1 - they aren't experts on the field of expertise, so they called it molten steel, while it could be some other molten material
2 - they are experts who knows what molten steel looks like, which means that firefighters do get accross molten steel caused by fires, which makes finding molten steel at ground zero something that isn't as odd as the truther movement wants u to believe.
Esnir, there's a third possibility: they are practical men who have had occasion in their lives to visit foundries and to see what molten steel, iron, brass, and aluminum look like.
Esnir, I think the possibility is greater that they have friends who work in small foundries and have shown them around than is the possibility that they show mistaken confidence in their ability to recognize steel and mistake some other molten substance for molten steel.
I don't know. The notion that there are dozens of small foundries in the NYC area is perfectly reasonable. Why do I need to prove that the notion that there are not is absurd? You can look it up on Thomas net as well as I.
You are the one claiming that those firemen have visited foundries often enough to know the difference between molten iron, steel, brass and aluminum just by looking at it.
I backed it up. It's possible. You can't back up your claim that it's not. I'm not going to prove to you that rain comes from clouds and sex makes babies.
these guys are from Rescue 2 in Brooklen and these guys are the best of the best, and they lost the entire crew on 9/11, and they are still out there being the best day in and day out i think that speaks volumes
Um i believe the guy on the right with the dark Hair is the Capt of Rescue 2 Phil Ruvelo (That spelling is worng but hes so decorated you could google him) and im not sure but the guy to his left might be Bob Gallione
Ok, just to clarify...it's Capt. Phil Ruvolo. The guy to the left is not Bob Galione. Bob's a much stockier guy...and bald. Anyone know where this video came from?
Well the thing is, Molten metal isn't a very good indication of explosives either, correct me if Im wrong but I don't think demolition teams have to wait around for pools of molten metal to cool down to begin the cleanup.
The heat had no place to go (earth is a poor heat conductor), so it stayed where it was. Google "banked fires" before you start crowing that this is impossible.
Ozswede.. the temperature reached would be high enough to melt many kinds of metals. There wasn't only steel in the towers. Aluminum, for one, melts at a much lower temp than steel.
Jhunter.. Forget aluminum. It has totally different characteristics compared to steel when melted. For one: Aluminum not directly under flame, will rapidly turn silvery.
Secondly, what other metals existed in the towers in large enough amounts to be able to look like a river of lava? The only two metals available in those quantities that I know about are just aluminum and steel.
The metal falling from the towers that looked like a lava flow was molten lead from a large storage battery in that corner of the WTC. A metal's color when molten is dependent on its temperature (google "black-body radiation" for more info.) And there was plenty of aluminum in the Towers; two whole airliners' worth.
Esnir.. "Possiblly with pure aluminum, but how about aluminium oxide or molten aluminium with other materials entrained in it?"
Those tests have been done both by nist and independent scientists. Materials will not mix, but merely turn to ash and float on top of the melted aluminum.
The only thing that got even close to mixing was glass, but that turned into a jelly glob that would separate if the molten aluminum was poured.
According to NIST and other experts, the pooring metal shares characteristics with molten aluminum, but not with molten metal (in the way it poors out of the building)
Also, molten aluminum oxide is orange, not silvery.
Well, take a closer look, way down the building, it turns silvery.
Also, according to several experts: the way the metal pours out of the building suggests that it isn't steel but another metal, most probably aluminium.
Esnir.. "Well, take a closer look, way down the building, it turns silvery."
Aluminum would have turned silvery almost instantly. It cools down enough to retain its silvery surface in seconds. Especially if it is falling in air.
Just for fun, watch an alleged nist professor pour molten aluminum.
"Aluminum would have turned silvery almost instantly"
only if it is pure aluminium, without other material entrained in it.
People had metal casters look at the footage, and they concluded that it was aluminum and could not have been steel.
Others argued that the room had a battery UPS floor, so it is also possible that the flow contains lead. And a burning battery room also creates very hot fires...
Esnir.. "battery UPS floor, so it is also possible that the flow contains lead"
First, a little chemistry 101. Lead melts at 620F The thing that I find so funny about the molten metal is the fact that people seem to forget what molten metal does: It has a tendency to be runny.
Since we know lead has a melting point of 620F and aluminum at 1220F, we know that it is highly unlikely the molten metal coming out of the building is any of those.
Esnir.. "Not really: you first argued that aluminium had a melting point of 600°F. And now it is 1220°F?"
Read BEFORE posting please. That was 600C Not 600F.
The issue is that as soon as it liquefied, it would start dripping out. At those temperatures it wouldn't get hot enough to become glowing before starting to drip.
Also, what are you basing your claim that a fire on a UPS floor would get hotter?
And how long do you think it takes for it to do that? Not too long.
"Read the safety data about batteries on fire"
I was unable to find any information what so ever to indicate batteries on fire burn with higher temperatures that conventional fires. If you have any links to statement to support this, please post.
Esnir.. "But anyway, i wonder why you argue that aluminum would start dripping out immediatly, but steel not..."
I am not stating that. I say BOTH would start dripping immediately. The thing is though, that when aluminum liquefies, it is not glowing orange, while steel is. Get it?
Esnir.. "Or do you argue that the flow came out while the columns were melting?"
Cont.
I know you are bound to mention that ice expands more than water itself, but this is due to the fact that water crystallizes. Water is the exception to the rule. Ice is less dense than water. Put an ice cube in water and see it float.
But other than water, the normal thing is: Solid has the least space between molecules, next comes liquid followed by gas that has the most space between molecules.
Molten aluminum wouldn't "wait" around after being liquefied in order to reach "red hot" temperatures of over 1800F. It would start dripping out of the building as soon as it could.
If it is molten steel however, it is already "red hot" when it starts to melt, and has the orange glow from the start of melting.
Well there is the problem with trying to figure out WHAT could burn hot enough to melt it too.
Before you know this, you can't really start to hypothesize. Jones was trying to explain it by saying it must be thermite. That would explain the melted metal coming out, but not why it was present at impact zone.
"Jones was trying to explain it by saying it must be thermite."
But what was the thermite melting?
Not the perimeter columns, as they appear intact while the metal flows through the openings.
Not the building core, as it initially remained standing during the collapse.
In fact, with wtc2 you can see how the top starts to tilt towards the damaged part, untill the remaining columns give up and snap. That is what initiated the collapse.
I do not know what it could have been melting. Anything I guess.
"with wtc2 you can see how the top starts to tilt towards the damaged part"
This is another thing I find strange. In reality and according to nist, most debris found itself on other side of the building being moved there by impact. Wouldn't this indicate most fuel for fire would be at this side? Wouldn't that also indicate that potential weakening would occur on this side?
