9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest

Why did John Gross claim he had no evidence of high temps in the WTC rubble?

updated 6/10/16 with additional eyewitness testimony provided by our reader Jerome Fryer, for which we are extremely grateful

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the walls… Ken Holden, director NY Dept of Design & Construction, excerpted in video above

This video shows John Gross, a NIST engineer who played a central role in the investigation of the WTC collapses, claiming he has seen no evidence of molten steel or excessively high temperatures in the WTC rubble. His interview – in which he displays obvious signs of discomfort – is intercut with eyewitnesses at Ground Zero describing red-hot, white-hot, or specifically “molten” steel in the rubble.

Such eye-witnesses are numerous, too numerous to all be quoted in the video, and they include firefighters, structural engineers and physicists. Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl was one. Permitted to examine some of the structural steel before it was taken away for melting down, he reported many anomalies:

If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that…That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of civil and environmental engineering UCal Berkeley,

And he was far from being a lone witness:

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400oF to more than 2,800oF.Jeffrey W. Vincoli CSP, CHCM et al

Typically, when steel bends, it buckles and tears. The smooth bend on this piece shows the steel became malleable — a pretty good indication of how hot it was.Mark Wagner, architect

It looked like an oven, just roaring inside… firefighter, interviewed in video above

Eight weeks later we still got fires burning…at one point I think they were about 2800 degrees firefighter, interviewed in video above

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the walls… Ken Holden, director NY Dept of Design & Construction, excerpted in video above

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”Structural Engineers Association of Utah

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.Chaplain Herb Trimpe

You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you’re in a foundry… like lava… from a volcano.” FDNY Captain Ruvolo

…descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.”The Atlantic Monthly

In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” Alison Geyh, PhD.

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster” Ron Burger

Going below, it was smoky and really hot… The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.”Richard Garlock, structural engineer for LERA

Are we supposed to conclude all these observers, including respected professionals, were mistaken? This is a vital question because ordinary fires can’t reach temperatures sufficient to produce the effects on steel observed by these witnesses. So, if their observations and recordings are true there is clearly some phenomenon going on at Ground Zero unaccounted for by simple office fires.

It’s not necessary to espouse a conspiracy theory in order to recognise more investigation is needed.


347 Comments

  1. Carroll Sanders says

    The amount of all microspheres, in the dust,
    However that was most likely do to the age of the buildings microspheres collecting inside anywhere they could enter and remain.

    Like

    • jaques says

      “The amount of all microspheres, in the dust,
      However that was most likely do to the age of the buildings microspheres collecting inside anywhere they could enter and remain.”

      this paragraph does not make any sense whatsoever. Are yo just a robot Carrol? Tasked with creating nonsensical garbage replies on forums? I think your robotic brain needs to be lubricated with some nano-spheres- it’s starting to act hinky.

      Assuming you actually meant to string together a coherent thought- I will address it as such- and just say what you think ‘most likely’ is probably the least likely explanation. It’s hard to say for sure as it is impossible to know what you mean by, ‘The amount of all microspheres, in the dust…’??

      and yet you claim to have more expertise (due to ‘hard work’) in this are than Dr R J Lee of the RJLee group- who has published over 200 scientific articles, holds multiple degrees, and 6 patents. I am going to take a guess that he can at least string a sentence together- whereas I know you seemingly cannot.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        There were a lot of microspheres in the dust, in fact microspheres are dust pollution and could have been gathering as dust inside the buildings for decades.

        1975 was when xerox filed it’s first patent on them. http://www.google.com.uy/patents/US4076640

        Congratulations Jones & Harrit prove office copiers cause building collapses!

        Every document printed on a copy machine would have Jones’s microspheres on it.

        Years of people handling, sorting and reading documents in all the building would have resulted in substantial accumulation of microspheres.

        Paint chips and Xerox microspheres prove nothing and that is what the evidence at this point would indicate.

        So since Jones knows toner can contain microspheres why didn’t he or Harrit mention it in the should have been printed on toilet paper energetic chips paper?

        Like

        • JanjoukedeHaan says

          [Congratulations Jones & Harrit prove office copiers cause building collapses!]

          There, there. Just sit, relax. There’s a nice man coming shortly, to take you to your room. You’ll like it. It has nice and soft walls, no nasty sharp edges, and it is nice and quiet. No twoofers to disturb you. You even get a nice and warm jacket to wear, it will even keep your hands warm! Now, isn’t that nice?

          Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          @ Carroll Sanders

          “There were a lot of microspheres in the dust, in fact microspheres are dust pollution and could have been gathering as dust inside the buildings for decades.”

          That’s strange. I assumed that the cleaning staff in the WTC buildings would have had access to those newfangled vacuum-cleaner gadgets that everyone else seems to use these days, but apparently I’m wrong. It seems they just sweep up all the dust into big piles in the office corners, or cram it into cupboards, or under the rugs, or anywhere else they can find, instead of collecting it up for removal from the buildings, and they’ve been doing that “for decades”. Who wudda thunk it?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            These spheres are so fine the could pass through the vacuum cleaners filters and back into the air.

            They could have collected in non assesible knooks and holes since the first Xerox copy machines were installed in the offices.

            Jones never ever quantified them, so what percentage of his special Xerox microspheres were in the dust, we will probably never know.

            Jones & Harrit are a Joke, Dr.paint chip and his side kick microsphere.

            Like

        • We asked you this before but you did not answer. If iron microspheres are common in building dust – why did FEMA and NIST say the microspheres in the WTC dust made it unique?

          Like

  2. Jerome Fryer says

    The main issue here is ‘belief’ (unsubstantiated) versus ‘proof’ (substantiating something).

    [Eyewitness testimony is eyewitness testimony. If you can find eyewitnesses who say “there was absolutely no molten steel in the rubble” we will gladly publish them on a different article devoted to testimony that argues against molten steel being present – OffG ed]

    The editors of this site are not interested in proof. They are happy to repeat propaganda with even less critical input than their bête -noir the Graun’.

    [“Propaganda” isn’t any piece of information you don’t like – OffG ed]

    updated 6/10/16 with additional eyewitness testimony provided by our reader Jerome Fryer, for which we are extremely grateful

    Quote-mining, deliberate and openly bragged about. (Also pretty stupid to take such obvious bait — but that is another issue.)

    [ And “quote-mining” isn’t any cited opinion you don’t want to acknowledge. The quotes are copied and pasted in their entirety, without editing, from a site you linked to. So accuse them of “quote-mining” not us -OffG ed]

    This site has zero credibility. I’ll stick to ‘Russia Insider’ from now on. At least they’re open and thus honest propagandists.

    [We’ll miss you Jerome. Be happy in your work – OffG ed]

    Like

    • jaques says

      Um- I can’t speak for everyone here- but from myself I can happily say: Good Riddance! off you go- take your disingenuous garbage theories, your intellectual dishonesty, your moving goal posts and your holier than thou hypocrisy with you 😉 adios!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Carroll Sanders says

        That from some one who thinks, magnetite ink toner spheres used since 1959 to make copies is evidence of thermite.
        Millions of documents were in the buildings with Dr. Jones’s microspheres printed on them. Billions of fly ash microspheres.

        “Toner is a main component of electrophotographic printing and copying processes. One of the most important ingredients of toner is magnetite (Fe3O4) which provides the tribocharging property ”

        Xerox did it, that’s where the microspheres point, who would have thought that Jones & Harrit would have proven, copy machines can destroy buildings.

        This site has left me no choice but to publish Jones’s emails somewhere else.

        Like

        • jaques says

          as I said previously- are you claiming you know more than Dr Richard J Lee of the RJLee group- who had access to the WTC site- and collected dust samples- and had state of the art laboratories to test the dust in? He gave an explanation of the iron microspheres and it did not include ‘ink toner’:

          http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

          Like

          • jaques says

            furthermore he went beyond the issue of the iron microspheres and said the following:

            “Incidentally iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building materials is made of aluminum and silicon and allumino-sillicate spheres were also discovered in the dust”

            What could have formed those spheres? Ink Toner???

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Fly ash in concrete da they don’t magneticly seperate
              In the magnetic separation process.

              The seperated the Few 304, and sold it for toner ink, then sold the rest to make light weight concrete.

              Oh and the solid aluminum microspheres were from arcing in light switches.

              The molybdenum microspheres are manufactured and used in lubricants to make them more slippery, those include elevator grease.

              Oh yes I do know more than Lee I did more research into it than he did. DA.

              Like

              • jaques says

                “Oh yes I do know more than Lee I did more research into it than he did. DA.”

                wow- that’s a big call!! He was tasked by the US government to undertake a scientific evaluation of the WTC dust.

                You?

                What are your credentials?

                Chain Saw Stunt Operator?

                Richard J Lee:

                “Dr. Lee has also served on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods to define analytical methods. He has been qualified as an expert witness in state and federal courts. He holds six patents and has published over 200 scientific articles and publications. Dr. Lee earned his Ph.D. in Theoretical Solid State Physics from Colorado State University and his B.S. in Physics from the University of North Dakota”

                you are a hopeless and shameful liar Caroll!

                I really do wonder what your motivation is here? It certainly isn’t the truth- your multiple fabrications, delusions of grandeur, rank hypocrisy and unverifiable preposterous claims make that abundantly clear.

                Like

              • jaques says

                evasive dishonest scoundrel!!

                Self professed expert- observable liar- total hypocrite.

                Like

                • jaques says

                  none of which might matter: except for the fact that you are lying in defense of mass murder! This is actually unpardonable in my opinion. You really ought to be deeply ashamed. If this is actually you a job you are paid to undertake- then you are complicit in the murder of thousands. If you look to the resultant wars the number rises to the millions! If it is just a hobby you have taken upon yourself- you do so in support of mass murderer, lies and treason- and you are in opposition to the truth, justice and humanity.

                  If you genuinely believe the official account of 9/11 you do it a disservice by making outrageous false claims like ‘the beam was bent by impact with the plane’ and ‘I do know more than Lee I did more research into it than he did’.

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Sorry you don’t understand science and have to resort to personal attack thanks for playing your an idiot you won, you proved you are one.

                  A title is not a substitute for hard work, Lee if he had done the hard work would have mentioned the toner.
                  As would Jones and Harrit, Jones knew toner could have been a source it was not until I contacted the manufacturers that I found out how large a source it was!

                  The Chimney effect would have produced some, but not all the microspheres, the red gray paint chips mean nothing!

                  Like

        • What we have from you atm is a collection of disparate doc files, some text files and some images. Some of the files start in the middle of an email. Not all of them have dates. Those dates we have overlap. Most of them are in reverse chronological order. Do you want us to publish them in this frankly unreadable form or would you prefer we take the time to sort them?

          If you prefer to publish them elsewhere you should probably remember Jones’ injunction to publish them in entirety.

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            I pulled them out of an old damaged disc,
            and sent them too you unedited.

            No cherry picking.

            As I agreed I just didn’t realize it would take you so long to edit the files.

            I am fine with you publishing as agreed, I kept my agreement with Jones for years and never discussed the toner issue.

            Or the fact I sent Jones thousands of toner microspheres in the letter that was copied on a copy maker with toner that fly ash microspheres, but not magnetic toner.

            He had the spheres he had the spectra, he just didn’t put two and two together.

            Like

            • The conversation about the toner seems to stop abruptly after you sent him the samples. No further response from him and no follow-up from you. Is this accurate?

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Yes, it was clear to both myself and Frank, microspheres ment nothing and he wouldn’t share the chip data.
                All Jones had to do was google and discover the source for his spheres.
                Xerox used them since the process was invented. They were what made copy machines work. Millions perhaps billions of them at ground zero in Government and business documents.

                Jones’s total refusal to quantify sources, and failure to share information shut down the discussion he simply wanted Frank to propose a chemical process for the spheres formation.

                He though he had a smoking gun, and it blew up in his face.

                Jones never replied again, and went on to publish with Harrit and didn’t even mention the Toners or ink on documents as a source for microspheres.
                Even though he was informed of it.

                That isn’t science it is lying.

                Like

                • But you never followed up either? That was literally the end of the correspondence?

                  Why didn’t you pursue it until you got a response? or publish your own analysis?

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Admin, Jones refused to quantify the spheres in question, he wouldn’t state true percentages of spheres to dust, and he wouldn’t release any data on the chips.
                  Frank contacted him personally a couple of time confidentially, and finally gave up, because our investigation showed Jones was doing sloppy science if science at all.
                  Microspheres were not only plentiful, they are pollution in modern buildings.

                  Xerox produced trillions of fly ash microspheres per month with the same spectra as Jones’s.
                  http://www.google.com.uy/patents/US4076640

                  Like

                  • You are saying such microspheres are common in modern buildings and are indistinguishable from the WTC iron microspheres?

                    In that case, why did FEMA and NIST say the presence of the microspheres made the WTC dust unique and easy to identify?

                    Like

        • jaques says

          given that the average size of the spheres was around 0.7mm your farcical argument that they were ink toner is complete and utter unadulterated garbage. But of course- you know better than Steven Jones and Niels Harrit- both accredited scientists- and better than R j Lee who has published over 200 scientific articles-

          and your expertise is chainsaw stunt man….

          Brilliant. Not.

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            No evidence for thermite exists any fool can see that, the data is conclusive, the case was never actually made for it. Thermite CD at the World Trade Center is a scientificly invalid claim not based on a true examination of all evidence only based on cherry picked nonsense. Don’t blame me you bought into Harrit and Jones, blame them.
            Incidentally that is the average size of fly ash microspheres, they are proof of nothing.

            Like

            • CloudSlicer says

              You say that 0.7mm is “the average size of fly ash microspheres”, but the source which you yourself provided proves you wrong:
              http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/fly-ash-cenospheres-microspheres-market
              On that page we find this: “Fly ash microspheres … are available in sizes ranging from one to 500 microns.” Assuming an equal distribution of sizes within a product batch, that makes the average size a fair bit less than 0.7mm wouldn’t you say?
              I think Jaques is right, you just make stuff up as you go along. Anything to muddy the waters, eh?

              Like

  3. MFitz says

    When confronted with any claim one should ask 2 questions:
    1. Is the claim true, a “true fact”?
    2. If true, is it relevant? Or in other words; so what, why do we care?

    With “molten steel” as with most things it doesn’t matter which question you ask first, you won’t get a satisfactory answer to both. The actual claims are always exceedingly ambiguous and vague – all inference and innuendo. No one it seems can explain why any evidence of molten anything is actually important. Then there is the problem that physical evidence for pools/rivers of molten steel days/weeks/months after 9/11/2001 is non-existent, the claims being entirely anecdotal, often lacking relevant context and highly open to interpretation. So even if pools/rivers of molten STEEL (as opposed to some other material) did exist in the GZ rubble pile in some quantity at some time, why do we care? What is that supposed to mean? Does anyone know? Has anyone even bothered to ask?

    Like

    • The evidence for molten steel is important because of the temperatures needed to produce it. The presence of molten steel would indicate temps far too high to be explained by ordinary fires.

      All this is gone into. Please inform yourself of the basics before commenting any further

      Like

      • MFitz says

        OK, but who said anything about “ordinary fires”?
        What explanation do you suppose there is for whatever version of this claim it is you are trying to answer and why do we care? Or put more simply, what does the condition of anything in the rubble pile hours/days/weeks/months after a buildings collapse have to do with why the building collapsed?

        Like

        • You are asking very basic questions that can be answered with minimal research. This forum is not for your education and you can’t expect people to provide you with the info you can’t be bothered to find for yourself. Go away, do some reading and come back when you are up to speed.

          Like

    • jaques says

      Interesting- the two ‘truth debunkers’ get caught up in a tangle of their own lies and false unverified claims about molten metal- then a third one pops up with a new argument, ‘If there was molten metal, so what?’

      “1. Is the claim true, a “true fact”?
      2. If true, is it relevant? Or in other words; so what, why do we care?”

      1) Yes- it is a true claim. There is eywitness testimony, video evidence, and forensic evidence that shows there was molten metal

      2) Yes- it is very important. Steel melts at extremely high temperatures- way higher than possible in ordinary office fires. Molten metal would be consistent with the hypothesis that the towers were bought down using thermitic materials and high explosives. The molten metal is consistent with the thermite claim- however it is not the only evidence: the high concentration of iron micro-spheres in the dust, the red grey thermitic chips, and the high temperatures in the oxygen starved rubble pile months after the event are all further indications of thermitic materials (thermite provides it’s own oxygen). Taken together these form a solid case that thermite was indeed used to bring the towers down.

      Of course I assume the poster is being entirely disingenuous when they question the importance of molten metal? I take it you are a supporter of the official story?

      People like John Gross at NIST felt the need to completely deny there was any molten metal- despite all the evidence- and even going so far as to outrageoulsy claim that there were not witnesses to it- when we know there were. Why would he do that if it was a normal thing to be expected?

      NIST felt the need to declare- without evidence- or testing their theory- that the molten metal filmed pouring out of the South Tower immediately prior to total collapse was aluminum. Having no evidence for this assertion why would they feel the need to make it? Surely if they were being honest they would have simply noted the presence of this molten metal and not tried to suggest they knew exactly what it was- and what it wasn’t (although it looks like molten iron not molten aluminum). The fact is they were engaged in a cover up- and have been at pains to deny the existence of the molten metal that so many witnesses reported. In the same manner they have denied the use of high explosives: despite all the eyewitness testimony to large secondary explosions throughout the 3 towers that collapsed.

      Anyhow- Like the other two believers in the official story – and like NIST before them- I have no doubt you will now to to great pains- and make many absurd allegations- to deny the molten metal, the explosives- and all and any evidence that does not support the official story.

      This thread has looked at the evidence of high temperatures and molten metal- we could just as easily examine the hundreds of eyewitness and media accounts of large secondary explosions:

      Liked by 1 person

    • jaques says

      I will add one further comment:

      in a sense the presence of the molten steel is not important: even if we totally ignore the molten steel and the red grey thermitic chips- and the extreme high temperatures in the rubble pile- the fact is there is other evidence that proves beyond doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were destroyed via controlled demotion. This evidence includes but is not limited to:

      1) the rapid near freefall rate of ‘collapse’
      2) the explosive nature of the ‘collapses’ with lateral ejection of materials for hundreds of feet
      3) the complete free-fall descent of WTC7 in 6.9 seconds- absolute freefall for 1/3 of it’s collapse- and very near free fall of the other two thirds.
      4) The complete pulverisation of the concrete and vaporisation of human beings- with tiny bones fragments expelled laterally from the towers and landing on the roof of the Deutche Bank building
      5) The innumerable eyewitness accounts of large secondary explosions throughout the twin-towers and inside building 7 (as reported by WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings immediately after the collapse)
      6) The large explosions reported in the basement and sub basement levels of the WTC immediately prior to the plane impacts- as reported by multiple witnesses.
      7) the extensive damage to the lobbies of the WTC that occurred prior to collapse and were recorded in the Naudet brothers film
      8) the ejection of energetic objects during the collapses: these objects trailed white smoke and radically changed direction mid-flight indicating an energy source within the objects. Dislodged Thermite cutting torches?
      9) The complete destruction of the cores of WTC 1 and 2
      10) The admission of WT7’s owner Larry Silverstein that the building was ‘pulled’.

