Why???

[Peter Frank]

Molten steel at ground zero -- six weeks after 911...

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

[Peter Frank]

1. More here...

http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=23&t=23

[sabbat hunter]

2. not one

not one of those links that are posted on the parapolitics site links to any article that talks about molten metal found weeks after at the WTC 1 and 2. the only thing that even comes close is a movie review. but not a news story.
and anotehr talks about her walking thru molten metal. if she did that she wouldnt be here right now
sorry.

try again please

[JackRiddler]

3. Completely untrue

Thanks to your statement, I went and checked every single link from the parapolitics article. An annoying but necessary hour.

Almost all of the links work.

Some lead to summaries for pay per view articles or were dead. I was able to reach all of these by googling key phrases or finding the articles on Lexis. (With the exception of Langewiesche in the Atlantic.) Some get you PDFs of various publications.

The "movie" you disparage as a source is a documentary, the quote from a Ground Zero worker as reproduced in a NY Post review.

ALL OF THE QUOTES AS PRESENTED IN PARAPOLITICS CHECK OUT. EVERY SINGLE ONE (except the one I didn't find). None were out of context or unfairly represented. Several were from hardcore WoT supporters, but they each claimed to have seen what they are quoted as claiming to have seen: molten metal, molten steel, "rivers of molten metal," etc.

So, sabbathunter, what is your motivation in posting this untruth? Are you

a) simply incompetent in research?

b) lazy, checked one or two links, dismissed the rest based on your prejudice?

c) actively lying to poison the atmosphere, in the assumption that people will accept what you say, dismiss this thread, and no one will bother to check for themselves?

Please pick one.

[sabbat hunter]

4. one by one

NYT article pay per view

second link, the article doesnt quote her as saying anything about molten steel and fires but just says it as a matter of fact.
link three nothing about molten steel at WTC 1 and 2
link 4 documentary review
link 5 nothing about motlen metal there
link 6a is about WTC 7 where there was an intense fire fueled by thousands of gallons of kerosine. but nothing about molten steel at towers 1,2
link 6b link to a definition of evaporation
link 7 link to amazon about a book. havent read the book so dont know what actually is inside. dont see any indication on the website that it is about molten metal at WTC 1 or 2 though
link 8 talks about a tour and what might have been said. i doubt if there was any giant conspiracy that this person would have been allowed to see slides of molten metal. but no proof there either
link 9 nope no molten metal there either
link 10 no saying where they saw or have proof of molten steel 21 days later. (need to back up accusations like that)
link 11 uses the claim of "Firemen told us" but mentions none by name.hmm interesting but why no specifics?
do i need to continue


so lets see out of the first 11 links 0 are credible or dont even mention molten steel.

riddle me this jackriddle do you personally attack everyone who doenst agree with you and conspiracy theories around 9/11?

[Peter Frank]

8. self delete

[hack89]

5. There is no mention of molten steel ..

just red hot steel - huge difference considering that steel becomes red hot around 1200 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (649 to 816 degrees Celsius) and glows orange at about 1800 F (982 C). Fires were burning in the rubble pile for months and surface temperatures of over 1000 C were measured

Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[jschurchin]

6. Excellent article Hack.........

Thank You for the link.

[MrSammo1]

14. the lower part would be glowing dull red

Really?

dull red?

http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/

[hack89]

16. Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

My first sentence says steel "glows orange at about 1800 F (982 C)" and you show a piece of steel glowing a nice orange color - you just provided photographic confirmation that the temps in the rubble pile were accurately measured.

[MrSammo1]

17. So what caused the orange glow?

jet fuel?

[hack89]

19. Lets think about this...

What was burning in the towers before they collapsed and how much of that flammable material was still left to burn in the rubble pile? Think how many tons of paper, furnishings and computers were in the towers. There were thousands of cars in the parking garages - how many gallons of gas is that?
Modern office buildings are packed with things that burn.

[libertypirate]

21. Dude we have been through this and you suck at it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=63126&mesg_id=63126

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=63721&mesg_id=63721

Bottom line if you believe that organic material could burn hot enough to cause bright orange red hot or even salmon color metal your a freakin loon.