Esnir.. "The whole side that was destroyed by the plane impact failed, making the top tilt."
FEMA and NIST have both said that the hole in the side did not add much extra to the stress of the remaining columns and perimeter. If the trusses are to blame for the collapse, it would be most likely they would have failed where the majority of the fire is located. Wouldn't it?
Esnir.. "Also, you seem to have the illussion that the buildings were completely empty: only the fuel could be burning, according to you."
How does your logic work? You see statements where there are none, and interpret post whichever way is in your belief. NIST themselves stated that most debris at the impact zone (including contents of floors) got pushed over to the far end due to the impact. You should know this considering how you say you know what is in the reports.
RDX, C4, standard CD explosives. Unless you believe in hushabooms.
'Let me ask you this: Does fires leave molten steel (that is the issue we are talking about not metal, steel).'
Haha, of course it does, Rosie!
Seriously though, how do you know for certain there was molten steel in the rubble, and not another kind of metal with a low melting point? Please do not evade this question.
What the hell is that supposed to be? A one-sided e-mail debate? Why hasn't he posted the responses he got? Isn't he confident enough to show the entire debate or does he just think we are stupid enough to take one side as the correct one just because that is what is up there?
Again something out of context. Seem to be the thing both for debunking and CT sites.
Since it is his debate, and no replies to question his point, I would need to research every single of his points in order to see the validity of them. That is how research is done. Takes a s**tload of time.
'Since it is his debate, and no replies to question his point, I would need to research every single of his points in order to see the validity of them. That is how research is done. Takes a s**tload of time.'
So you have not researched Ferran's claims but feel the need to dismiss it out of hand?
Arm.. "So you have not researched Ferran's claims but feel the need to dismiss it out of hand?"
The fact that he claims on the page "Below is a series of E-mails between Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl and various members of the "Scholars for 911 truth"
Then he goes on to claim all these things, without any feedback from the arguing second half. Not very scientific and academic way of doing things.
The entire page start out with a lie, so why should the rest be different?
Aluminum get a silvery color pretty quickly if not kept under constant flame. Plus it acts a lot like Mercury when in liquid form.
I doubt it could have been lead, since there are pretty strict rules about usage of lead. Plus that lead keeps it's gray/silvery color even when melted.
Zinc is out of the question due to it's low boiling point of 900C. Plus that it looks almost transparent in liquid form.
Esnir.. "OK, but that doesn't explain why that spot stays hot (above 2750°F) for weeks."
Neither does fire, so there must have been another event that happened in order to keep these temperatures. The only thing I can think of, is a huge amount of thermite or similar in the basement. Molten iron looks and act like molten steel. The only difference id the melting point. Let's theorize. What would happen if you place a huge amount of thermite at the base of the core?
Esnir.. "Also, the buildings collapsed top-down, and like i said earlier: people were found alive in the base of the core of twc1 after the collapse."
If the core was taken out from below, but didn't take it out all the way straight away, that would leave some core remaining. People in the core would still be able to survive depending on how the stairs were designed at the lower floors.
Esnir.. "How could they survive the heat needed to create the pools?"
All depend where they were before and during collapse. Where they were located when they were rescued. Was it only close to the core, or was it close to the core and at the lowest levels?
Esnir.. "They were on the 4th floor on the stairwells in tower one."
Then they might not have been close enough to the bottom levels maybe. I still think there was an event that caused extreme temperatures in the basement.
Arm.. "Are you saying that the top core section was blown, along with the lowest basement floors?"
No, I am theorizing what would have happened if the core was blown from the bottom. The building would still be standing a second or so, then it would collapse in a way that we saw it collapse. There would be virtually no resistance since the core was as good as gone.
Yes, but you wouldn't need to blow the core all the way down to the basement. Just far enough for momentum to be built up and accelerate enough to guarantee resistance wouldn't matter. That would also explain the top of the south tower. It starts to fall but starts to disintegrate mid-air. If the core was blown until 40th floor, the top would meet resistance sooner than north tower, and resistance would have a crush-up phase that would "eat" up the top.
Esnir.. "Then how do you explain your pools of molten steel, as byproduct of explosions?"
Maybe thermite was used to melt or cut the core from the bottom? That would give us by-products of molten steel/iron. The problem is temperature. We need to get up to around a minimum of 2500F. How do we do that with conventional fires?
"Maybe thermite was used to melt or cut the core from the bottom?"
Not possible, as the core base remained standing. People were rescued out of it after the collapse.
" We need to get up to around a minimum of 2500F. How do we do that with conventional fires?"
Well, i wouldn't call the ruble pile at ground zero a conventional fire. You could look into the chemicals en other material that was reduced to dust and what it does when it starts to react with each other.
Yup, and not suprising: first you come up with C4 and other high explosives causing pools of molten steel as byproduct, and now you speak of incendiaries like thermite..
You still fail to explain how explosives or thermite could create pools of steel at ground zero, while the bases of the towers were still standing.
Also, none of the survivors had injuries caused by heat from that molten steel...
Yup, and not suprising: first you come up with C4 and other high explosives causing pools of molten steel as byproduct, and now you speak of incendiaries like thermite..
You still fail to explain how explosives or thermite could create pools of steel at ground zero, while the bases of the towers were still standing.
Also, none of the survivors had injuries caused by heat from that molten steel...
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures."
Esnir.. "1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures"
Please read full article next time before quoting it. The "melted" steel you are referring to were bedsprings, and the "melting" was in fact only an oxidation of the bedsprings that gave the illusion of melting.
I do not know what the actual oxidation looked like, but I seriously doubt it would look like flowing lava. First of all, it would look like melted and re cooled steel, not actual melted (physical form) steel - so no orange yellow glow, no movement.
Esnir.. That is significant since it describes perfectly what they saw. What does lava look like? Bright yellow/orange/red (all colors are in there). This tells us two things: Flowing - This proves liquefied metal. Like Lava - Tells us what color they saw, giving us an understanding of the temperatures.
Esnir.. If the pool of molten steel they saw was below the towers, it is PROOF of explosives. There is no conventional fire able to burn hot enough to melt steel.
Esnir.. "I think you should lookup what an explosive exactly is."
I know what it is. I did my fair share of demolition in the marines. Have you hands on experience with explosives such as C4, TNT, Trothyl etc?
Explosives generate a hell of a lot of heat. If you have been close to a blast, you would know. You can feel the heatwave burn you if you are too close. The friction of a pressure wave traveling at 25000 feet per second build up quite a bit of heat.
Actually, we were suppose to be able to demolish structures of many kinds. Bridges, buildings, railroads etc.
"Anyway, can you point to any demolition article that describes pools of molten steel as byproduct, staying hot and molten for weeks?"