      The fact of the molten metal, the red grey thermitic chips and the large quantities of iron nanospheres – are all consistent with the other evidence that the Towers were bought down in a controlled demolition- and more specifically that thermitic materials were employed.

      Like

      • Yup, it’s not just one thing by itself. It’s everything taken together, every piece corroborating every other, directly or by implication.

        On the other hand, there are certain pieces of evidence that are simply so compelling in their implications as well as so obvious in the “fact” of their concurrence that once they are acknowledged, they cannot reasonably be dismissed as categorical invalidations of the “official narrative.”

        When engaging people as yet unacquainted with the huge body of existing and sometimes complex evidence now calling into question the “fire induced gravitational collapse” narrative, it is these simple to understand and yet incontrovertible pieces of evidence that I think should be first offered up for examination or highlighted.

        This video, for example, keeps things both simple, concise and, to mind, compelling, revolving around but two simple concepts, Newton’s 3rd and the conservation of momentum (or energy):

        Like

        • jaques says

          I agree- and I also think Massimo Mazucco’s documentary is one of the very best documentaries to expose the 9/11 controlled demolition. To date I don’t think any truth debunker has ever even attempted to answer any of the 50 questions posed in that film for defenders of the official story. I challenge anyone to watch it completely and maintain that the official story is possible- let alone true.

          Like

  4. Carroll Sanders says

    These are most likely to be the source of the high temperatures and molten steel claims.
    thermal lance-hottest thing on earth part 2: http://youtu.be/9LrZN_VXxEA

    Thermite certainly does not and never will explain it!

    Like

    • jaques says

      so you now accept there were high temperatures and molten metal?

      and are you suggesting thermal lances were used in the clean up? Any evidence of that? Are you also suggesting they were used to such an extent they created the ‘rivers of molten steel’ seen by multiple witnesses?

      it’s funny- but in that you-tube video you linked- there is no river of molten steel coming from that thermal lance cut at all. Also- at those high temps- according to you- the user of the torch would have been burnt to death would he not?

      What is your expertise? Let me take a google guess: you are a stunt chainsaw operator? Am I right?

      I am gonna leave you there now- I am done with crushing your measly theories. Off you go- back to that delusional world you live in where planes create perfect arcs in beams they collide into, where it is impossible to witness temps of 1500c without being burnt alive- and where thermal lances create molten rivers of steel…

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        We have pictures of that column being cut with a thermitic lance not just a thermal lance they were used when the heat imaging was being done.

        Those and torches produced the thermal imaging.

        Like

        • You believe those helicopter thermal images showing temps of 2800F were recording the results of the clear-up operation and everyone but you failed to realise it? And your source for this is?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Thousands of people knew it — [citation needed -OffG ed] — you should have known that if you bothered researching the facts.

            The thermitic lances were donated by therma Lance steel tubes with aluminum and steel wire inside.

            They dropped the name thermitic as a lance trade name in 2007.

            Like

            • jaques says

              Yet you made a very specific claim- that you have photos of the beams you pictured being cut? Provide that evidence or retract your unsubstantiated claim.

              What’s interesting about those beams is they are cut at a 45 degree angle- exactly 100% what you would expect in a controlled demolition implosion. They also shows signs of very high temperatures and melting at the cut zone- which is consistent with the use of thermite demolition cutting charges- as patented by Spectre Enterprises in 1999. If you actually have evidence that were cut after the towers fell that would be relevant and would dispel the suspicions regarding them. Without it: all those pictures do is offer yet further evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory.

              Like

        • Jaques says

          You just make it up as you go along. Where is your evidence those beams were cut with ‘thermitic lances’ during clean up? Let alone at a time that neatly coincided with the heat imaging??? Do you take us for idiots.

          How do we know those beams weren’t cut by thermite cutting charges when the buildings were bought down on 9/11???

          Your say so?

          Give your source or retract your lies.

          Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          “We have pictures of that column being cut with a thermitic lance”

          Where are these pictures you have? Show them or provide a link to them, and if you can’t then retract your claim.

          Like

    • You don’t think a nano-particulate thermitic sol-gel painted onto the beams could produce the eutectic liquid and the effects observed on the steel?

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Check the Greening Jones debate even Jones says it wouldn’t have been used that way. It is proposed to be areogel Nano thermite not Nano thermite, very little sulfur in the red gray paint chip.

        Like

  5. Jerome Fryer writes:

    Start with this one:https://youtu.be/aMSlElzKIXw

    (You can ask Norman about his assertion that this smoke being forced out is just “concrete dust” caught in some form of vortex. It isn’t, but if you don’t want to believe your own eyes then your options are limited.)

    A) The smoke which “appears” to be flowing out of WTC 7 is “apparently” flowing out of the entire south side of WTC 7 and from nowhere else. Why, then, is it only emerging from the south side of WTC 7 and from nowhere else?

    B) Good question. What is south of WTC 7? Oh, that’s right: the rubble pile from both collapsed towers from which vast amounts of smoke and dust are billowing. Notice that the smoke perfectly shadows the profile of WTC 7. Why would that be? Oh, that’s right, there is a breeze blowing from the north side of WTC 7, which with the entire building of WTC 7, creates a low atmospheric pressure area immediately adjacent to and spanning the entire width and height of the south exterior wall of WTC 7. Low pressure areas “suck” air from high pressure areas, which in this instance would be the area directly south of WTC 7, not all that far away from the building, where – guess what – the billowing pile of the Towers is located. The smoke from that pile is what is being drawn to the south side of WTC 7, where it even enters the building through widows, only to swirl back out into the larger vortex being created and propelled by a northerly breeze screened by the north-face of WTC 7 and therefore perforce creating a low pressure area along the south-face of WTC 7.

    All of this, of course, is too difficult for Jerome to grasp and comprehend, and the only thing he sees as a result of his limited cognitive abilities are massive amounts of smoke issuing from WTC 7, although inexplicably never rising above the roofline of WTC 7 or emerging from the exterior side of the building.

    Like

    • Merely to add a couple of references to corroborate my thesis:

      A)

      Wind induced pressure differences

      Positive pressure is created on the building sides that face the wind (windward sides) whereas suction regions are formed on the opposite sides (leeward sides) and on the side walls. This results in negative pressure inside the building, which is sufficient to introduce large flows through the building openings. In a general case, n airflow of air is induced on the windward side and an outflow on the leeward side. Airflow through an external opening is mainly attributed to a wind induced pressure difference across it.

      The figure above illustrates the wind flow pattern distribution around a building with no openings. As the wind flows past the building, a positive pressure is created on the windward façade. The wind is diverted and a negative pressure is created along the side walls due to the high speed of the flow along them. A large, slow- moving eddy on the leeward facade produces a smaller suction. here

      B) A picture to help you understand (I hope this works):

      C) Another picture to help you understand (I also hope this works):

      Like

      • just wrap the image URL in an “img” tag (“img src = “yourimage”)

        Fixed it for you btw

        Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          Great you just proved that any chimney effect in the building would be inhanced by atmospheric effects.

          Like

          • No. I just proved that all the smoke swirling around along the South face of WTC 7 has little to nothing to do with WTC 7, but more to do with a breeze blowing in from the north (maybe a bit from the West) and the stuff billowing up from the rubble pile of the North and South Towers. If you look at Fig. 3 (left), there is no chimney effect being depicted but rather air flow around the EXTERIOR of a building with a profile similar to that of WTC 7. This is a different conversation altogether, Carroll. Do try to pay attention to the topic at hand.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              You have shown that a low pressure zone is formed outside the building. Low pressure would inhance chimney stack effect.

              Like

      • CloudSlicer says

        Norman – How did you get the image to appear at part (B)? That’s useful to know.

        Like

        • Hi, CloudSlicer,

          I’d made such a terrible mess, here, trying to get that “image” to appear but never succeeded. “Admin” then took it upon themselves to rescue me. They did leave me with a hint:

          “You need to put the code inside angle brackets. ”

          So . . . if the URL of the image is: https://www.wbdg.org/images/airbarriers_3.gif

          then . . .

          Like

          • Interesting, I wrote the exact instructions that Admin had posted for me, but the tag “img” that follows the first bracket “<” and is then followed by the tag “src=”the URL of your image” got dropped, there. Hmm. Furthermore, I made an attempt to repost the image after “then . . .” , but it didn’t appear. Go figure. I really am at a lost. Sorry.

            Like

            • CloudSlicer says

              Thanks for trying anyway Norman.
              It would be useful sometimes to know how to embed images/diagrams and the like directly into comments.
              Maybe Admin will be willing to explain how we commentators can do it?

              Liked by 1 person

  6. Jerome Fryer says

    This may be useful to anyone who feels the deformation of materials in the debris pile required extremely high temperatures.

    This explains ‘creep’ that occurs in materials subject to lower temperatures than their melting point:
    http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/creep/stress.php

    The homologous temperature is the actual temperature divided by the melting point of the metal, with both being expressed in K. In general, creep tends to occur at a significant rate when the homologous temperatures is 0.4 or higher.

    Some rough calculations for steel (standard values assumed):
    Melting point 2750 F, approx 1800 K
    Homologous temperature required (for the 0.4 factor) is therefore 720 K, approx 850 F or 450 C.

    Temperatures within the debris pile of around this value or higher, over a period of days, or even weeks, with the materials subject to high load (tonnes of debris pressing down), should be expected to produce highly mangled and distorted materials.

    The upshot of this is that, just as has been pointed out about steel losing structural strength rapidly, once you reach a significant proportion of the melting point of a metal it will deform readily. (This is why blacksmiths don’t need to melt the horseshoe before they can form it.)

    Like

    • jaques says

      what a load of nonsensical drivel. Even a child knows you don’t need to melt metal in order to bend it. Just pick up a coat hanger and try for yourself. What’s you point? Actually: nix that. I don’t care what your point is. The evidence speaks for itself despite all your verbosity, non-sequitur techno-gibberish and assorted nonsense.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        The actual lack of physical evidence does, let us not forget about how ductible structural steel is, it is low carbon bendable steel. It’s function is to bend to support loads. At 1000c it is highly bendable.

        Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        A coat hanger is the limit of your science, structural steel is geometricly designed for stiffness, not to bend. If this is the level of your science then I truly feel sorry for you.

        Like

        • jaques says

          Your ‘level of science’ is to simply state “the beam was bent by impact from the plane” with zero explanation of how that could occur, zero explanation for the source of that information, zero evidence to back up the claim?

          and then you say ” let us not forget about how ductible structural steel is, it is low carbon bendable steel. It’s function is to bend to support loads.

          but then you entirely contradict yourself “structural steel is geometricly designed for stiffness, not to bend..”

          Seriously WTF?

          Like

  7. Jerome Fryer says

    Here is a source for temperatures in the debris pile, from the USGS surveying:
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf

    On page 2 “Analysis of these data indicated temperatures greater than 800 degrees F (orange pixels), with some areas reaching over 1300 degrees F (yellow pixels).”

    Where is the source for the ‘over 2800 degrees F’ claim?

    I can’t find one, so am guessing that people decided to work backward from the ‘molten steel’ claims and have been asserting 2800 degrees F based on that.

    Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Sulfidication duplicated in a complex chimney effect, just like it occurs in coal fired power plants , the source was calcium sulfate drywall dust.

        Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          Or maybe it’s just a bit of rusty old pipe you got from a salvage yard.

          Like

        • jaques says

          no one is actually denying that sulfidication exists- of that’s you point? What they are questioning is the rapid sufidication and accompanying high temperatures that was documented at ground zero in the document I linked.

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Look into sulfidication in oil well fires, rapid sulfidication starts at 350-500C.
            This stuff is simple and easy to research.

            Like

            • And how long would the process take? The rapidity is what seems to have made the WTC steel unique or unusual.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                It is environmentally Dependant, hours, days, months dependent on temperature, and sulfur content

                At 1100-1300C well below the melting point of steel, it occurs very rapidly, with moderate sulfur concentrations.

                What you are looking at in the pictures is high silicon sulfidication resistant oil well tubing exposed to a sulfidication environment in a chimney effect for 48 hours.
                Repeat this pipe is designed to have moderate resistance to sulfidication, structural steel is not.

                Chimney effects can reach temps of up to 1400c non of the Scholars for truth or investigators in the truth movement have ever done appropriate experiments.
                Not one experiment by the truth movement involved a complex chimney effect, if one did please show me the evidence, please produce it I would really love to see it.
                I spent thousands of my own out of pocket funds, investigating this, where are the valid experiments from AE/911Truth, other than a few tree limbs piled on the ground with no structural dynamic?

                Like

                • So, what could have produced the rapid sulfidication (potentially in hours) of the WTC steel? Where do you think the eutectic liquid described by FEMA might originate?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Look at the studies, the liquid is formed from sulfuric acid and Iron oxide, disulfur hydroxides, and other sufides sulfates.

                The sulfur could have come from dry wall dust dehydrated at 600C, acid rain, fertilizers, cleaners, sulfuric acid in the lead acid batteries in the Cat Gen sets, or from transformer oil in electric transformers.

                There are more sources such as paper, organics, soil.

                That’s the flaw in truth movement science failure to recognize all possibilites must be equally explored.

                That is why Ziggi didn’t want the Emails published they point to a natural source for billions of microspheres in the office buildings, the ink on the paperwork.

                And office printer ink.

                Ink jet printers use fly ash microspheres.

                Like

                • jaques says

                  considering that lower Manhattan was blanketed in a layer of ash that varied from inches to feet thick- in other words many tens of thousands of tonnes of the stuff- and that Iron Microspheres were found in concentrations up to 5.7% we weight by the RJ Lee group- with an average of 4%- you are prosing that there were how many tonnes of printer toner micro-spheres in the dust exactly?

                  It is an absurd proposition- just like so many of your other arguments.

                  Not only it is an absurd proposition- it is not even mentioned as a possible source of the spheres by Rich Lee of the RJ Lee group (who actually had access to the site and the dust and the means to test it in state of the art laboratories- unlike you I assume)- he gives an entirely different explanation for the creation of the spheres!

                  His explanation (which has also been challenged) can be found in full here:

                  http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

                  Are you saying you are more of an expert on these matters than Richard J Lee founder of the RJ Lee Group:

                  “Dr. Lee has over 30 years’ experience specializing in forensic problem solving and technology development. He has managed laboratory operations, designed and developed novel electron microscopes, laboratory automation and information management systems, and commercialized laboratory products. Under Dr. Lee’s direction, RJ Lee Group has grown from a small group to more than 200 staff across the country. Dr. Lee serves as a consultant to a wide range of industrial and governmental organizations. He has been an advisor to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding laboratory methods for analysis of asbestos, as well as the evaluation of contamination in NYC following the events on 9/11.

                  Dr. Lee has also served on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods to define analytical methods. He has been qualified as an expert witness in state and federal courts. He holds six patents and has published over 200 scientific articles and publications. Dr. Lee earned his Ph.D. in Theoretical Solid State Physics from Colorado State University and his B.S. in Physics from the University of North Dakota”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ_Lee_Group

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  @ Carroll Sanders
                  October 5, 2016

                  “That’s the flaw in truth movement science failure to recognize all possibilites must be equally explored.”

                  Do you mean the scientific way that NIST explored ‘all possibilities’ equally? And yet you support their findings without question.

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Jones never quantified how many of the microspheres matched his spectra, the largest total was found on the roof of a bank.

                  There were hundreds of different microspheres, Jones was only interested in the ones that specifically matched the spectra of his red gray paint chips.

                  So the almost 6% quote by Harrit is a lie.

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  below here you posted:


                  Carroll Sanders
                  October 6, 2016
                  Jones never quantified how many of the microspheres matched his spectra, the largest total was found on the roof of a bank.

                  There were hundreds of different microspheres, Jones was only interested in the ones that specifically matched the spectra of his red gray paint chips.

                  So the almost 6% quote by Harrit is a lie.”

                  actually what you have written is a lie. The figure of 5.87% mean average comes from the RJLee study- not from Jones and Harrit. If Jones did find a similar concentration that’s not surprising at all- and only serves to confirm the RJLee results:

                  http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/348-previously-molten-iron-spheres-were-in-wtc-dust-reveal-use-of-thermitic-materials.html

                  Like

      • Jerome Fryer says

        Thanks for the link.

        The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)

        So if we assume that this wasn’t a one-off or rare example (a localised event due to a particular fuel), you have the difference between the claimed 2800 F and this 1800 F to find.

        Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          One source for the ‘claimed’ 2,800F, which I have posted on this thread earlier, and which you consistently overlook and ignore, comes from Bechtel engineers who took daily measurements by helicopter of temperatures in the rubble pile. They wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers:

          “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.” [my emphasis]
          Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

          So it looks as though there really were temperatures in the rubble pile capable of melting steel.

          Like

          • Jerome Fryer says

            That isn’t a source the
            At refers to data of some sort. It is anecdotal.

            The highest proven temperature I have found (which was also sourced by ‘jaques’) is 1800 F, based on metallurgical study of some of the girders pulled from deep within the debris pile.

            Obviously, that doesn’t mean that is the upper limit, but 2800 F is still 1000 degrees greater.

            Like

            • CloudSlicer says

              So, I cited a report written by a professional and highly experienced team of Bechtel safety engineers who worked at GZ during the clean-up operation; and that report refers to daily measurements within the rubble pile of “temperatures more than 2,800F“. Then, because it contains figures which don’t fit with your preferred narrative, you dismiss it all as “anecdotal”.

              This report was published in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, which can hardly be described as some ‘truther’ rag, as you may wish. Nevertheless, that does not stop you from treating these professional witnesses with the same disgraceful disdain that you use about others who report evidence which does not fit your extreme prejudice and bias.

              You claim to be some sort of servant of the ‘real truth’ about 9/11, unmasking unhinged and dishonest conspiracy theorists in your crusade, but nothing could be further from the actual truth. You are instead a fraud and a charlatan. You are an agent, not of truth, but of endarkenment. How does it feel Fryer, to exist during a very dark age, and to be one of those who seek to increase and extend that darkness?

              Like

    • Jerome Fryer says

      I should point out, for anyone trying to locate the elusive 2800 F source, that all of the airborne systems could only measure surface temperatures. These are then extrapolated and estimations made for likely sub-surface temperatures.

      (Having just spent a half-hour looking through the second half of this page:
      http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots
      It isn’t obvious how to square up the different data. None of which points to greater than 1350 F or so.)

      Like

      • From your link:

        “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” — Structural Engineers Association of Utah

        “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.”-Chaplain Herb Trimpe

        “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you’re in a foundry… like lava… from a volcano.” — FDNY Captain Ruvolo

        “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.” — The Atlantic Monthly

        “In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. — Alison Geyh, PhD.

        “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster” — Ron Burger

        “Going below, it was smoky and really hot… The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.” — Richard Garlock, structural engineer for LERA

        There are many more such.

