.

It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.

Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.

[rambler]

The evidence that there was plenty of molten steel is overwhelming. Loads of firefighters and other rescue peronnel have confirmed that and this all is well documented.

Can please anybody can come forward with an evidence based explanation that there was no molten steel? Are all those firemen and pictures telling lies? People have pulled out lengths of steel beams out of the rubble of the buildings and they clearly said that the ends were still molten. They have provided pictures too. Those are the lads that were there and they did a hefty job! Now those of you that are in constant denial, what qualifies you to discard those statements?

[Rheghead]

I think you are just in a state of denial.

It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.

Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.

I am not in denial, I think you are the one who is in denial. Just have a look at the picture again, it is totally false.



First off, I have worked in a foundry and I am familiar with the properties of molten metal.

The colour of the dropping molten blobs of steel is wrong. They should be yellow-yellow/white. Anything more orange will be solid, the blobs are orange/red. Molten steel gives off lots of light and would be almost impossible to look at with the naked eye, yet men are working on it with just a JCB!

Even the white smoke/steam is brighter than the molten metal!!

The photo was taken at night, so the brightest thing there should be the molten metal. So where is the 'shine' reflecting from the surrounding pieces of debris? There is none.

Plus there is something very odd with the bottom part of the 'molten' bit, it has a straight horizontal line underneath where one shade of orange changes to a brighter shade of orange, as if it has been pasted on.

The photograph, clearly has the molten steel in a similiar contrast as the background and foreground. Any photo would be impossible to create naturally as the molten steel would over-expose the shot and send the background and foreground into blackness. It clearly doesn't. The correct effect is created where the lights over-expose the film on the right of the photo. You clearly see the light's 'aurora' bleeding over the darkened debris, the same should be seen with the bright steel.

It is a fake photo, a good attempt but clearly a fake.