CNN Covering 9/11 Discrepancies - really!

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:08 am

pools of molten steel in basement for 6 weeks after collapse...friction can't do that...

Post by **Foo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:10 am

Freakaloin wrote:pools of molten steel in basement for 6 weeks after collapse...friction can't do that...

Neither can explosives. That one is a bit of a red herring.

Post by **Foo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:14 am

Freakaloin wrote:yes they can dumbo...and do all the time...

Source me up fagaloin

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:16 am

yes they can dumbo...and do all the time...

Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:44 am

Break it down to fundamentals and say 'chemicals'; explosives is to narrow a definition and too specific. If we say certain chemical fires can do that then you're a step closer to answering what those hot spot were with more certainty and less speculation (relative to the circumstances surround the whole affair). 'Chemicals' *can* behave in weird ways given certain circumstances.

If you can cross reference chemical behavior with explosive ingredients then it's a Sherlock Holmes.

Post by **Ryoki** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:45 am

Interesting thread :icon14:

Post by **hate** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:24 pm

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:28 pm

I've never heard anything about pools of molten steel 6 weeks after the fact - what are you talking about?

I do know about the huge amount of heat still showing up at the sites weeks afterwards, on thermal images.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:37 pm

uh...u need to do more research rook...its all over...

Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:24 pm

R00k wrote:I've never heard anything about pools of molten steel 6 weeks after the fact - what are you talking about?

I do know about the huge amount of heat still showing up at the sites weeks afterwards, on thermal images.

Molten Steel was the 'reason' that was given in some quarters for those hot spots. The trouble is apparently those images show thermal areas far in excess of those that would be generated under normal circumstances by either a petroleum based fire or indeed molten steel.

Lets assume they were in fact pools of molten steel, that then begs the question... molten from what?

If 'special explosives' *weren't* used and the building fell down the way we're told it did, what on earth was present in those building or the circumstances surrounding them that would cause steel to melt (1200 degree iirc)? A 'simple' petroleum fire (jet fuel) can't burn that hot.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:38 pm

If that's all speculation based on the thermal readings (i.e. no actual evidence of molten steel anywhere, except the heat), then there doesn't have to necessarily be any molten steel to cause it.

Once that level of heat was present, the buildings collapsed around it and basically made an oven trapping the heat in for a long period of time. Jet fuel doesn't cause that kind of heat, and certainly friction from the collapse can't - so it comes back to your basic question anyway: What caused the heat?

I'm as interested as you are, regarding what kind of chemicals have been shown to cause that behavior.

But if you're an engineer or a physicist or scientist right now, you're not going to research, study and publish the details, because you'll only be slandered and risk your career, and the majority of the population will refuse to listen to you anyway.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:25 pm

Are you sure you're in the right thread, Dribbla?

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:35 pm

BTW, Ed Asner was scheduled to appear on CNN tonight to talk about the issue as well (he agrees that there needs to be an investigation). The show was canceled, because the member of the 9/11 Commission who was scheduled to debate him on the show canceled at the last minute.

Meanwhile, one of the original founders of the Delta Force says there is no real threat to our country right now, and that the Bush administration is pursuing the war for their own personal reasons.

How does that hash against a story that an organized terrorist organization has already attacked us and wants to again?

Post by **Foo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:50 pm

Foo wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:yes they can dumbo...and do all the time...
Source me up fagaloin

lol complete silence.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:49 am

molten steel was eye witnessed ...i even saw it myself on the history channel...

Post by **Foo** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:57 am

UR ded to me moran

Post by **Freakaloin** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:42 am

looking for a date fagot? sorry...i'm not duhard...

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:29 am

Kracus wrote:They wouldn't need to melt the steel to weaken it enough to fail to support all that weight. Failing and melting are two totaly different things.

pay attention, old boy. i'm talking about two different things here

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:38 am

Kat wrote:Slightly OT : There is one video I recommend trying to watch if you've not seen it, I think it's called 9/11 - eye witness. A guy living over the bay basically set up camera and filmed the whole thing and there are more than just a few "WTF?" moments.

i've seen this, it's a guy in hoboken. you can hear the explosions and see the dust clouds rising up from the bottom of the towers

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:42 am

R00k wrote:If that's all speculation based on the thermal readings (i.e. no actual evidence of molten steel anywhere, except the heat), then there doesn't have to necessarily be any molten steel to cause it.

there is at least one photo of a crane clearing up the mess with a big chuck of yellow-hot steel clutched in its jaws

from here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 pm

This isn't unheard of. There were girders unearthed from the base of collapsed buildings in Hiroshima that were warm to the touch three months after the blast. And no, it wasn't radiation.

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:41 pm

ok, so i've gone pretty cool on the inside job theory, but i'm gonna need something more that "it happens", especially when the example you give for comparison had an atomic fucking bomb dropped on it

Post by **Freakaloin** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:53 pm

mini nuke in the basement?...

Post by **R00k** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:21 pm

Don't be an idiot. :icon27:

Post by **Kat** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:43 pm

seremtan wrote:ok, so i've gone pretty cool on the inside job theory, but i'm gonna need something more that "it happens", especially when the example you give for comparison had an atomic fucking bomb dropped on it

We've got to look at the normal smelting processes to build up some sort of comparison in terms of methods generally used to melt steel. Again we're assuming that the buildings simply fell down due to the (petroleum based) fire.

The two closest processes to the conditions relative to what we're told are;

Both of these methods for smelting make use of air. In principle this does make sense and at face value one could argue that the fundamentals are what kept the steel molten.

Now the problem is two fold (as far as I can see).

Both methods actually require the controlled introduction and use of air; they don't use the air that's floating around at any given time, it has to be forced into the process. So unless air was somehow being forced through the rubble that's pretty much a no go.
Both methods require astonishing temperatures to generate the initial melt in the first place, some 1300 degrees C.

This brings us right back to the original question a few posts above regarding what on earth happened there to cause temperatures that high to be produced in the first place?

'Fire' on it's own in uncontrolled situations *generally speaking* can't get hot enough on their own to melt steel. A secondary (or additional) process(es) is (are) always present; the 'forced' introduction of more air/oxygen for example, in order to do that.

The thing is that the fires were apparently going out (hence all the black smoke which is usually associated with it) - there are reports of fireman that made it up there encountering very few big fires. We can also assume that all the jet fuel was burnt up during the initial impact and huge fireball; even if some of it had survived there wouldn't have been enough present to assist in the sustained heat required to melt steel on the collapse and pooling of debris into a concentrated mass; which in of itself, relative to the known 'traditional' smelting processes, can't produce enough heat unassisted to melt steel.

This keeps bringing us back to what melted the steel, or more specifically what processes were involved to produce *sustained* 1300+ C tempretures" capable of doing that?

The more I look into this stuff, the more the 'official story' just doesn't make any sense.