Loose Change - a must see

by **thoughtographer** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:56 am

Since you seem to be focusing on my tone and not any of my points, I will consider this a failure on my part. I misdirected my own point as a result of my frustration; you took it personally and I followed suit. You probably won't see me discussing this topic on the messageboard ever again. I just can't hack the weeds that surround it. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:19 am

all right, dbd. Let's go slow. I'll start with this: The molten metal which was visible for weeks after the attacks was indeed steel and this steel was not melted by aluminum fires but something far more powerful and highly directed. How do you know it was steel and not aluminum?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:44 am

Since "slow" seems to be your pace DE. Hey whatever. Let's even go backaswards. How slow do you have to be to miss the KEY QUESTION: QUO BONO???? I know and you know who needed those wars. I know and you know who needs the US military presence in the middle east. I know and you know who planned this diabolical false flag terror attack. I know and you know who stole the three trillion dollars from the pentagon under supervision of Dov Zahkeim. I know and you know who benefits from the most lucrative lobby in congress EVER. I know and you know who wages war by stealth.... < ^ > 9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h .com .wtc7.net Molten Steel Workers Reported Molten Steel in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten steel in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1 A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3 A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat. It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5 A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6 A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helenâ€™s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9 The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10 A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11 This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00 2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached] 3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached] 4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached] 5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached] 6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached] 7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, 8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3 9. Ground Zero, 12/01 10. American Ground, , page 32 11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04

by **FourthBase** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>How slow do you have to be to miss the KEY QUESTION: QUO BONO????<hr></blockquote> Not to nitpick, but it's "cui bono?" What I don't get is how the fires in the upper floors could have lasted after dropping in all that debris into a pile of steel, concrete, and dust. I mean, where else did the fires come from? Did they just start spontaneously in that debris pile? Spread amongst that debris via the paper and deskwood, into a steel-melting furnace?

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:42 am

excellent, dbd. Except for your first paragraph, that was a directly relevant response. Now, here's the second question. What melted the steel?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:45 am

We still are lost aren't we. There really IS NO HOPE. Look 4th please go watch the movie "Loose Change" stated topic of this thread. THE FIRES WERE MINOR. They did not melt the steel, they did not cause the buildings to "pancake" they did not "drop all that distance" and still burn for weeks. EVERY PARTICLE OF WHAT WAS THOSE BUILDINGS WAS BLASTED SKY HIGH BY POWERFUL EXPLOSIVES--including the didly little ole fires. The heat that remained was from the demoliton charges which actually formed molten steel and incinerated every flamable artlce in the 100 odd storied building, including the bodies,furniture, the works. Get it?

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The heat that remained was from the demoliton charges which actually formed molten steel and incinerated every flamable artlce in the 100 odd storied building, including the bodies,furniture, the works.<hr></blockquote> Here's your next question. What sort of explosive produces that kind of heat? Especially heat that sticks around long enough to melt steel rather than dissipating in the explosion itself. Remember, you said fires had nothing to do with it.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:09 am

I haven't exploded any buildings lately so haven't got a clue what the hot technology is these days (heh heh)....and ya know what I don't even care. Everyone knows they did it and everyone knows why. 9-11 Eyewitness is right. This is the Titanic and We're going down. I'm gonna stop this bs and spend time with my kids. Have fun in your deck chairs. Water's waste high now.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>.and ya know what I don't even care.<hr></blockquote> Yes, I do know that. I just wanted you to say it.

by JD » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:29 am

If I was asked to predict the presence of red hot steel 21 days after the collapse, I'd have said "no way". In the rubble pile, there shouldn't have been much air feeding in to keep combustion going. Some smouldering slow combustion, but not kick-ass. Accordingly, the heat that was expressing itself 21 days later probably occurred on 911. Don't forget that the kinetic energy of the collapses themselves would have created a lot of heat energy. Some of that energy could have found its home to support beams during the collapse. Because of this I can't be convinced the presence of the red hot metal is due to any tinhat factors (thermite, mini-nuke, etc.) Remember, heat dissipates. Molten/red hot steel wants will transmit its heat by conduction to its surroundings. So the only way for steel to be so hot 21 days later irrespective of how the heat got there is for the pile of rubble to have had great insulative properties. Now, just maybe, some really hot steel got encased in a fairly thick volume of concrete dust (remember the pyroclastic flows) and this gave enough insulative effect to keep the steel so hot. Sounds far fetched, but seems the only way possible without a lot of insitu heat generation. A person would really have to have been on scene to understand what the nature and thickness of the material surrounding the red hot steel was. My take on the molten steel is that its presence long after the collapse is surprising and interesting but I think it is neutral in terms of supporting or not supporting any WTC hypothesis. I personally don't think there is a lot to be gained researching it, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

by **Iroquois** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:37 am

Me Friday: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Aluminum can burn very hot, but it needs a lot of oxygen mixed in to do so. That's what thermite basically is, aluminum powder mixed with an oxidant like iron oxide and bound together so everything the reaction needs is contained in the compound. <hr></blockquote> Me Saturday: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> In thermite, aluminum powder is bound in a mixture with an oxidant at an optimal ratio. <hr></blockquote> Me Saturday again: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The point I was making about oxygen is that a thermite reaction* needs a lot and it needs it fast. Locked in gypsum board or stuck to the side of a massive steel beam would not be remotely adequate, it really needs to be mixed together and in large concentrations. <hr></blockquote> *This emphasis was not in the original, it was added to point out that I am remarking on a thermite reaction, not the compound called thermite, the ingredients of which I thought I had already made clear...twice. Now, Dreams End: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Now, Iroquois's point about the conditions to bring this about seeming to be rather coincidental is a good one, especially when you take into account that the second tower collapsed... But as far as the thermite needing oxygen, no that's not correct. <hr></blockquote> This kind of reminds me of our discussion on the rate of the collapse of the towers, Dreams End. Is it my writing style or are you not really reading my posts?

