Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[Doc_]

P35 and thunka hunka were made for each other.

P35. Do your own research and look into the thermite furphy.
There is absolutely no evidence of thermite being used in the collapse of the twin towers. Dig a bit deeper. Do your own evaluation.

 

[Crankitup]

Which are pretty damn good at making fake things look real.

And the footage didn't have to be all that good
for people to believe it. Because , after all , it was 'live' , right.
Which is why the footage of the purported jumpers was pathetic.
And where are all the pics of the bodies on the pavement?

Here https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/bodies-body-parts-9-11-01-a-159266/ - ***WARNING*** NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED.

Pictures of people hanging out of the windows and some jumpers here https://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle...w/news-story/74c57d8883a240c95e6779c0de0c24be

 

[ThunkaHunka]

the link he posted to the victims pics is pathetic, its full of pictures of train wrecks and traffic accidents. It even
contains one pic of a purported jumper which is edited to show all of the photoshop evidence of fakery.
One of the man on the pavement pics was long ago debunked and exposed as having been a man run over by a truck.

There are ZERO real pics of WTC 'jumpers' bodies and WTC dead online.
The initial reason, or excuse for the lack of pictures was that the press found it distasteful to release the pics
or that the authorities were seizing everyones cameras.

There were not 'thousands of witnesses' to jumpers. What there was, was

-a completely evacuated region around the periphery buildings,
- canceled subway trains (which conveniently never arrived on time the morning of the attacks),
- huge and militant emergency drill teams 'accidentally' at the ready to help out in keeping the entire area empty of people,
(they all just happened to be in the city that day for an 'emergency practice drill'
- intentional billowing smoke-screens ( smoke screening the street and camera view of the tops of the buildings)
- an Israeli arts team which by all indications were working in the WTC with realistic ballistics-gel dummies in the weeks
just prior to the fake attack (I already posted the video about this).
- TV network employees exposed as posing as 'random bystander witnesses' to all of it
- other crisis actors posing as witnesses who have been linked to being present at other big 'crisis' events


If you are even interested in the truth , visit the forum at letsrollforums.com

http://letsrollforums.com//world-trade-center-hollow-f16.html?f=16

 

[Procrastinator35]

the link he posted to the victims pics is pathetic, its full of pictures of train wrecks and traffic accidents. It even
contains one pic of a purported jumper which is edited to show all of the photoshop evidence of fakery.
One of the man on the pavement pics was long ago debunked and exposed as having been a man run over by a truck.

There are ZERO real pics of WTC 'jumpers' bodies and WTC dead online.
The initial reason, or excuse for the lack of pictures was that the press found it distasteful to release the pics
or that the authorities were seizing everyones cameras.

There were not 'thousands of witnesses' to jumpers. What there was, was

-a completely evacuated region around the periphery buildings,
- canceled subway trains (which conveniently never arrived on time the morning of the attacks),
- huge and militant emergency drill teams 'accidentally' at the ready to help out in keeping the entire area empty of people,
(they all just happened to be in the city that day for an 'emergency practice drill'
- intentional billowing smoke-screens ( smoke screening the street and camera view of the tops of the buildings)
- an Israeli arts team which by all indications were working in the WTC with realistic ballistics-gel dummies in the weeks
just prior to the fake attack (I already posted the video about this).
- TV network employees exposed as posing as 'random bystander witnesses' to all of it
- other crisis actors posing as witnesses who have been linked to being present at other big 'crisis' events


If you are even interested in the truth , visit the forum at letsrollforums.com

http://letsrollforums.com//world-trade-center-hollow-f16.html?f=16

You've got the media angle correct.....They're all liars & complicit through being controlled by the Anglo-U.S intel agencies, but your 'empty building' thesis is all wrong.

Here's a point by point summary for you.

1. The Norad War-games simulations were scheduled early on that day & informed the cover for what transpired....I.E The flying of remote-controlled military mock-up 747's into the World Trade Centres. The turning off of the defence radar for the Pentagon & the lack of any scrambled fighters to intercept the planes.

