Must see video - Lead engineer for NIST lying about the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero.

[StrictlyRockers]

This guy just lies through his teeth end to end. This video provides stark, real evidence of the way our government is still trying to cover this up by lying. Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow. The government tries to lie to us. But we are making it harder and harder.

At least they are consistent about something.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

SR

[LARED]

1. Actually you're lying by saying he's lying

He cleary stated he knew of no molten steel evidence. He did not say the claims of molten steel were not true.

[StrictlyRockers]

2. LOL!!! You couldn't slice that distinction with a razor blade.

This guy is the NIST expert on this, one of the lead engineers. He is lying. Arguing that the government's guys are only incompetent and not lying is getting kinda old, doncha think?

But "A" for effort LAREDO.

(edited for spelling)

SR

[LARED]

3. I only pointed out the distinction because the CT'er tend to

distort what people say frequently. You seem to be no exception. Also, the guys an expert as you say, but perhaps he is not familiar with all the the facts that there is evidence for molten metal, not molten steel. A distinction almost universally ignored by the CT'er. There is also the possibility he has better things to do than staying current with every wacky 9/11 CT that float around the Internet.

[StrictlyRockers]

4. Did you watch the video?

There WAS molten steel at the site. That is not in dispute. It is NOT "wacky 9/11 CT" as you so dishonestly mischaracterize it.

This guys is lying. He is lying just like all of the other government officials. If you are trying to argue that the information was KEPT AWAY from him intentionally, then you are admitting to an conspiracy. Otherwise, he is incompetent beyond belief. No. There is no way he could not know of the molten metal that was still there for weeks and weeks afterward. No. He could not possilby be that incompetent and claim that title. He is lying.

SR

[LARED]

5. There WAS molten steel at the site. Can you prove it?

I'm not convinced first responders and clean up crews can distinguish between molten metal and molten steel.

DO you have something besides that?

[StrictlyRockers]

6. You could slice that distinction with a razor blade, too.

The fact is, temperatures that could liquify metal were there for weeks afterward along with many eyewitness reports of molten metal. It doesn't make any differnce if it was molten steel. The fact is that this, and many other direct pieces of evidence, make a strong case that thermate was used to bring the towers down.

SR

[LARED]

7. Quite wrong

There is a significant distinction between the melting point of aluminum and steel. Both in great abundance at the WTC. I suggest you use Google.

Since you bring up the thermite canard, exactly how does thermite explain molten metal weeks after the collapse.

[TheWraith]

10. The "liquid metal" myth is highly exaggerated.

If you actually bother to sift through the supposed eyewitness reports, you'll find that they're almost all either hearsay, or referring not to actual pools of liquid metal but to deformed and superheated solids.

There are a few exceptions, but these are mostly generic metal, with no specific connection to steel or the structural beams--even though the underground fires were of such a heat that some steel pieces may well have melted.

It's worth noting that the more credible reports of melted metal aren't confined to the WTC--one of the NYC commissioners, in talking about the post-collapse underground fires, mentioned that they had gotten so hot that there was a spot where some kind of liquid metal had dripped down the sides of the wall from WTC 6.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

23. Yup, hearsay

How did he know it was steel instead of aluminum?

[Contrite]

26. For Pete's sake

These two are demolition experts and not only that they were HIRED by the administration to do the cleanup! And you don't trust what they say, either? Why?

[William Seger]

30. Because they could simply be mistaken

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

11. "all of the other government officials"?

All of the other government officials are lying? How many would "all" be? No need to be specific, I'm just curious as to what you think the extent of the active cover-up is. So, roughly, would "all" be closer to 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000, or 10000?

[greyl]

8. Dude. You're totally wrong on this.

Use your emotions to support your rational mind, not the other way 'round.

[MervinFerd]

9. The eternal CT Question: What's your point? What's your hypothesis?

I presume you are doing the Dr. Jones Thermite thing? (Truthers are very predictable these days.)