        Steel is molten at 2600F+

        Like

        • Jaques says

          Yet carrol and Jerome who were not there claim the witnesses are all lying- or didn’t know they saw. They know what the witnesses didn’t see. How could that be? It’s pointless debating with such blind dogma- have you noticed how they havnt once confronted all the witness testimony head on?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Mistaken, not lying, how very dishonest of you to try to put words in my mouth!

            Like

            • You believe these people looked at solid steel and somehow mistook it for molten steel? They saw it standing solidly and somehow imagined it was “flowing” and “running down the walls”.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                No I believed the looked at low melt metals, and oxide from cutting and bought into the media hype of melted steel do to the myth of aluminum combustion in the fires.

                People tend to hype things for the media.

                Like

                • You realise this is simply your interpretation and in no way a refutation of these numerous witnesses

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  I am prepared to view physical evidence if any is available, a good engineer or scientist would the a sample let it cool then determine what it was.
                  He would not make statements or conjectures without proof.

                  Like

            • Jaques says

              I said ‘lying or mistaken’. It is you who are putting words in my mouth… anyhow – I am glad you have finally clarified: you say the witnesses all didn’t know what they saw. Somehow you know what they didn’t see. It’s all perfectly clear… I am going with witnesses. I think firefighters and structural engineers know molten steel when they see it- in addition there is a remarkable consistency to the testimony- I believe it.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                I have worked with molten steel, doing sand casting with steel from both a furnace or from iron or copper from thermite.

                I know you can’t tell molten steel by looking at it. If you don’t know what the material is you have to take a sample cool it and examine it.

                You can’t just look at molten material and determine what it is other than molten.

                Like

        • Jerome Fryer says

          You are quote-mining.

          [Those quotes are from a much longer list of similar quotes ON A PAGE YOU LINKED TO. Thry are not snipped, cut or lifted from their context by us. They are simply copied and pasted entirely as they exist on that page. So you will have to accuse that page of “quote mining” not us. – OffG ed]

          The vast majority of anecdotal evidence refers to seeing heated steel, and evidence of temperatures in the
          range up to around 600 C. – citation needed to confirm the relative numbers – OffG ed

          Here is an example of how anecdotal evidence from people who should know better can be misleading:

          But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse.[1] We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.[2]

          -Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue

          2002-09-11 – The Eagle – Reluctant hero narrates horror of N.Y. mission

          http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Publication:20121014105903

          [1] No such masses of fused steel were found.
          [2] Not physically possible. Molten steel is a dense liquid, at around 2800 F. You can’t walk on it.

          This was recollections from a department chief and USAR expert. They don’t prove ‘molten steel’.

          Your hubris in assuming you know better about what was found or what this man witnessed than he does himself is quite remarkable – OffG ed

          Like

    • CloudSlicer says

      Bechtel engineers were responsible for safety at Ground Zero and made daily measurements of temperatures in the rubble pile. They wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers:

      “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

      [my emphasis] – Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm
      These recorded high temperatures, up to and more than 2,800F, are enough to melt steel so the probability of there being melted steel in the wreckage is high.

      Like

  8. Carroll Sanders says

    How about an iron macrosphere instead of a microsphere?

    Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Are shot gun pellets hollow and made of FeO?

        I don’t think so!

        Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          What am I to deduce from that ridiculous low-res photo? Am I supposed to tell whether it’s solid or hollow, and what it’s made from? That’s bonkers. But it’s pretty much par for the course in terms of the quality of the so-called ‘evidence’ you provide to back up your ‘scientific’ claims.

          Anyway – what the hell has this little ball got to do with the question of high temperatures and hot metal at the WTC? Why is it related and what does it signify? Did you pick it up from the WTC site? This photo means absolutely nothing in this context, so it’s worthless junk.

          But I have to say that my curiosity is piqued about your seeming obsession with these ‘little balls’, and I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some kind of Freudian basis underlying it.

          Like

  9. moriarty's Left Sock says

    My God look at Gross’s body language in that vid. He’s practically writhing in discomfiture and shame. That man knows all about the evidence for extreme high temps in the WTC rubble and has been told for political reasons to deny it.

    Why?

    More important than the bizarrely high temperatures, which theoretically could end up having a natural explanation if looked into, is the fact the PTB saw the need to deny the temperatures existed!

    Why did someone see those high temps as a hot button issue (pun intended)?

    Like

    • Carroll Sanders says

      There are natural reasons for hot pockets that I have pointed out, NIST simply found no evidence for them in the steel or forensics, but they have been investigated by private individuals Like Myself, and Dr. Greening.

      Like

      • Loop Garou says

        Yeah. Sure.

        NIST just could not find any evidence for high temps in the steel.

        And NIST just had never heard about those thermal maps.

        Poor old NIST. Totally out the fucking loop.

        Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          And isn’t it strange that Gross, who denies all knowledge of high temps and melted steel, is photographed in a scrap yard posing with WTC beams which have experienced high temperatures and show clear evidence of melting? These photos were released via a FOIA request forcing NIST to part with them and other photographic evidence which they were trying to keep secret. Now why would they want to do that?
          http://wtfrly.com/2015/01/31/911-truth-nist-no-molten-metal-guy-melted-steel/

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Sulfidication is not melting it is acid attacking steel.

            Like

            • jaques says

              FEMA WTC Building Performance Study Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

              Figure C-8 Qualitative chemical analysis.

                  Summary for Sample 1
              
                      The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
              
                      Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
              
                      The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. 
              

              “The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon. ”

              http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                So it is sufidication so what, known chemical process, tons of sulfur in the debris pile DA!

                Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  So what was the source of the elemental sulfur needed for the eutectic mixture which melted the steel?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                The source of the sulfur is calcium sulfate dry wall dust easy to crack with a chimney effect, However it can only occur in the gasious flow of a chimney effect with carbon monoxide, and dehydrated drywall dust.

                There is yellow elemental sulfur still on the pipe.
                I did this experiment way before Cole did his little bond fire on the ground, with no Chimney effect, Cole didn’t provide the environment for the reaction to occur because he didn’t study the reaction dynamic like a scientist would.
                This has been studied in Clean coal technology, and in the oil fields, as sufidication is a problem in oil refineries and power plants.
                Once you have studied the reactions you can figure out how they would have occurred in the buildings or the rubble pile.

                Like

              • CloudSlicer says

                Dr Greening studied this eutectic corrosion and melting of the steel, and considered various sources for the sulphur. He recommended that NIST repeat its fire tests (which were originally conducted on simple office module simulations) but this time:

                “… using more realistic environments that include shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc. In this way better estimates of the rates of production of SO2 and the degree of sulfidation of steel could be established.”
                Source: http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

                Incidentally, Dr Greening chose to publish this ‘paper’ exclusively on 911myths.com – a website devoted to debunking 9/11 ‘myths’ – rather than publishing them in ANY scientific journal and thereby subjecting them to peer review.

                Greening’s recommendations to NIST about further fire test were apparently ignored by them.

                However Jonathan Cole conducted an interesting experiment of his own to try to duplicate the effects of fire in the WTC rubble, with interesting results …

                9/11 Experiments – The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

                Liked by 1 person

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Remember I stated they did a little brush pile on the ground that could produce nothing , Coles video shows exactly how not to do a sulfidication experiment.

                  An oxidizing carbon fire with no chimney effect and no dense black carbon soot.

                  Wrong fuels wrong conditions wrong experiment, waste of time.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  “Wrong fuels wrong conditions wrong experiment, waste of time.”

                  So if Jonathan Cole got it so badly wrong, why don’t you take up his challenge? – Watch the video again from 7:47 in. – He says, “If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong; By experiment.”

                  You’ve been boasting on here about all your experience and the various fire-chemistry experiments you’ve conducted, so it must be fairly easy for you to do another, record it on video and upload it to YouTube for Cole and all us crazy ‘truthers’ to see?

                  What’s stopping you if you think you’ve got the problem cracked?

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Because I did the experiment correctly years before he did, and it worked so why waste resource and time on something I already understand?
                  I don’t care about Cole, not worth the time effort and the risk, plus I don’t need another 1500$ fine from the fire Marshall.

                  You have to build a special catalitic converter to obey air pollution laws when burning hydrocarbon plastics.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all you seem to do – make excuses.

                  You make all sorts of claims about your scientific understanding regarding what must have happened in the rubble and the buildings, and how experienced professionals could not have seen what they say they saw, and how steel beams ended up being bent into perfect arcs, and how chimney effect fires can account for so, so much, and so on and so on. But all of it is unsubstantiated.

                  And when you are asked to prove and verify your claims you make excuses as to why you cannot. Can’t you see how pathetically flimsy your claims look?

                  Like

    • jaques says

      This is a good point you make- he does indeed appear to be lying, the questiojn clearly makes him uncomfortable and his mouth goes dry- he needs some water to lubricate the lie he is about to make.

      This goes to the question of ‘Guilty Demeanour’. You can see similar discomfort from many of the 9/11 players when they are confronted with suggestions that challenge the official narrative here is a classic example from George Bush:

      Bush is also very awkward deflecting questions about his ‘not under oath’ and ‘holding Dick’s hand’ and not recorded or published secret ‘testimony’ to the 9/11 Commission

      this pattern of Guilty Demeanour is also on display when Condoleezza Rice was questioned about warnings of the impending attack:

      Note the gasps of disbelief in the hearing room when she finally admits the title of a particular briefing was ‘Bin Laden Determined to attack targets within the United States’

      There is yet more Guilty Demeanour on display when Rumsfeld is asked about building 7:

      Rummie claims he has never heard of Building 7- which is very odd as he worked for a company that had it’s headquarters there for many years. It also contained the largest CIA office outside of Langley- and Mayor Guiliani’s OEM Bunker.

      the list of people displaying Guilty Demeanour when confronted with evidence of the 9/11 inside job is very long. I would love to see an expert in body language make an analysis of the videos I have linked above. However I don’t need an expert to make my own judgements about these people: they are very clearly lying!

      Liked by 1 person

      • jaques says

        for a detailed analysis of the Guilty Demeanor displayed by the key 9/11 players I can recommend Barry Zwicker’s excellent and early ducumentary about 9/11:

        Liked by 1 person

      • Brian Harry, Australia says

        What an utter disgrace. Bush telling reporters he had discussions with the 9/11 Commission, but gave NO detail, and Rumsfeld ‘hadn’t heard about tower 7’, both lying through their back teeth. And 15 years later(and $5Trillion dollars) NOTHING has been done to solve the unanswered questions that everyone wants answers to. This is a Conspiracy right from the TOP down. Treasonous criminals all of them.

        Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          So you people prove your motive is politics not science cut the bull provide science not political speculation!

          Like

          • jaques says

            It’s not speculation- it is evidence- and I never said I was here to strictly discuss science. I can and do speculate on the politics – it goes to means, motives and background of the 9/11 false flag event. Added to the scientific evidence it builds an irrefutable case- despite your baseless and irrational claims to the contrary.

            Like

          • Brian Harry, Australia says

            Carol Sanders, and Freyer are only here to spread “sheet”. They have nothing to offer, other than more ‘sheet’…

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              You think claiming you can read peoples minds from videos isn’t sheet?
              I am discussing science and fact, not the witchery and propaganda you are.

              Like

              • jaques says

                I didn’t say I could read their minds- but I can make a judgement about their body language and the veracity of what they say. This is what happens in court rooms every day.

                You have claimed here to have both produced sulfidication studies and studies of thermite cutting devices. Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

                You say you sent your thermite study to NIST. Publish it here or give a reason why you won’t- or shut up and stop making baseless claims.

                Like

  10. Carroll Sanders says

    What I love is people who know nothing making comments and proving it, the meteorite in the video was formed by compression not melting, it has unburned paper in it.

    The bent steel horse shoe was directly impacted by the plane, the impact of the plane created localized temperatures of over 3000C. [citation needed – OffG ed]

    No one has produced any credible evidence of molten steel, but it would not surprise me if it was in fact present. [apart from the evidence of the firefighters and engineers who were at Ground Zero and observed such temps and apart from the thermal imaging that recorded such temps? -OffG ed]

    What can never be done is legitimately link CD to the carbon fueled files in the rubble piles.

    Like

    • moriarty's Left Sock says

      “The bent steel horse shoe was directly impacted by the plane, the impact of the plane created localized temperatures of over 3000C….”

      Errr…citation needed! Admin??

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        The white flashes as the plane enters the building impact caused Aluminum to atomize and combust in air, aluminum burns at close to 3000C in a gasious to gasious reaction.

        http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html

        We know the location the beam came from it has been known for years now.[citation STILL needed – OffG ed]

        Like

        • Loop Garou says

          Oh please. Quit citing all the theory and general bullshittery you can find as “fact” and then complaining about the “truthers” not sticking to reality.

          You have no clue if those flashes were produced by combusting aluminum. Frankly it’s a far-fetched theory, and it’s just that – a theory. Not every stupid idea that refutes “conspiracies” is worth repeating you know.

          As to the idea the plane bent that beam – you’ve been watching too many Loony Tunes chum.

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Aluminum is the fuel in thermites, so you are saying thermites don’t exist, is that what you are saying?

            Aluminum plus oxygen equals aluminum oxide and 3000C temps!

            Like

            • JanjoukedeHaan says

              Polyethylene consists of carbon and hydrogen. So: put a lump of coal in a jar, add some hydrogen gas, shake for good measure and, hey presto, you have a plastic bag in a jar!

              My very first chemistry teacher taught me some 50 years ago, that it does not work that way. He is very old by now, but still alive. You should contact him.

              Like

    • Jerome Fryer says

      “apart from the evidence of the firefighters and engineers who were at Ground Zero and observed such temps and apart from the thermal imaging that recorded such temps? -OffG ed”

      Citation needed.

      Citation provided above in the article you have apparently not read, if you continue to claim there is no evidence when the evidence is clearly stated and has been repeatedly presented to you then you are guilty of trolling. You are free to disagree with the evidence, as others here do, but you are NOT free to claim the evidence does not exist when it has been shown to you that it does – OffG Admin

      Like

    • jaques says

      What I don’t love is people who make authoritative claims like ‘The horsehsoe was formed by the plane impact’ and then offer no evidence whatsoever to back up their highly dubious preposterous claim…

      Like

  11. Carroll Sanders says

    Please can someone give me a rational theory on how CD would produce temperatures approaching 2800F? Thermite and thermate are illogical, the slag from the thefmitic lances and the planes impact produced the same residues.

    Please just one logical rational theory that makes since.

    Like

    • We are NOT pointing out the fact there were temps of 2800F because we believe it supports some theory. We are pointing it out because it is true and anomalous. The official story of office fires can’t account for it, so we need another investigation to try and explain this and other anomalous facts.

      Try to get it into your head that this site is not claiming the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition or backing any theory. It’s just laying open the facts and asking unanswered questions.

      You and too many other are too intent about making the facts fit preconceptions and selectively ignoring any data that doesn’t fit. We are not interested in arguments from certitude – whoever is producing them.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        The material in WT6 was lead, aluminum or copper If it had been still at 1565 C the person reporting he saw it would have been fried alive.

        You need to point out a true factual case that doesn’t not involve ironious reports of people hyping accounts, molten metal is molten metal many metals have low melt temperatures.

        The thermal imaging you refer to is done while steel cutting is in progress, steel cutting is the reason for the hot Zones.

        The excavators and cranes couldn’t function if the fires were as hot as claimed the rubble seals in the track motors would have been melted.

        No large lumps of truly melted steel were ever recovered just one piece chemically attacked by Sulfur.

        Like

        • jaques says

          “You need to point out a true factual case”

          Like this?

          “The Horse shoe shape was a dirrect result of plane impact.”

          Show me the evidence that this is a ‘true’ or ‘factual’ statement? Can you? Any? Nope?

          Or- isn’t it necessary for you to abide by the rules you hold others to? If so: why do you have this wonderful exemption? Did you grant it to yourself? Did God herself bestow it upon you? Did you ‘recieve it in a dream’? Is it a certificate you get from Cass Sunnstein?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            The location the beam was in when the plane hit the building is know.

            Like

            • Then please provide a source both for that and for the claim it was bent by the impact of the plane

              Like

              • jaques says

                It’s clear there is no source- we are to take this Caroll persons’ word for it.

                I don’t: not in a million years. Put up or shut up I say.

                The mere suggestion that this was caused by plane impact is utterly absurd at face value: farcical and ridiculous. There is no evidence on the supposed impact face of the beam- no scratching at all – from the cataclysmic even that both heated it uniformly enough and instantaneously so that it could be bent into a horseshoe without cracking along the edges by the same force that heated it- at the same moment in time: a plane traveling at 500mph. It just a rubbish theory.

                It’s no wonder that brawny NYC iron worker was so surprised by the horseshoe beam… The only yhting that I can think of that actually does explain it- is super-heating followed by a powerful blast wave. What could possibly have caused that on 9/11?

                Controlled demolition: thermite and explosives?

                Other than the demonstrably moronic ‘hit and heated by plane’ Mr. Caroll theory – can anyone suggest any other that is consistent with the observable evidence?

                Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  It is well known what heat does to steel, I looked for the old link, but couldn’t find it what I did find is this video demonstration of the effects of even a cool wood fire on steel.
                  General Sherman and Total War: Sherman’s Neckties: http://youtu.be/KMrUBFDYe0U

                  Like

                • “I looked for the old link, but couldn’t find it”

                  I, too, hate it when that happens.

                  Well, at least you did demonstrate how Sherman’s Neckties were made, once and for all dispelling that particular mystery in the minds of anyone among us who might still have been wondering and entertaining crazy notions about how that might have happened.

                  It wasn’t thermite or thermate or super-thermite or explosives.

                  But neither was it a plane travelling at 500 mph.

                  But close enough, I guess, if ya ain’t got anything else.

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  so you looked for the ‘old link’ and found nothing- yet you still maintain it as a fact? BULLSHIT! You are full of it. There is no evidence to back up your absurd preposterous claim. If there was actual evidence it would be documented somewhere- not just a vague memory of a now not-existent internet link. You should be ashamed of yourself. Instead you seem to hold yourself in the highest regard. You need to asses that self belief of yours….

                  Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Admin I with draw the claim on the beams placement, after making some calls, I now know the engineer who provided the technical drawings on the beam is no longer living and his information as well as the information on Physorg forum has been lost forever.

                  I do not with draw, the claim that the plane created a vaporific pyrophoric effect on impact.

                  I must with draw the claim on the beam do to actually being intellectually honest.

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  I am going to post this as a fresh comment so it goes to the top- as it is GOLD!

                  Today- after maintaining and repeating the baseless claim ‘the beam was bent by impact from the plane’ as if it was a fact for several days Carrol has ‘with drawn’ it- giving reasons- which I must say are just slightly better than ‘the dog ate my homework’:

                  “Carroll Sanders

                  October 5, 2016 
                  

                  Admin I with draw the claim on the beams placement, after making some calls, I now know the engineer who provided the technical drawings on the beam is no longer living and his information as well as the information on Physorg forum has been lost forever.