2. The points at which the planes hit both towers were where 2 of the biggest investigation company's computer main-frames were situated, who were responsible, in conjunction with the securities & exchange commission, for the investigation of insider trading by all the major movers & shakers in high-finance.....Those names were due to be released that morning & have never been so ever since.....The biggest rort there has ever been was never investigated, as most of the people responsible for investigating it, were murdered on that morning....Starting to get to the actual hidden agenda here?

3. Zero planes were hijacked.....The 2 that alighted from Boston landed at Stuarts air force base where they disappeared off radar, only to magically re-appear again from that exact point....They were all boarded by C.I.A agents prior to departure in Boston....The plane that supposedly crashed in Penn state, actually landed in Cleveland Ohio, where the passengers were evacuated & put on another flight, supposedly because of a bomb scare....and finally, the cruise missile that hit the wing of the Pentagon, actually struck the wing where 26 auditors were investigating trillions of missing $$$$ from the Pentagon coffers.....Most of them were murdered also.

4. Those buildings were full of office workers & furniture....Nuclear fission explains how they all could have evaporated into a cloud of dust.....Which is precisely what happened.

 

[Doc_]

The fake moon landings were purportedly live. And weren't.

And I suppose that King Kong existed too , because after all it was on telly, and yes we all did see
a gigantic African climb the Empire State Building. Which is not far from the World Trade Center, btw.

If we don't get it yet that our media is one big lie , one big illusion....we have a lot to learn.
The entire media is centrally owned and controlled.

If they had told us that King Kong was 'live' , being broadcast from New York, would we have
felt a whole lot better about believing it to be true? "oh well, it MUST be true. It's on daytime television news
and everything."

Infusing our pathetic, mediocre existences with some sense of self-importance I suppose.
A moment we all don't want sullied for us.

Bottom line is that unless we are there to witness events with our very own eyes, no event
broadcast on television can be trusted.
Every TV network (in the world) were using the 'master feed' of their main affiliates
in New York. Given central media conglomerations, chances are that most of us watched
the 'live footage' you mention courtesy of about a whole THREE or maybe 4 different live news feeds
from NY.
namely

CBS (FOX),
NBC (Disney)
ABC (Comcast)
CNN (TBS) - now Time-Warner

So we had essentially four purportedly 'independent media moguls' at the levers of our TV feed that day.
Or cattle feed.
How difficult would it be to 'make arrangements'?

Lets say said moguls are 'assets' , installed and ready to
link-in whatever 'exciting new footage of jumpers' is supplied them. No questions asked.
And what do you know the footage is from CBS's affiliate local TV news chopper or from CBS's 'ground crew' in NY.

What no one mentions is that CBS owns FOX and also owns a few movie studios.(20th Century Fox and Paramount
Pictures)

Which are pretty damn good at making fake things look real.

And the footage didn't have to be all that good
for people to believe it. Because , after all , it was 'live' , right.
Which is why the footage of the purported jumpers was pathetic.
And where are all the pics of the bodies on the pavement?



View attachment 760257

View attachment 760258

Is that you Pogma?
You no longer believe it was mysterious "balls" that hit the towers?
*, that was a cracker.

 

[Doc_]

 

[Crankitup]

the link he posted to the victims pics is pathetic, its full of pictures of train wrecks and traffic accidents. It even
contains one pic of a purported jumper which is edited to show all of the photoshop evidence of fakery.
One of the man on the pavement pics was long ago debunked and exposed as having been a man run over by a truck.

There are ZERO real pics of WTC 'jumpers' bodies and WTC dead online.
The initial reason, or excuse for the lack of pictures was that the press found it distasteful to release the pics
or that the authorities were seizing everyones cameras.

There were not 'thousands of witnesses' to jumpers. What there was, was

-a completely evacuated region around the periphery buildings,
- canceled subway trains (which conveniently never arrived on time the morning of the attacks),
- huge and militant emergency drill teams 'accidentally' at the ready to help out in keeping the entire area empty of people,
(they all just happened to be in the city that day for an 'emergency practice drill'
- intentional billowing smoke-screens ( smoke screening the street and camera view of the tops of the buildings)
- an Israeli arts team which by all indications were working in the WTC with realistic ballistics-gel dummies in the weeks
just prior to the fake attack (I already posted the video about this).
- TV network employees exposed as posing as 'random bystander witnesses' to all of it
- other crisis actors posing as witnesses who have been linked to being present at other big 'crisis' events


If you are even interested in the truth , visit the forum at letsrollforums.com

http://letsrollforums.com//world-trade-center-hollow-f16.html?f=16

"He"? I am still here. You can speak to me directly you know.