So the obvious question:

Q: HOW DOES THERMITE EXPLAIN MOLTEN STEEL?
A: IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN MOLTEN STEEL.

So, your claim is that this gentleman is deliberately lying to cover-up the fact that there is no evidence of thermite?
Right?


And to echo my Gov't Schill colleagues: if there were pools of molten metal, they were probably aluminum and the heat was produced by fires that continued to burn in the enormous mass of debris.

Run along now.

[StrictlyRockers]

12. Thermate CREATES molten steel.

Enough thermate would create pools of molten metal, don't you think? What else would result from very, very many thermate charges which melted through hundreds and hundreds of thick steel beams?

Where would all of that melted steel go? Down to the lowest point where it would pool and remain hot for a long, long time. That's how you get the pools of molten metal that lasted for weeks. You have many eyewitness accounts and scientific proof (NASA photos which show requisite temperatures, etc).

Denying the evidence is one common tactic of the defenders of the government's conspiracy theory. It becomes the last refuge when the evidence becomes too strong to refute. Don't take on the evidence, just deny it. Just pretend there is no evidence.

Watch the video again. This time, try to hear the eyewitness accounts about molten metal running through the site "like lava". I wish you could provide something substantial and not just "No, no, no, all of THESE first-responder eyewitnesses must be lying."

Pictures don't lie. They tell the truth. Seeing some pictures could help us to provide more context and more of an argument for thinking that thermate may have been used to bring down the buildings.


See the column, (likely melted with thermite) cut at a diagonal angle consistent with the normal angle used to cut through beams like this in controlled demolitions? See the congealed dripping, MELTED steel just below the cut? What is YOUR explanation for this cut beam which is exactly consistent with a controlled demolition cut? Click on the link for a better close up.
http://www.nogw.com/9_11.html



I definitely haven't made my mind up for sure on this stuff, but I am open-minded. I wish I felt like I were in good company.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Again with that debunked picture?

That beam has been cut in the cleanup effort by a torch. They cut at an angle because it is faster than cutting across. Gad, go find something new, puh-lease!

[StrictlyRockers]

14. Or it was cut by thermite in a controlled demolition which brought down the towers.

I'm not saying I know for sure which is true.

It does not help me to decide which is more likely correct when I see you take such a rigid position.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

15. My rigid position - one made after considering the actual facts

Including reading actual steel workers talk about why they make diagonal cuts.

The truth is out there, but it's not as elusive as you believe it to be.

[William Seger]

17. Maybe these pictures will help you decide

Of course, we'd need to see some columns cut at an angle with thermite to make a fair comparison, but since that apparently has never been done before, nobody around here could find any.

[Contrite]

20. Prove that.

Really, I'm serious. Prove that.

[William Seger]

22. Proof

In addition to the convincing photos above of a welder who has made a similar angled cut leaving similar slag, the question was asked on a welders forum:
http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/showthread.php?t=19417&highlight=thermite

Good enough?

[Contrite]

25. No, it's not enough

I've seen that before. A welder's opinion does not make that angle cut in that photo an actual welder's cut.

It's like my telling you Doug Jones says that is evidence of thermite, and asking you: "Good enough to prove that?"

[salvorhardin]

28. Neither do hearsay reports of molten metal make for evidence of molten steel n/t

[Contrite]

46. Here are more documented reports of molten "steel"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal

(snip)

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano.

According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”

New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

Also

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

http://abuse-of-power.org/modules.php?name=StevenJones

[AZCat]

48. Except that at least one of those reports is incorrect.

I checked the first one in the list and found it to be incorrect. When I examined the SEAU newsletter I found that it wasn't Leslie Robertson who described the fires and molten steel, but it was instead James M. Williams, then the president of SEAU (I don't know if he still is) who says "(a)s of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." What does Mr. Williams base this on? I don't know, because he doesn't say.

The second reference, Alison Geyh, doesn't report actually seeing the molten steel so we have no way of knowing if she is merely repeating what someone else has told her.