I know by-product for thermite is molten iron. I have no estimation how long this would keep the temperature, but since it can reach about 4500F I guess it could take a while to cool down.
'I know by-product for thermite is molten iron. I have no estimation how long this would keep the temperature, but since it can reach about 4500F I guess it could take a while to cool down.'
That doesn't answer the question that asked for a demolition that leaves molten steel as a byproduct. Also, you mention thermite, but has it ever been used to demolish a building before (serious question here, as you're rather quick-witted here)?
Arm.. "Also, you mention thermite, but has it ever been used to demolish a building before"
Not that I know, but normally with demolition you do not ming a big bang. If you wanted to cut beams quiet though, thermite would be a good option to look into.
Esnir.. "And you used thermite to bring down buildings?"
I am starting to think you are an idiot. You keep twisting words around, you keep stating all these assumptions as fact. You never back up with proof. I keep posting proof for my statements but I have yet to see something concrete from you.
There was thermite grenades. Could be used to disable or destroy armaments and weaponry.
I also ask you again: Do YOU have any experience with explosives and demolition?
Yup, iraqi guirillas used them agaisnt British tanks. Very effective, as the molten ireon just melts through the armor and cooks the soldiers inside..
But that is besides the point. You said thermite was used to demolish, not me. And i don't care about destroying weaponry. This isn't about destroying that at all. This is about the demolition of buildings, leaving behind pools of molten steel.
Esnir.. "You posted a youtube video of a thermite torch.."
Yes, that is what it is called. It cuts steel by instantaneous directed discharge of thermite. Since thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive matter, it cuts instead of using pressure wave to break steel.
You could also cut a beam using thermite in a ceramic shape bracelet around a column.
Esnir.. "So, what is your proof those pools even existed, besides eye witnesses claiming that?"
If you didn't know it before, eyewitnesses are considered PROOF. Why do you think they can be used in a court?
"And why do you come up with all kinds of thermite equipment, if it doesn't create those pools that this video is about?"
The pool of molten iron you get from thermite is based on the amount of thermite used. Molten iron is a by-product of thermite reaction if you didn't know that before.
Now you are dead wrong. Maybe in Holland eyewitnesses are not proof. They sure are ENOUGH proof to get people convicted in U.S.
What you are talking about is what is called EXPERT witnesses. Which is a totally different thing again.
"And you expect a cutter charge to create pools"
A cutter charge to cut something like a beam or a column would have a LOT more thermite than the cutter charge (if you are referring to the thermite torch) in the clip.
Esnir.. "Well, you should be aware that witnesses are unreliable."
I know. That is why people in Sweden normally can not be sentenced by witness alone in court.
How many innocent people have been found sitting on death row in U.S. Many.
"To your logic, that is proof that a plane did crash, and a building did collapse.."
Not exactly. Since there are things speaking against the collapse being natural. Physical evidence such as what a collapse should normally do and not do.
Anything YOU don't agree with, is either bogus or pointless. I really do not see any reason for debating with you anymore when you display such narrow mindedness.
I am just really happy YOU weren't involved with the investigation, since it would be even more incomplete it you were.
"Anything YOU don't agree with, is either bogus or pointless."
Nope, it is bogus because you first agree with me that witnessess alone isn't reliable evidence, but at the same time, you are going to use it anyway.
And about completeness: i wonder how you are going to justify a new criminal investigation, based on a few witnesses seeing molten steel...
Esnir.. "Nope, it is bogus because you first agree with me that witnessess alone isn't reliable evidence, but at the same time, you are going to use it anyway."
Are you even reading what I am writing? I have already explained to you that laws, views and reasoning is different in the U.S. then for example Sweden. Since this has been an American investigation so far, they should follow their normal procedures and include witness statements as evidence. How hard is it for you to understand this?
Because it is stupid reasoning. This clip comes from a documentary about 911. And you want to pose a statement by the firemen as evidence in court, just because in the US it is possible to convict someone based on witnessess alone?
Esnir.. "And who are you planning to bring to court?"
Not a matter of who is brought to court. More important that the statement is validated as evidence. If you have it in writing, you can always come back to it later if criminal charges are laid.
Esnir.. "So explosives aren't the only thing that can melt steel."
That is just stupid. Talk about leaving the subject. You leave it totally and go to factories.
I thought we were talking about what could melt steel in the building, and since no blast furnace was in the building I can not see what else but explosives would be able to melt steel.
Esnir.. "Black smiths are melting iron since the beginning of time."
Yes, and they have been using iron forges witch is basically the same thing as a blast furnace. Why do you think they were forced to blow air straight into the furnace?
I do not know of any demolition done with thermite, but that do not change the fact that it can be used for demolition.
Esnir.. "Point is, you are just speculating. This could, that could, whatever could."
Off course. So are you. So are we all. If there was a cover up and the U.S. government were involved, I know that the chance of proving this is between slim to none.
All I want to get out of all this debating, is a chance to have a more impartial investigation into what happened that day. I especially want to have answers to questions that wasn't even looked at by the commission.
For more on the molten steel at Ground Zero see my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
All of the sudden the sound is back. Strange.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Is this clip froma special?
Andyboyfire 3 years ago
I don't know where the clip comes from originally. Sorry.
ozswede74 3 years ago
How did they know it was steel? Did they do a metallurgy test?
11111110 3 years ago
"How did they know it was steel? "
two possibilities:
1 - they aren't experts on the field of expertise, so they called it molten steel, while it could be some other molten material
2 - they are experts who knows what molten steel looks like, which means that firefighters do get accross molten steel caused by fires, which makes finding molten steel at ground zero something that isn't as odd as the truther movement wants u to believe.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir, there's a third possibility: they are practical men who have had occasion in their lives to visit foundries and to see what molten steel, iron, brass, and aluminum look like.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
" they are practical men who have had occasion in their lives to visit foundries and to see what molten steel, iron, brass, and aluminum look like."
And how large to you think that possibility is?
Esnir 2 years ago
Esnir, I think the possibility is greater that they have friends who work in small foundries and have shown them around than is the possibility that they show mistaken confidence in their ability to recognize steel and mistake some other molten substance for molten steel.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
can you point out any small foundries in or near NY that use molten steel, iron, brass and aluminum?
Esnir 2 years ago
Thomasnet lists dozens of suppliers of aluminum castings within 30 miles of zip code 10013.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
How many of them also use molten steel, iron and brass?
Esnir 2 years ago
I don't know. The notion that there are dozens of small foundries in the NYC area is perfectly reasonable. Why do I need to prove that the notion that there are not is absurd? You can look it up on Thomas net as well as I.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
You are the one claiming that those firemen have visited foundries often enough to know the difference between molten iron, steel, brass and aluminum just by looking at it.