OK you have problems with the first link, it was the first one I came across. What about the second link which includes photos of people hanging out of the tower to get away from the fire and smoke. Are they all fake too?

 

[ThunkaHunka]

VERY easy to fake. A motion picture, a big-screen movie theater movie was made
about the purported WTC attack. It features Nicholas Cage, and features people screaming from the windows
and smoke and fire and everything and its so well executed that some people say they cried in the movie theater.

Then they played it on TV years later.

That is how it is done.

Special effects put on film, then shown on TV, and people eat it up. We are dealing with psychopaths who will use fake props,
fake crisis actors as witnesses, and even fake footage. And why wouldn't they? When they know exactly who they are dealing with
and catering to. When they know that they have a completely spellbound public of 100% credulous people who are DESPERATE
to believe everything told them.

 

[BustedWing]

View attachment 760378

haha! Ah Pogma...what a classic.

 

[BustedWing]

"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11."

Does anyone know if this is indeed true?

Its not true.

 

[Crankitup]

Its not true.

How many total collapses of high rises due to fire have there been before 9/11 and how many after?

 

[ThunkaHunka]

What is it about '3,000 died in the WTC' which is so HAMMERED into people's heads that they will
trek to the ends of Earth to maintain their belief in it? If you were in power and manipulating world
events , which path would you choose , given both options were available to you?

Say its the 1950s and you are planning global takeover , and you are planning a long drawn out 'Christians vs. Muslims'
century of warfare. So you need a pretext for the invasion of the Middle East, and ongoing esclation of a religious war
on both sides

And the idea of a false flag terror attack is floated , to be blamed on the Arabs.
And you have two options. Fake the murder of 3,000 Americans, or actually MURDER 3,000 Americans.
Which option would you choose? Knowing that some day the truth may win the day, and you would have
the crime of the century on your head , nonetheless, forever. Whether you were caught or not.
So you have two options. Psychological Warfare or Military Warfare.

Which would you choose? Knowing that you have full control of the press, from top to bottom. Knowing that
you have experts in your employ who can plan and convincingly fake anything?

You would choose to fake the deaths. Of course. And you would know that anyone who attempted to expose
your fakery would never be believed.

And you would know that, if worse came to worst, you could just attack the messenger ( lawsuits and
threats against that persons free speech) or pay a mob to shout 'shut up, moron. no one believes you'. etc.

You would choose the high road, of course . Psychological warfare.

 

[BustedWing]

It was my understanding the Towers had 244 perimeter columns made of structural steel along with steel plates etc. Why would you think the molten metal pictured would be anything else? Or if you prefer, what metal other than steel do you think it was?

Ok so here we go...

It wasn't steel flowing from the building near point of impact just before the towers collapsed, it was in fact aluminium.

Key reasons:

Steel doesnt melt at the temperatures observed at the impact points.

The fires were burning at approximately 1800 degrees F, approx. 1000F colder than needed to melt steel. From the NIST report:
"Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers"

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade...

www.nist.gov

OK, so if it likely wasn't steel melting, when what else could it have been?

Aluminium.

Aluminium has a melting point much lower than steel, at around 1200 degrees F. This is well under the temperatures observed in the fires.

But where would all the aluminium we see melting have come from? Its not like typical office buildings have tons of alumnium just lying around...

True - but planes are almost three quarters aluminium, and critically, one was "parked" inside the world trade centre building at the time. Aluminium was also the second most abundant metal in the towers (after steel of course), found in all sorts of things, from light fittings, to office.

Does aluminium glow that colour when its melted? I thought it was a silvery colour?

At low liquid temps, yes, you would be correct, but at higher temps (for melted aluminium) like the ones observed in the towers, it glows a light orange.




Ok but how do we know it was the plane that is melting and dripping out the sides of the building?

