General 9/11...18 years on

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Inside Job

Do Milk
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
41,844
47,199
Maybe you have evidence.

You said...



So how can footage tell? Where's the footage (I was okay just assuming the video above was some of it )?
Where are the reports?

And as I linked, the FEMA report does NOT document molten steel. Says it didn't melt. Wasn't hot enough.
I can only link you to temperature readings from above for over a week after and liquid metal pouring out of debris raised by excavator a week after...both raises many questions.
Lots of eyewitnesses(firefighters) discussing the presence of molten metal, that is the reports I refer to.



this was building 7
 
1

1031

Guest
How could those corroded beams be from thermite when their temperatures clearly never got hot enough to indicate anything other than a fire?

All I asked was how you knew that was molten steel and you posted this stuff.
Probably he doesn't but one should inquire into what alloys or metals were in greatest abundance, where they were, and in what concentration i.e. large steel beams are a rather concentrated form whilst aluminum air conduits much less so. Then one should ask what the tendencies are of these substances under strain of heat and pressure. I suggest concentrated quantities of steel under sudden destabilization, great heat, and pressure are more likely to melt whilst dispersed quantities of aluminum or copper are likely to be crushed and dispersed.
 

IschKabibble

TMMAC Addict
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
12,868
17,862
Documents and office furniture burning for 100 days and causing this much damage...

Ground Zero stops burning, after 100 days

One hundred days after the suicide attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and killed nearly 3,000 people, the final fires have stopped burning at Ground Zero.

For months, acrid clouds of smoke from the site could be smelled several miles away in Brooklyn and upper Manhattan. The fires, fuelled by documents and office furniture, had been so strong they needed a near-constant jet of water sprayed on them.

Ground Zero stops burning, after 100 days

 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
Probably he doesn't but one should inquire into what alloys or metals were in greatest abundance, where they were, and in what concentration i.e.
Feel free to post the reports referenced about molten steel then. It seems to only be a reference to molten metal with steel as a layman's place holder.
I can find none.
Post some of the cooled molten steel.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
Documents and office furniture burning for 100 days and causing this much damage...
Nope.

At Ground Zero, Scenes From the Ice Age

It's an excavation process of the natural stone formations...See above and below the excavation.




Natural undisturbed rock of the same area for reference...
schist rock in central park - Google Search




Jet fuel and office furniture melts rock:

Again, not really.
Wide angle lens on the most interesting pattern only.

Here is the actual formation. Again, it's part of the excavation...



An entire report on the rocks that doesn't care about 9/11 other than the interesting rocks...

https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts11/moss.pdf
 
1

1031

Guest
Feel free to post the reports referenced about molten steel then. It seems to only be a reference to molten metal with steel as a layman's place holder.
I can find none.
Post some of the cooled molten steel.
I didn't state that molten anything was or wasn't found, only that if it was, based on the criteria I mentioned, it being steel would make more sense than aluminum or copper.

But to you request about reports, do you think it accurate to surmise only government-approved agencies, contractors and labs had access to those sites?
 
1

1031

Guest
Nope.

At Ground Zero, Scenes From the Ice Age

It's an excavation process of the natural stone formations...See above and below the excavation.




Natural undisturbed rock of the same area for reference...
schist rock in central park - Google Search





Again, not really.
Wide angle lens on the most interesting pattern only.

Here is the actual formation. Again, it's part of the excavation...



An entire report on the rocks that doesn't care about 9/11 other than the interesting rocks...

https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts11/moss.pdf
His story is from December 20th 2001, your story is from September 21, 2008.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
His story is from December 20th 2001, your story is from September 21, 2008.
I don't know what this means.
I don't have a story. I have multiple sources showing those rock formations are the type found during the excavation. They weren't melted into that formation.

I didn't state that molten anything was or wasn't found, only that if it was, based on the criteria I mentioned, it being steel would make more sense than aluminum or copper.
It wouldn't.
Volume matters less than melt point.
 