Does anyone know of any fuel that could have been found in quantities at the WTC which could raise the temperature of metal to the point where it would melt and remain their for what has been reported to be more than a month? I have been waiting for this answer while looking for it and your dumb ass comes up with cars in the parking garage. I would call that running out of ideas or spinning into a wall.

Underground fires don't burn hot and efficient they burn smothered and lacking the conditions to reach any kind of temperature found at WTC sight.

Why does it seem like your always spinning the facts?

[hack89]

22. The OP's clip does not talk of molten metal..

just metal glowing red hot - the fire fighter even says "it must be at least 1500 degrees.." As far as I am concerned he has presented an eyewitness account that supports the official story.

A simple challenge to you - can you explain in a couple of sentences(and in your own words) what created the heat in the rubble pile? Can you explain the combustion products that were measured in the air?

If you cannot explain what happened perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the issue as well as you think. Anyone fool can ask questions all day - why can't you provide answers?

[libertypirate]

24. How? Even your wishful thinking doesn't support the 'fairy tale version'

"Can you explain the combustion products that were measured in the air? "

At sea level, cool dense moist air do you want a whoopin?

I don't have to explain something that with all availible materials is impossible. You are asking me the question I asked you pathetic.

"it must be at least 1500 degrees.." under optimal conditions 1500 is the maximum temperature that hydrocarbons can reach. Since we are talking about a smothered fire, meaning one lacking the optimal rate of combustion your bullshit is highly, improvably unlikely. I don't think you yourself can even rate how full of shit you actually are.

Now what kind of fuel existed at that site to create such heat for six weeks? I am still waiting, can you hear me now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

Complete combustion - Optimal conditions

In complete combustion, the reactant will burn in oxygen, producing a limited number of products. When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will only yield carbon dioxide and water. When elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are burned, they will yield the most common oxides. Carbon will yield carbon dioxide. Nitrogen will yield nitrogen dioxide. Sulfur will yield sulfur dioxide. Iron will yield iron(III) oxide. Complete combustion is generally impossible to achieve unless the reaction occurs where conditions are carefully controlled (e.g. in a lab environment).


Incomplete combustion - Not so optimal conditions

In incomplete combustion there is an inadequate supply of oxygen for the combustion to occur completely. The reactant will burn in oxygen, but will produce numerous products. When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will yield carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various other compounds such as nitrogen oxides. Incomplete combustion is much more common and will produce large amounts of byproducts, and in the case of burning fuel in automobiles, these byproducts can be quite lethal and damaging to the environment.

[hack89]

27. Lets consider some possible scenarios

Why don't we put what I believe aside for a moment and talk about what you believe, for I might be willing to believe you if you could simply give me an alternative to believe in.

There are a couple of alternatives to consider:

1. The steel was heated at the time of collapse and remained red hot for several months without additional heat being added.

2. The heating process took place over several months as fires in the rubble pile kept burning. The fuel source was in rubble pile at the time of collapse.

Can you even pick between these two simple alternatives? Do you have a third we might consider?

[libertypirate]

30. My money is on number one, a third is possible

temperatures of 1500 degrees from hydrocarbon exist within a very specific set of conditions. A limited set of conditions would work as well to describe what is needed to reach such temperatures. Nothing close to a pile of rubble...

Are you trying to say that very rare conditions existed in this pile of rubble? In multiple places within that pile? The kind which almost always require a laboratory setting to reach.

Not to add your additional problem because we humor you and your friends by not including the evidence of higher temperatures melted steel and such. You try again to make the case with your limiting perspective which disregards the fact that in no way is what you are attempting to prove plausible unless under a very finite set conditions. Like the ones in a lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

Complete combustion - Optimal conditions

In complete combustion, the reactant will burn in oxygen, producing a limited number of products. When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will only yield carbon dioxide and water. When elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are burned, they will yield the most common oxides. Carbon will yield carbon dioxide. Nitrogen will yield nitrogen dioxide. Sulfur will yield sulfur dioxide. Iron will yield iron(III) oxide. Complete combustion is generally impossible to achieve unless the reaction occurs where conditions are carefully controlled (e.g. in a lab environment).