From NIST again, referencing where the plane would have been pushed to inside the building, and why there is no molten metal seen dripping elsewhere:
"There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunnelled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed."

 

[BustedWing]

How many total collapses of high rises due to fire have there been before 9/11 and how many after?

Plenty of steel structures had collapsed prior to 9/11 due to fire including parts of buildings (the steel framed parts), bridges make of steel , and a really notable one post is the Plasco High Rise tower in Iran, that collapsed in 2017 due to fires.

Iran: 'More than 20 firefighters dead' in Tehran building collapse

More than 20 firefighters were killed in Tehran when a multi-story building collapsed as they were battling a fire, Tehran's Mayor Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf told a state TV channel Thursday.

www.cnn.com

 

[ThunkaHunka]

The term is that people "are invested in it", and it is so true.
In even a literal sense.
"Hey , the Nicholas Cage film on the WTC attack was total crap. No one even died in the WTC. You
were lied to. Admit that you were fooled."

"Excuse me, but I RESENT that. I paid good money to see that film. I could have seen a comedy. But
I took the option to better myself, to study and to learn on serious business issues like the WTC.
Its the closest thing I have done to being an intellectual adult in my whole life , and yet YOU want to
take that from me? I missed watching a good footy game to take my relative to educute umselves on this
instead. So don't you dare even challenge me on this. You comedy-watching w***er. I am the real deal.
A grim and keen observer of bitter reality, through popcorn coke and theatrical releases.

In fact I am something a couch scholar. Even at home. You'd never know it to look at me. Happy go lucky me,
right? I will have you know that I watched EVERYTHING about 9/11. Because I am no fool. I'm not the
party fool you might think I am. I have seen it all. The firefighters hero documentary. The anniversary tributes.
And yes, even the Nicholas Cage film, which I spent EXTRA MONEY to go see. Yer just jealous that I am such
a multi-faceted individual, with sophisticated sides to me that you never even knew about. Its not all beer
and ACDC and video games for me and mine. Not at all. You messed with the wrong multi-faceted beer drinker,
mate.
I even feigned tears about it once to impress someone out with me. Don't you get it? I am DOWN FOR THIS.
A REAL MAN, knowing what the deal is. you just didn't have the time and resources to pull it all off like I did. Huh heh."

etc.

These people will never accept that they were hoodwinked. They pride themselves on having faithfully
consumed and endured all of the 'now , on a serious note' blatherings coming from TV.

 

[Crankitup]

Plenty of steel structures had collapsed prior to 9/11 due to fire including parts of buildings (the steel framed parts), bridges make of steel , and a really notable one post is the Plasco High Rise tower in Iran, that collapsed in 2017 due to fires.

Iran: 'More than 20 firefighters dead' in Tehran building collapse

More than 20 firefighters were killed in Tehran when a multi-story building collapsed as they were battling a fire, Tehran's Mayor Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf told a state TV channel Thursday.

www.cnn.com

Thanks. So no skyscrapers then (which are built to a higher standard). Just one 50 year old 17 storey building in Iran.

 

[BustedWing]

Thanks. So no skyscrapers then (which are built to a higher standard). Just one 50 year old 17 storey building in Iran.

You asked if the statement "this has never happened before" was true. I've demonstrated that it is not.

We can talk about this if you like, but first... do you mind if we get back to the Melted Steel conversation? Remember me being a stickler for one topic at a time and all!

 

[Crankitup]

Ok so here we go...

It wasn't steel flowing from the building near point of impact just before the towers collapsed, it was in fact aluminium.

Key reasons:

Steel doesnt melt at the temperatures observed at the impact points.

The fires were burning at approximately 1800 degrees F, approx. 1000F colder than needed to melt steel. From the NIST report:
"Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers"

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade...

www.nist.gov

OK, so if it likely wasn't steel melting, when what else could it have been?

Aluminium.

Aluminium has a melting point much lower than steel, at around 1200 degrees F. This is well under the temperatures observed in the fires.

But where would all the aluminium we see melting have come from? Its not like typical office buildings have tons of alumnium just lying around...