Ron Burger's quote checks out, but do we know if he can tell the difference between molten steel and molten anything else? His training doesn't offer any clues.

Reference four is again hearsay - the member of the air wing is repeating what someone else told him, and we all know how the "telephone" game works, right?

[Contrite]

50. The remaining quotes check out

http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=378

Molten Steel: <…> Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe “Toolie” O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: “Underground fires raged for months. O’Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. ‘It was dripping from the molten steel,” he said’” (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as “hellish,” partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.<34>

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

Robertson's quote can be found here:

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

[AZCat]

51. You need to look at the SEAU newsletter.

You'll find that you are incorrect - Robertson is not quoted, nor is it clear what the source of then-president James M. Williams's statement was.

The pdf of the newsletter is here - see for yourself.



I only checked the references you had in your post. What do you expect me to do?

[Contrite]

52. Williams is wrapping up key points from Robertson's presentation

the article jumps from page 1 and on page 3 he says:

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running.

The way I read it is he was providing some "other interesting facts you may not know" that Robertson provided.

But I agree that it is rather ambiguously reported. Ah, well, Mr. Williams is SEAU president, not a journalist.

You checked the references that Thompson's site provided, which I was assuming were all correct. You inspired me to check them out further.

[AZCat]

53. It is ambiguous.

He might indeed be quoting (or paraphrasing) a part of Robinson's speech, but he doesn't make it very clear. We are spoiled here in Tucson - the president of my local professional organization got his bachelor's degree in journalism before going into engineering. :)

You checked the other references - good for you! (I mean that - no snark) Too many times posters here claim that others are too accepting of the claims made by some entity (usually the government) but then turn around and commit the same error - thanks for subjecting Paul to the same scrutiny that all sources deserve (government or otherwise).

[Contrite]

54. I have a degree in journalism

for what it's worth (not much). Maybe I should have followed up with a degree in engineering?

Anyway I am into research and really don't appreciate undocumented sources myself. Edited to add that I don't think it's much help to be blowing smoke up other people's arses.

[AZCat]

55. The pay seems to be a better.

I make considerably more than my friends with journalism degrees, even if I have to shill for the NWO occasionally (into every life a little rain must fall). I guess all my ill-gotten million$ will have to be used to salve my conscience when I'm resting on some Caribbean beach.

To be honest, I don't make that much money. The big bucks in my field are reserved for the registered engineers, and I don't have enough time under my belt to apply (two more years this March).

The sources thing is a bit odd - Paul usually does a better job checking them. I guess anyone can make mistakes.

[Contrite]

56. I'm sure the pay is a lot better, as well as the security.

My dad was in the field too and cautioned me against it but of course I didn't listen. Finally gave up on that vocation altogether and made a pretty good living in real estate up until recently. Now I'm just hanging on for dear life!

I know what you mean about shilling, though. I had to ply my trade at "the corporation" for many years, essentially whitewashing or varnishing the facts for the rest of the sheeple. Not a good feeling. Better to help people find a nice home (as long as they can afford it, that is).

I'm sure Thompson has his hands quite full checking things out. That's a lot of data to keep track of. Easy for a few bits to fall through the cracks.

[AZCat]

57. We're pretty set for projects right now.

I do a lot of energy analysis and since efficiency is the "hot" thing now we are staying pretty busy. I'm actually at work right now (slacking off, though) because we have so much to do.

[Contrite]

58. Sounds like good work

I'm all for "efficiency"!

[William Seger]

29. What about the photo?

... with the same angled cut and the slag?

And where's Jones's photo of a column cut with thermite for comparison? Or, for that matter, where's his evidence that it's even possible to cut a vertical column like that with thermite?