So you should back that up.
Esnir 2 years ago
I was claiming it was possible. If you are claiming it's impossible, you can back it up.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
"I was claiming it was possible"
Yup, but you cannot back it up.
Looks like it is just some wild baseless speculation.
Esnir 2 years ago
I backed it up. It's possible. You can't back up your claim that it's not. I'm not going to prove to you that rain comes from clouds and sex makes babies.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
You haven't backed it up.
You haven't shown any foundry that uses molten steel, iron, brass and aluminum in or near NY.
Esnir 2 years ago
And you haven't shown that sex makes babies.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
I never stated that it did.
Esnir 2 years ago
Sound doesn't work in this video. No sound.
vitami1n 3 years ago
these guys are from Rescue 2 in Brooklen and these guys are the best of the best, and they lost the entire crew on 9/11, and they are still out there being the best day in and day out i think that speaks volumes
makeithott99 3 years ago 2
Hi Makeithott99.. Do you know the names of the guys in the clip? Would really like to know who they are.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Um i believe the guy on the right with the dark Hair is the Capt of Rescue 2 Phil Ruvelo (That spelling is worng but hes so decorated you could google him) and im not sure but the guy to his left might be Bob Gallione
makeithott99 3 years ago
Thanks mate. I will check and see what their reports from 9/11 say. (If they were allowed to had them in that is.)
ozswede74 3 years ago
Its Captain Ruelo but thats not Bob Gallione it looks more like John...but i just cant remember his lat name.
FDNYFirebuff2 3 years ago
Ok, just to clarify...it's Capt. Phil Ruvolo. The guy to the left is not Bob Galione. Bob's a much stockier guy...and bald. Anyone know where this video came from?
sarmedic8401 2 years ago
Church.. Yeah. But this clip has been uploaded by a lot of users thank god. I have no idea why my sound stopped working after about a week.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Why can we not hear the video????
DABIGRAGU1 3 years ago
I don't know why. The sound just stopped working one day. I have been trying to upload it again but no luck.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Well the thing is, Molten metal isn't a very good indication of explosives either, correct me if Im wrong but I don't think demolition teams have to wait around for pools of molten metal to cool down to begin the cleanup.
atecom 3 years ago
The heat had no place to go (earth is a poor heat conductor), so it stayed where it was. Google "banked fires" before you start crowing that this is impossible.
jhunter1163 3 years ago
jhunter.. We still would have a "roof" of what temps could be reached if it was "regular" fire that was the only thing generating heat.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Ozswede.. the temperature reached would be high enough to melt many kinds of metals. There wasn't only steel in the towers. Aluminum, for one, melts at a much lower temp than steel.
jhunter1163 3 years ago
Jhunter.. Forget aluminum. It has totally different characteristics compared to steel when melted. For one: Aluminum not directly under flame, will rapidly turn silvery.
Secondly, what other metals existed in the towers in large enough amounts to be able to look like a river of lava? The only two metals available in those quantities that I know about are just aluminum and steel.
ozswede74 3 years ago
The metal falling from the towers that looked like a lava flow was molten lead from a large storage battery in that corner of the WTC. A metal's color when molten is dependent on its temperature (google "black-body radiation" for more info.) And there was plenty of aluminum in the Towers; two whole airliners' worth.
jhunter1163 3 years ago 2
"And there was plenty of aluminum in the Towers; two whole airliners' worth."
Not only that: the whole facade of the twin towers was covered with aluminium.
Esnir 3 years ago
" Forget aluminum. It has totally different characteristics compared to steel when melted"
Possiblly with pure aluminum, but how about aluminium oxide or molten aluminium with other materials entrained in it?
According to a metal caster, that would glow orange, like visible on pictures of the metal flow from the tower..
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Possiblly with pure aluminum, but how about aluminium oxide or molten aluminium with other materials entrained in it?"
Those tests have been done both by nist and independent scientists. Materials will not mix, but merely turn to ash and float on top of the melted aluminum.
The only thing that got even close to mixing was glass, but that turned into a jelly glob that would separate if the molten aluminum was poured.
ozswede74 3 years ago
According to NIST and other experts, the pooring metal shares characteristics with molten aluminum, but not with molten metal (in the way it poors out of the building)
Also, molten aluminum oxide is orange, not silvery.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Also, molten aluminum oxide is orange, not silvery."
No shit Sherlock, since melting point for aluminum oxide is about 2050C
Melting point for aluminum is 600C and it is SILVERY.
Does the metal pouring out of the tower look silvery to you?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Does the metal pouring out of the tower look silvery to you?"
Yes it does.
It first it is glowing orange, but as it falls down the building, it turns silvery.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "It first it is glowing orange, but as it falls down the building, it turns silvery."
Oki.. You see what you want to see. I do not see it turn silvery.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Oki.. You see what you want to see"
Well, take a closer look, way down the building, it turns silvery.
Also, according to several experts: the way the metal pours out of the building suggests that it isn't steel but another metal, most probably aluminium.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Well, take a closer look, way down the building, it turns silvery."
Aluminum would have turned silvery almost instantly. It cools down enough to retain its silvery surface in seconds. Especially if it is falling in air.
Just for fun, watch an alleged nist professor pour molten aluminum.
watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Aluminum would have turned silvery almost instantly"
only if it is pure aluminium, without other material entrained in it.
People had metal casters look at the footage, and they concluded that it was aluminum and could not have been steel.
Others argued that the room had a battery UPS floor, so it is also possible that the flow contains lead. And a burning battery room also creates very hot fires...
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "battery UPS floor, so it is also possible that the flow contains lead"
First, a little chemistry 101. Lead melts at 620F The thing that I find so funny about the molten metal is the fact that people seem to forget what molten metal does: It has a tendency to be runny.
Since we know lead has a melting point of 620F and aluminum at 1220F, we know that it is highly unlikely the molten metal coming out of the building is any of those.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"we know that it is highly unlikely the molten metal coming out of the building is any of those."
Not really: you first argued that aluminium had a melting point of 600°F. And now it is 1220°F?
Anyway, 620°F is pretty low: a UPS floor on fire would get a lot hotter, melting the lead.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Not really: you first argued that aluminium had a melting point of 600°F. And now it is 1220°F?"
Read BEFORE posting please. That was 600C Not 600F.
The issue is that as soon as it liquefied, it would start dripping out. At those temperatures it wouldn't get hot enough to become glowing before starting to drip.
Also, what are you basing your claim that a fire on a UPS floor would get hotter?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Read BEFORE posting please. That was 600C Not 600F."
Hmm, why do you mix both?
"The issue is that as soon as it liquefied, it would start dripping out."
Not really, it should first find a way out.
Same with molten steel...