True - but planes are almost three quarters aluminium, and critically, one was "parked" inside the world trade centre building at the time. Aluminium was also the second most abundant metal in the towers (after steel of course), found in all sorts of things, from light fittings, to office.

Does aluminium glow that colour when its melted? I thought it was a silvery colour?

At low liquid temps, yes, you would be correct, but at higher temps (for melted aluminium) like the ones observed in the towers, it glows a light orange.

View attachment 760397


Ok but how do we know it was the plane that is melting and dripping out the sides of the building?

From NIST again, referencing where the plane would have been pushed to inside the building, and why there is no molten metal seen dripping elsewhere:
"There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunnelled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed."

Thanks for that. I had come across some of those arguments yesterday. I also came across this.

Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot
molten metal dripping from the south WTC Tower
shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001.[1] Could this
be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel
(due to fires), or molten iron (due to the thermite
reactions)?
The yellow-white color implies a molten metal
temperature of approximately 1000 to 1200 °C, well
above metal temperatures which the dark-smoke fires in
the towers could produce. Structural steel melts at about
1510 °C , far above that which could be obtained from
the fires.
If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its
melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach
the yellow color observed for this molten metal.
Furthermore, aluminum has low emissivity and high
reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten
aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Thus, molten
aluminum is ruled out.
But yellow-white hot molten metal was clearly
observed and even reported in the NIST 9/11 report.[See
1] We note that molten iron, with the characteristics
seen in this video,[1] is consistent with a thermite
reaction attacking the steel columns in the tower, since
thermite produces molten iron of yellow-to-white hot
temperatures (see:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm ):
2Al + Fe2 O3 → Al2 O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = 853.5
kJ/mole.
Anomalous pools of molten metal were observed
under the rubble piles of both Towers and WTC 7.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...unts_for_the_Molten_Metal_Observed_on_9112001

 

[BustedWing]

Thanks for that. I had come across some of those arguments yesterday. I also came across this.



https://www.researchgate.net/public...unts_for_the_Molten_Metal_Observed_on_9112001

Yeah, i've seen these theories before, and they don't hold any water IMO.
At the beginning, when I asked you for your top issue(s), you said:

the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse

And now you're providing a claim that the molten metal is not steel, nor aluminium, but and Iron/thermite reaction:

From your post:
We note that molten iron, with the characteristics
seen in this video,[1] is consistent with a thermite
reaction attacking the steel columns in the tower, since
thermite produces molten iron of yellow-to-white hot
temperatures

So, what do you believe? Is it steel, as you stated in your original post, or Iron/thermatic reaction, as you posted this as a rebuttal to my aluminimium position?

you cant say:

"It was steel, and proof it was steel is this article that says it was Iron/Thermite".

See what I mean?

All address the claims made in that post below.

 

[BustedWing]

Thanks for that. I had come across some of those arguments yesterday. I also came across this.



https://www.researchgate.net/public...unts_for_the_Molten_Metal_Observed_on_9112001

First claim made:
The yellow-white color implies a molten metal
temperature of approximately 1000 to 1200 °C, well
above metal temperatures which the dark-smoke fires in
the towers could produce.

What is it about "dark smoke fires" that mean a "cool temperature fire"? Ive seen this claim quite a few times, that the smoke was black, and this is a symptom of a fire that is starved of oxygen, and thus cool, and thus not able to melt various metals (aluminium in this case).

This is fundamentally incorrect. Smoke is the byproduct of the fuel it is burning, and is a very poor indicator of its oxygen source, or its "heat". Happy to provide you with sources supporting this if you like, just let me know.

The 1000-1200 degree C level is well within the observed temperatures of the fires in the towers.

Second claim made:
If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its
melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach
the yellow color observed for this molten metal.

This is a wild assumption. What sort of conditions would be present in the impact zone to allow the aluminium to (a) be at a heat source and (b) pool together to heat to an appropriate level?

Perhaps being wedged up against steel girders of a building corner?

Third claim:

Furthermore, aluminum has low emissivity and high
reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten
aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Thus, molten
aluminum is ruled out.


