|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2006 : 09:05:35
|
I hope you all understand by now that I believe the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-01 were brought down, at least in part, by explosives or aluminothermic reactants. Below are several sources that corroborate the claim (made by others) that molten metal was found in the basements of the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed. These sources appear on 911research.net: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Please note: I am making no claim that the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-01 were brought down, at least in part, by explosives or aluminothermic reactants. Rather, I am presenting evidence that explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used and am looking for any evidence that the evidence found in my sources is invalid.
Also, I am making no claim regarding who might have used said explosives or aluminothermic reactants on the towers.
Also, the sources I cite below are all secondary sources—that is, I did not obtain any first-hand access to any of the materials in question. I am simply reporting on what others have stated, or what others have stated others have stated. As such, any claims in these citations are not my claims.
Please: If you cannot offer any evidence to counter any of the evidence I provide below, just stay off the thread.
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 .
A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5 .
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6 .
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 .
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural enginee
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
Edited by - ergo123 on 10/19/2006 11:29:35
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 09:29:25 [Permalink]
|
I'll ignore the seeming contradiction in that you believe something to be true, but are also making no claim that it's true and ask about some of your references.
In particular, most of them are so vague that it's impossible to track them down. I spent 10 minutes trying to find the context of quote 6 but had no luck. Do you have an issue or volume number? Some of the other citations are a bit lacking in information. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 10:50:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
...if the only possible way for that molten metal to get where it was was through the use of explosives or aluminothermic reactants...
That's what I'd like to see evidence of, actually: the truth of the above conditional statement. If it's not a valid premise, then the "molten metal" argument is moot. None of the stuff available on 9-11 Research seems to provide evidence to support that premise, however. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 10:53:22 [Permalink]
|
So I did some searching into the "molten steel" aspect and came up with a few points. Most come from this site, which made a number of important observations. First is this key point:quote:
The first question that comes to mind is whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten. Steel can get hot enough to glow long before it gets hot enough to melt. The fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.
Good point. And in at least several of the citations given by ergo it's clear that the witnesses weren't experts in judging what molten steel vs. incandescent steel might be. Indeed, notice this:
Before reading the above, I might have said that it was a picture of molten steel. But clearly, it's just incandescent steel.
Moreover, as a number of sites note (and as filthy has probably sad already), the purpose of explosives in demolition is to cut steel beams, not to melt them. Molten steel, then, isn't evidence of demolition; quite the contrary: is suggests long, sustained fires!
In all, then, I'd say that a) there really wasn't much molten steel, and that b) the incandescent steel doesn't suggest explosives, but does suggest fire. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:07:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I won't be answering any questions on this thread as dave deleted all the evidence I posted. Molten Metal 2, if dave finds it within his heart to keep on the board since I added the page reference and link, will be where I answer questions.
All the evidence you copied-and-pasted from another site. There's no reason for another thread, since people here click links, and can easily read everything you copied on the original site. The content that was original to you, above, hasn't been deleted or modified. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I won't be answering any questions on this thread as dave deleted all the evidence I posted. Molten Metal 2, if dave finds it within his heart to keep on the board since I added the page reference and link, will be where I answer questions.
I would like to address your trouble with my believing something without claiming it to be true, as others on this forum seem to have had the same problem distinguishing the two.
Think of a belief as an opinion. A claim is a statement of fact. So while it is my opinion that the towers were brought down by explosives or aluminothermic reactants, I don't know it to be a fact. Ergo, I am not making the claim that it was brought down by explosives or aluminothermic reactants.
Does that make sense now?
It makes sense to an extent, but it's odd. Generally, when a person believes in one possibility over others, they do so for a reason or reasons, and those reasons usually involve some piece of compelling evidence.
So perhaps what you mean is "I don't know how X happened, but I'm partial to solution A even if there isn't much evidence to support it. I am interested in finding out more about solution A and wonder if people can discuss it." Maybe? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I won't be answering any questions on this thread as dave deleted all the evidence I posted. Molten Metal 2, if dave finds it within his heart to keep on the board since I added the page reference and link, will be where I answer questions.
Ooh! A temper tantrum. Try holding your breathe until you pass out next. I'm sure the mods will simply trip over themselves to accomodate your demands.
Seriously, the info is linked. Discuss it if you have something to say or not. None of us is going to lose any sleep over your silence routine.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/19/2006 11:16:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:15:26 [Permalink]
|
| All the evidence is available for everyone to read at its original location. There was no page reference or link on the other thread when I locked it as a duplicate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:16:43 [Permalink]
|
Well Ergo finally, something I can agree with. You maintain that molten metal or solidified molten metal seen at the WTC site. It probably was, big deal!
I would full expect motlen metal such as aluminum to be found at the site (aluminum melts at ~1,221 F). These anecdotal finding of molten metal does not mean the metal was steel. The only true way to know what the metal was would be to test the metal. But that would ruin the conspiracy theory fun wouldn't it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:17:16 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and now ergo has deleted his original content from this thread, apparently not having looked at his duplicate thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:19:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, and now ergo has deleted his original content from this thread, apparently not having looked at his duplicate thread.
It's all rather comical, really. In any case, my original reply (in keeping with ergo's wishes, remains. The arguments about "molten metal" ring hollow when applied to the conspiracy theory! |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:19:35 [Permalink]
|
maybe if you would leave the text in my threads alone, this would work out.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:20:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I won't be answering any questions on this thread as dave deleted all the evidence I posted. Molten Metal 2, if dave finds it within his heart to keep on the board since I added the page reference and link, will be where I answer questions.
I would like to address your trouble with my believing something without claiming it to be true, as others on this forum seem to have had the same problem distinguishing the two.
Think of a belief as an opinion. A claim is a statement of fact. So while it is my opinion that the towers were brought down by explosives or aluminothermic reactants, I don't know it to be a fact. Ergo, I am not making the claim that it was brought down by explosives or aluminothermic reactants.
Does that make sense now?
It makes sense to an extent, but it's odd. Generally, when a person believes in one possibility over others, they do so for a reason or reasons, and those reasons usually involve some piece of compelling evidence.
So perhaps what you mean is "I don't know how X happened, but I'm partial to solution A even if there isn't much evidence to support it. I am interested in finding out more about solution A and wonder if people can discuss it." Maybe?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:26:24 [Permalink]
|
Just for fun I looked a upriver's link. Here is one of the revelations from the site:
quote:
As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
I kid you not. You got to admire this guy, quit screwing around with these dinky little conspiracy theories and just jump off the cliff of full fledge insanity...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Molten metal