"Also, what are you basing your claim that a fire on a UPS floor would get hotter?"
Read the safety data about batteries on fire..
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Hmm, why do you mix both?"
Depends what paper I was using at the time.
"Not really, it should first find a way out. "
And how long do you think it takes for it to do that? Not too long.
"Read the safety data about batteries on fire"
I was unable to find any information what so ever to indicate batteries on fire burn with higher temperatures that conventional fires. If you have any links to statement to support this, please post.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"And how long do you think it takes for it to do that? Not too long."
Depends.
But anyway, i wonder why you argue that aluminum would start dripping out immediatly, but steel not...
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "But anyway, i wonder why you argue that aluminum would start dripping out immediatly, but steel not..."
I am not stating that. I say BOTH would start dripping immediately. The thing is though, that when aluminum liquefies, it is not glowing orange, while steel is. Get it?
ozswede74 3 years ago
". I say BOTH would start dripping immediately. "
Then why did you mention it?
Also, experts don't agree with your glowing orange theory.
Esnir 3 years ago
" I say BOTH would start dripping immediately"
Why?
It should first break through the perimeter of the building before it starts flowing.
Looking at the amount of metal that flows out of the building, there was quite a lot of it already molten before it started leaking out.
Or do you argue that the flow came out while the columns were melting?
Then please explain why none of the perimeter columns were damaged
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Or do you argue that the flow came out while the columns were melting?"
Chemistry 101. Any substance has 3 stages (4 really if you count plasma) 1. Solid, 2. Liquid, 3. Gas
With each step 3, 2 , 1 the material displays more volume then the previous. This is to do with how much the molecules are able to move.
to be cont..
ozswede74 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Or do you argue that the flow came out while the columns were melting?"
Cont.
I know you are bound to mention that ice expands more than water itself, but this is due to the fact that water crystallizes. Water is the exception to the rule. Ice is less dense than water. Put an ice cube in water and see it float.
But other than water, the normal thing is: Solid has the least space between molecules, next comes liquid followed by gas that has the most space between molecules.
ozswede74 3 years ago
All irrelevant.
It is more likely that metal melted on the 81st floor, creating a pool of it, and when that breaks through the perimeter wall, it starts to flow out.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Then why did you mention it?"
To make a point (which you obviously do not get)
Molten aluminum wouldn't "wait" around after being liquefied in order to reach "red hot" temperatures of over 1800F. It would start dripping out of the building as soon as it could.
If it is molten steel however, it is already "red hot" when it starts to melt, and has the orange glow from the start of melting.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Molten aluminum wouldn't "wait" around after being liquefied in order to reach "red hot" temperatures of over 1800F."
It would if it had nowhere to go.
"and has the orange glow from the start of melting."
Yup, but looking at the size of the flow: that is a lot of molten metal. That isn't all created at once.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "It would if it had nowhere to go."
Why would it not have anywhere to go? The windows in the perimeter walls were blown out by the explosion, so there were plenty of openings for it.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Why would it not have anywhere to go?"
Just look at the pictures.
Anyway, can you tell us what the source was of your molten steel?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Anyway, can you tell us what the source was of your molten steel?"
Which part? Temperatures? Periodic table.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Temperatures?"
No, i mean: where did it come from?
What started to melt, when did it melt and why?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "No, i mean: where did it come from?
What started to melt, when did it melt and why?"
Nobody can for sure say where it cam from. Could have been a number of sources. Trusses, connectors etc.
Since we do not have access to the steel from the towers, we can never tell for sure.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Nobody can for sure say where it cam from"
They can't even create a hypothesis?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "They can't even create a hypothesis?"
Well there is the problem with trying to figure out WHAT could burn hot enough to melt it too.
Before you know this, you can't really start to hypothesize. Jones was trying to explain it by saying it must be thermite. That would explain the melted metal coming out, but not why it was present at impact zone.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Jones was trying to explain it by saying it must be thermite."
But what was the thermite melting?
Not the perimeter columns, as they appear intact while the metal flows through the openings.
Not the building core, as it initially remained standing during the collapse.
In fact, with wtc2 you can see how the top starts to tilt towards the damaged part, untill the remaining columns give up and snap. That is what initiated the collapse.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "But what was the thermite melting?"
I do not know what it could have been melting. Anything I guess.
"with wtc2 you can see how the top starts to tilt towards the damaged part"
This is another thing I find strange. In reality and according to nist, most debris found itself on other side of the building being moved there by impact. Wouldn't this indicate most fuel for fire would be at this side? Wouldn't that also indicate that potential weakening would occur on this side?
ozswede74 3 years ago
" Wouldn't this indicate most fuel for fire would be at this side?"
What is your point?
The whole side that was destroyed by the plane impact failed, making the top tilt.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "The whole side that was destroyed by the plane impact failed, making the top tilt."
FEMA and NIST have both said that the hole in the side did not add much extra to the stress of the remaining columns and perimeter. If the trusses are to blame for the collapse, it would be most likely they would have failed where the majority of the fire is located. Wouldn't it?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Wouldn't it?"
Nope.
Also, you seem to have the illussion that the buildings were completely empty: only the fuel could be burning, according to you.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Also, you seem to have the illussion that the buildings were completely empty: only the fuel could be burning, according to you."
How does your logic work? You see statements where there are none, and interpret post whichever way is in your belief. NIST themselves stated that most debris at the impact zone (including contents of floors) got pushed over to the far end due to the impact. You should know this considering how you say you know what is in the reports.
ozswede74 3 years ago
That doesn't mean the there was no fire at the other sections in the building.
Even more: pictures revealed that the whole side of the building was on fire.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "That doesn't mean the there was no fire at the other sections in the building."
That's right. But at the impact zone most fuel would have been found on opposite side of impact side.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Your point?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Your point?"
I thought it is pretty obvious. More fuel, bigger fires. Less fuel, smaller fires. Basic fire science 101.
Still the fires managed to soften the area furthest away from the main fuel first. A bit strange I would say.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Still the fires managed to soften the area furthest away from the main fuel first."
What makes you think that?
Esnir 3 years ago
"we know that it is highly unlikely the molten metal coming out of the building is any of those."
Not really: you first argued that aluminium had a melting point of 600°F. And now it is 1220°F?
Anyway, 620°F is pretty low: a UPS floor on fire would get a lot hotter, melting the lead.
Esnir 3 years ago
Do controlled demolitions leave molten steel? Or, molten metal for that matter?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. Depends what kind of explosives are used.
Let me ask you this: Does fires leave molten steel (that is the issue we are talking about not metal, steel).
ozswede74 3 years ago
'Depends what kind of explosives are used.'
RDX, C4, standard CD explosives. Unless you believe in hushabooms.