1

1031

Guest
I don't know what this means.
I don't have a story. I have multiple sources showing those rock formations are the type found during the excavation. They weren't melted into that formation.



It wouldn't.
Volume matters less than melt point.
Volume matters as much if the claim is there were pools of a given substance.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149

So what does a story being dated 2001, that has nothing to do with the rock formations, matter?

You said his link was 2001 and mine was 2008. The pics (his and mine) are from the excavation years later. Not 2001.
 
1

1031

Guest
So what does a story being dated 2001, that has nothing to do with the rock formations, matter?

You said his link was 2001 and mine was 2008. The pics (his and mine) are from the excavation years later. Not 2001.
The story he posted doesn't lack legitimacy simply because a third party attached an inaccurate photo to it many years later.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
The story he posted doesn't lack legitimacy simply because a third party attached an inaccurate photo to it many years later.

What are you even arguing about?

His link doesn't say anything about rocks. No one doubts that the fire burn for 100 days. That's the only thing his link says. No one is doubting that. It doesn't say anything about melting rocks. It has nothing to do with the conversation about melting rocks.

You were the one that mentioned 2001 and 2008 I just responded to you.

I responded directly to the picture with context.
 

IschKabibble

TMMAC Addict
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
12,868
17,862
Nope.

At Ground Zero, Scenes From the Ice Age

It's an excavation process of the natural stone formations...See above and below the excavation.




Natural undisturbed rock of the same area for reference...
schist rock in central park - Google Search





Again, not really.
Wide angle lens on the most interesting pattern only.

Here is the actual formation. Again, it's part of the excavation...



An entire report on the rocks that doesn't care about 9/11 other than the interesting rocks...

https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts11/moss.pdf
I see clear differences between the rock formations you're sharing and the obvious pool of hardened something at the bottom of this photo.



There's also a noticeable difference in the way the buildings you posted fell and way building 7 fell on 9/11, and that's symmetry. Explain to me how most of the windows of this building stayed intact as it came crashing down...

 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
I see clear differences between the rock formations you're sharing and the obvious pool of hardened something at the bottom of this photo
other pictures are simply examples of local rocks showing the type of rock that is there.

The rest are from the same series of the excavation.
They are different because that's how they look. That's the totality of the excavation not just one cropped white angle shot to create a uniform impression.
Click the report I linked. They're glacial potholes excavated after the fact years later, not melted.

The stuff at the bottom of the hole is a slurry from the excavation process.
 

IschKabibble

TMMAC Addict
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
12,868
17,862
other pictures are simply examples of local rocks showing the type of rock that is there.

The rest are from the same series of the excavation.
They are different because that's how they look. That's the totality of the excavation not just one cropped white angle shot to create a uniform impression.
Click the report I linked. They're glacial potholes excavated after the fact years later, not melted.

The stuff at the bottom of the hole is a slurry from the excavation process.
When you say excavation, you mean original excavation and construction? You're saying this is what the foundation of WTC 1 and 2 looked like under the intact buildings?

 
1

1031

Guest
What are you even arguing about?

His link doesn't say anything about rocks. No one doubts that the fire burn for 100 days. That's the only thing his link says. No one is doubting that. It doesn't say anything about melting rocks. It has nothing to do with the conversation about melting rocks.

You were the one that mentioned 2001 and 2008 I just responded to you.

I responded directly to the picture with context.
There's no reason to take exception to anything I've written and turn it into an argument.

My observation is with the information in the article he posted, information you agree with. Shouldn't we concern ourselves more with what happened than with what didn't happen?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
33,638
68,149
There's no reason to take exception to anything I've written and turn it into an argument.

My observation is with the information in the article he posted, information you agree with. Shouldn't we concern ourselves more with what happened than with what didn't happen?
fair enough, I'll follow suit...

His story is from December 20th 2001, your story is from September 21, 2008.
Sky is blue.