John Gross laughs off and denies the presence of molten steal

[hang a left]

John says there was no evidence and no eyewitnesses to the presence of molten steal.

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

These eyewitnesses debunk John Gross.

[defendandprotect]

1. They've probably destroyed all video of a month or more of molten steel burning like lava ...!!

Rivers of molten steel --

Despite all reality -- dumped into dungeon!!

ROFL

[hang a left]

2. No dandp

I started here. I know better.

[defendandprotect]

3. Trust you're right -- but they are quite the destroyers of records -- !!

Good post -- thank you!

[Flatulo]

10. ::Thump::

[Flatulo]

12. So the evidence for molten steel is that there is no evidence?

Pure D&P gold.

[ryan_cats]

21. Burning like lava, the soap?

Seriously, folks have been talking about molten steel yet I have not seen one video or still of this besides the flow from when the tower were still standing and that is easily explained way.

Did they 'get' to all the people and videos of molten steel, seriously?

[Uncle Fester]

27. C'mon now...

I'd rather rely on the word of those eyewitnesses in the FDNY rather than listen to a bunch of mental masturbation. We don't need alternate theories in order to show the original story to be a lie. Either it squares with eyewitnesses, evidence and scientific laws or it is BS.

9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero

[hack89]

4. So what is molten steel suppose to be proof of?

even if you accept thermate, it doesn't explain large amounts of molten steel. There is no mechanism that can produce large amounts of molten steel and keep it molten for a long period of time.

Now the rubble pile fires were certainly hot enough to melt aluminum - it has a much lower melting point then steel.

[jberryhill]

5. You are asking this question of someone who can't spell "steel"

Good luck, grasshopper.

[hang a left]

6. So what...

I misspelled steel. That is all you have is diversion. You have been destroyed by the fact that the World Trade Center buildings, all 3 of them, were destroyed by explosives. You can't get around that. It is the smoking gun.

[jberryhill]

9. Ah yes

Because explosive demolitions are typically characterized by steel that "flows like lava" for days.

However, I was not addressing you.

[hang a left]

7. Actually this video explains that very well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

All of your questions will be answered. The short version is that military-grade explosives were used; ones that are capable of providing their own oxygen. Take a look for yourselves people. Don't let these apologists and traitors to their country divert you from seeking the truth. It is all right there in the video. We all have eyes, ears, and a brain. Don't let others deter you.

[hack89]

8. You are right, I have a brain - that why I know that theory is nonsense

First off, the explosives are gone in a fraction of a second as they explode - the reaction was over before the building started moving. So that cannot explain what was happening in the rubble pile weeks later.

Secondly, more oxygen simply means it burns hotter and faster - that way you need less of it. It still does not explain what was happening weeks later.

Thirdly, the thermate was used to sever the steel columns - which means you need to cut a thin slice through the steel. Think of an laser or acetylene torch cut. You don't have to melt the entire column - to do that means covering the column from top to bottom with thermate. That is stupid beyond reason when you just need enough to cut a thin slice.

Which leads me to my fourth point - if you are using thermate to sever steel columns you are not going to produce large amounts of molten steel. You don't need to melt much steel to cut it in half. And that molten steel would be scattered around due to the explosive reaction. And it would start cooling and solidifying immediately. So how does all that molten steel all gather together in vast pools when it is a small amount to start with and is scattered over a huge area?

The molten metal was aluminum. The rubble pile was full of it and we know for a fact that the fires in the pile were hot enough to melt aluminum.

Here's a news flash for you - the government does not have a monopoly on engineering knowledge. There are many here with the education and professional experience to understand these things just fine by themselves.

[Flatulo]

11. Still with the 'traitors' bit? Not nice. Please try to not do this.

[William Seger]

13. You must have a non-standard definition for the word "explain"

Hack89's question was certainly not answered by that video or your "short version." Richard Gage puts those pools of molten "steel" weeks later on his list of characteristics of a controlled demolition, which proves two things to me: (1) he doesn't really know anything about controlled demolitions, and (2) he is an idiot. Even in the imaginary thermite/thermate demolition (which is currently unknown in the real world, so we have nothing to compare to), Gage gives no explanation whatsoever for why there would be that much molten "steel" even immediately after the demolition, much less weeks later. Do you have an explanation or do you not? After calling people who aren't buying this "molten steel" bullshit "traitors to their country," just pointing to Gage's propaganda video as an answer is seriously inadequate.