'Let me ask you this: Does fires leave molten steel (that is the issue we are talking about not metal, steel).'
Haha, of course it does, Rosie!
Seriously though, how do you know for certain there was molten steel in the rubble, and not another kind of metal with a low melting point? Please do not evade this question.
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "Please do not evade this question."
I wont evade this question. Based on their description, I can with high probability say it wasn't either lead or aluminum.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Iron burns:
debunking911 dot com/ironburns
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "Iron burns"
What the hell is that supposed to be? A one-sided e-mail debate? Why hasn't he posted the responses he got? Isn't he confident enough to show the entire debate or does he just think we are stupid enough to take one side as the correct one just because that is what is up there?
Again something out of context. Seem to be the thing both for debunking and CT sites.
ozswede74 3 years ago
'Again something out of context. Seem to be the thing both for debunking and CT sites.'
What substanitive point did he get wrong?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "What substanitive point did he get wrong?"
Since it is his debate, and no replies to question his point, I would need to research every single of his points in order to see the validity of them. That is how research is done. Takes a s**tload of time.
ozswede74 3 years ago
'Since it is his debate, and no replies to question his point, I would need to research every single of his points in order to see the validity of them. That is how research is done. Takes a s**tload of time.'
So you have not researched Ferran's claims but feel the need to dismiss it out of hand?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "So you have not researched Ferran's claims but feel the need to dismiss it out of hand?"
The fact that he claims on the page "Below is a series of E-mails between Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl and various members of the "Scholars for 911 truth"
Then he goes on to claim all these things, without any feedback from the arguing second half. Not very scientific and academic way of doing things.
The entire page start out with a lie, so why should the rest be different?
ozswede74 3 years ago
Arm.. "dismiss it out of hand"
Isn't it also funny how the title of the page and his starting e-mail is: "IRON BURNS"
But further down he writes: "Let us use the word "oxidizes" instead of burns. "Burns" is not a precise term."
Now he makes a 180 degree turn and changes the definition HE HIMSELF started to use. Doesn't really scream good credibility.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Arm..
Aluminum get a silvery color pretty quickly if not kept under constant flame. Plus it acts a lot like Mercury when in liquid form.
I doubt it could have been lead, since there are pretty strict rules about usage of lead. Plus that lead keeps it's gray/silvery color even when melted.
Zinc is out of the question due to it's low boiling point of 900C. Plus that it looks almost transparent in liquid form.
Nickel has about the same melting point as iron.
What metals did you have in mind?
ozswede74 3 years ago
Arm.. "RDX, C4"
First of, C4 is basically RDX (C4 is 91% RDX)
Secondly, the heat generated by C4 at detonation is 6.61 MJ/KG. That is quite a bit of heat.
It might not sound like much, but unlike a fire, all the MJ of heat is delivered to ONE spot on less than a hundreds of a second.
ozswede74 3 years ago
" all the MJ of heat is delivered to ONE spot on less than a hundreds of a second."
OK, but that doesn't explain why that spot stays hot (above 2750°F) for weeks.
We also are talking about quite a large spot, as large quantities of steel has to be molten in order to create pools of it.
Another problem is the fact that 20 people were rescued from the core after the collapse of wtc1, with only minor injuries.
How could they survive the heat needed to create the pools?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "OK, but that doesn't explain why that spot stays hot (above 2750°F) for weeks."
Neither does fire, so there must have been another event that happened in order to keep these temperatures. The only thing I can think of, is a huge amount of thermite or similar in the basement. Molten iron looks and act like molten steel. The only difference id the melting point. Let's theorize. What would happen if you place a huge amount of thermite at the base of the core?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"What would happen if you place a huge amount of thermite at the base of the core?"
Well, the base was still standing and has been demolished manually.
Also, the buildings collapsed top-down, and like i said earlier: people were found alive in the base of the core of twc1 after the collapse.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Also, the buildings collapsed top-down, and like i said earlier: people were found alive in the base of the core of twc1 after the collapse."
If the core was taken out from below, but didn't take it out all the way straight away, that would leave some core remaining. People in the core would still be able to survive depending on how the stairs were designed at the lower floors.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Esnir.. "How could they survive the heat needed to create the pools?"
All depend where they were before and during collapse. Where they were located when they were rescued. Was it only close to the core, or was it close to the core and at the lowest levels?
ozswede74 3 years ago
They were on the 4th floor on the stairwells in tower one.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "They were on the 4th floor on the stairwells in tower one."
Then they might not have been close enough to the bottom levels maybe. I still think there was an event that caused extreme temperatures in the basement.
ozswede74 3 years ago
'Then they might not have been close enough to the bottom levels maybe.'
What in the world? Are you saying that the top core section was blown, along with the lowest basement floors?
Really, what is your theory, based on the 'evidence' you've researched, of the Tower demolition?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "Are you saying that the top core section was blown, along with the lowest basement floors?"
No, I am theorizing what would have happened if the core was blown from the bottom. The building would still be standing a second or so, then it would collapse in a way that we saw it collapse. There would be virtually no resistance since the core was as good as gone.
ozswede74 3 years ago
But roughly forty stories of both cores from the Towers were standing before they too fell.
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "forty stories of both cores"
Yes, but you wouldn't need to blow the core all the way down to the basement. Just far enough for momentum to be built up and accelerate enough to guarantee resistance wouldn't matter. That would also explain the top of the south tower. It starts to fall but starts to disintegrate mid-air. If the core was blown until 40th floor, the top would meet resistance sooner than north tower, and resistance would have a crush-up phase that would "eat" up the top.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Yes, but you wouldn't need to blow the core all the way down to the basement"
Then how do you explain your pools of molten steel, as byproduct of explosions?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Then how do you explain your pools of molten steel, as byproduct of explosions?"
Maybe thermite was used to melt or cut the core from the bottom? That would give us by-products of molten steel/iron. The problem is temperature. We need to get up to around a minimum of 2500F. How do we do that with conventional fires?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Maybe thermite was used to melt or cut the core from the bottom?"
Not possible, as the core base remained standing. People were rescued out of it after the collapse.
" We need to get up to around a minimum of 2500F. How do we do that with conventional fires?"
Well, i wouldn't call the ruble pile at ground zero a conventional fire. You could look into the chemicals en other material that was reduced to dust and what it does when it starts to react with each other.
Esnir 3 years ago
"Maybe thermite was used"
Ah, so you now retract your statement that explosives were used to create molten steel?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Ah, so you now retract your statement that explosives were used to create molten steel?"
No, I am just naming another incendiary that could have been used in conjunction with other explosives.
You keep seeing retractions all over.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"You keep seeing retractions all over."