                  I do not with draw, the claim that the plane created a vaporific pyrophoric effect on impact.

                  I must with draw the claim on the beam do to actually being intellectually honest.”

                  What a shame! The engineer ‘died’, the forum information has been ‘lost for ever’?

                  You know- there is an archive for old internet pages Carrol?

                  They have saved over 510 billion internet pages. perhaps the crucial ‘evidence’ is not lost after all?

                  https://archive.org/web/

                  Like

        • Loop Garou says

          Wait – aren’t you the same guy claiming firefighters could have been running about in that chimney stairwell at temps of 1000C minutes before collapse?

          At least keep your Wiley Coyote Acme science consistent bro.

          And the guy claiming the temps of 2800F wasn’t standing 20feet deep in the rubble pile at the time. He was talking about the thermal mapping. Don’t you guys read ATL even a bit?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            The science is consistent, your understand is what is lacking Chimney effects go up radiant effects do not.

            Like

            • And gravity bends light although Paul Marmet has demonstrated conclusively that it doesn’t. If you want a link for that, I’ll gladly provide it though I know that that is a completely different discussion from the one we are having here.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Please provide a link that disproves gravitational lensing.

                NOTE FROM ADMIN: no off-topic discussion please, do NOT provide such a link please Norman

                Like

            • JanjoukedeHaan says

              Airplane, roughly some 80 tonnes of aluminium and 50 tonnes of kerosene, slams into a building consisting of app 100,000 tonnes of structural steel and some 100,000 tonnes of concrete. The kerosene escapes from the building in a blast of fire, thereby also setting some office furniture and some paper aflame at the 80th floor of the building.

              This causes all 100,000 tonnes of steel to assume the consistency of marshmallow, so, naturally, the whole building explodes from the top down, with steel beams being launched upward and outward, pulverizing all the concrete in the process and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement that stay hot for many weeks afterwards.

              This happens twice in one day, and the sheer influence of those office fires also collapses a 47-story building at some 100 meters distance.

              Makes sense…

              Like

        • jaques says

          “The material in WT6 was lead, aluminum or copper If it had been still at 1565 C the person reporting he saw it would have been fried alive.”

          again- more and more suppositions- just garbage really that can be disproven in a second. Can you tell me why these witness to a lava was not ‘fried alive’:

          https://www.google.com.au/search?q=person+standing+near+lava&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE8N3PgMXPAhVG6oMKHR9BBGwQ_AUICCgB&biw=2140&bih=1035&dpr=0.9

          Like

  12. Jerome Fryer says

    This section of the 911myths website covers the most often repeated quotes that ‘truthers’ cherry-pick to assert that the WTC debris pile was unusually hot.

    To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.

    Source: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

    Like

    • A structural engineer personally inspects the steel and claims there must have been temps of 2800F. An engineer tasked with removing the debris describes molten metal running down the walls of WTC6. Thermal mapping that showed hot spots of 2800F. Fire fighters claiming the fires must have been around 2800F.

      Explain how this is the result of “quote-mining” or “cherrypicking” please.

      You’re repeat claims of this nonsense is becoming trolling and will be treated as such. If several experts in their field say there were temps of 2800+ then that IS evidence for these temps. It may not be proof(perhaps this is what you mean?), but it is evidence. Do NOT keep claiming there is none.

      BTW – you need to co-ordinate with Carroll Sanders as you keep treading on each other’s points. You are claiming there were no high temps, he (I think, it’s hard to tell), is saying such high temps can occur naturally). So, were the high temps just a silly old myth believed only by credulous idiots or were they just completely natural and nothing to worry about? Can’t be both, that’s for sure.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Admin Irronious reports are not evidence, the engineer looking at the beam simply lacked knowledge,
        In how the object was formed, that knowledge was gathered though logical investigation.

        You would expect hots spots from the use of thermitic thermal Lances that produce temperatures of over 4500F and from reactions induced by hot iron oxide slag dripping down into the rubble pile.

        You also have the path tunnels and other tunnels, acting as ventry tubes allowing air under the rubble pile.

        You need to state a valid case for a new investigation, as the first case is to make a case for why you need one to have jurisprudence, be able to supena and call witnesses.
        Before you can put someone on the witness stand you have to make a valid and accurate case not based on opinion or speculation.

        Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Jerome Fryer does not have personal knowledge, of such events and the fire chemistry do to personally investigation of the fire chemistry, though actual experimentations, I do.
        He has probably never used a thermal lance- Oxygen Lance, I have.
        I am simply pointing out that natural occurance is more likely to have produced the events rather than fast acting quick burning pyrotechnics.
        Saving that these temps were generated by Thermite over time means you need thousands of tons of it, and thousands of tons of melted slag iron would have had to have been hauled away just from the
        Thermite alone.

        Like

        • jaques says

          These are lofty claims… though they lack detail- I wonder WHY?

          where are your alleged experiments documented?

          What is the exact nature of your expertise?

          Put up: or shut up.

          Like

        • jaques says

          Rubbish

          To generate these temps: at one localized spot- all that is required is a micro-gram of thermite.

          Assuming maximum efficiency the quantity of thermite to melt a given target is directly related to the amount of material that needs to be melted. Obviously.

          As very little of the WTC debris pile was collected, documented or analyzed it is impossible to speculate as to what was and wasn’t there. The evidence was destroyed- and the site was tightly controlled. NIST and FEMA acknowledge this absolute fact. So to say that no slag was found, or than no molten iron was found- is merely to state the obvious: it is impossible to find something which you do not look for.

          All of which is to ignore the fact that molten metal WAS found, documented, tested, referenced, and there are innumerable eyewitness accounts that corroborate this fact- despite the best efforts to remove the entire debris pile without any crime scene or forensic analysis- as was strictly stipulated by law.

          It was a Crime to destroy the evidence. The entire scene should have thoroughly investigated- and far more material retained for analysis. Only the disingenuous or dishonest would dispute this simple assertion.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Citation needed Admin for the thermite heat Jacques has made.

            Like

      • Jerome Fryer says

        “Explain how this is the result of “quote-mining” or “cherrypicking” please.”

        I’ve given you the link. Read it, and check the oral history of the FDNY. The quotes you pulled out are not representative of what people were saying, and they are not accurate.

        There is no evidence to back up the claims — why no photos of ‘pools of molten steel’? Not interesting enough to take a photo of? Oh, you’ll point to the one photo of the excavator with glowing material in the jaws? Read the link.

        [edited for content-free ad hom – OffG ed]

        Like

        • Can we be clear here – did anyone actually contradict these people we quote? Did anyone say “there was no molten metal dripping down the walls”? or “steel can warp like this at much lower temps than 2800F”? Can you cite actual rebuttal of the specific claims we quote?

          Even if you can, at best what you are saying is that opinions conflict. This does not of itself invalidate the considered scientific opinion of a man who actually examined the steel in question.

          But what of the thermal imaging that showed temps of 2800F? Is that also “not accurate” because it does not agree with the oral testimony you want to believe?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Speculation is not examination it is just speculation,
            2800F temperatures would be expected during steel cutting,

            Molten metal is not inconsistent with carbon fires.

            No one has produced a video of steel flowing yellow because it is physicly impossible to do so.

            Steel in large molts has to be 1565 to flow as a molten material.

            Like

            • jaques says

              again- more demonstrable lies:

              “No one has produced a video of steel flowing yellow because it is physicly impossible to do so.”

              Like

          • Jerome Fryer says

            But what of the thermal imaging that showed temps of 2800F? Is that also “not accurate” because it does not agree with the oral testimony you want to believe?

            I am not basing my assessment on what I want to believe — you are. It is significant that the people claiming to have seen ‘molten metal’ or even ‘molten steel’ do not provide any further insight into those claims, but the same people and their peers were able to work next to materials supposedly at temperatures in excess of 2800 F, and lived to tell the tale. There is also a dearth of evidence other than anecdotal, and anecdotes are the least reliable source of factually accurate information.

            Can you find the “thermal imaging” that indicates temperatures of 2800 degrees F?

            I can’t find a source. The sources I found only indicate higher than 1300 F as possible. That 1500 F difference is problematic.

            No source makes the claim unsupported by evidence.

            By an interesting coincidence, 2800 degrees F is the temperature that steel melts at. Why is the ‘truther’ claim exactly 2800 F, and not say 2600 F or 3000 F? I think I know why.

            Like

            • jaques says

              “Speculation is not examination it is just speculation”

              here is an example of speculation:

              “the bent beam was caused by the plane impact”

              speculative garbage devoid of evidence and utterly worthless. Do you accept that assessment of your bogus claimCarroll? Or do your own standards not apply to you?

              failure to respond will be taken as acceptance. A response that repeats the bogus claim and again omits the explanation- will indicate your disingenuous hypocritical ways. A full retraction or a detailed credible explanation is in order. Do you agree?

              Like

            • CloudSlicer says

              One source for the ‘claimed’ 2,800F, posted on this thread earlier, which you consistently overlook and ignore, comes from Bechtel engineers who took daily measurements by helicopter of temperatures in the rubble pile. They wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers:

              “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.” [my emphasis]
              Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

              So it looks as though there really were temperatures in the rubble pile capable of melting steel.

              Like

    • jaques says

      So I take it YOU believe these 9/11 Heroes- these NYC Firefighters – who lost so many friends on 9/11-are:

      a) Lying
      b) Delusional
      c) Don’t know what they see with their own eyes- at least in the case of molten metal- despite the facts they they are trained experts on fire, and materials?
      d) Don’t actually exist

      And Lead Structural Engineer of the WTC Leslie Robertson was telling the truth on October 6, 2006 when he said:

      ‘I have never run across anyone who has said they have seen molten metal’ (at WTC)

      but was lying on April 9, 2002 when he said, “We were down at the B1 level and one of the firefighters said that ‘i think you’d be interested in this’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was a like, like a little river of steel flowing’?

      I suppose you are also suggesting that Ken Holden Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation, and debris removal operations at Ground Zero was lying under oath when he testified on April 1, 2003 at the first First public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States- where he clearly and unambiguously stated,

      “Just walking on the site was hazardous because the debris could shift at any moment. Yet hundreds of fire fighters, police officers, rescue workers, laborers, crane operators, iron workers, construction management personnel and DDC staffers worked around the clock in close proximity to literally hundreds of potentially dangerous objects and situations. Throughout this time, the war-like atmosphere was surreal, with Army, National Guard and NYPD providing armed security.

      Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. UNDERGROUND IT WAS STILL SO HOT THAT MOLTEN METAL DRIPPED DRIPPED DOWN THE SIDES OF THE WALL FROM BUILDING 6. Cars – both burned and pristine – were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.”

      It’s quite the accusation to suggest that he is lying under oath- but I guess you do just that? I guess he was giving testimony on April fools day so…

      http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_holden.htm

      I assume you also believe Mayor Guiliani lied a little when he said temperatures in the rubble pile were over 2000F? Those were oxygen starved fires right?

      It follows you also suggest 9/11 eyewitness and survivor David Long was flat out lying when he said so positively and directly,

      “This is something I really want to underline: I saw long streams of molten metal coming out of the building, and they were not coming from the area where the impact was, so there was a large black circle, where something had blown up up there…. Just like a stream from a welders torch, but much longer, these streams were probably two or three stories in length…. that is like nothing I have ever seen, that is not fire, that is not smoke…”

      It’s a long list of people who you believe are lied about what they saw- but there are many, many more I could add- like William Langewiesche – a journalist for the Atlantic granted rare access to ‘ground zero’:

      “Langewiesche explored the shifting debris with construction workers and engineers, documenting the crises and questions as they arose. He crawled through “the pile” with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. He interviewed hundreds of people, from ironworkers and city managers to architects and doctors. What he witnessed in his reporting, Langewiesche says, was “uniquely American improvisation on an enormous scale.”

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/77-north-washington-street/302529/

      You may say ‘they didn’t understand what they saw’, but logic dictates you must also say ‘but I know what they didn’t see’ if you want to hold to your claim that there ‘was no molten metal’. How could they not know what they saw whilst you know what they didn’t see? That is some acute extra sensory ‘vision’ you must have that makes you so certain in your lofty pronouncements…

      personally- If was a judge and this was a trial: I would favor the numerable and credible eyewitness testimony over your supposed, alleged, unsubstantiated ‘expert’ opinion…

      have a nice day.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jerome Fryer says

        “If was a judge and this was a trial: I would favor the numerable and credible eyewitness testimony over your supposed, alleged, unsubstantiated ‘expert’ opinion”

        The accuracy of ‘eyewitness testimony’ has been widely studied by scientists. It turns out that people are extremely poor at recalling events accurately, and our judicial systems that rely on such testimony are thus badly flawed. (I don’t mean lying, either. I mean inaccurate recollection of events, failure to notice things, substitution of facts, and myriad other problems that we have.) People also have a tendency to incorporate what other people say into ‘their memory of an event — particularly if what is being said adds interest to the memory.

        This is why, if you are going to rely on anecdotal evidence, you should consider the totality of the anecdotes. Overall, the various testimonies should point to what the events likely were — different biases and mistakes cancel out, to some extent. Selecting a few anecdotes that you believe support your preferred version of events is not a valid approach to establishing facts.

        About six minutes in the problems with what is usually termed ‘false memory’ is discussed:

        Like

        • Yet you take the eyewitness testimony of people claiming they saw WTC7 “fully involved in fire” and “blazing on every floor”, even though it is not just unsupported by the videos, but frankly contradicted. Eyewitnesses are only reliable when they tell the story you want to hear it seems.

          Look at the huge list of witnesses Jaques provided who can attest to molten steel (and therefore to temps in excess of 2800F). Are you honestly contending they are all liars or fools? Was FEMA lying when it said it could not account for the strange and heretofore unknown behaviours of the steel?

          As we keep saying to no avail – you do not have to buy into any conspiracy to simply acknowledge there are areas of doubt , confusion and unanswered questions that demand a new investigation.

          Liked by 1 person

          • jaques says

            A well made point. There really isn’t much point debating with this tag team of clowns. They move the goal posts every paragraph… They are being utterly disingenuous- and absurdly hypocritical: they hold others to standards that clearly don’t apply to themselves.

            I am of the opinion now that they are not interested in the truth of the matter at all. The only purpose they serve is to show once again just how weak the official story is. Like the laughable claims of NIST and Popular Mechanics they must resort to ever more fanciful explanations to try and explain the recorded and known phenomena of 9/11.

            I also think they know too much- to know so little.

            I will make a brief list of claims made by Carrol in this thread which are unsubstantiated and lack any evidence whatsoever:

            1) The horshoe was caused by plane impact
            2) The iron microspheres were ‘ink toner’
            3) the bright flash at plane impact was a super hot thermitic reaction
            4) the melted steel beams studied by FEMA were caused by sulfidication in the rubble pile
            5) the sulfur came from the dry wall
            6) thermite cutter charges cannot effectively be used for demolition
            7) there is no film evidence of glowing yellow molten metal at ground zero
            8) the molten ‘steel’ seen by witnesses was either aluminum or some other low melting temp metals- or a byproduct of clean-up welding operations
            9) All witnesses who clearly stated that they saw molten steel were wrong: they either exaggerated or didn’t know what they saw- or lied

            I am sure I could find many more examples without trying hard. However suffice it to say- when you make this many bogus unsubstantiated claims- and you have the nerve to say things like:

            “Speculation is not examination it is just speculation”

            you leave yourself wide open to being labelled a HYPOCRITE.

            Like

  13. CloudSlicer says

    Calling all serious participants who want an honest discussion:

    Norman Pilon and myself had a wee chat further down this thread about the difficulties faced in attempting to conduct any serious discussion of these Off-Guardian 9/11 articles. This is because of the activities of certain trolling-type commentators who are busy trying to disrupt and prevent any honest debate of these topics.

    One possible strategy to avoid this, which we think is worth trying, is to attempt such a discussion in a new ‘sub-thread’ (starting here hopefully!) with the explicit purpose of not allowing any such disruption to begin, by simply ignoring the inputs by trolls. We do this by freezing them out, and not engaging with them directly at all. If a troll-type plants a disruptive seed, we do not rise to the bait, but instead we talk around it as though it’s not there. In the process, if a troll-type incidentally raises a point of interest which one or more of us thinks is pertinent to the topic being discussed, then we can incorporate it in our (troll-free) discussion.

    Hopefully Admin will understand the reasons we are being driven to resort to such a method of ‘debate’ and will allow this experiment to proceed and will facilitate it appropriately.

    So – All non-trolls welcome!
    And remember – Don’t feed the trolls (you’ve probably spotted them by now) no matter how much they provoke. Their aim is to engage people in fruitless time-wasting to prevent real discussion.

    OK. The subject for discussion is:
    What is the evidence for high temperatures and molten metal at the WTC before and after the collapses; what are the characteristics of these phenomena, and how can they be rationally explained?

    Ready … Set … Go!

    Liked by 1 person

    • CloudSlicer says

      I’ll start things off:

      I think the most obvious sign of possible molten metal is the liquid pouring from one of the towers shortly before the collapse began. It looks bright yellow, and maybe white near the top of the spill, and if it’s steel it’s very hot: in the region of 1500C. Some videos show the extent of the stream and it seems to be a less bright yellow as it falls, indicating cooling. NIST accept it is molten metal, but they propose aluminium, rather than steel, because they say the temps of the fires could not melt steel. But aluminium is silver when it’s molten, not bright yellow.

      Any thoughts?

      Like

      • WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner

        Norm’s note: office fires could not conceivably rise to temperatures capable of melting steel. Furthermore, aluminium begins to melt at roughly 600C, but appears silver-ish and not yellow-white at that temperature. It, too, can reach molten temperatures at which it does glow yellow-white, but then those temps would be well beyond what could be generated by what we are told fed the fires in the towers: mostly office furnishings. Steven Jones’s interpretation of what is pouring out the building in the video above is likely correct: it’s molten steel and not the aluminium from the planes, as NIST claims.

        For those who may be curious, see this discussion:

        FAQ #14: What was the Molten Metal Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse — Steel and Iron, or Aluminum and/or Lead?

        Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          Notice this supposed steel at 1565C doesn’t melt the aluminum Cladding that melts at 660C.
          The black body radiation indicates it is 1000C, that means it probably a mixture of low melt materials.

          Like

          • moriarty's Left Sock says

            You are inviting us to observe that in the few second video we have shot from a considerable distance that none of the aluminium cladding is melting?

            I could not possibly deduce anything about that from this video, and neither could anyone else.

            Besides, if that’s not molten steel, what is it? Everyone knows that aluminium would not look like that in broad daylight, whatever was mixed in with it. It’s not aluminium. I’m open to any other suggestions.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Not correct it is aluminums thermal conductivity that reduces it’t potential for glowing yellow find a material like AlN that can change the thermal conductivity and you change how aluminum emits black body radiation.

              Also if you exposed the thin Al Carding to 1565C white hot temps you would notice the large holes produced by the melt of the Aluminum Cladding, point is, it is way to cold to be molten steel.

              Like

              • Loop Garou says

                Show us one example of Al glowing bright yellow in daylight.