[Contrite]

32. Here?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060266204.html

Thermite charge
Document Type and Number: United States Application 20060266204
Link to this Page: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060266204.html
Abstract: The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Thermite-charge-dt20061130ptan20060266204.php (thorough description of patent)

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:AplDCDtZYzYJ:www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Answers%2520to%2520Frequently%2520Asked%2520Questions%2520Regarding%2520Thermite.pdf+United+States+Application+20060266204&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Interview with representative from Spectre Corporation (the assignee company for the 1999-
2001 patented linear thermite cutting device, US Patent 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001.) Spectre
Corporation tested the device on various target materials. The cutting time was between .4 (point
four) seconds, and 2 (two) seconds for an I-beam. The number of cutters needed for an I-beam
test were 3 devices (“ganged”).These were then attached to the I-beam with either a simple
“bracket” or a “rare earth magnet.” US Patent Application 20060266204 (application published
Nov. 30, 2006), further states that the linear thermite charge apparatus is to be used for
“demolition of structures, buildings-steel reinforcing (I-beams in concrete); steel bridges, steel
hulls (ships for rescue applications and hostile applications); and general concrete removal.” The
jet of thermite is to cut through a ½ (one half) inch thick steel target “in less than one second.

(more patent info at link)

[AZCat]

33. Except that what you have presented isn't really evidence at all.

As jberryhill has pointed out (among others), a patent is not evidence of a working device. The USP&T Office is full of designs that would never work (most violate a fundamental principle like the 2nd law of Thermo) yet still managed to get patented.

Show examples of a working device - not a patent application - if you can find them.



Note: You can actually find patents and patent applications on the USP&T Office web site. It's always better to go to the original source for this stuff, so I have provided links below:

US Patent 6183569

US Patent Application 20060266204




On Edit: changed "patent" to "patent application"

[Contrite]

35. Did you read the other link? n/t

[William Seger]

34. Except that::

1) The patent for that device was just filed this year; 2) you still haven't proved that it's possible for a device like that to cut though rectangular box columns made of 2" steel plates (with heavier columns having an additional plate in the center), or shown what it would like if you did, for comparison, and both of those are necessary to support the hypothesis; 3) you haven't presented any plausible hypothesis for why an untested method would be chosen by the plotters to demolish the WTC, or how they were able to prepare enough columns without being detected (since it would be necessary to place the devices directly on the steel); and 4) there's no reason for such an implausible hypothesis to explain that particular column when it looks exactly like a torch cut, and we know for a fact from the photos that columns were cut like that for removal at WTC. And, of course, there is no logical reason at all for any demolition hypothesis, since the collapse is completely explainable by the events that are known to have happened.

[Contrite]

36. Re-read the following paragraph I posted at the end

"Interview with representative from Spectre Corporation (the assignee company for the 1999-
2001 patented linear thermite cutting device, US Patent 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001.) Spectre
Corporation tested the device on various target materials."

It says the patent was published in 2006.

You should also read the rest at links.

[AZCat]

37. No, these are different items.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two items - one is US Patent #6183569 and the other is US Patent Application #20060266204 - they are not for the same thing. Patent #6183569 is for a "Cutting torch and associated methods" and Patent App #20060266204 is for a "Thermite charge". Neither patent was published in 2006 (one hasn't even been granted yet).

Get it right.

[Contrite]

38. You didn't read the whole link.

Scroll down in the footnotes to read (on page 8):

"Also, one such linear cutting product was patented in February 2001 (See, US Patent
6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001). The application on said patent was filed in 1999. The device, known as
“Cutting Torch and Associated Methods” incorporates a nozzle onto a mounted thermite linear
cutting device for the “purpose of cutting substantially thick material” using an extended “linear
cut in a piece of material.” Furthermore, another embodiment in US Patent Application
20060266204 reiterates the goals of the 1999-2001 device and states that the “anticipated timing
for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”

[AZCat]

39. I didn't read your link at all.

But upon inspection of the 2001 patent, I realize that I was indeed wrong - the 2001 patent does include what you say.

Regardless, I have yet to see evidence of a working prototype.