[hack89]

38. So lets take this a step further..

1. If the temperature of the steel was 1500 after a month or so, what was it's initial temperature?

2. What could have possible gotten the steel so hot?

3. Are you saying that the rubble pile was near perfect insulator to maintain such temperatures for so long? Is this a rare or common condition for rubble piles?

[libertypirate]

39. Why do you want difinitive answers to what can't be defined

1. I don't know but it really doesn't matter, the fact is that nothing in any of the three collapsed buildings was capable of the 1500F.

2. Maybe what brought down the buildings? Fire or Exposives (We have history which indicates one brings buildings down, and the other brings 3 buildings down on one day but never any other time.

3. I can't speak to the consistency of the pile. Furthermore it is really not important to understand the point that hydrocarbons can only do what you are telling people then can in a labratory environment. Which is not a pile of rubble...

[hack89]

41. But you were able to research and document all the flaws..

in the official story so wonderfully. Why are you unable to provide the same level of scholarship to prove what happened? Are you saying that anything outside of the official story is outside of science and not available on the internet?

1. Of course it matters - if your CT defies known science than perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. Stop evading important question.

2. How do high explosives melt steel? They use high pressure shock waves to shatter steel. Do you really understand demolition and explosives?

3. We have moved on, please keep up. The issue is whether it is physically possible for the steel to stay red hot in the rubble pile. For if it is not, than continues heating is the only possible mechanism left.

[libertypirate]

42. These auxilary things only matter when a point such as

the temperatures your telling people are possible from hydrocarbons are only possible in a lab situation.

You are desparately seeking to change this subject.

[hack89]

43. No - you are avoiding the issue..

of what could have heated the steel if it was not fires. My points are at the very heart of our debate - you cannot explain what happened so you dismiss it as not important. You have no clue what you are talking about and can't even begin to explain what happened. Why am I expected to accept some CT if you can't articulate it. What am I supposed to believe in place of the official story? Are all your strongly held believes so well thought out?

[libertypirate]

47. He said she said now because I made a point to your rambling...

Here is what you said:

What was burning in the towers before they collapsed and how much of that flammable material was still left to burn in the rubble pile? Think how many tons of paper, furnishings and computers were in the towers. There were thousands of cars in the parking garages - how many gallons of gas is that?
Modern office buildings are packed with things that burn.

There is a simple point to all this your right which is you reserve the right to avoid reality. By focusing on the limp questions which could be reasoned either way you avoid the truth.

1500 degress does not equal all the crap in those two buildings, the simple fact still remains avoided by you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

Complete combustion - Optimal conditions

In complete combustion, the reactant will burn in oxygen, producing a limited number of products. When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will only yield carbon dioxide and water. When elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are burned, they will yield the most common oxides. Carbon will yield carbon dioxide. Nitrogen will yield nitrogen dioxide. Sulfur will yield sulfur dioxide. Iron will yield iron(III) oxide. Complete combustion is generally impossible to achieve unless the reaction occurs where conditions are carefully controlled (e.g. in a lab environment).

This is not as limp as the wishy washy BS you try and boost as reality. Its a fact, a simple one that in a lot of ways shows exactly what stripes people wear. The fact is the temperatures in the rubble pile could not have happened according to the official story, because of the conditions required for hydrocarbons to reach such an extreem rate of cumbustion do not exist but in a labratory.

I don't have to believe the facts, people who avoid them have to believe they are right. What is the value of belief, if instead I could know?

[hack89]

49. OK n/t

[hack89]

53. But you do agree...

that because no cause can be found, red hot steel in the rubble pile is not conclusive proof of demolition but is simply a mystery to be investigated further?

[libertypirate]

56. a mystery that is not a random coincidence,

I agree this is not something that one should draw overall conclusions from, but it does restrict the possibilities of what caused specifically such heat to exist for so long. Not voodoo but a remaining set of questions to be asked by those that seek to find the answers.

