We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The photograph below shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9-11. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see. I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction or some variation thereof, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite should accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble. (See http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? The observed “partly evaporated†steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate†steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official†9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
Let me ask you this Yo-Yo: Do you with all your hearth believe U.S. Gov killed that many people spreaded out those assaults that toke place on 9/11? To start a war with the Taliban over nothing basicly since you say the hijackers where being hired by the U.S. Gov? Do you believe your Goverment are terrorist themself?
Do I believe the government is goody goody guys who are all about the American people? You bet I don't. Do I believe they've killed and risked lives of Americans that didn't need to? You bet I do, Iraq is solid proof of it. Can you explain the molten steel in the basement of the buildings? Can you explain how a fire could collapse not one, not two, but three strong buildings on 1 day but has never happened a single time before or after, even with much bigger, much hotter fires? Would you rather look a different direction and pretend evidence isn't their if that evidence could only mean one thing?
So basicly to be concrete your answers to these following questions are as follows: Questions: 1: Do you with all your hearth believe U.S. Gov killed that many people spreaded out those assaults that toke place on 9/11? 2: To start a war with the Taliban over nothing basicly since you say the hijackers where being hired by the U.S. Gov? 3: Do you believe your Goverment are terrorist themself? Your answers: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Explaning the molted metal? No i can't since i am not a specialist on this and neither are you since you are quoting other people. If i start searching i could also find people disputing those specialist that you bring up, that simple. And then what you have? a my specialist says this and mine specialst says that debate... If you are accusing your goverment being terrorists then be so bold to say it directly and not by saying:
Did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. I already stated I haven't formed a conclusion on what happened, I'm just examining and discussing the facts. Please do, I'd like to hear someone explain the molten steel in the basement under speculation that no explosives were used.
That's what you get when you don't concretely answers questions in the first place secondly, The counter arguments that have been said by me and others have been by you put down by throwing these socalled experts conclusions to overthrow these arguments made by me and by others. All with all in your whole discussion you did not portrait to be neutral in this and have from post 1 chosen the side of your ''experts''.
I'm sticking with what really happened: murderous, throat-cutting, foreign savages hated America enough to fly those planes into the buildings, leading to their collapse. One doesn't have to be a mechanical engineer to understand the force of a half-million pound jet hitting anything at 550 m.p.h. I have some knowledge of aviation, being a former air traffic controller and licensed commercial pilot (not jet rated). If you've never sat in the cockpit of even a twin-engine plane flying at less than half jet speed, then you have no idea of the massive inertial force of a speeding airplane. It's a sad mindset that tries to blame what barbarians did on a governmental administration that some posters obviously hate.
Bwahahahahahaha, now I understand everything... YoYo is a complete fool! HAHAHAHHAHA. You still believe in the Easter Bunny Yo-Yo? C'mon, I found a paper PROVVING he exists! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA MORON!
Hey Henny why don't you settle the fuck down and add something to the discussion. I've never seen you debate coherently, only put others down. You can't dispute a single fact can you? I challenge anyone to come up with a logical explanation as how MOLTEN STEEL WAS FOUND IN THE BASEMENT OF THESE BUILDINGS.
Jim4767, if you want to believe Arabs in a cave in the middle east managed to hijack 4 planes and carry out the greatest attack in American history by themselves without our governments involvement, go ahead and do so. But I just want you and Edz to know that your arguments are extremely weak. If we were in a court of law, Yoyo would slaughter you both hands down with the overwhelming evidence he has presented. May I ask why you and others here in this forum believe the official government story? Have you never read a history book? Why do you think rich powerful people have your interests in mind? They never have and they never will. The 911 commission was a joke. They didn't answer any of the eight questions I made in my first post. How can a commission appointed by the Bush admin to investigate the Bush admin really get to the bottom of anything? The bottom line is that our government has been hijacked by maniacs who wish to destroy the US to bring in a world government. Its not a secret, if you just read their books(most Americans don't read anymore) they call you slaves and write about how they are going to enslave you. It is now a FACT the the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam War was staged. The Vietcong never fired on US ships. Yet 58,000 American troops lost their lives. Believe what you want to believe. When the next terrorist attack happens, and the US government suspends the constitution, declares martial law, and a military troop armed with a MP5 shows up at your door ordering you and your family to go to a camp, I just hope you remember this post I made.
Explain this then: If the steel is molten and of high grade how can the steel be picked up by a steel bucket without it melting? Here is some more to debunk your molten steel theory regarding the picture you posted: First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken. Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten†in the sense of “meltedâ€.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is. Third, there’s no way to tell exactly what is glowing here. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that must have been very close to the same heat source, though, but isn’t glowing at all. And it looks like mangled metal, too. Perhaps this is the steel, and the glowing object is some other material that’s more susceptible to heat? And fourth, the smoke suggests this was taken in an area that still had underground fires. This means there’s another heat source, and if someone’s picking at the embers then it’s not inconceivable that they might pull out something glowing red. None of this proves anything, of course, but it is interesting. Especially because, if this is an accurate photo of what someone was describing as “molten steel†then it’s clearly different from the entirely “liquid steel†that some people imagine. Read more here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just another opinion by someone who spent some time doing research.
roman1, please go back to my first post and read the eight questions I posted. If you or anyone else can answer those 8 questions, I'll believe the "official" 911 story.
I remember the architect of the two buildings saying that this was impossible, the two towers were disigned to stand a Boing 747(each) with ease. - Perhaps the most confused person in the world now. After his comments he fell strangly silent (under pressure?).
1. Why did WTC building number 7 fall on 911 even though it was hit with no planes and suffered only minor fire damage? When a tree falls in the forest it often knocks down other trees around it. The towers were much bigger than WTC7 and just like a big tree could have taken out a smaller one. 2. Steel does not begin to melt until about 3000 degrees. The human body melts at 1600 degrees. The official story said that "the heat from the jet fuel melted the support beams and caused the building to fall." If this is true, why are there photos of people standing in the cracks of the building waving for help. Shouldn't they have been incinerated by the heat? A jet striking a building is going to take out alot of the supports, it could have simply been gravity to take them down. Even slight heat changes properties. Ever have a lid you can't open, run it under hot water and it's easy to open? In short This has never happened and the forces involved where huge. 3. Why did Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC towers, get on tv after 911 and say "they pulled the building"? 4.Why are numerous firefighters saying bombs went off in the building and why is a investigation not done on this? Collapsing buildings and falling things make loud noises. In the heat of the moment how could they know what created the noise? 5. The WTC was a crime scene. It is a federal crime to take any evidence from a scene. Yet mayor Giuliani allowed the scrap metal and concreted from the towers to be sold to foreign countries like China. Why was this done and why is their no investigation? 6. Why was video footage of the pentagon attack consfiscated by the FBI and not allowed to be seen by the public? 7. Why did NORAD not launch F16s in the sky to intercept the planes and destroy them before they hit the towers? They did, but too late, they never had enough time. 8.Why hasn't Bin Laden been captured and why does Bush not talk about him? Laden might just be dead and they don't wan't to make a martyr out of him, what good is talking about him going to do? If he did get away he does have resources to stay hidden. The questions I did not answer I did not look up as I really don't want to. I believe government is corrupt, lies, and in many instances did hide things, but in this case I just don't but it. One last thing, if I had your outlook on the state of affairs I sure would have a hard time getting to sleep at night.
I just want to add that the people posting this stuff have done a lot of research to substantiate their theories omitting facts that contradict them. I, as well as pretty much everyone here is far from an expert so asking to contradict the theories is not really fair. I'm sure all of your questions can be easily explained if you researched them, but in the end we only see what we want to see.