Yup, and not suprising: first you come up with C4 and other high explosives causing pools of molten steel as byproduct, and now you speak of incendiaries like thermite..
You still fail to explain how explosives or thermite could create pools of steel at ground zero, while the bases of the towers were still standing.
Also, none of the survivors had injuries caused by heat from that molten steel...
Esnir 3 years ago
"You keep seeing retractions all over."
Yup, and not suprising: first you come up with C4 and other high explosives causing pools of molten steel as byproduct, and now you speak of incendiaries like thermite..
You still fail to explain how explosives or thermite could create pools of steel at ground zero, while the bases of the towers were still standing.
Also, none of the survivors had injuries caused by heat from that molten steel...
Esnir 3 years ago
"Does fires leave molten steel"
It can indeed:
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures."
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures"
Please read full article next time before quoting it. The "melted" steel you are referring to were bedsprings, and the "melting" was in fact only an oxidation of the bedsprings that gave the illusion of melting.
w w w*assocfire*com/article4*html
ozswede74 3 years ago
Yup, so observing something that looks like molten steel doesn't neccesarily mean that it is actually.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Yup, so observing something that looks like molten steel doesn't neccesarily mean that it is actually."
Yeah, it could have been molten iron, which would really prove demolition. lol
ozswede74 3 years ago
'and the "melting" was in fact only an oxidation of the bedsprings that gave the illusion of melting.'
Could that happen in the WTC rubble?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "Could that happen in the WTC rubble?"
I do not know what the actual oxidation looked like, but I seriously doubt it would look like flowing lava. First of all, it would look like melted and re cooled steel, not actual melted (physical form) steel - so no orange yellow glow, no movement.
ozswede74 3 years ago
'First of all, it would look like melted and re cooled steel, not actual melted (physical form) steel - so no orange yellow glow, no movement.'
I don't understand this sentence.
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "I don't understand this sentence."
Ok, I will try to clear it up.
The springs looked like they had melted and then cooled of enough to become solid again.
This mean that the oxidation could not have the characteristics of steel still in a liquid state.
Did that make better sense? (Sorry, it is late and I am getting tired. ;) )
ozswede74 3 years ago
'Did that make better sense? (Sorry, it is late and I am getting tired. ;) )'
Yes, it does now.
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
"You can hear them say it was flowing like lava."
Yup, but why is that significant?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. That is significant since it describes perfectly what they saw. What does lava look like? Bright yellow/orange/red (all colors are in there). This tells us two things: Flowing - This proves liquefied metal. Like Lava - Tells us what color they saw, giving us an understanding of the temperatures.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"That is significant since it describes perfectly what they saw."
Yup, but again: what is significant about it?
Lets assume they saw a pool of molten steel. What is the value of that observation?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. If the pool of molten steel they saw was below the towers, it is PROOF of explosives. There is no conventional fire able to burn hot enough to melt steel.
ozswede74 3 years ago
". If the pool of molten steel they saw was below the towers, it is PROOF of explosives"
Explosives creating pools of molten steel, weeks after the event?
Are you on pot or something?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Explosives creating pools of molten steel, weeks after the event?
"
That is the only way to get temperatures high enough to keep steel melted for that long. Are you saying it was fires? The YOU are on pot my friend.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"That is the only way to get temperatures high enough to keep steel melted for that long."
I think you should lookup what an explosive exactly is.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "I think you should lookup what an explosive exactly is."
I know what it is. I did my fair share of demolition in the marines. Have you hands on experience with explosives such as C4, TNT, Trothyl etc?
Explosives generate a hell of a lot of heat. If you have been close to a blast, you would know. You can feel the heatwave burn you if you are too close. The friction of a pressure wave traveling at 25000 feet per second build up quite a bit of heat.
ozswede74 3 years ago
" I did my fair share of demolition in the marines."
The marines demolished buildings?
Wow :o)
Anyway, can you point to any demolition article that describes pools of molten steel as byproduct, staying hot and molten for weeks?
same with C4, TNT and whatever explosive you can come up with: do they produce pools of molten steel staying hot and molten for weeks?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "The marines demolished buildings?"
Actually, we were suppose to be able to demolish structures of many kinds. Bridges, buildings, railroads etc.
"Anyway, can you point to any demolition article that describes pools of molten steel as byproduct, staying hot and molten for weeks?"
I know by-product for thermite is molten iron. I have no estimation how long this would keep the temperature, but since it can reach about 4500F I guess it could take a while to cool down.
ozswede74 3 years ago
'I know by-product for thermite is molten iron. I have no estimation how long this would keep the temperature, but since it can reach about 4500F I guess it could take a while to cool down.'
That doesn't answer the question that asked for a demolition that leaves molten steel as a byproduct. Also, you mention thermite, but has it ever been used to demolish a building before (serious question here, as you're rather quick-witted here)?
ArmchairRevolution 3 years ago
Arm.. "Also, you mention thermite, but has it ever been used to demolish a building before"
Not that I know, but normally with demolition you do not ming a big bang. If you wanted to cut beams quiet though, thermite would be a good option to look into.
Example of a thermite cutting charge.
watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Example of a thermite cutting charge."
That is a torch.
And also: did you notice any molten steel after the cut?
Cutter charges don't create pools of molten steel, staying molten for weeks..
Esnir 3 years ago
"Actually, we were suppose to be able to demolish structures of many kinds. Bridges, buildings, railroads etc."
And you used thermite to bring down buildings? How large were the pools of steel created by a regular demolition done by the marine?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "And you used thermite to bring down buildings?"
I am starting to think you are an idiot. You keep twisting words around, you keep stating all these assumptions as fact. You never back up with proof. I keep posting proof for my statements but I have yet to see something concrete from you.
There was thermite grenades. Could be used to disable or destroy armaments and weaponry.
I also ask you again: Do YOU have any experience with explosives and demolition?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"There was thermite grenades. "
Yup, iraqi guirillas used them agaisnt British tanks. Very effective, as the molten ireon just melts through the armor and cooks the soldiers inside..
But that is besides the point. You said thermite was used to demolish, not me. And i don't care about destroying weaponry. This isn't about destroying that at all. This is about the demolition of buildings, leaving behind pools of molten steel.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "You said thermite was used to demolish, not me"
No, I said thermite COULD be used to demolish. I even think I posted you a clip of a thermite cutting charge in action. Didn't I?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Didn't I?"
Nope, you didn't.
You posted a youtube video of a thermite torch..
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "You posted a youtube video of a thermite torch.."
Yes, that is what it is called. It cuts steel by instantaneous directed discharge of thermite. Since thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive matter, it cuts instead of using pressure wave to break steel.
You could also cut a beam using thermite in a ceramic shape bracelet around a column.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"You could also cut a beam using thermite in a ceramic shape bracelet around a column."