                Just one.

                Throw in some carpet tiles if it helps.

                Like

              • jaques says

                If it is ‘way too cold to be molten steel’ how on earth does it glow red in daylight conditions and yet pour like a liquid? Aluminum must be far hotter than steel to glow red. Perhaps you claim- as NIST claims- that the molten metal clearly observed and documented pouring fromt he South Tower was molten aluminum mixed with burning organics? If that’s your claim please provide evidence of such a phenomena occurring ANYWHERE in the world at any other time. Or do you claim it has never happened before or since- but somehow occurred on 9/11?

                The fact is: burning organics will not readily mix with molten aluminum. The organics would be pushed to the surface of the molten metal and rejected- and the poorly mixed slurry would not glow bright a very uniform bright orange under broad daylight conditions.

                What was observed is more consistent with molten iron or steel. Despite your claims to the contrary there is a great deal of evidence that molten iron was found at ground zero. I trust the eye-witness testimony of Leslie Robertson and Ken Holder and many others over your unsubstantiated blanket statements.

                If you were an academic student- and I was marking your papers- I would have to give you an F for failing to provide referenced sources for many claims that you make and for proving dubious references for other claims. That is a basic no-no in academia. If you make a claim which is not your own: you must provide the source. If you make a claim that is your own: you must provide your reasoning and/or your evidence. You do neither.

                This situation is worsened because you are blatantly hypocritical in this matter: you constantly claim your opponents ‘cherry pick’ information and that they make unverified falsifiable claims. To paraphrase Osama Bin Laden your claims are in the category of

                “accusing others {of} their own affliction, in order to fool the masses”

                Liked by 1 person

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Aluminium does not need to be hotter than steel to glow with te same orange colour, it needs to be around the same temperature, although the reflectivity of the metal would make it appear to be glowing brighter. In this case, if it were aircraft alloy (or anything similar) then somewhere around 900 to 1000 degrees C would seem about right.

                  Read this thread:
                  https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/page-11

                  (Note the video of the person melting aluminium at “900 degrees C”, and the colour of the liquid. It looks like the actual temperature is probably a bit lower than 900 degrees C.)

                  Also, be careful if you are getting your information from ‘truther’ sources. Jones botched his attempt at working out the temperature of the metal pouring from WTC 2, using NIST’s enhanced image as a source rather than original photographs.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Once again Fryer, you are talking utter nonsense.
                  The video that you refer to in your source, of a guy melting aluminium at ~900C tells us nothing about the colour of molten aluminium as it is poured in daylight. In this video (which was shot inside a workshop by the look of it, and not outdoors) someone melts aluminium in a crucible. The slag which floats on top glows a dull red. When the slag is scraped off the liquid aluminium beneath looks a slightly reddish silvery colour. Notice how, when the guy puts in a lttle more solid aluminium for melting, the drop in temperature immediately turns the molten aluminium back to a silver colour.

                  The main point is that when aluminium is heated beyond it’s melting point in a crucible it will eventually start to change colour, but as soon as it is poured out in daylight it will quickly appear silver as it falls and cools. This slver appearance in daylight is because the surface of the pouring molten metal has a low emissivity and is highly reflective and is cooling rapidly.

                  This is well demonstrated by another video on your source webpage (which you neglect to mention!): the one by ‘hamishsubedei’ about halfway down the page which shows aluminium being heated to 1,822F (almost 1000C, the maximum temp of the WTC fires according to NIST) and when it’s poured its colour is silver. As the guy says in the video, he’s pretty damned sure the falling WTC metal is not aluminium because of 1) The temps of the fires; 2) The length of time of the fall; 3) The rate of cooling from the forced convection of the air as it fell.

                  Here’s the video: – Enjoy!

                  Molten Aluminum at 1800F

                  Liked by 1 person

          • Dementia praecox, perhaps? I’ve noticed that lately I seem to be percolating at a deficit. My most sincere apologies for this duplication. Perhaps the video can be edited out of the comment?

            Like

            • No, it serves a purpose of emphasis which can’t come amiss given the ability of some commenters here to repeat-deny that person A said X even when confronted with a video of Person A saying X.

              Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          @ Norman Pilon
          October 4, 2016

          Hello Norm, apologies for my longish absence but I just had to get some sleep, and unlike certain unnameable others on these threads who seems able to do this full-time, I do have other duties to perform as well.

          The flow of molten metal from WTC2 just minutes before it’s collapse is indeed strange. The fires at this location were not hot enough to melt iron or steel and it was “highly unlikely” that the steel temperature rose above 800°C/1470°F according to Eagar and Musso of MIT.
          ( http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html )

          NIST reject the idea that it could conceivably be molten steel and instead speculate that it was molten aluminium alloys from the aircraft debris. But as you say, this would have a silver appearance when molten, not the bright yellow, almost white, colour we see. NIST rule out the idea that this was burning aluminium but they again speculate that this molten ‘aluminium’ was changed from a silver to a yellow colour because it was, “mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow.” However, such materials do not mix with molten aluminium or alter it’s fundamental silver colour. This has been shown through experiment by Steven Jones.

          In addition, NIST mention other details:

          “… a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid.”
          ( http://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation )

          They do not have anything else to say about this “bright spot”, but they do mention, “An unusual flame is visible within this fire… [and] …a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.”

          So, what could account for the ‘bright spot’ and the ‘very bright and unusual flame’ and the ‘plume of white smoke’ all seen during the same short period of time and at the same location?

          What can we make of these facts? Office fires are not hot enough to melt iron/steel, but could melt aluminium. However, bright yellow molten metal we see is not aluminium because it would remain silver in daylight even when heated above its melting point, and it does not lose this colour when it contains partially burned organic materials, which do not mix with the metal anyway.

          The colour of the metal indicates it could be molten iron/steel, but how could this be caused? We know that a thermitic reaction emits a bright light/flame and is capable of melting steel, and one of it’s products is molten iron; the other reaction product is aluminium oxide which appears as a white smoke. These are the phenomena witnessed and therefore it is reasonable to deduce that a thermitic reaction was responsible for the observed evidence.

          Liked by 1 person

    • jaques says

      these ‘trolls’ as you call them actually have at least one positive affect: they encourage those arguing that 9/11 was a false flag controlled demolition to carefully gather, reference, research and refine the body of evidence they use to come to their conclusions about 9/11. Over the years this process has gone on and on- and today the vast body of solid evidence that has been uncovered, collected, collated, preserved and analyzed has grown and grown until today there is a veritable mountain of evidence of all types: from circumstantial, financial, forensic, seismic, audio, video, eyewitness, proof of motive, guilty demeanor, evidence of prior conduct, and on and on and on it goes.

      We can talk about nano-spheres, thermite, molten steel and freefall- or we can talk about insider trading, PNAC, Bin Laden and the Carlyle Group. We can mention Walt D Walker III, Ptec, Silverstein- Prince Bandar or the Mossad- or go back in time and take another look at Operation Northwoods.

      The fact is the science is settled: the official story is a massive lie. The three buildings were quite obviously bought down in seconds in 3 controlled demolitions despite whatever nonsense people come up with to try and explain what can bee seen with the naked eye. The buildings explode they don’t collapse.

      The next step is to face up to who did it- and that can also be easily understood by simply understanding who covered it up. You won’t go wrong by pointing fingers at Dick, Rummie, Wolfowitz, Scooter, Zakheim, Meyers, Jeb, George, Mervin and George II and so on from there.

      Who Dunnit? Ask the Alien Scientist- it’s not rocket science- the answer is found by asking who Could have done it?

      here’s the answer:

      Liked by 1 person

      • CloudSlicer says

        @ jaques
        October 4, 2016

        jaques,
        Many thanks for the video link – that’s very interesting indeed and I will watch it again in detail. The subject of the geopolitics and key players behind 9/11 id crucially important and fascinating, and I hope it is something which Off-Guardian will cover in future

        I entirely take your point about ‘trolls’ and the positive effects their involvement can have in that it has forced others to gather and refine solid evidence which contradicts the official narrative. That’s all well and good. But it’s also undeniable, I think, that they can have a very destructive effect on attempts by others to have a reasoned discussion about various factors regarding 9/11, as witnessed on this thread and others. Indeed, their activities often seem designed precisely to disrupt and prevent such discussions from even getting off the ground.

        ‘Troll’ is an imprecise word to use, I grant you, and elsewhere I’ve used the term ‘Obscurant’ which means:
        1. One who acts to confound or obfuscate; an obscurantist.
        2. A person who seeks to prevent or hinder enquiry and the advancement of knowledge or wisdom; an agent of endarkenment.
        3. An opposer of lucidity and transparency in the political and intellectual spheres.
        I think that closely describes the activities and motives of certain types here, as these serve to confound and confuse any reader who may come along, who may not know too much about 9/11 stories apart from the official one, and who may want to know more. That, I believe, is one of the main the objectives of such obscurants. They want to bury any hint of a story which questions the official one, using techniques you will be familiar with.

        The idea explained in my comment above, was to attempt to have a reasoned and rational discussion (by avoiding the ‘inputs’ of obscurants) on the main subject of the ATL article which concerns itself with the evidence for high temperatures and very hot metal, and why NIST tried to deny such evidence.

        Like

  14. Jerome Fryer says

    “With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire”
    by Eric Lipton and Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times, November 19, 2001

    As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

    It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

    Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

    The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.

    “When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it’s sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire,” said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. “Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris.”

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Source: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/fightingthefiresinthewtcdebrispiles

    Like

    • If it’s no mystery then whey were so many firefighter and scientists mystified?

      You do need to consider that articles like this may be intended to assuage public disquiet as much as freely inform. Or do you contend the press was uniquely trustworthy in this.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jerome Fryer says

        “If it’s no mystery then whey were so many firefighter and scientists mystified?”

        They weren’t. ‘Truther’ quote-mining is appalling.

        Go to Google, and search “FDNY oral histories 9/11”. No “mystified” firefighters there.

        Scientists have studied low-oxygen fire for a long time, and are not in the slightest “mystified” by these processes.

        If you have fuel, an ignition source (fire already present, or combustion due to heat), and even a small amount of oxygen then such fires can hang on until they exhaust the fuel supply.

        As I have already pointed out, there was a seven story building that collapsed totally due to earthquake here (bar the elevator shafts at one end, that happened to be reinforced concrete). The debris quickly caught fire and burned for several days while the fire service were constantly fighting it. This building collapse accounted for sixty percent of the deaths caused in the earthquake, and the fire and efforts to put it out meant that several people trapped in the rubble could not be rescued. (Some injured people managed to use their cellphones to call for help that, unfortunately, could not be given.)

        Coroners report for anyone interested:
        http://coronialservices.justice.govt.nz/findings-and-recommendations/findings-of-public-interest/canterbury-earthquake-ctv-building-inquiry/

        I haven’t been able to find a more exact figure on how many days the rubble burned, but it was indeed several, and they had the same issue of having to keep hoses on the debris while it was being removed. A seven story, smaller footprint, building did this — they WTC towers were at least two orders of magnitude bigger in terms of materials and energy from collapse: then you have to double that due to there being two.

        “You do need to consider that articles like this may be intended to assuage public disquiet as much as freely inform.”

        You need to consider that they may also not be part of some elaborate cover-up. That should, in fact, be your starting position.

        “Or do you contend the press was uniquely trustworthy in this.”

        This isn’t about “the press” being trustworthy (any educated person knows that they aren’t arbiters of truth, and never have been) — this is about a small community of paranoid people, the woefully misinformed, and ‘anti-government’ extremists creating a delusional fantasy-based ‘movement’.

        A movement that has managed to act as a perfect distraction from the actual culpability of authorities. Oh, and if you wish to complain about government incompetence and dereliction — well, you can be tarred as one of those idiot ‘truthers’, wibbling on about ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘nano-thermite’, and can be dismisssed.

        (Note that you’re attracting some of the non-mainline sects of ‘trutherism’ in your comments. Their arguments are just as scientifically sound as those you have been enthusiastically supporting — i.e. not at all sound.)

        This is a good page to start from, if you want to read around this issue instead of going around on the ‘truther’ loop:
        https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera

        (This ‘movement’ has been essentially dead since the Harrit et al debacle could not be supported — look into what Mark Basile was going to be working on with the TEM project, intended to back up the thermite claim, then think about why that has never seen the light of day. The only references I have seen in the past several years to the ‘truther’ claims have been sarcastic memes from the younger generation. Last I checked, Bush Jr, Cheney, ‘Skeletor’ and the rest were all free and unmolested by accountability for their arrogant stupidity.)

        Like

        • Look, Fryer, will a low-oxygen fire burn hot, say, to 2800 F? And then the hotter it burns, the faster the supply of fuel is consumed. You can’t have it both ways.

          So either it’s high-oxygen, short duration and very hot, or its low-oxygen, longer duration, and not hot enough to melt steel.

          Oxygen cannot account for how hot things were beneath the rubble pile or even while the buildings stood. In the rubble pile, there wasn’t enough of it, what with the water being constantly sprayed to cool the pile and the mud that formed from the intermingling of the WTC dust or pulverized materials and that water. Use your brain if you can.

          http://georgewashington.blogspot.ca/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallons-of-water.html

          Like

          • Jerome Fryer says

            “Oxygen cannot account for how hot things were beneath the rubble pile or even while the buildings stood.”

            As usual, you are just making claims without bothering to check if there is any supporting evidence.

            What do you propose as an additional (entirely unnecessary) heat source? Radioactive material? ‘Alien technology’?

            The fact that the debris pile burned, and produced high temperatures in small localities, is an entirely different strand of ‘truthers’ failing to accept reality. There is no reason at all to tie this to the other lunacy about the collapse events — except that the paranoid people attracted to the ‘truther’ cause tend to be paranoid about everything.

            Like

            • Loop Garou says

              It doesn’t matter what anyone proposes. Facts are facts. None of the items that ought to have been present in the WTC rubble can account for the temperature of those fires. Office furnishings, toner, heating oil, kerosene is not going to burn at 2800degF.

              We need to know what was going on in that rubble to produce that much heat. We can’t have unanswered question about an event of this magnitude.

              it’s that simple.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Not so simple in a rubble fire you can have multiple reactive zones both reduction, and oxydation

            Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Brush fire completely submerged under water for 30 minutes still burning.

            Like

              • Yup, completely submerged under water, just like you said.

                (Carroll, if you weren’t so funny, I honestly wouldn’t even bother reading your posts. As it is, because you always manage to put a tear or two of mirth in my eyes, I can’t pass them up . . .)

                Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Yeah. Maybe there was some of that ‘natural thermitic material’ that Carroll likes to talk about. We know that thermite can burn under water.

                  Liked by 1 person

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Aluminum Nitride.

        Aluminum Nitride changes the thermal conductivity of aluminum.

        Like

        • jaques says

          do not be fooled by people who make absurd claims like ‘the horshoe was the result of plane impact’ but who cannot offer even one shred of evidence that affirms their frankly preposterous claim. Not a single IOTA. Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zero, Nill, Zilch.

          Like

    • An article published in the journal ‘The Environmentalist’ analyses the local environmental data during the months that followed the WTC destruction. The suggestion that the fires there ‘kept going at relatively low temperatures’ is not supported by the evidence of combustion products that are unique to extreme high temperature events.

      scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf

      Like

      • Jerome Fryer says

        The quote doesn’t quantify what is meant by “relatively low”. If you read around this, however, you find that most estimates are that the ‘hot spots’ were commonly generating temperatures of 500 to 600 degrees C. That is low, for a fire.

        Like

        • Loop Garou says

          Top temps were estimated at 2800degF. How in hell is that 500-600C? And how in hell do you get temps like that in a fire burning gypsum board, dry-wall and office furniture?

          And btw – a seven floor building partially collapsing due to earthquake is not a comparison to a 47-floor heavily redundant high rise collapsing completely at free-fall in its own footprint due to fire.

          No offense, but are you getting paid to do this 24/7? You’re here every time I drop by. Either you’re on the clock or you are seriously freakin’ obsessed.

          Like

          • Jerome Fryer says

            If you bothered to read the material you claim to have, such as they NIST report, then you’d know that your guess about temperatures is wildly inaccurate. And NIST tested in open air, not with materials trapped underground in an effective oven.

            “No offense, but are you getting paid to do this 24/7? You’re here every time I drop by. Either you’re on the clock or you are seriously freakin’ obsessed.”

            Fair comment.

            This is ‘truther’ woo, that was all comprehensively debunked years ago. Allowing those who run this website to give it any shred of credibility is a bad idea for multiple reasons.

            One good reason is that this is nonsense, but the failure to do their jobs on the part of the authorities is not. Keep focusing on this crap, and the actual criminal negligence will never get addressed. (Not that I believe they will — those in power are in a club, and they look after each other: common protection from us, the great unwashed. Remember that the next time the high and mighty denounce unions.)

            Like

            • I must tell you, friendly in your ear – it might be easier to simply admit the issues here are not capable of the easy refutation you always believed. You are trying to sweep every piece of contradictory evidence into your trash can labeled “woo.” But there’s too much of it, and some of it’s too credible. You can’t dismiss on-site inspectors of Ground Zero, NASA thermal imaging, fire fighter testimony, the entire history of high-rise building collapses and any physicist, chemist, architect or engineer who has any doubt about the official story as “woo,” without making yourself slightly ridiculous.

              Try for some more measured form of disagreement. You don’t have to either believe in a conspiracy theory OR pretend everyone who is calling for a new investigation is a lunatic. There’s much respectable middle ground between these two positions. You would seem less troll-like if you attempted to occupy it.

              Like

              • Jerome Fryer says

                You can’t dismiss on-site inspectors of Ground Zero,

                None of whom noted anything unusual.

                NASA thermal imaging,

                1300 degrees F, not 2800.

                fire fighter testimony,

                The cherry-picked minority of anecdotes do not outweigh the reports and records made at the time. Nor do they outweigh the majority of contradictory anecdotes.

                the entire history of high-rise building collapses

                Within which there are multiple examples of partial collapses, usually arrested by intermediate structures.

                The WTC towers were susceptible to collapse from fire — established by tech NIST and Arup investigations. WTC 7 was left to burn, due to circumstances. The records of the communications and decisions indicate that the firefighters expected WTC 7 to collapse, which is why they cleared a wide perimeter around it.

                (Arup were responsible for engineering the ‘Mandarin Occidental’ / ‘Beijing Television Cultural Center’ — they used the lessons from the failure of the WTC towers to ensure that fires like this were less likely to produce catastrophic collapses in future: “The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia, who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 2001.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire )

                and any physicist, chemist, architect or engineer who has any doubt about the official story

                A tiny fraction of dissenters do not invalidate the consensus. Particularly when the ‘science’ they produce (to prop up their conclusion — the inverse of how science is supposed to be conducted) is shockingly flawed.

                as “woo,” without making yourself slightly ridiculous.

                I am not the one producing article after article regurgitating long-debunked nonsense.

                Re-evaluate who is making themselves a target for ridicule.

                And stop posting your opinions while hiding behind the ‘Admin’ tag.

                Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Do you understand the complex reactions in the chimney effects occurring in the rubble pile?

        Like

        • CloudSlicer says

          Were you there yourself within the rubble? Did you monitor and measure the complex effects of any chimney effect fires you saw there? If not, can you cite any evidence that such phenomena were present in the rubble pile and the people who saw and recorded them? Or are you just presupposing?

          Like

          • “. . .can you cite any evidence . . . ?”

            I don’t think Carroll knows what the word “cite” means nor do I honestly think he could even understand it if anyone tried to explain it to him. It’s the one buzzword that continues to elude him completely. But if we keep throwing it at him, I’m sure at some point it will stick in his mind and he’s then gonna start incorporating it into his comments along with the big words ‘reduction’ and ‘oxidation’ and the whiz-bang concept of the ‘chimney effect.’

            It will all go together something like:

            Carroll: “Permit me to ‘cite’ the ‘chimney effect’ to account for all of the ‘oxidation-reduction reactions’ that ultimately brought down the towers and building 7 and that spontaneously created the thermitic material and low temperature created iron spherules that Harrit et al. found in the dust.”

            One of us: “Can you provide us with a citation to back up any aspect of your claim, here?”

            Carroll: ” I just did. I ‘cited’ the ‘chimney effect,’ see. What’s wrong with you people? Can’t you read?”

            Like

        • jaques says

          do you understand the absurdity of making authoritative pronouncements of ‘fact’ for which you have no evidence whatsoever?

          Like

          • He does not. It’s pointless to plead. And you are seeing him on one of his better days. Just you wait . . . but maybe you’ve been following the conversation all along and already know all too well what to expect . . .

            BTW: great links and information, Jaques. Keep it coming. And I agree: the trolls do serve a purpose. They both stimulate and broaden the discussion, not to mention that they can be highly entertaining as well.

            Like

            • jaques says

              Hello there Norman,

              there is one thing all the so called ‘truth debunkers’ have in common: they must resort to making really outrageous claims in order to try and debunk claims made by the truth movement. These two clowns here exactly fit that profile. It is no wonder they must come up with far fetched ludicrous claims: there are no rational answers for the many 9/11 phenomena that are consistent with the offical narrative.

              For many years numerous truth debunkers made tests of Thermite which they claimed proved it couldn’t cut steel. The BBC did a really classic form of this ‘test’. It was laughable- yet they acted as if it was the final word on thermite:

              Note how they simply piled the thermite as a powder onto the beam? It’s exactly like simply putting a brass bullet on a small pile of gunpowder- igniting it- and expecting the bullet to fly:

              then Jonathan Cole came along and posted some videos on youtube that totally blew the BBC tests out of the water.

              what an incredible difference containment of the thermite makes, eh? Who would have thought? The answer is: anyone who thinks.

              This is just one example of how so called ‘truth debunking’ offer up the most pathetic and easily disproved ‘theories’ as proof that the official 9/11 story is true. The two clowns in this thread have provided a wealth of similar exaples of the intellectual dishonesty and the weakness of the arguments proposed by the likes of NIST, Popular Mechanics, Metabunk, 9/11 myths and so on.

              In a way- the extreme dishonest nature of their assertions: does more in my mind to sure up my certainty that the official story is a lie than a hundred eyewitnesses to molten steel. Not to say the witness testimony isn’t relevant- it is- and it adds to the great body of evidence that shows conclusively that 9/11 was indeed a false flag controlled demolition.

              Liked by 1 person

        • jaques says

          you and your chimney affect. Get over it. It is not relevant. Does it explain how a plane can deform a huge bean into a perfect arc? Does it explain the molten metal pouring from the South Tower? Does it explain Leslie Robertson and Ken Holder’s testimony of ‘rivers of molten steel’?

          Next you will be saying that the iron nano spheres- which were found to represent as much as 5% of the WTC dust by weight- were ‘ink toner’…. No wait- you already did that. Just how many thousands of tonnes of ink toner do you think they had in the WTC?

          Like

  15. jaques says

    How on Earth can you say there is ‘scant evidence for molten metal’? There is an over-abundance of evidence for molten metal at ground zero. I will give just a few examples:

    1) there is the molten metal that poured from the South Tower immediately prior to collapse.

    NIST claimed that this was molten aluminum- however many have disputed this assertion and noted that molten aluminum does not glow bright orange in broad daylight- but is silvery. To glow orange it has to be heated to over NIST claimed it glowed orange because it was mixed with burning organics. However they did no tests to demonstrate this phenomenon and to this date I have seen no evidence that anyone has been able to replicate such a scenario. Alluminum melts at 660C to glow bright red in daylight conditions it must be heated to well over 950C.

    2) The Iron nano-spheres. There is no controversy over the fact that the WTC dust had a very large component of iron micro-spheres. In fact these microscopes comprised between 4 and 6% of the WTC dust by weight. This fact was corroborated from multiple sources that examined WTC dust samples including the USGS and the RJ Lee group:

    Iron-rich microspheres were so common in the WTC dust that EPA’s WTC panel discussed their use as one of the signature components to distinguish the WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust).

    “RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, also described these iron-rich spheres, and actually used them as one of their signature markers. In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained these spheres. The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey.”

    These speres didn’t just spring out of no-where and they must have been formed at extremely high temperatures- in excess of 2700f. They must have been formed from droplets of molten iron- in the air- only such conditions can produce such spheres. Virtually identical spheres are formed in thermitic reactions, and the spheres at ground zero are consistent with the hypothesis that thermite was used in the controlled demoltion of the WTC buldings. So called ‘truth debunkers’ have made various claims concerning the iron nano spheres- including that were were ‘left over’ from welding operations in the WTC construction phase back in the 1970’s or that they were produced during the clean up- these explanations are purely theoretical and not convincing.

    As an example this article supposedly ‘debunks’ the thermite theory by showing that nano-speres can be produced in alternate ways:

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

    However: what could explain the RJ Lee finding of an average concentration of 5.6% iron nanosperes in WTC dust? That would potentially represent many thousands of tonnes of such iron spheres.

    3) Documented temperatures at ground zero. The temperatures of the rubble pile were monitored in a variety of ways by a variety of agencies. There is certainty that temperatures with the rubble pile exceeded 2800F.

    “Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in theJournal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

    “The heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent, as proven not only by witness statements and a photograph by LiRo Group / Engineering of orange-red glowing steel as late as October 21, but also by thermal images taken by NASA andEarthData satellites. The EarthData thermal images also show that the “hot spots” remained at the same locations. The phenomenon did not “move” across the site, like one would expect from fire as it consumes the fuel available in any one location.”

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2014/08/irrefutable-molten-steel-evidence-indicates-inside-job-proves-911-commission-report-fraudulent/

    4) Eyewitness Testimony.

    The number of eyewitnesses to molten steel at ground zero is very large- and included lead WTC architect Leslie Robertson, NYC mayor Rudolf Giuliani, New York Director of the Department of Design and Construction Ken Holder, dozens of fire fighters and many, many others:



    5) That Giant bent I Beam- and that concrete and steel ‘Meteor’:

    as the Iron worker notes- it takes thousand of degrees to bend a bean like that with tears and deformations. The extreme curve of the beam could be explained if the beam was first heated- say in a thermitic reaction- and then subject to a blast force- say from a shaped charge demolition explosive. I have heard of no official explanation as to how it was formed.

    I have only touched upon the evidence for molten iron and steel. I believe I have shown it is impossible to say- as John Gross said, that ‘there is no evidence for molten steel at ground zero’. That is an outright lie- or at the very least willfully ignorant.

    Yet you have have repeated his mistake/lie when you said, “there is scant evidence for molten metal, let alone steel.” Your conclusion is entirely contradicted by the known facts and clearly has no basis in reality at all. It is merely a pronouncement- devoid of any substance and entirely wrong. Why would you make such a claim?

    In order for you to substantiate your broad claim it would not be enough to cherry pick one of the examples I have given of molten steel/iron- and simply offer an alternate explanation or challenge that example. It is necessary to offer a compelling explanation for all of the evidence and claims of molten iron. John Gross didn’t do any of that- he simply stated that he had seen or heard of no witnesses- which was an outrageous claim to make. There is no doubt about the witnesses- if you watched the videos I linked above you will see many of them stating as a fact what they have seen. You can watch it and hear it with you very own eyeballs. The Witnesses Exist! To simply say they do not exist will not make them go away.

    Like

  16. archie1954 says

    We need a true and detailed investigation, one in which all witnesses give testimony to what they saw, heard and experienced. We need to assure that those parties who attempt to cover up the truth are held to the highest level of scrutiny. Men such as this NIST guy must be considered to be treacherous until he can evidence his bona fides. To date he simply looks like a traitor!

    Like

    • Brian Harry, Australia says

      Of course you’re right. But the “people” who run America don’t want that, so it won’t happen. If the call for Justice following the attack on the US Liberty has been ignored for nearly 50 years, so will a “true and detailed investigation” of 9/11 will also be ignored. Justice, in America, is dead.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CloudSlicer says

        archie’s right and so are you Brian. We do need a new, honest and full investigation. But I fear we won’t get one with the current bunch of psychopaths running the show. The last thing they want is for the ‘little people’ to start seeing how things are really done in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’.

        It’s been 15 years now since 9/11 and here we are, still trying to make sense of it, whilst all the time knowing there has been an appalling state crime committed and an enormous cover-up to follow. We feel we have no real power, and believe ourselves hopelessly impotent in the face of the craziness of the world. But societies are made of individuals and if individuals can change, then so can societies, and the world.

        We need to wake up a little to what is happening outside of ourselves and also inside, to see how we are being manipulated in so many ways, and how that makes us think and feel. We need to reflect more on these internal and external processes and learn how to resist the pressures driving us towards ‘manufactured consent’ and conformity. It’s a hard road, but shit, what else can we do?

        Here’s what Karl Rove (Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the Bush administration) had to say in 2004 about the kind of people, like us, who want to understand the truth about the world and its politics :

        “[ such people are ] in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

        So, as you see – the game is afoot my friends! The game is afoot! I say we fight ‘em anyway we can.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Brian Harry, Australia says

          Karl Rove was to ‘Dubya’ what Goebbels was to Hitler……..I’m having terrible trouble posting on this site. Is anyone else having trouble??

          Like

          • CloudSlicer says

            I was having problems with posting a couple of days ago, but that was because of a link I was including. There was something about the link which the Off-G system didn’t like.
            Don’t know if that applies to your situation.

            Also, Off-G have a 2 links per comment maximum rule, any more than that and the comment is delayed until inspected by the mods. Maybe that’s it?

            Like

            • Brian Harry, Australia says

              Thanks for your comment. But if Off-G have a limit of 2 Links per comment maximum rule, how come Fryer is ‘on fire’…..? This guy just cannot(and will not) stop……………..

              Like

              • we allow comments with unlimited links, but if your comment contains more than two it’s automatically held back for approval, as a spam-prevention method. This is stipulated in the info above the comment box.

                Like

        • After reading that quote, can there be any doubt in one’s mind that the interests of the rich are diametrically opposed to those of the rest of us, and that if we are ever to bring an end to the barbarity in the world on the scale currently perpetrated by the capitalist crime gangs, these gangs will have to be euthanized, the entire lot of them.

          The rich must perish as a class or ‘we,’ the unblessed, the people without wealth and property, will continue to fight their wars, both murdering and dying on their behalf. We serve them to our own and our children’s peril. Yes, we really do need to fight them any way we can.

          Like

        • jaques says

          That’s an amazing quote! I have not seen it before. It seems to me like boasting about 9/11. It’s funny that Philip Zelikow who largely direct the 9/11 Commission was an expert in ‘public myth making’:

          “While at Harvard, he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

          http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/philip-d-zelikow-myth-maker-behind-911.html

          Like

      • The problem with testimony claiming WTC7 was “fully engulfed” is that even Steve Spak’s own video (he is one of the cited witnesses) does not seem to support such a claim. We’ve seen the film of comparable buildings blazing on all floors. If it was “fully engulfed” why is there no similar film of WTC7? If Spak saw the building blazing out of control, why does his video not also show this?

        Can we confirm – is there any video of WTC7 showing more than two floors with fire?

        (Bearing in mind of course that even if true, this does not of itself explain the collapse, because as has been stated here ad nauseam fire had never brought down a comparable building before.)

        Like

        • Jerome Fryer says

          Read the eyewitness acccounts from the firefighters who were there.

          If you only read ‘truther’ cherry-picked quotes then you are getting a completely incorrect impression. Spak, and other people taking video and stills, could not get around to the side of WTC 7 that was severely damaged by the tower collapses. The fires started on that side (due to burning debris raining down) and were ventilated by the large number of missing windows in the facade on that face. This is why the smoke is pouring out from that side of the building, for the most part. (Floors five through seven seem to have burned the fiercest, and those are the floors that popped Windows on the north and west faces.)

          Go to YouTube and search for “WTC 7 south side”. The user ‘femr2’, in particular, did a lot of useful work enhancing video sources, producing side by side comparisons etc. (He / she appears to have been a ‘truther’ trying to shore up those claims, by the way. Or at least that is the impression I got from reading commentary on YouTube and on the ISL forums from him / her.)

          Like

          • Loop Garou says

            You’re saying there’s vid of the South side ablaze? I’d love to see that, can you post it right here?

            And btw you totally avoided the question. Why doesn’t Steve Spak’s own video match his later description?

            Like

            • Jerome Fryer says

              Yes, I can.

              Better if you go to YouTube, search for “WTC 7 south side”, then look.

              Then you can’t claim that I am cherry-picking video.

              Next, go and find the full FDNY oral histories on the 9/11 attacks, and read what they say about WTC 7.

              This is harder than going to a ‘truther’ website, but it is worthwhile if you are actually interested in the truth.

              Like

              • No one will accuse you of cherry-picking, because that would be simply ridiculous. If there is a video showing WTC7 ablaze then that’s conclusive – it was ablaze.

                So please post any such videos you can find. If they really show WTC7 “fully involved in fire” or “blazing on every floor” , or if they show even slightly more evidence of fire than the two or three floors show to be burning in the Spak video we already published, we guarantee to publish them here ATL.

                Like

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Start with this one: https://youtu.be/aMSlElzKIXw

                  (You can ask Norman about his assertion that this smoke being forced out is just “concrete dust” caught in some form of vortex. It isn’t, but if you don’t want to believe your own eyes then your options are limited.)

                  Then, follow my suggestion and do your own search. “WTC 7 south side” or similar.

                  The user “femr2” did a lot of video enhancements that help to get an idea what is behind that smoke.

                  Once you have collected those, ask your ‘truther’ friends to go and collect their evidence that WTC 7 was just fine. Those firefighters that kept yapping about it collapsing couldn’t possibly have known that just from observation, presumably.

                  NOTE FROM ADMIN: This brief clip shows less evidence of the extent of WTC7’s fire than the full Spak video which we already host. We asked you to produce video of WTC7 “ablaze” or “fully involved in fire”, not already well known video of WTC7 smoking in response to an unknown amount of fire.

                  No one has suggested WTC7 was “just fine.” On the contrary we all know it was on fire. The question is – to what extent.

                  As for your bizarre suggestion we go and find your evidence for you – please be advised we have already searched for videos of WTC showing evidence of more extreme fire than is shown in the Spak video, and we have not found any. If you have such video it is baffling to us that you refuse to produce it and instead suggest we take part in some sort of Easter Egg hunt.

                  Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          A soot fueled chimney fire produces almost pure CO2, and can reach temperatures of 1400C.
          Hot fires have no flames because they burn away the Soot as fuel not flames.
          Please don’t make silly flames if you don’t understand fire chemistry.

          Like

          • jaques says

            and your point is? All you do is try and think up possible explanations for the observed phenomena. The only thing that ties all your suppositions together is that whatever they are- they must back up the official narrative. There are better explanations available to you- that are more consistent with the observed evidence- but unfortunately for you they contradict the official narrative.

            It is amazing what you claim to know as a fact happened. Given you were not there, had no access to the evidence- and especially as your theories are so fanciful its remarkable what you conclude so matter of factly? You really must have a high estimation of yourself? What may I ask is your actual expertise?

            Like

  17. Carroll Sanders says

    You have to look at landfill and underground fires like the one at the Land fill in Lewisport Kentucky, or the one in China that lasted a decade.

    Only then after you have done the research can you have a valid scientific comment on similar fires to the world trade center.

    Like

  18. CloudSlicer says

    Certain commentators on these threads and elsewhere have tried to play down this issue of high temperatures and molten metal by suggesting that the temperatures are exaggerated, and the molten metal is some sort of myth, or witnesses of such phenomena are mistaken or unreliable.

    But Bechtel engineers made daily measurements of temperature at ground zero:

    Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

    Source: http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

    The recorded high temperatures, up to 2,800F, are enough to melt steel, and since there was clearly a lot of steel in the wreckage and inevitably within some of these ‘hot-spots’ then the probability of melted steel being a reality seems to be high.

    This is how NIST deals with the reports of molten steel:

    ”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.”

    Which make NIST guilty of pure sophistry.
    Source: https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

    Liked by 1 person

    • How I love that quote from NIST. It’s just so “in you face” about what really went down. If the steel in the aftermath was in some places 2,800 F, what was the temperature of that steel while the towers were still standing? Doesn’t that tell you something about the condition of the steel when the towers were still standing? Was that steel then, while the towers stood, even hotter? Energy does not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher one, does it? But nah, molten steel after the collapse, days and weeks and months later, can suggest nothing about what the condition of the steel might have been while it yet stood. Yeah, right . . .

      Like

    • Jerome Fryer says

      NIST were tasked with determining how the collapses initiated, not with investigating the burning debris pile.

      “NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. 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.”

      http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/NIST_Claims_Molten_Steel_In_The_Wreckage_Was_Due_To_Long_Term_Combustion_Within_The_Debris_Pile

      Like

    • CloudSlicer says

      @Jerome Fryer :

      “[Reposted as top level comment.]”

      Why? Why post a comment you’ve already made below? Is it to make it more conspicuous in the naive belief that you have something prominent to say to your imagined audience? Is that another trick you’ve learned at International Skeptics? It’s very childish Jerome, and suggests some sort of pathological attention seeking behaviour. I’d get that looked at if I were you.

      Like

      • Jerome Fryer says

        Because it was below a post but not related to it.

        Apparently, the moderators don’t seem to understand why either, so you’re not the only one who was unable to understand that obvious problem.

        Like

  19. Why is it that every time you open your trap, the odor is reminiscent of what you get when standing beside an autumn liquid manure sprayer at full throttle? Oh, yep, that’s right, you are a pilot and an engineer with a master’s degree who evidently cataloged and combed through every single bit of available physical evidence, all of which contradicts in the smallest of details all of the eyewitness and expert testimony at hand.

    Now do explain to us how it is that you can see around corners and then some, to better witness events to which you were never bodily present but to which others were and about which they testify?

    Do you ever backup anything that you claim with anything other than your nonexistent credibility? Why do you even bother showing up?