Furthermore, please explain why nobody reported seeing any molten aluminum, even though we know there must have been lots there. Gee, could it possibly be that they mistook it for something else?

[hang a left]

14. Your round and abouts are so useless...

anyone can see that all three towers were blown up. The first two from the top down, and WT7 a standard demo. The video gives the full explanation why the temperatures remained as hot as they did for as long as they did. You just want to pretend that they don't. For those that are reading this thread: do not be distracted by disinfo agents; watch the video and make up your own mind

Here is the video that explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[hack89]

15. Can you give a quick synopsis of why the temps remained so hot?

I just want to confirm I really heard what I heard.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

17. Same here - it is important to point out how Truthers are dependent on scientific ignorance

All you are capable of is posting videos you can't understand or explain.

[hang a left]

18. What do you see??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Do you see most everything being pulverized to dust and being forcefully ejected. Do I trust a hack or my lying eyes.

[hack89]

19. I see a bunch of PE being converted into a bunch of KE

what I don't see is the high pressure shock wave associated with high explosives. And I don't hear the short, sharp, extremely loud explosive noise associated with several tons of high explosives.


On edit: How many tons of explosives do you think is required to equal the PE of the WTC? There is a reason the Truthers skip over that not so minor detail.

[hack89]

20. What does that have to do with persistent high temperatures in the rubble?

High explosives don't produce that much heat - they destroy with a high pressure shock wave.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. wait, what rubble? most everything was pulverized to dust!

and forcibly ejected, after which it landed neatly in its own footprint!

Just saying, I'm having a hard time following the movement arguments.

[hang a left]

23. Oh there was rubble in the footprint

but there was also dust that exploded out and covered everything for blocks. We have all seen the dust. Try telling people there wasn't pulverized matter that made dust. There were also portions of steel columns and beams (some weighing hundreds of pounds) that were forcefully ejected and then injected into surround building at speeds that defy the house of pancakes.

[hack89]

25. That dust was from sheet rock and light weight concrete

Why is that fact that it was pulverized such a big deal? There was a massive amount of PE in the WTC - easily the equivalent of thousands of tons of explosives. You would expect light weight material to be pulverized and steel columns to be ejected.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. I would appreciate clear, straight talk

I was two miles downwind; I'm well aware that there was dust. I imagine some of it is still in my lungs. (I'm not sure what you mean by "pulverized"; I'll stick with "dust.")

But you asked, "Do you see most everything being pulverized to dust and being forcefully ejected(?)" No, I don't, and neither do you, if "most everything" has any real meaning. ("And" is a problem, too, since I'm pretty sure you aren't alleging that those "portions of steel columns and beams" were "pulverized to dust.")

If you want to discuss whether the pieces of flying debris evince controlled demolition, that is fine. If you simply want to establish that words mean whatever you want them to mean, that isn't on.

[terrafirma]

29. You do realize

That just because your eyes and brain perceive an event to be one way, does not make it so in the reality of science... right?

[SidDithers]

24. How do you know it's steel?...nt

Sid

[Flatulo]

28. Since you trust YouTube videos so much, here is a sound debunking

of the 'molten steel' meme being promoted by the Truth movement. Note that 'molten steel' and 'molten metal' are used interchangably by Truthers, but there is a very large difference. Steel melts at 2700 deg F, aluminum (of which there was plenty) melts at 800 deg F. There is zero evidence that temeratures in the rubble reached 2700 deg F.

The photo of 'molten steel' that the Truth movement loves to show is in fact a piece of steel heated to about 1000-1200 deg F, at which temperature it will glow cherry red, but not melt and flow.

Furtermore, Dr. Jones uses a clearly doctored photo to show his proof of molten steel. The video linked to below clearly shows that the illumination was from work lights and the orange glow simply didn't exist in the original frames.

If you can take your fingers out of your ears long enough to watch and listen to this, you'll see and hear an alternate perspective. As a progressive, I'm sure you're willing to listen to alternate viewpoints before forming a final opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=7YXzjAKJQOg