Yup, thermite is the dream of every CT'er.
Still doesn't explain your pools of molten steel though..
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Still doesn't explain your pools of molten steel though.."
Neither does conventional fires. So?
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Neither does conventional fires. So?"
So, what is your proof those pools even existed, besides eye witnesses claiming that?
And why do you come up with all kinds of thermite equipment, if it doesn't create those pools that this video is about?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "So, what is your proof those pools even existed, besides eye witnesses claiming that?"
If you didn't know it before, eyewitnesses are considered PROOF. Why do you think they can be used in a court?
"And why do you come up with all kinds of thermite equipment, if it doesn't create those pools that this video is about?"
The pool of molten iron you get from thermite is based on the amount of thermite used. Molten iron is a by-product of thermite reaction if you didn't know that before.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"eyewitnesses are considered PROOF."
Nope, they aren't.
Unless your eye witness has experience in steel casting, he is worthless for judging if the molten material is steel.
"The pool of molten iron you get from thermite is based on the amount of thermite used."
Yup, and you need twice as much thermite for creating that pool
And you expect a cutter charge to create pools :o)
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Nope, they aren't."
Now you are dead wrong. Maybe in Holland eyewitnesses are not proof. They sure are ENOUGH proof to get people convicted in U.S.
What you are talking about is what is called EXPERT witnesses. Which is a totally different thing again.
"And you expect a cutter charge to create pools"
A cutter charge to cut something like a beam or a column would have a LOT more thermite than the cutter charge (if you are referring to the thermite torch) in the clip.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"They sure are ENOUGH proof to get people convicted in U.S"
Says Mr Sweden.
Well, you should be aware that witnesses are unreliable.
Expecially in describing thing that aren't in their expertise.
Like recenlty in Holland: when a care exploded, witnesses described it as it sounded like a plane crashed or a building collapsing.
To your logic, that is proof that a plane did crash, and a building did collapse..
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Well, you should be aware that witnesses are unreliable."
I know. That is why people in Sweden normally can not be sentenced by witness alone in court.
How many innocent people have been found sitting on death row in U.S. Many.
"To your logic, that is proof that a plane did crash, and a building did collapse.."
Not exactly. Since there are things speaking against the collapse being natural. Physical evidence such as what a collapse should normally do and not do.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"I know. That is why people in Sweden normally can not be sentenced by witness alone in court."
Then why are you putting so much value to those witnesses of molten steel?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Then why are you putting so much value to those witnesses of molten steel?"
Because witnesses have a lot more value in U.S., and that is where any criminal trial will take place. There is where the investigation is happening.
ozswede74 3 years ago
Again, a bogus reasoning.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Again, a bogus reasoning."
Anything YOU don't agree with, is either bogus or pointless. I really do not see any reason for debating with you anymore when you display such narrow mindedness.
I am just really happy YOU weren't involved with the investigation, since it would be even more incomplete it you were.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Anything YOU don't agree with, is either bogus or pointless."
Nope, it is bogus because you first agree with me that witnessess alone isn't reliable evidence, but at the same time, you are going to use it anyway.
And about completeness: i wonder how you are going to justify a new criminal investigation, based on a few witnesses seeing molten steel...
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Nope, it is bogus because you first agree with me that witnessess alone isn't reliable evidence, but at the same time, you are going to use it anyway."
Are you even reading what I am writing? I have already explained to you that laws, views and reasoning is different in the U.S. then for example Sweden. Since this has been an American investigation so far, they should follow their normal procedures and include witness statements as evidence. How hard is it for you to understand this?
ozswede74 3 years ago
" How hard is it for you to understand this?"
Because it is stupid reasoning. This clip comes from a documentary about 911. And you want to pose a statement by the firemen as evidence in court, just because in the US it is possible to convict someone based on witnessess alone?
And who are you planning to bring to court?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "And who are you planning to bring to court?"
Not a matter of who is brought to court. More important that the statement is validated as evidence. If you have it in writing, you can always come back to it later if criminal charges are laid.
ozswede74 3 years ago
". More important that the statement is validated as evidence."
Nope, it isn't.
That is simply what you make of it..
Esnir 3 years ago
"Explosives generate a hell of a lot of heat."
Yup, but only in an instance, not for weeks.
Esnir 3 years ago
"That is the only way to get temperatures high enough to keep steel melted for that long"
So factories that are working with steel are using explosives to melt it?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "So factories that are working with steel are using explosives to melt it?"
Factories have blast furnace. Did you see one of those in the building? Stupid comment.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"Factories have blast furnace."
Yup, i know.
So explosives aren't the only thing that can melt steel.
Proven wrong again...
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "So explosives aren't the only thing that can melt steel."
That is just stupid. Talk about leaving the subject. You leave it totally and go to factories.
I thought we were talking about what could melt steel in the building, and since no blast furnace was in the building I can not see what else but explosives would be able to melt steel.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"g I can not see what else but explosives would be able to melt steel."
Black smiths are melting iron since the beginning of time.
Surely you can come up with fire conditions that are hot enough to melt steel.
Also, you said thermit could be used for demolition.
Care to show any demolition done in the past, using thermite?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Black smiths are melting iron since the beginning of time."
Yes, and they have been using iron forges witch is basically the same thing as a blast furnace. Why do you think they were forced to blow air straight into the furnace?
I do not know of any demolition done with thermite, but that do not change the fact that it can be used for demolition.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"I do not know of any demolition done with thermite"
Ah, so now you retract your statement that thermite is used for controlled demolitions?
Why do you make all kinds of statements that you can't back up?
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Ah, so now you retract your statement that thermite is used for controlled demolitions?"
You and your retractions. I said COULD. How stupid are you if you can not read? How many times have I had to correct your quotes?
"Why do you make all kinds of statements that you can't back up?"
I think it is YOU that keep making statement that you don't back up. I keep validating most of my statements with proof.
ozswede74 3 years ago
"I said COULD."
Nice try. COULD, but based on nothing.
They also could have used torches, Or perhaps even chainsaws..
They also could have used an atomic bomb. That sure produces enough heat to melt the steel..
Point is, you are just speculating. This could, that could, whatever could.
But you fail to point out how it could.
Fact is: thermite has never been used to demolish a building.
Esnir 3 years ago
Esnir.. "Point is, you are just speculating. This could, that could, whatever could."
Off course. So are you. So are we all. If there was a cover up and the U.S. government were involved, I know that the chance of proving this is between slim to none.
All I want to get out of all this debating, is a chance to have a more impartial investigation into what happened that day. I especially want to have answers to questions that wasn't even looked at by the commission.
ozswede74 3 years ago
And you are from sweden?
Esnir 3 years ago