    Like

  20. One more fun fact! Around 200,000 tons of steel was used to build the WTC complex, yet only 50,000 tons of destroyed steel was hauled away. What happened to the other 150,000 tons?

    The NYFD didn’t declare the WTC fires to be officially out until 3 months later, despite pouring on millions of gallons of water and the Fall rains, which were heavier than usual.

    Watered down jet fuel doesn’t burn and neither do office supplies and furniture. The ‘contents’ fires should if been mostly extinguished by the collapsing WTC 1 & 2, all of the force hurtling downward would of extinguished the fires, but not in NIST land.

    Like

    • “Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city’s decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. ” Source: 9/11 Research.

      50,000 tons of steel alone was bought by China’s Baosteel. Some estimated 66 thousand tons ended up in India. The rest went hither and tither to be similarly recycled.

      We should be careful about the claims we make if we value our credibility, Greg. Otherwise we begin to sound like john miller and Jerome Fryer. Better to lay responsibility for an inaccuracy on a usually reliable and credible source than on oneself, in my humble opinion.

      Like

    • Jerome Fryer says

      “Watered down jet fuel doesn’t burn and neither do office supplies and furniture.”

      Water works by preventing oxygen getting to the material that is burning. To do that, the water has to reach the material.

      You claim to be an ex-firefighter, so I assume that you’ve seen fires that were difficult to put out. Have you ever seen one that had a debris pile a hundred feet thick, with a large part of it underground?

      That is what the WTC debris pile was.

      “The ‘contents’ fires should if been mostly extinguished by the collapsing WTC 1 & 2, all of the force hurtling downward would of extinguished the fires, but not in NIST land.”

      Not in the real world. I have no idea why you’d think that.

      Take a burning coal and drop it several hundred feet. It will still be burning when it lands.

      Like

      • Neither jet fuel nor office furniture burn at the temps observed by the people quoted in the article, so this is irrelevant.

        Like

        • Jerome Fryer says

          Incorrect, yet again.

          Go read the NIST NCSTAR 1-5F document, and look for the part where they did the physical tests. Over 1000 degrees C, in an open (unenclosed) environment, created by the office furnishings.

          Like

          • JanjoukedeHaan says

            Small pockets of fire (as seen by fire dept), orange flames, black smoke. Oxygen starved office fires do not burn at 2000 degrees Celcius.

            Like

            • Jerome Fryer says

              First: don’t confuse Fahrenheit and Celcius. 2000 degrees Celcius is 3600 degrees Fahrenheit. Nobody has been claiming temperatures that high.

              Contrary to what you may believe, oxygen starved fires can indeed produce extremely high temperatures. The fact that they’re oxygen starved may mean that the material is well thermally insulated. The debris pile from the tower collapses was enormous and densely packed down, with a large amount of combustible material.

              The pockets of fire were relatively limited in size, and that explains why the pike burned for so long — a slow, high-temperature burn, instead of a quick and extensive fire.

              (There is a lot of information on this, easily found if you bother to go look for it.)

              Like

              • JanjoukedeHaan says

                [Contrary to what you may believe, oxygen starved fires can indeed produce extremely high temperatures. ]

                With all due respect, but that’s what’s between the head and tail of a cow’s husband: a load of bull. Remember, they were fires of wood and paper, burning red to orange, with thick black smoke billowing from them, on the 80th floor, in isolated pockets. Do you really think they could make a steel framed building come down AND leave pools of molten steel that stay at a temperature of 1500 degrees Celcius for many weeks?

                Liked by 1 person

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  There is no evidence for “pools of molten steel”.

                  Analysis of the steel framing indicated exposure to maximum temperatures of about 1000 degrees C (1800 degrees F).

                  Temperatures in the debris pile could have been hotter, but, again, there is no evidence (e.g. photos, temperature recordings) of “molten steel” (in pools or otherwise).

                  Like

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Addressing the point that I presume is being made by implication: what are high temperatures in the debris pile supposed to indicate?

                  Thermite or other explosives would have no effect on temperatures after they had been used. (Nor would ‘mini-nukes’, ‘directed energy weapons’, or other even less plausible claims.)

                  The high temperatures in the debris pile have no obvious correlation to the collapse of the buildings — they are a separate event, and are also fully explicable by known effects.

                  Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Why do you incorrectly think the fires were oxygen starved?

              Like

              • Jerome Fryer says

                They were slow-burning. My assumption would be oxygen deprivation, either due to low ventilation or build-up of smoke and waste gases from combustion.

                What is the relative heat generation from charring of materials compared to combustion? I think that charring releases the energy slower, but still releases the same amount of energy. (I am not an expert on fire, obviously.)

                Like

          • Office fires can’t produce enough heat to melt steel. Office fires cannot produce temps in excess of 2800F. Do NOT keep making specious claims that distort the evidence.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Not correct oxidation patterns can cause variation in fire temperature, only open fires with no structural components are limited to 2800F.
              Structure changes fire dynamics.

              Structure combined with chemistry changes fire temperatures, Gases, and residues.

              Carbon monoxide can burn a lot hotter than 2800F as can hydrogen.

              The fallacy is that these are ordinary office fires.

              Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              I have a video of a hollow standing tree chimney effect in which I got a reading from a lazer thermometer of 1457C
              The tree was at most 35 foot tall.

              Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Please tell me how burnt thermite can do that? One logical theory please?

              Like

          • Irrelevant unless you are claiming the contents could burn hot enough to melt steel at 2800F.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              I thought that the photo of the natural thermite reaction induced by oxydizing steel made that point better than my words ever could.

              Like

              • Jerome Fryer says

                I can’t see any caption, so it wasn’t obvious what the photo is.

                Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Sorry it is my own photo of a reaction of Iron sulfide, iron chloride with aluminum, the complex chemistry of the rubble pile makes a lot of reactions possible. Most people tend to over symplify the fire as an office fire, that is false and untrue.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Or maybe it’s just a photo of another photo of some outdoor scene, out of which you’ve cut a rough teardrop shape, before holding it in front of a bright light source before you pressed the shutter?
                  It also looks a bit over-exposed which would help with the effect.

                  Like

  21. Mr Bagelstein says

    911 was a Mossad operation and they used tactical nuclear bombs in the basement, thats why the steel melted, it was a thermal nuclear explosion that powderised the building.

    Like

    • marc says

      @MrBagelstein – what unhelpful nonsense. (a) ‘powderised’ (like Judy Wood’s ‘dustification’) isn’t a scientific term (b) no evidence for nuclear bombs was found.

      Like

        • According to NEST they didn’t test for explosives! Therefore they didn’t find any traces of explosives. Which left it up to Steven Jones and he tested for them. Hence the nano-thermite remains found in the dust.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Jerome Fryer says

            Thermite isn’t explosive, and the ‘nano-thermite’ claim rests on research into new materials being conducted in 2005.

            Whether the “thermitic material” is or is not this new material (somehow transported back in time) could be established with TEM testing. One of the ‘truther’ crew, Mark Basile, was suppposed to be doing this years ago but nothing seems to have been heard since.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Jerome, Tubularsock wasn’t clear in his response to you. Thermite is not an explosive (agreed) but Jones has shown that “thermite” was found in the dust of the rubble and “thermite” is used to weaken steel during demolition of buildings and thereby weakening the steel so as to assist in the blast phase of the demolition.

              As for “nano-thermite” Tubularsock is of the understanding that it was a military grade thermite and was “new” or experimental at the time. But that doesn’t rule its usage out.

              The point being that NIST NEVER-TESTED for explosives. Which in itself puts into question the “investigative” nature of an investigation where it is obvious that these falling building showed a unique “fall-pattern”.

              Now Tubularsock does find it rather silly to discuss this entire matter with a guy who believes that a kerosene fire could melt steel and burning post-it and office chairs could do the same.

              AS for explosives in the buildings how is it that William Rodriguez, the last man out of the building who had been working in the basement has gone on record that an explosion took place in the WTB in the sub-basement BEFORE the plane hit the building as well as the dozens of firemen that were both inside and outside the buildings, police, and a multitude of other witnesses that heard a series of explosions prior to the buildings coming down at free fall speed.

              AND PLEASE don’t attempt to explain this FACT by attempting to blame the sound of these explosions as a series of office microwave popcorn packets igniting! If you do Tubularsock would recommend that you apply to be the lead investigator for NIST!

              Do you ever wonder why there hasn’t been an investigation by the government into this subject at all? Seems strange to Tubularsock.

              Cheers, Jerome!

              Liked by 1 person

              • Jerome Fryer says

                ‘Tubularsock’ needs to do some fact-checking, and work on their reading comprehension.

                As for “nano-thermite” Tubularsock is of the understanding that it was a military grade thermite and was “new” or experimental at the time. But that doesn’t rule its usage out.

                Yes, it does. Given that it was being researched in 2005, there is a problem with the timing.

                Non-existent materials can be safely ruled out in the same way that the use of ‘magic’ is effectively ruled out.

                The point being that NIST NEVER-TESTED for explosives.

                Police dog teams did check for explosive residue among the debris at Fresh Kills.

                They found nothing.

                Police dog teams were also routinely working in and around the WTC complex, due to the earlier 1993 bombing. Unless the entire operation was carried out during an infeasibly tight window of time (a couple of days), it would not have been possible to smuggle explosives into the buildings. So yet another ‘extraordinary’ claim is required to be backed up.

                Which in itself puts into question the “investigative” nature of an investigation where it is obvious that these falling building showed a unique “fall-pattern”.

                Not only is that incorrect, it is also irrelevant to your argument. (A distraction, or confusion, on your part.)

                Now Tubularsock does find it rather silly to discuss this entire matter with a guy who believes that a kerosene fire could melt steel and burning post-it and office chairs could do the same.

                ‘Tubularsock’ either can’t comprehend what other people write, or prefers to lie about what they wrote.

                Like

              • CloudSlicer says

                Howdy Tubularsock – I see that our Mr ‘Fryer up of falsehoods’ is at it again here, frying up another batch.

                He confidently proclaims that nanothermite was non-existent in 2001 since it was only “being researched in 2005” so, according to his impeccable logic, it was impossible for it to be used at the WTC.

                He also says “thermite isn’t explosive” – did you see what he did there? – you were talking about nanothermite and he sneakily brought in plain old ‘thermite’ to conflate the two things and thereby imply that you must be nuts to think that any type of thermite could be used as an explosive.

                But he’s completely wrong you see, because nanothermite was being researched and developed and tested as early as 1991 by American government labs in the DOD ad DOE as well as in academia, and by 2002,

                “all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives …”

                Source: http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

                And that was written in 2002 by Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek of the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, US Army Research Laboratory. So you can bet your bottom dollar that he’s only going to spill a small fraction of what they’ve been working on!

                And since we are talking here about thermitic materials based on aluminium and iron oxide, the police dogs that Jerome has so much faith in, and which were trained to find conventional explosives or explosive residues, would most probably not even notice them, especially since the reaction products of these nanomaterials are molten iron and aluminium oxide.

                Unfortunately, Jerome is completely blinkered by his obsessive attachment to NIST’s fire + gravity explanation for the collapses, and he’s so desperate to prevent people from honestly exploring other ideas, that he will resort to all manner of divisive, obstructive, and disruptive techniques to stop them. It’s very sad really. So I wrote a little poem for him:

                There once was a Mr J Fryer,
                A dyed-in-the-wool Truth denier,
                Who considered it wise,
                To accept all NIST’s lies,
                About structures, and gravity, and fire.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Fryer is again making things up? I can’t believe it. It really is compulsive with him, eh. And it never so much as seems to faze him even one little bit when he’s flat out caught again “fabricating” his “evidence.”

                  Why it just flows out of him as easily as diarrhea, and he thinks that if he just pretends like nothing at all is happening, grinning real hard over his indiscretion, no one will notice that his poop is leaking out of each of his pant legs and oozing into his shoes.

                  Just you watch: he’ll be back here in no time pretending like nobody has noticed his propensity for falsehood, and he’ll have fried up another dozen before anyone has had time to notice . . .

                  No shame and no dignity. A real class act.

                  Like

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  You think that a claim made about what the DOE were working on in 2002 indicates use of this material in 2001?

                  Some remedial thinking is required on your part, ‘Cloudslicer’.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Yup! You were bang on the money Norman – he’s back with another dribble of the smelly stuff. He must be full to bursting with it, and just can’t hold it in. This time he’s got himself tied up in knots about simple chronology – one wonders if he thinks as little as he seems to read.

                  I linked to a Spring 2002 article which discusses the information presented at The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in April 2001. Specifically, information about military research and development on the applications of thermitic nano-materials and their use as incendiaries, propellants and explosives. This was R & D work which had by that time been ongoing for about 10 years – which I reckon means it began about 1991, as I stated.

                  Deary me! … Deary, deary me!

                  Like

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  The materials being mentioned in your link were not available at the time of the article. Try reading it, instead of assuming it means that such materials existed at the time. They didn’t.

                  ‘Nano-thermite’ was still being worked on in 2005, and this is what Harrit et al are claiming to have found.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  But you see my dear Fryer, Fryer pants on fire, I did read it, and it clearly states that since 1991 nano-materials were being researched, developed, and tested by the military in various applications. That means these materials existed – all this R & D and testing was not just done on paper and in thought experiments was it? Not for 10 years.

                  If the material existed it was also available – at least to some – within the 1990s and therfore by 2001.

                  Like

              • CloudSlicer says

                Ha! Wonderful imagery Norman – that made me laugh. What a hoot!
                But you’re right about Mr Fryer – he’ll be back soon enough. He’s getting this shit from somewhere – it surely can’t be all his own work, do you think? It seems like regurgitated, and pre-digested, codswallop to me. What do you think motivates him? I wonder what it’s like being inside his head?

                Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  Oops! That was supposed to be in response to your hilarious comment Norman, but I hit the wrong ‘reply’ button. You’ll have to imagine it’s aligned properly with yours for the time being.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • I’ve been thinking what you are thinking for a good while now. There’s some coaching happening and a bit of coin being tossed at him, and if not, then holly fuck, what a piece of work, eh. On the other hand, holly fuck, what a piece of work, either way.

                  But I’m leaning toward: “Hi, I’m Jerome Fryer. I’m a lying bastard and I do it on behalf of the murderous Anglo-American Empire because they pay me a pittance and I’m quite bereft of this thing that plagues most normal human beings, namely, a conscience.”

                  But I don’t know that it’s actually that. Consequently, it’s either that or he’s not in touch with his cognitive ‘limitations.’ He can’t distinguish in his own head between ‘knowing’ something and ‘fabricating’ something. And a third possibility: he simply lies out of habit.

                  Whatever is up with Fryer, it is not any good for him or the few people over which his blather may appear convincing.

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  I entirely agree with that assessment. The thing is, I’m pretty pissed off about it. I was excited and interested when I saw that Off-Guardian, a newish and admirable UK based media outlet, was prepared to publish articles on 9/11 and was encouraging debate. Any other attempt I’ve made to discuss the subject in any other serious UK media outlet has been ruthlessly put down by the actions of trolls and and/or an inculcated public and/or the media controllers themselves.

                  So I came here hoping to be able to have a decent and honest discussion about this big and important subject, but immediately ran into the likes of Fryer and others of his ilk. His aim is clearly not to engage in honest debate, but is in fact to prevent such debate taking place. We are familiar now with the obscurantist techniques he uses to distort, disrupt and generally endarken. By definition, an honest debate involves participants who are willing to engage honestly, and are prepared to listen to and seriously consider other points of view and, crucially, are prepared to be persuaded and change their position. That is definitely not happening here, and any attempt at such rapidly descends into simple and pointless, time consuming argument. Which is of course Fryer’s intention.

                  So what can we do about it? How about this: We attempt to start a new sub-thread at the top of the pile, with the explicit intention of ignoring any input by Fryer types. That is, every serious participant is encouraged to not engage directly with the trolls, but to talk around them as though they’re not there. If a troll type incidentally comes up with a point of interest which seems to be pertinent to the discussion, then we can incorporate that into the discussion, but without engaging the troll directly. The current topic of high temps and molten/melted metal at the WTC would be suitable I think. It’s interesting and there are anomalies, in both the pro-truth and anti-truth views, worthy of meaningful discussion and analysis.

                  What do you think?

                  Like

                • CloudSlicer says

                  OK Norman – that’s good. I’ll put something together to start the ball rolling, but I’m flagging a bit and rathe distracted at the moment so it may be a wee while. 🙂

                  Like

            • jaques says

              You have made many broad claims- many of which are easily disproved:

              For Instance-

              you say “thermite isn’t explosive”

              100% wrong!

              Regular thermite IS explosive if it is contained. Here is the proof

              Spectre Enterprises patented a thermite cutting torch for demolition use- in 1999. That company primarily supplies the DoD- and they are based in Florida- which is curious given that that’s also where the hijackers trained, where Jeb Bush rigged the elections, and where George Bush was on 9/11.

              here is the patent:

              https://www.google.com.au/patents/US6183569?dq=6183569&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixyrOzgcHPAhVJkZQKHYteDo0Q6AEIHTAA

              go and have a read.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Thermite is not a high explosive, and those beams have primer on them so is it the thermite exploding or is it the air prasure, or the carbon?

                Thermite with oxygen is a great steel cutter actually combusting the steel in the same manor as an oxygen Lance, but it doesn’t work well in a fire environment.

                Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Oh PS. Jones did claim his Super Thermite was a high explosive capable of producing a detonation wave not just smoke puffs.

                Like

                • jaques says

                  thermate can be made using various ingredients that affect the burn rate and intensity- meaning it can be tailor made for various applications. Encased in a suitable housing it is highly explosive.

                  Thermite fizzes and burns much like gunpowder when uncontained. Gunpowder can project bullets at supersonic speeds when contained in a simple brass cartridge and the barrel of a gun. Thermate can project jets of extremely hot molten metal with tremendous destructive force if properly contained in a cutting torch device.

                  That you claim to have made your own thermite cutting torch- and found it to be wanting- does not impress me much at all. In fact it is simply an unsubstantiated claim- and even if true proves nothing more than you are incapable of making an effective device. One rather suspects you would also be happy with that result- as it is the one that suits your argument? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: Perhaps you truly did the test in an unbiased and rigorous manner- no matter it still says absolutely nothing about whether some military contractor with a multi-million dollar budget could do it or not if they were so tasked. In other words your alleged test is meaningless.

                  Jonathan Cole managed to build his own thermite cutting torches using scrap metal and odds and ends that can be found anywhere for small change. He managed to cut steel beams horizontally and vertically, to destroy bolts and to create explosive reactions. Imagine what he could have achieved with a million dollar budget? How about 10 million?

                  But whatever- you are an expert (apparently)- you know everything (apparently) and have debunked everything (allegedly). Only you haven’t- at all- as far as can be seen.

                  How I wish someone like you could actually debunk the evidence presented. Yet just like popular mechanics and NIST, all you offer up are flimsy alternative explanations for the innumerable unexplained phenomena of 9/11. At face value these explanations seem vaguely plausible (to varying degrees) but fall apart upon any examination. The exact type of thing you accuse the so called ‘truthers’ of doing.

