Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11

tunaman

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-ground-zero.html

In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.

Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"
Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, MarkLoizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
Here's what eyewitness firefighters say:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel"

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava"
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was 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"
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel"
Here's what other eyewitnesses say:

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams"
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel"
A witness said “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”
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains..."
The fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after 9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.

But remember that the NIST says:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

That's what the experts have to resort to in defence of their fantasy...

Ciaran500

So what are you saying this means?

Diogenes

tunaman wrote: »

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-ground-zero.html

Just a couple of points,

Christopher Boyln and the source of the article American Free Press, are rampant anti semites and neo nazis.

The first article linked to the blog post does not say a single word about molten steel.

Most of the "experts" linked to the blog are, for example Public Health officals, or from John Hopkins medical center, and as such not exactly qualified metallurgists.

But remember that the NIST says:




That's what the experts have to resort to in defence of their fantasy...

What's your point tunaman, are you saving that explosives were used that somehow kept the steel warm for weeks after? What explosives would do such a thing? Thermite? Thermate? Super thermate? Nao thermate? Uber thermate?

Sea Sharp

super-mega-uber-ultra-thermite AFAIK .
I think he's referring to the whole what could have made this heat if it was only planes that brought down WTC...

was it super-mega-uber-ultra-jetfuel? Or maybe there was gas supply into the WTC that was constantly burning after the buildings came down?

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

super-mega-uber-ultra-thermite AFAIK .
I think he's referring to the whole what could have made this heat if it was only planes that brought down WTC...

The actual pile itself acting as enormous effect hear sink, retaining its temperature, happens all the time with underground fires.

was it super-mega-uber-ultra-jetfuel? Or maybe there was gas supply into the WTC that was constantly burning after the buildings came down?

There were lots of other combustables there that day, WTC 7 had 43000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in the buidling for it's emergency generators, for a start.

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote: »

So what are you saying this means?

Try reading what NIST had to say a few times and then decide what you think it means. These lads are the so called scientific experts...

Ciaran500

I asked your opinion of it. What does find molten metal under the towers mean to you?

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I asked your opinion of it. What does find molten metal under the towers mean to you?

Note: there is a difference between molten metal and molten steel.

Well I think it's up to you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence which has been presented. Do you accept the evidence presented?

Many of the regulars on here deny that this evidence even exists, therefore they then believe that it requires no explanation.

While the so called experts even tried to claim that the condition of the steel in the wreckage was irrelevant.

Now that's what I call sound science...

tunaman

Here is a short video of a lead engineer from NIST denying the existence of molten steel in the wreckage, so just like some of the self proclaimed skeptics on here, it's safe to say that they are all in denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

Diogenes

tunaman wrote: »

Here is a short video of a lead engineer from NIST denying the existence of molten steel in the wreckage, so just like some of the self proclaimed skeptics on here, it's safe to say that they are all in denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

tunaman you have posted the link before. Two points.

1- You, and as is pointed out in the video, haven't proved that the metal seen at ground zero was steel.

2- Even if it was molten steel, you haven't proven that it is a direct result of the collapse of the WTC, and not steel that was affected by the heat from the pile of debris where fires burned underground for days.

Look again at what you quote
[quote
]The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.[/quote]

The condition of the steel found days after the collapse, has no bearing on the cause of the collapse, because you cannot draw any meanful information from it, about the state of the steel when the towers were standing.

I actually pity you at this point, years later, and you still cannot grasp basic fundamentals, and are either incapable or too fanatical in your delusion to grasp this.

bonkey

tunaman wrote: »

Here is a short video of a lead engineer from NIST denying the existence of molten steel in the wreckage,

I encourage anyone reading this thread to watch this video, and then compare my analysis (which follows) of it with tunaman's claims.

The video is of a lead engineer from NIST saying he knows of no eyewitnesses who have seen molten steel. He says that such temperatures would be difficult to reach, and does not know the basis of the question and so cannot meaningfully address it.

This is all intermixed with some other clips. Most of those do not say anything about molten anything, but rather about stuff heated up till it was glowing. One (the first, actually) does mention molten steel, but is interestingly cut...it is far from clear whether the guys being interviewed claim to have seen it themselves, or are (as always appears to be the case) relaying what others claimed to have seen.

When told of NASA pictures which show the necessary temperatures, he asks that they be sent to him, because the NASA pictures don't show the necessary temps. They show surface temps which could indicate the possibility of higher sub-surface temps, which in turn could be enough to melt some metals...but they do not show temperatures sufficient to create molten steel.

Let us remind ourselves at this point, folks, what molten means. It means that we should have metal in a liquid form. It does not mean "really hot" "glowing" or even "beginning to soften"...so any picture we see like the classic of the digger holding glowing metal, or any comment we hear of something being like an oven, or glowing cherry-red...it would seem reasonable to suggest that they've all been put there either by someone who doesn't understand the claim they're making, or by someone trying to mislead you in one way or another.

If you watch the video again, you'll see a lot of this. If you read the content tunaman quoted in the OP, you'll also see a lot of this. Maybe you should consider the implication of this.

so just like some of the self proclaimed skeptics on here, it's safe to say that they are all in denial.

As I've indicated with my analysis above, tunaman, I believe this is an incorrect analysis of the information you provide.

Your understanding of the NIST position in the OP would also seem to be badly flawed, but this has already been pointed out and you seem reluctant to explain why your understanding of it is correct, so I don't think there's any need for me to delve into that one just yet.