I am not going to infer that it is difficult from here to achieve understanding of the possibilities if you wish to please by all means; but spare us "the well get back to you shtick, when we find better understanding".

PS You guy's remind me of my kids hampster round and round and round and round well you know the rest.. :)

[AZCat]

40. Where did you get your information on...

the maximum temperature reached from hydrocarbon combusion?

[MrSammo1]

7. It was molten!

http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/

[LARED]

9. How do you figure it's molten?

I don't see any melted steel in that image

[MrSammo1]

11. Sorry...........

it's only like taffy!

Got me!

[Jose Diablo]

44. Actually, looking at the bottom of the slug of steel

It looks like molten steel dripping from the bottom. I'd find it hard to believe that an oxygen starved fire, under tons of debris would be able to heat steel to, what would you say it is, maybe 21-2200 degrees? It looks likes sparks from a acetylene torch dripping from the bottom.

Now say the metal continued to be heated, without oxygen, then wouldn't it be logical to think about what sort of chemical reaction could it be that can continue to burn without air.

How about the reaction: Fe2O3(s) + 2Al(s) → Al2O3(s) + 2Fe(s); ΔH = -851.5 kJ/mol, started just before the towers came down and continuing under the debris to heat the iron for weeks.

[LARED]

45. Your chemical reaction is obviously

the one for thermite. Care to explain how a thermite reaction goes on for a month or two. It is an intensely reactive mix, that consume reactants very quickly. Where did all this material come from?

[Jose Diablo]

46. Your the smart guy, or is it wise guy

Why don't you first explain how the steel became molten, as in the image.

[LARED]

48. I'm not proposing Thermite caused the molten metal

8 weeks after the collapse, you are.

It's your theory, I'm simply challenging you to explain it. How I think the metal became molten has nothing to do with your theory. When I post one feel free to challenge me.

[Christophera]

57. Mass Of Molten Metal From Thermite, Covered With Burning Debris Can Stay

molten for a month.

Think about it.




Say 20 tons of tempered steel originally melted at 3000 F in 4 seconds or so, flowing into the low points, covered, insulated and even warmed by flamable materials igniting.

The thickness of the puddle is proportionate to the time it takes to cool solid.

[LARED]

58. Perhaps you should think about

how much energy it takes to melt 40,000 of steel in 4 seconds.....or so.

It's only about 4,200,000 BTU's or 63,000,000 BTU'S per minute or 3.8 Billion BTU's per hour.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

12. AFP

american free press is an antisemetic hate site. not a legitimate news source.

[MrSammo1]

13. Why is that?

[sabbat hunter]

15. why is what?

AFP is a antisemetic site. it talks about how the Zionists have not allowed chemical or biological attacks in the US because too many jews would die in them, etc.

[MrSammo1]

18. And what if that

happens to be true?

Should that be censored?

[hack89]

20. No - but their commitment to the truth must be questioned. nt

[MrSammo1]

25. No - but their commitment to the truth must be questioned

How are you going to question anything by censoring? Including "their" commitment to the truth?

911 itself is a perfect example. Should we not discuss the subject simply because it's not emotional satisfying?

All societies around the world suffer from the same dilemma. There are both good and bad in people.

Is Israel somehow immune to this fact?

[LARED]

23. True that

Zionists have not allowed chemical or biological attacks in the US because too many jews would die in them, etc.

You really believe that might be true? If true, get well soon.

Yes, DU should censor idiotic crap like that, etc. The government should not censor idiot crapppola like that because the government should not censor stupidity (it would be a full time job) and should protect free speech no mater how vile or grotesque it might be.

But responsible organizations have the right and responsibility to censor nonsense.

[MrSammo1]

26. then by all means

petition DU to censor 911.

Because according to you, the official story is gospel!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSammo1]

34. official story is largely correct

There are plenty of questions about why the government was unprepared and why no one has paid the price for incompetence.<<<

If you don't agree with the growing number of professionals that every physical aspect of 911 is a lie.

Why do you bother?

You're losing the battle.

[LARED]

35. growing number of professionals ?