This is aluminium in daylight

Heres another one:


And a third:


Fourth claim:
is consistent with a thermite
reaction attacking the steel columns in the tower, since
thermite produces molten iron of yellow-to-white hot
temperatures

No thermite was found at all. the paper that was published (Jone's paper) purporting to have found unreacted nano themite in the dust is wrong. The issues include:

* Samples collected were left un secured for 6 years before being tested.
* The samples found aluminium and iron oxide. Yes, thats found in thermite, but also in lots and lots and lots of other things too, like TVs, Laptops, paint, tables, chairs etc etc. Hardly narrowing it down at all.
* The samples contained 0.1% of "unreacted thermite" according to the paper. that's an ABSURD amount to find in the dust. WAY WAY WAY WAY too much for it to be the smoking gun of an incendiary device used.
* The paper was published in a confirmed "pay for play" obscure paper with no peer review, the "open chemical physics journal". Ie - the publisher just paid them to print it up, no review process, no accreditation. Hardly credible
* Jones wont release the samples to other scientists to check their results.

Heres the kicker though:

* for it to be thermite, the results would need to show elemental aluminium residue. It didnt, and so it would absolutely rule out thermite.

Heres a great little clip about it if you're interested:

 

[Crankitup]

Yeah, i've seen these theories before, and they don't hold any water IMO.

Holds water with me ATM because they at least conducted tests on this issue, unlike NIST.

At the beginning, when I asked you for your top issue(s), you said:



And now you're providing a claim that the molten metal is not steel, nor aluminium, but and Iron/thermite reaction:

From your post:
We note that molten iron, with the characteristics
seen in this video,[1] is consistent with a thermite
reaction attacking the steel columns in the tower, since
thermite produces molten iron of yellow-to-white hot
temperatures

So, what do you believe? Is it steel, as you stated in your original post, or Iron/thermatic reaction, as you posted this as a rebuttal to my aluminimium position?

you cant say:

"It was steel, and proof it was steel is this article that says it was Iron/Thermite".

See what I mean?

All address the claims made in that post below.

You have misinterpreted. They are not saying that the molten material is iron and thermite, they are saying it is molten iron cause by a nearby themite reaction. Or is your quibble about the difference between molten steel & molten iron?

If so, you should know that steel is predominantly made of iron with a carbon content that can range from 0.2% to 2.1% depending on the type of steel. I'm glad you brought this up actually because it has led to me finding out that the Twin Towers were built using A36 grade steel which has the least carbon content (0.2%) and thus the highest melting point. In fact it's melting point is hundreds of degrees higher than some higher carbon steels.

Anyway, maybe they are technically differentiating between molten steel and molten iron because something about the thermite reaction could produce a Bessemer type reaction whereby the carbon is removed and therefore, what was a very low carbon steel, becomes iron. Just speculation on my part though.

 

[Crankitup]

First claim made:
The yellow-white color implies a molten metal
temperature of approximately 1000 to 1200 °C, well
above metal temperatures which the dark-smoke fires in
the towers could produce.

What is it about "dark smoke fires" that mean a "cool temperature fire"? Ive seen this claim quite a few times, that the smoke was black, and this is a symptom of a fire that is starved of oxygen, and thus cool, and thus not able to melt various metals (aluminium in this case).

This is fundamentally incorrect. Smoke is the byproduct of the fuel it is burning, and is a very poor indicator of its oxygen source, or its "heat". Happy to provide you with sources supporting this if you like, just let me know.

The 1000-1200 degree C level is well within the observed temperatures of the fires in the towers.

Second claim made:
If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its
melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach
the yellow color observed for this molten metal.

This is a wild assumption. What sort of conditions would be present in the impact zone to allow the aluminium to (a) be at a heat source and (b) pool together to heat to an appropriate level?

Perhaps being wedged up against steel girders of a building corner?

Third claim:

Furthermore, aluminum has low emissivity and high
reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten
aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Thus, molten
aluminum is ruled out.