[jberryhill]

42. Minor point

Patent applications are published 18 months after their earliest effective filing date. Hence a published application with a publication number starting with 2006XXXXX is a pending application that was published in 2006.

It is correct to say that it was not a "patent" published in 2006, but it was a "patent application" published in 2006 (and based on a filing date 18 months earlier).

All that aside, it is outstanding that we have photographs of an identical angle cut being made at the WTC site by a man with a torch, and generating the same sort of slag pattern, but we are to ignore that in favor of a better comparison to a type of cut for which no reference image appears to be available.

[William Seger]

40. That's interesting, but

Near the end of the patent paper, it says, "Preferably, the cutting apparatus of the present invention may be employed, for example, to cut steel bars of up to one inch in diameter. It is believed {emphasis added} that the diameter of a bar which can be successfully cut by the present invention is proportional to the diameter of the thermite charge employed in the cutting apparatus of the present invention." So, what size devise would be necessary to cut a column like the one in the photo? Apparently, nobody has ever demonstrated that it's possible. Yet, you claim that the cut in the photo is consistent with a cut made with such a device. Why? And what about the other objections? For example, it doesn't seem that the device ever has been used for an actual demolition. Why would the perps decide to use an untested method? How did they manage to plant and conceal those devices? And most importantly, why do you see any need for any sort of demolition when the cause of the collapse is now understood pretty well?

[Contrite]

45. Spectre tested it on I-beams

The patent application occurring in this year does not mean the device did not exist before and was not used somehow. An untested method could be chosen because they could independently tested it, found that it worked and then kept it a secret. The devices can be ganged so placement is much easier. The fact that it lacks sawtooth edges is addressed in the patent as well, in that the device avoided it. There are too many unproven and unaddressed issues in NIST's report.

Note that according to the Statement of James E. Rogan Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark office before the Subcommittee
on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of
Representatives, July 18, 2002,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/speech2002jul18.htm (visited Dec. 23, 2006),
“…patent pendency rates in the United States now average over two years, and without
significant changes to our method of processing applications, data shows pendency soon will
reach three to four years. The backlog of unexamined patent applications continues to grow as
well.”
ix See, US Patent No 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001), where it states that the “ganged application”
embodiment provides for “a relatively longer and more sustained linear cutting effect is
achieved by use of consecutively coupled individual housings.”
x Supra note I.
xi See, US Patent Application No. 20060266204 (application published, Nov. 30, 2006) for
drawing references. The provisional application was granted on Mar. 8, 2005, and initial research
commenced earlier. Additionally, the 1999-2001 patent for a linear thermite cutting device cites
US Patent No. 4815384 (Mar. 28, 1989), which sought “to avoid formation of a saw-tooth
cutting profile on a target work surface acted upon by the device discussed in the patent. See
also, http://www.911scholars.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf, where Professor Steven
Jones displayed a photo of a saw tooth profile that one could expect to see “from thermite cutting
through steel.” See also, the photo of the structural steel from a memorial park as referenced in
Professor Jones’ presentation: http://www.911scholars.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf,
and as shown below:
.
Note: Photo is for reference purposes only. This metal has not been tested to the best of author’s
knowledge..
Journal of 911 Studies January 9 2007/Volume 7
xii Supra, note IX.
xiii See Id.
xiv See, US Patent No. 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001), where it claims that any conventional means can
be utilized to hold the devices in place, with the nozzle at a standoff distance from the target
material, including “clamps, thermite welding magnets, suction devices, or counter thrust
devices.” Such counter thrust devices can easily be installed using a commercial stud gun as
explained in detail in US Patent Application No. 20060266204(application published, Nov. 30,
2006).
xv Id.
xvi See, US Patent Application No. 2006/0266204 (application published, Nov. 30, 2006), where
it states: A “linear thermite charge’s modular unit design will allow adaptation for a desired
geometry and will be easily deployed in the field.” See also, US Patent No. 6183569, where it
states: “The present invention also provides a formable, and separately storable, thermite powder
charge…” In addition, several embodiments mentioned in US Patent Application No.
2006/0266204 provide that the devices can be deployed in the field with a smaller degree of
preparation and “preconditioning” of the target. In fact, thermite cutting device kits can be
provided, which contain “modular linear thermite charges,” connectors, wiring, mounting
mechanisms, and an ignition system. Remote detonation can be accomplished as stated in, US
Patent 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001).
xvii See US Patent No. 6183569, where it states that in one embodiment, the “ganged apparatus” is
“accessible for receiving external or remote activation.”
________________