                  Unsubstantiated Garbage like this:

                  1) the bent ibeam was caused by plane impact

                  2) there was no molten steel

                  3) there were no explosives

                  4) the iron micro-spheres were created:
                  a) in the welding operations when the WTC was built
                  b) in the rubble pile post 9/11
                  c) in the chaos of the collapse itself
                  d they don’t exist

                  5) Thermite is not explosive

                  6) Thermite cannot cut steel beams

                  7) Thermite cutting charges do not exist

                  8) The red gray chips:
                  a) were paint primer
                  b) were created in the rubble pile from dry wall and aluminum
                  c) did not exist

                  9) Building 7 fell in 6.9 seconds because:
                  a) The diesel fuel in the basement
                  b) The unusual substation basement design
                  c) the buildings unique tubular design
                  d) due to damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2
                  e) due to ordinary office fires
                  f) due to the failure of a single column

                  The molten metal filmed pouring out of the south Tower immediately prior to collapse was:

                  a) Molten Aluminum from the Aircraft
                  b) Molten Aluminum mixed with burning organic materials from the office and aircraft
                  c) somehow created by a large bank of batteries stored near to that location in the building

                  10) the large lateral ‘puffs’ of greyish dust material seen jetting explosively out of both WTC 1 and 2 as they ‘collapsed’- was primarily ‘air’ pushed out of the building through compression- like the entire building was a giant syringe…

                  11) The damage in the lobby of the WTC prior to collapse that was documented in the naudet film was caused by a jet fuel explosion- after jet fuel traveled down the elevator shaft some 70 to 90 stories- and exploded out into the lobby.

                  I could go through this list one by one- and debunk each and every claim made with evidence that is freely available and indisputable. It seems to me that ‘truth debunkers’ like you – know too much to know so little. But who knows? The power of confirmation bias is substantial…

                  Liked by 1 person

              • Jerome Fryer says

                The video isn’t terribly impressive. Thermite is not a good cutting tool, except in a thermal lance.

                Some obvious problems with the idea that thermite was used to cut columns.

                1) The columns are substantial, and would require a lot of thermite to cut.

                2) Evidence of the cuts would be easily visible — the cuts that rescue / cleanup crew made are sometimes misidentified by ‘truthers’ as proof of thermite use to collapse the towers.

                3) Getting the material into the towers, then somehow putting it in place, without being noticed is simply not a viable claim. The WTC was crawling with police, including dog teams trained to find explosives. You need to place this material directly in contact with the structure to be attacked by the reaction — this is a busy office building. The scale of involvement and logistics of such a ‘conspiracy’ becomes untenable.

                From the patent:

                3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.

                4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein said thermite charge includes parts, by weight, about 16% to 18% aluminum, about 80% to 83% CuO, about 1% to 2% SiC, and about 0.5% to 2% nitrocellulose.

                The Harrit et al paper does not find these materials. They claim ‘nano-thermite’ was used (iron oxides and aluminium residues, although there are significant problems with their paper) but have not been able to support their claim.

                The item you found is also quite small. Scalability up to the size of the columns used in the WTC towers would likely be problematic.

                Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  You have actually built a thremite cutter and sent the design to NIST explaining why they would not have been used?

                  Because I have years ago.

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  also ‘from the patent’- but you chose not to quote this part?

                  :

                  “What has not been disclosed in the prior art, however, is use of a thermite based apparatus for directing or focusing a cutting flame derived from the activation of a thermite charge for the purpose of cutting substantially thick material such as steel plates and bars, for example. In addition, the prior art has not provided a practical solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material. The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge apparatus to create high velocity explosions to cut material. As a result, the prior art has also not adequately considered use of a thermite-based cutting apparatus to alleviate hazards associated with debris, noise and pressure waves generated from using explosive charges to cut material having a substantial thickness.”

                  and they go on

                  “It is an object of this invention to maximize cutting efficiency by providing impingement of at least two cutting flames on opposing sides of a target material.

                  It is a further object of the present invention to provide a cutting apparatus which is capable of cutting shaped material, such as steel bars.

                  It is a further object of the present invention to provide methods for effecting thermite-based cutting of a thick material.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • jaques says

                  “2) Evidence of the cuts would be easily visible — the cuts that rescue / cleanup crew made are sometimes misidentified by ‘truthers’ as proof of thermite use to collapse the towers.”

                  that’s a real beauty! If thermite cutting torches were used- the evidence would be plainly visible… yes- I am following- but- the cut beams that were clearly visible- were ‘misidentified’ and caused during the clean up…

                  That’s a neat little circle you have there… ‘You would see it if they did it but when you saw it you didn’t really see it…’. It’s all so clear now.

                  One question: show me the evidence that those beams were cut during the clean up. Where is that evidence? The proof of your claim? Where is it? Or- as I suspect- is that just your theory- to explain what was observed? A theory without any evidence?

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Loop Garou says

                  Linear Thermite Cutting Charges, in production, available, used for – amongst other things “infrastructure (building/bridge) demolition)”.
                  http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=764

                  Yeah, I know the testimony of Battelle R&D is not credible because they don’t agree with some guy on ISF. They’re woo merchants, right? They literally research and develop woo.

                  Oh no wait – I see what it is. This product only appeared in 2009! So it can’t possibly under any circumstances have been a technology that anyone was using eight whole years earlier. And we can be so sure about this (without even checking) that even if we find thermite in the WTC dust we know it isn’t really there.

                  Gawd help us.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Thermite cutting under loading causes mushrooming of the steel from the intense heat,no mushrooming was ever discovered.

                  Like

          • Ouch, Tubes, you’ve been upper-cutted in the chin by that Fryer guy. I hope you are alright. Jones does not actually argue for the “explosive” nature of anything, but no matter, you can always put words in somebody else’s mouth, eh. Just have a look and see what the Fryer man has done, here, in his reply to you . . . But first take a moment to regain your balance, eh . . .

            (I’m not egging you on, here, or anyting. Just to be clear . . .)

            Liked by 1 person

            • Now, now Norman …… Tubularsock can tell you are not egging Tubularsock on here. Jerome and Tubularsock are having a “clarification-moment” NOT a barroom brawl, YET!

              Like

      • That’s exactly right, marc.

        And that’s also why Jerome spends every spare minute of every one of his very busy days reminding us that ‘free fall’ and ‘lateral mass expulsions of heavy structural beams’ and ‘eye witness testimony of molten steel’ and ‘symmetrical collapse’ and ‘never before fire induced gravitational collapse of steel framed buildings’ and the ‘Harrit et al. study’ and so much, much more — do not actually exist, either, in the presumed manner of an actually non-detectable, non-existent radioactive trace at ‘ground zero.’ For as things that are “no evidence for explosives,” they certainly have him wound up as though they could conceivably be interpreted as just that, “evidence.”

        I hope he hasn’t given up the search for the “many examples” of what he claimed had been copiously documented of “steel framed high-rises brought down all so symmetrically by fire induced gravitational collapse,” or was it only of “steel frames,” as it later became, like that of a cantilever or truss type bridge or something that had been bumped into by a tank truck that became an inferno that burned for no time at all and caused the entire “steel structure” to collapse — I can’t remember exactly the details of the example, so irrelevant did it strike me to the examples of the WTC collapses . . . And let us recall that small localized fires are the most dangerous of all fires to the integrity of skyscrapers since steel is a poor conductor of heat, and that’s why, and for no other reason, that builders insulate building girders — as carefully documented and cited by Jerome, eh.

        If you see him, say high to Jerome for me.

        –N

        Like

        • Jerome Fryer says

          It isn’t possible to tell whether you’re attempting to confuse others, or confused yourself.

          Like

  22. bill says

    yet the dust was cool described as below ordinary air temperature by many effected ,there being a very revealing video of a doctor wholly covered by T1 black dust who emerges entirely unburnt , there are many photos of fire and rescue personnel etc beginning work around and above this alleged cauldron- their boots were “melting ” -when they should have been boiled alive in secs at those alleged temperatures, as well as the famous grappler photo showing the excavation of allegedly red hot material which if remotely as hot as it LOOKS would defy all hydraulics.( oil viscosity) in that there are very definite heat restrictions for this kind of machinery- in fact it simply couldnt function. Nor is any of the mass of paper alight even when next to allegedly burning cars many of which display completely extraordinary “fire damage.” Neither the trees nor leaves nor even the flags show the slightest sign of burning even when right beside allegedly burning cars….. St Elmos Fire looks hot as do many plasma effects… WTC6 through the Biggert photos shows obvious signs of blackening and curious window damage even before T2 became largely dust, whilst people are still escaping unburnt ..cars parked in Roosevelt Drive showed v similar ” fire” damage through a considerable distance from the effected area nor were towed there.Firemans scott packs began exploding as many reported whilst they were unburnt again showing the ongoing process of a new black weapon as the metal weakened though not through heat and with numerous other effects not previously witnessed. Goss has simply had a moment of honest observation.Of course normalcy bias demands that what happened can only be explained by what is already scientifically understood

    Like

    • moriarty's Left Sock says

      Ummm there’s a link to the source in the quote. The thermal hotspots continuing to measure ludicrously high temps is no secret, did you never hear of it before?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jerome Fryer says

        The link doesn’t work for me (iPad issue, maybe). In any case, I found the source for the quote (possibly), but haven’t been able to find the data referred to.

        Like

      • Jerome Fryer says

        “This video shows John Gross, a NIST engineer who played a central role in the investigation of the WTC collapses, claiming he has seen no evidence of molten steel or excessively high temperatures in the WTC rubble. His interview – in which he displays obvious signs of discomfort – is intercut with eyewitnesses at Ground Zero describing red-hot, white-hot, or specifically “molten” steel in the rubble.”

        I can’t find any photos of molten steel in the WTC rubble. There are some photos of heated steel (probably around 500 to 600 degrees C) with quotes describing this as “molten”.

        Given the huge amount of material that lay in the debris pile (more than seven stories tall, and descending down into the subway below the WTC), and the flammability of much of it — remember that the fires that brought down the towers were started by the impact and jet fuel, but continued due to the office contents burning — it isn’t surprising that the ‘pile’ burned for weeks and generated high temperatures.

        I am guessing that the point of this article is that these are somehow unexpected conditions. What is that argument based on? With what similar event is this being compared?

        I do know that a seven-story building in my city collapsed completely due to earthquake, then the debris caught fire and burned for days while the fire service fought it. The WTC towers had at least two orders of magnitude more energy and flammable materials present.

        Like

        • deschutes says

          Did you even bother to watch the video? Given your comments here I doubt it. Multiple people from clean up workers to firemen to even Guiliani are shown describing molten steel–with videos and pictures of molten steel, beams bent into a horseshoe shape, etc. throughout the video. But you ‘can’t find any photos of molten steel’? A quick google search and I’m looking at lots of photos from WTC of molten metal being picked up, also many massive melted steel pieces of debris. More than enough witnesses, more than enough photo/video evidence. LOL!

          Like

          • Jerome Fryer says

            Molten steel flows. What you are doing is confusing heated steel (and it loses rigidity fast — the main point about fire does seriously soften steel beams, caused by jet fuel or not) with molten steel.

            Like

            • deschutes says

              Your tactic is typical of internet trolls: when evidence is presented contrary to your position you simply ignore it and making shit up, talking nonsense. That’s probably why most people on this website ignore your comments. If a person refuses to listen to the other side in a debate or even acknowledge what all of the rescue and recovery people plainly, evidently say as in this video–there is really no point in talking to you. Waste of time.

              Like

              • Jerome Fryer says

                Ignore facts all you want: molten steel is not the same thing as heated steel. The temperatures required are considerably different, and thus the central claim being made in this article is erroneous.

                There is a difference between being willing to “listen to the other side” and credulity.

                Like

                • deschutes says

                  So even though the video has several eyewitnesses saying “molten metal” was witnessed–not “heated steel”–you are denying all of their claims. Here is just one quote of many: “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the walls…” by Ken Holden, director NY Dept of Design & Construction (excerpted in video above). So basically your position is this: you willfully deny ALL the eyewitnesses in the video above who saw ‘molten steel’? One after another after another? And you have the gall to say “There is a difference between being willing to “listen to the other side” and credulity”!? Epic fail, troll. You convince nobody, keep your head buried in the sand where it belongs.

                  Like

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  If you’re interested in facts, rather than carefully cherry-picked ‘truther’ nonsense, go search for the FDNY oral histories on the WTC clean-up.

                  Note the lack of “molten steel” mentioned.

                  Like

          • Brian Harry, Australia says

            “deschutes” One firefighter described the flow of what he described as “molten lave”, and his comment was acknowledged by one of his fire fighter mates. Thermal cameras detected temperatures in the wreckage even weeks after the “attack” of 26002800 degrees…………

            Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Thermitic Lances, thermal Lances 4500F.

                They were used to cut steel on the 16-21.

                Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            The Horse shoe shape was a dirrect result of plane impact.

            Like

            • Jaques says

              Where is the source or evidence that backs up this claim? I have never heard it before? Is it your own claim? If so what is your reasoning or evidence that backs it up?

              If you are suggesting that curve was caused by the direct impact of the plane I find that quite surprising and implausible? The inner face of the beam is remarkably intact and free of marks, damage or any evidence of shredding or impact with another material. How is that so if a plane impacted this beam at around 500mph? If the impact could bend the beam to such a radical degree- and superheat it near instantly and evenly allowing it to bend without tearing- one would expect to see clear evidence at the point of impact in the form of deformation, shredding, scratching and gouging? Yet I see nothing to speak of?

              I will propose an alternative explanation for the formation of the perfect arc:

              First the beam was uniformly super heated via contact/proximity with a large thermitic reaction- then it was subject to a sudden blast wave from a powerful explosive- causing the formation of the perfect arc.

              Would you agree that this is a possible explanation for the appearance of that highly unusual I beam?

              Would you also agree- that on face value- as a working hypothesis it better explains the observable characteristics of the bent beam than your hypothesis of plane impact?

              Explain why I am wrong And you are right if you can.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                See Above, Aluminum burns when finely divided and heated by impact it can reach temperatures well in excess of thermite.

                The location the beam came from is known.

                Like

                • jaques says

                  show me the evidence that the location of the beam is known. You cannot simply say ‘it is known’. How is it known and by whom? Where is this information documented? What is your source?

                  I am fully aware that individual beams in the WTC were marked and their locations known. But that is not the same as saying that ‘this particular beam came from this particular location and this is the evidence that shows it’- not the same at all.

                  Are you saying- that as the plane impacted- the aluminum was virtually vaporized- or at the least super heated- and it somehow transferred that heat to the beam- near instantaneously- allowing the beam to heat throughout- evenly- to such a degree that the still impacting plane debris were able to bend it into the arc we see- without any substantial tearing – or even marking of the inner face of the beam where all this superheated plane material hit it?

                  That sounds to me to be a totally ridiculous and even farcical explanation… If am not following your logic here- please explain what it is that you are actually claiming?

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  “Aluminum burns when finely divided and heated by impact it can reach temperatures well in excess of thermite.”

                  thermite burns at 4000F

                  Aluminum vaporizes at temps around 4500F

                  you seem to be suggesting that the plane instantly vaporised on impact- transferred that heat to the beam instantaneously- and then bent the beam?

                  Oddly- there is quite a lot of footage of the Towers after plane impact- and clear footage into the sections of the towers that were directly impacted by the planes. I have never seen any evidence of curved beams at these locations- though there are many beams visible that are bent inwards at sharp angles and broken. They do not look at all like the beam in question. If you have any evidence that backs up your assertion- it may have more weight- as it stands it is a meaningless claim- devoid of evidence, extremely unlikely and implausible if not completely impossible.

                  Like

                • jaques says

                  So I take it you have no evidence? It’s just a claim? Did you make it up? Or did you just read where someone else proposed it?

                  Yet you sounded so sure, so certain, so steadfast: “The Horse shoe shape was a direct result of plane impact.”

                  Don’t ask you how you know- you just know, right?

                  prove me wrong- show me you are not a disingenuous self professed ‘expert’ speaking primarily out of your own sanctimonious arse?

                  Liked by 1 person

                • jaques says

                  again- no one is disputing that aluminum can combust.

                  You have not answered my question at all: where is your evidence that the bent beam was struck by the plane???????

                  I am calling you out: you are a full of crap!

                  Like

  23. “It must have cost a lot of money to buy their silence.”

    Not to imply that anthrax might not cost a lot of money, especially to get it delivered covertly, but I’d say it probably sent a very clear and sobering message to all of the politicians and bureaucrats remotely capable of adding two plus two. Most people can be intimidated into compliance by the mere possibility of being murdered if all that is required is just shutting up and minding one’s own. Just saying . . . And then one does have to work for a living . . . A lot can happen, and for at least five people, the worst did happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Brian Harry, Australia says

      The only International ‘language’ that everyone understands is “money”…..and everyone understands what is ‘in their interest’……….

      Like

      • I agree with you, of course. I was only reminding myself that in addition to the money that is always being thrown around, intimidation is also a way of ‘bribing,’ so to speak. That’s what targeted killings and war and terror are for . . .

        Like

  24. Brian Harry, Australia says

    “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”….Aldous Huxley

    There are You Tube videos in the Net showing molten metal dripping out of the building. The fact that the American political establishment have closed ranks behind the NIST Report is further proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Apparently 50% of Americans now believe there has been a cover up, and yet NO Congressmen/women that I am aware of have the cojones to stand up for the U.S.A.
    It must have cost a lot of money to buy their silence.

    Like

    • John Gross, just after 5 mins into the video:

      «steel is molten around 2,600ºF… I think it’s probably quite difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a fire»

      Liked by 1 person

      • moriarty's Left Sock says

        Exactly so. Yet such high temps were clearly there and – even stranger – continued to register for days or weeks later. I’m not sure what that means but it surely was not produced by office fires burning wood, gypsum and plastic!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Mr Bagelstein says

          It was a tactical thermal nuclear bomb in the basement, shaped to direct the force upwards, thats why you see what is a mushroom like upwards thrust of the dust. A 100% Mossad operation with US counterparts.

          Like

          • Mrs Tintedbagel says

            Classical PSYOP operation.

            Associate again and again and again a pure nonsense “nuclear bomb­­­” with a high possibility “Israel/Mossad involvement” so the second to looks ridiculous and impossible.

            Like

            • Brian Harry, Australia says

              I do recall reading a report from Russia some years ago saying that a ‘nuclear device’ was used for 9/11, but I dismissed the idea as our understanding of ‘nuclear devices’ is they are either Atom Bombs or Hydrogen Bombs.
              Maybe our Masters have devised some kind of ‘nuclear device’ which we are totally unaware of. Has anyone got some information that will enlighten us??

              Like

              • Jerome Fryer says

                There are ‘truthers’ in Russia, too. Their claims are no more credible simply because they’re not Americans.

                Like

    • Mr Bagelstein says

      Bernie Sanders was bought off with a new $million seafront home.

      Like

Comments are closed.