View attachment 760413
This is aluminium in daylight

Heres another one:
View attachment 760414

And a third:
View attachment 760415

Fourth claim:
is consistent with a thermite
reaction attacking the steel columns in the tower, since
thermite produces molten iron of yellow-to-white hot
temperatures

No thermite was found at all. the paper that was published (Jone's paper) purporting to have found unreacted nano themite in the dust is wrong. The issues include:

* Samples collected were left un secured for 6 years before being tested.
* The samples found aluminium and iron oxide. Yes, thats found in thermite, but also in lots and lots and lots of other things too, like TVs, Laptops, paint, tables, chairs etc etc. Hardly narrowing it down at all.
* The samples contained 0.1% of "unreacted thermite" according to the paper. that's an ABSURD amount to find in the dust. WAY WAY WAY WAY too much for it to be the smoking gun of an incendiary device used.
* The paper was published in a confirmed "pay for play" obscure paper with no peer review, the "open chemical physics journal". Ie - the publisher just paid them to print it up, no review process, no accreditation. Hardly credible
* Jones wont release the samples to other scientists to check their results.

Heres the kicker though:

* for it to be thermite, the results would need to show elemental aluminium residue. It didnt, and so it would absolutely rule out thermite.

Heres a great little clip about it if you're interested:

I'm not sure why you replied to my post #1,018 twice. You asked me not to discuss more than one topic at a time but I think replying to one post in two quite different ways with different sub topics in each is probably just as fraught with the danger of causing confusion.

I need to sleep now so I'll just say three things.

(1) You appear to have contradicted yourself in your latest post. At one point you say "The samples found aluminium and iron oxide." Later on you say "for it to be thermite, the results would need to show elemental aluminium residue. It didnt, and so it would absolutely rule out thermite."

(2) I would question whether your pictures were of molten aluminium because all the videos I found and watched showed that molten aluminium turned silver in colour when poured out of it's container. I'll link you up if you like.

(3) If your position is that there was no molten iron or molten steel in the WTC buildings I would suggest you read this.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

 

[BustedWing]

I'm not sure why you replied to my post #1,018 twice.

Just for the interest of trying to keep the posts clean and easy to read - which can be hard to do.

You asked me not to discuss more than one topic at a time but I think replying to one post in two quite different ways with different sub topics in each is probably just as fraught with the danger of causing confusion.

Happy to adjust - no problem

The samples found aluminium and iron oxide." Later on you say "for it to be thermite, the results would need to show elemental aluminium residue. It didnt, and so it would absolutely rule out thermite."

Key word is "elemental" (and specifically within the grey layer of the chips being tested). This has to do with the reaction that would have taken place if it was thermite. I'm no chemist however, so my knowledge is somewhat limited.

If so, you should know that steel is predominantly made of iron with a carbon content that can range from 0.2% to 2.1% depending on the type of steel. I'm glad you brought this up actually because it has led to me finding out that the Twin Towers were built using A36 grade steel which has the least carbon content (0.2%) and thus the highest melting point. In fact it's melting point is hundreds of degrees higher than some higher carbon steels.

Sure, but because something contains a something else in its chemical makeup, does not make it the same thing. Think H20 and Hydrogen. You cannot say "steel melted" and then say "yes, I am right, look at all this melted iron".

But its arguing semantics, because for your premise to be correct, Thermite would need to be present, and there is zero evidence for this.

 

[Crankitup]

Just for the interest of trying to keep the posts clean and easy to read - which can be hard to do.

Happy to adjust - no problem

Key word is "elemental" (and specifically within the grey layer of the chips being tested). This has to do with the reaction that would have taken place if it was thermite. I'm no chemist however, so my knowledge is somewhat limited.

Sure, but because something contains a something else in its chemical makeup, does not make it the same thing. Think H20 and Hydrogen. You cannot say "steel melted" and then say "yes, I am right, look at all this melted iron".

But its arguing semantics, because for your premise to be correct, Thermite would need to be present, and there is zero evidence for this.

Did you miss these last two sentences from my post you replied to or did you edit them out during your reply?

Anyway, maybe they are technically differentiating between molten steel and molten iron because something about the thermite reaction could produce a Bessemer type reaction whereby the carbon is removed and therefore, what was a very low carbon steel, becomes iron. Just speculation on my part though.

 

[BustedWing]

Did you miss these last two sentences from my post you replied to or did you edit them out during your reply?

I saw them - just didn't think it was all that relevant to my reply is all, so I left it out. Its speculation.