http://www.journalof911studies.org/articles/Answers%20to%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20Regarding%20Thermite.pdf

[MervinFerd]

16. Ok, say thermite melts steel. How does it -STAY- melted for 3 weeks?

Special slow thermite?

And you are wrong on the facts, too. But that's been pointed out to you and you just ignore it.

I've nominated you for Conspiracist of the Week. It's quite an honor.

[Contrite]

47. NIST reported this

Regarding reports of molten steel in the wreckage at Ground Zero (see September 12, 2001-February 2002): “Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

Professor Jones says: Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.

[eyl]

59. Read what you quoted again

Regarding reports of molten steel in the wreckage at Ground Zero (see September 12, 2001-February 2002): “Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

That is, heating after the collapse.

While it is - in theory - possible for a large amount of steel to take very long to cool, that's under circumstances which are extremely unlikely to occur in real life. In practise, any steel melted before or during the collapse would solidfy within hours if not minutes.

[Contrite]

60. I know, I understood it.

I was just reporting what NIST said. Pretty lame explanation, IMHO.

[eyl]

61. So how do you explain it? n/t

[William Seger]

18. The fires under the debris were hot enough to melt aluminum

... and there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the building. Yet, while several people reported seeing "molten steel," nobody reported any molten aluminum. There seems to be a simple explanation for that, which I'm sure I don't need to explain to an experienced critical thinker such as yourself.

We've had several people on this board post the picture of the orange-hot steel being picked up by an excavator, calling it "molten" steel, although obviously if it was molten you couldn't pick it up like that. How many of the witness reports of "molten" steel might have been similarly inaccurate, when they actual saw orange-hot steel?

And, yes, I too wish that Jones would come up with some explanation for the thermite-melted steel staying molten for many weeks. That would at least make the theory sound a little less wacky.

[jberryhill]

43. Steel is soluble in liquid aluminum

...and at a much lower temperature than the melting point of steel, btw.

But not a single person who maintains the continued long term presence of molten steel wants to discuss the Fe-Al phase diagram yet.

There WAS a very interesting photograph of a large array of batteries which provided a backup power system to some serious computing iron installed in the impact zone of one of the towers. These batteries would have provided a lot of low melting point metals - notably lead - that could also have poured out the window.

All of our high tech crap - computers, batteries, electrical systems, etc. - are chock full of all sorts of metals. Mixtures of molten metals behave in a lot of interesting ways. If one were to observe molten metal at the site of a building fire, I can't for the life of me see why one would assume it was any single metal at all.

[AZCat]

44. Sheah - but neither do I.

I had enough trouble with the carbon steel phase diagrams in school (T-T-T diagrams still give me nightmares) - I'm not going to touch the Fe-Al one with a ten-foot pole.

[Contrite]

49. Jones says:

Solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two.

[Big Pappa]

21. Not this shit again.

Can we handle having to listen how steel will continue to burn if you just had more steel.

[SidDithers]

31. So true, you just keep adding steel logs to the fire...

'cause we all know, steel is combustible fuel.

Sid

[ThePentaCon]

27. Wow. Was this an episode of Punk'd

What a silly thing for that NIST mouthpiece to say.

[jberryhill]

41. Did you see the video of Judy Wood - Leading Truther

also denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero?

So your point is that Judy Wood is also a shill for Bush?