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:10 am

Sorry, Iroquois. I did see your mention of oxidants. somehow, I read your post as suggesting it needed a source of oxygen in addition to that pulled from the oxidant, not that it couldn't get enough from the oxidant. I should be reading your posts more closely and ignoring certain others. That said, molten aluminum is bad stuff. It can explode on contact with water (surely we all agree there was water in the building??) Here's info from a materials safety data sheet from one vendor of aluminum: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>FIRE & EXPLOSION Flash Point: N/A Flammable Limits: Lowers – N/A; Upper – N/A Extinguishing Media: Non-flammable in solid form. Special Fire Fighting Procedures; Avoid use of water in fighting fires near molten aluminum. Unusual Fire & Explosion Hazards: No hazard in solid state. Dust/chips from grinding/machining may react with water to produce explosive hydrogen gas or dust clouds at level greater than 0.04 oz./cu. ft. may be ignited by spark. Molten aluminum may explode on contact with water and may react violently with rust and other metal oxides (e. g. copper, iron and lead<hr></blockquote> This is a cached copy of a pdf in html...who knows how long it will be accessible: <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:qS88FnuCrEwJ:www.falconbridge.com/documents/msds/Norandal_Salisbury_Al_Foil.pdf+molten+aluminum+react+water+alumina&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a">reallylongurl</a> But then there's this from Jones: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute (using an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto concrete. [Jones, 2006] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum. [See Greening, 2006] We also noted that while the steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery color, adding to the evidence that the molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum-- besides the fact that the salmon-yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html</a> Jones believes in thermite or something similar and seeks to prove it in his paper. Of course, he simply suggests thermite reactions could not have occurred spontaneously under those conditions and needed some "help." However, in either case, molten iron would have been a result of the reaction and perhaps additional iron could have melted from the heat produced in these reactions. Here are pics of the molten metal (or what appears to be so) next to the molten iron produced in a typical thermite reaction: <a href="http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm">www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm</a> Jones suggests that the aluminum would not be this color if it began flowing when it reached it's melting point. It is orange at about 1000 degrees celsius. Melting point is 650 or so. Jones quotes some peer reviewed (haven't actually verified that) study on one piece of steel: One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states: While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)<hr></blockquote> I'm not actually sure. Does the NIST report suggest ways the fire could have burned this hot? To Jones, the presence of sulfur is telling as this is on of the ingredients used to enhance thermite into a more powerful form called thermate. Okay...didn't realize it was so late. Here's a link from the Jones paper. Click on the one third from the left on the bottom row. Have to admit it does look rather familiar. <a href="http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm">www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 4/2/06 3:11 am

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:42 am

I know and you know who needs the US military presence in the middle east. I know and you know who planned this diabolical false flag terror attack. I know and you know who stole the three trillion dollars from the pentagon under supervision of Dov Zahkeim. I know and you know who benefits from the most lucrative lobby in congress EVER. I know and you know who wages war by stealth.... < ^ >

by **Iroquois** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:41 am

I did review that paper on the piece of steel from WTC7. It didn't apply to what I was looking for at the time, so I just sort of mentally filed it away. It is interesting though. As far as I recall, the NIST doesn't claim the fires got much above 700C, and I further recall that physical evidence only verified temperatures in steel to 250C. (To get the steel to 1000C would likely require much hotter fires as the beams are big, conduct heat away from the source, and would not necessarily be in a position to efficiently absorb the heat of the fires.) I'd have to double check to be sure, however, and I'm away from the computer where I have the NIST report saved. Could you please post a different way to get to the link at the end of your post though, Dreams End? I don't actually get any rows of links on the implosionworld website, just a column on the left. This is probably because I am surfing with Netscape on a Mac, some pages render differently.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I know and you know who needs the US military presence in the middle east. I know and you know who planned this diabolical false flag terror attack. I know and you know who stole the three trillion dollars from the pentagon under supervision of Dov Zahkeim. I know and you know who benefits from the most lucrative lobby in congress EVER. I know and you know who wages war by stealth....<hr></blockquote> I know and you know that nothing you say seems to ever be more than rhetoric with no supporting evidence, statements or analysis. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 4/2/06 11:41 am

Loose Change - a must see

Re: Don't Put People Down

Re: Don't Put People Down

o.k. DE I'm going backwards now....

Re: o.k. DE I'm going backwards now....

Re: o.k. DE I'm going backwards now....

OH Good lord....

Re: OH Good lord....

who cares?

Re: who cares?

Red Hot

Re: OH Good lord....

Re: OH Good lord....

important missed point

Re: OH Good lord....

Re: important missed point

Who is online