Professional what? Engineers, Architects, Material experts, Demolition experts, Where are they?

You have no experts. In fact there is no more a battle than the one on a video game. For entertainment purposes only. Haven't you figured it out that the 9/11 truth movement will always be relegated to the fringe. Viewed by the majority as just a bunch of kooks.

[MrSammo1]

51. You've got to be kidding?

What are you going to do LARED? Suggest to your masters that they all be suicided? Or stick them in a camp and call them terrorists?

http://www.st911.org/

[LARED]

54. Damm you figured it out.

Hide now, before "they" get you.

[libertypirate]

29. "DU should censor idiotic crap like that"

Shouldn't we all be allowed to decide what is crap and what is not?

Elevate thought by peer pressure isn't that really why there is still a discussion about 911? Your here because there is a discussion going on about facts and what happened on 9-11; despite the official “broadcast versions” you and other impress to claim understanding of. The last point is evident because normal people change over time since before a thousand posts your official “broadcast version” hasn’t changed, sorry the pattern of behavior doesn’t fit.

Someone has made a point valid or not discussion is on the table you are free to demote their ideas or not.

What I find curious is how important it is to discredit for you; it stands out. Which doesn't mean I even know what you’re talking about but I can see that you want something other than open discussion.

[LARED]

31. No one is stopping you from deciding

what is crap and what is not. If DU management holds a standard that antisemitic sites like AFP are not suitable for discussion, you can decide to go elsewhere to discuss the idiotic revisionist crap they spew.

BTW it is extremely important to discredit the likes of Willis Carto and the AFP. There are a bane in legitimate discourse with the purposeful right wing revisionist tripe they promote.

[libertypirate]

32. You seem not to be able to decide on your own what is and isn't

viable unless you have an opinion about the source... This is something I have seen from you before it's a pattern of discrediting sources in there entirety without every discussing the content and the facts they present. Very disingenuous...

[LARED]

33. It's a pretty simple decision actually.

Gee whiz, I never knew having an opinion about the source was not useful in deciding on the veracity a particular truth. I'll keep that in mind next time NAMBLA tells me it's really is okay for men to sleep with small boys. In fact it's healthy for them. :sarcasm:

If the source is say David Duke or Willis Carto or a host of other extreme left wing or extreme right wing sources they are discredited and not suitable as information exactly because their agendas outweigh their desire for truth.

But, but, but you say will some of their stuff is correct, is truthful, is verifiable. Too bad. If you want the facts then you cannot get it from organizations devoted to revisionism, hatred, sophistry just because sometimes the get it right. If you want to use those types of sources, be my guest, But I will continue to out them for what they are.

You should not confuse disingenuous with critical thought.

[MrSammo1]

36. BTW it is extremely important to discredit the likes of Willis Carto and t

You don't discredit them by censorship. You do so by exposing their lies.

DU discredits itself by have it's censorship policy. Perhaps the people behind DU should be examined?

[LARED]

37. I'm pretty sure the sites DU prohibits are fully investigated

prior to them being banned. Or is it somehow fruitful to have a full blown discussion every time that kind of site get a link to expose the lies on a regular basis?

Using your logic the Rush Limbaugh site or the RNC should be viewed as a legitimate source just in case there are a few trinkets of truth lying around.

[MrSammo1]

50. I'm pretty sure the sites DU prohibits are fully investigated

I doubt it?

If DU has any ties to the mainstream media. (which it most likely does!)

You can forget anything in the way of investigations.

[LARED]

55. DU provides a forum for discussion

It's not an investigative entity.

[MrSammo1]

52. Is it me or do the same posters

that sing the government's 911 fairy tale also agree that censorship is a good thing?

Why would that be?

[Peter Frank]

59. Good question...

Obviously the answer lies in a related question -- Why are people who are honestly looking for the truth harshly accosted by people who proclaim they have the truth. After all, truth is truth (self evident). It speaks for itself (can be lied to, but not lied about, at the end of the day).

This said, in one man's opinion -- Every American (regardless of politics) should maintain a healthy distrust of whatever authority(s) he/she is asked is asked to support.