If 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators obviously have total control of the media. In this case, would it not make sense for them to plant propaganda in the media to distract those who are already suspicious of the attacks? As Dr Judy Wood has asked,“If 9/11 was well planned, wouldn't the cover-up be even more well planned?”
The perpetrators are experts at propaganda. Those who know 9/11 was an inside job also know the official story told by the media to be nothing but propaganda. Interestingly, the Washington Post says the military is targeting the “U.S. Home Audience” with a “propaganda campaign”.
Americans have a bad habit of believing those who they consider trustworthy instead of examining evidence for themselves. As former Assistant Secretary to the US Treasury, Dr Paul Craig Roberts said,“Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don’t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.”
Many still trust George W Bush simply because of the media.
People don’t check facts.
People don’t analyze evidence.
People don’t think.
How do we really know there was molten metal at Ground Zero? Just because a “mild mannered” scientist says so?
Let’s take a look at the molten metal evidence piece by piece. The reader is encouraged to look at the information for themselves and to think for themselves.
*Eyewitnesses / Statements*
Leslie Robertson - Structural Engineer / Designer of WTC:
On the Structural Engineers Association of Utah’s website, James Williams (SEAU President) described what Robertson said at an October 2001 conference: “as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”.
Robertson received millions of taxpayer dollars and could be considered a member of the Global Elite. Who do the Global Elite represent, us or themselves?
William Langewiesche - Only Journalist to Have Unrestricted Access to Ground Zero During Cleanup:
In his book “American Ground”, Langewiesche said: “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”
Did Langewiesche see this molten metal himself, or is he repeating statements from others? Do the 9/11 perpetrators control the information the media puts out?
Ron Burger - Public Health Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
The National Environmental Health Association’s paper “Messages in the Dust” quotes Burger: “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.”
Burger is on a government payroll. Is he trustworthy? Burger’s statement was published in a government document. Is it trustworthy?
Ken Holden - Involved in Organizing Ground Zero Cleanup:
The 9/11 Commission Report quotes Holden: “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6."
Holden is on a government payroll and helped organize the cleanup of an inside job terrorist attack. Is he trustworthy? Is the 9/11 Commission Report trustworthy, or is it propaganda?
Guy Lounsbury - Member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing:
National Guard Magazine article written by Lounsbury (excerpt): “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.”
If the temperature was hot enough to melt the firefighters’ boots,
their feet would have been incinerated.
When water comes in contact with molten metal,
the result is a steam explosion:
Wikipedia quote (emphasis added): “A dangerous steam explosion can be created when liquid water encounters hot, molten metal. As the water explodes into steam, it splashes the burning hot liquid metal along with it, causing an extreme risk of severe burns to anyone located nearby and creating a fire hazard.”
A Google search reveals numerous government documents with warnings and safety information on this topic.
Rest assured, the Fire Department of New York knows not to spray water anywhere near molten metal!
Steam explosions are highly dangerous,
as we learned in NYC in July 2007:
Associated Press excerpt:"McCullough was driving a tow truck that was thrown into the air by the powerful geyser of steam. He landed in the crater gouged out by the blast and suffered third-degree burns over 80 percent of his body."
But what about the firefighters who claim to have actually seen molten metal? Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators performed a PSYOP suggesting it was molten metal, and this idea got repeated around Ground Zero. After such a tragedy as 9/11 people don’t wish to reflect back and relive the event, so they latch on to the first answer they get.. See Dr Wood’s site for more information.
(References for the witnesses above, as well as other quotes, can be found here and here.)
The official government thermal map from 9/16/01 above shows Zone F to be the largest hot spot. But the following photo shows no large hot spots just seven days later, 9/23/01:
Source
Assuming the official government thermal maps to be authentic, we know most of the molten metal disappeared less than two weeks after 9/11.
However, the US government thermal map images are likely doctored. As Dr Wood shows here and here, Zone F is the same area as this empty, damp hole in a FEMA picture filed 9/18/01. Where's the molten metal?
This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?
We notice the slag being lifted by a metal crane. Note the close proximity between the slag and the exposed hydraulics.
According to Jones’ paper (and confirmed by the charts he references), the color of the solid metal slag indicates a temperature over 845° C.
Yet, mechanical engineering handbooks reveal hydraulics to fail at a fraction of the temperature of Jones’ slag:
Machinery Lubrication – “Hydraulic Equipment Reliability: Beyond Contamination Control”
Quote (emphasis added): “Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging.”
Machinery Lubrication – “ Symptoms of Common Hydraulic Problems and Their Root Causes”
Quote (emphasis added): “Fluid temperatures above 180°F (82°C) can damage seals and accelerate degradation of the fluid. This means that the operation of any hydraulic system at temperatures above 180°F is detrimental and should be avoided. Fluid temperature is too high when viscosity falls below the optimum value for the system’s components. The temperature at which this occurs is dependent on the viscosity grade of the fluid in the system and can be well below 180°F.”
Machine Design – “Predicting the life of hydraulic hose”
Quote (emphasis added): “Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set.
Temperatures below recommended will also shorten service life. This problem is evident when the inner tube shows signs of stiffness and cracks. Specials are available for either extreme: Low-temperature hoses for service to –67°F and high-temperature versions for applications exceeding 300°F. [300° F = 149° C]”
Jones’ slag is over 845° C, yet hydraulic fluid systems fail above 82° C.
The recommended highest temperature for standard hydraulic rubber hoses is 100° C, with special heavy duty hoses available for temperatures above 149° C.
Given the vast temperature differences between the slag and the maximum operating temperatures for hydraulics, is it plausible for Jones’ photo to be real? The temperature of the slag is over 10 times greater than the maximum allowable temperature for hydraulic fluid systems.
If there was molten metal in the ruins below,
the hydraulic systems in those orange grapplers would be destroyed.
Source (Page 86 of the pdf file, page 382 of the printed NIST document)
Jones cites NIST as the source of the photo above. But he fails to mention that NIST admitted doctoring the image. In addition, Jones cropped the photo and removed NIST’s caption that read “The intensity levels have been adjusted”. The following is the photo as it appeared in Jones’ paper:
Source (currently searching for copy of Jones' paper with this image)
Jones used the colors in the photo for scientific analysis, yet NIST admitted adjusting the intensity levels. Is this good science? On top of that, why did Jones hide the fact that it was doctored?
====================================
NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because
• No heat source is specified
• The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow
• The flow changes windows
• The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
• The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.
We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.
====================================
Is CameraPlanet a reputable source? CameraPlanet released the amateur 9/11 video footage showing an aluminum airplane gliding into a steel/concrete building:
This image was included in Jones’ September 2006 paper with the caption “Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.”.
The image in Jones’ PDF (linked above) has “GEOEPOCHE 85” in the lower right corner, indicating it came from page 85 of a copy of the German magazine Geo Epoche.
Jones fails to properly source the photo. Geo Epoche is not mentioned anywhere in his paper’s references, so we don’t know what edition it came from.
However, the picture has been doctored. If the orange color was real the workers’ skin would have melted off their faces. As Dr Jim Fetzer said in comparison (paraphrased): “would you put your face over a boiling tea kettle?” That’s just a mere 212° F compared to Jones’ 1500°+ F orange image.
Here is the original photo, as archived on hereisnewyork.org. As can be seen, the workers are using search lights. They are not “peering into a hot core”:
If that were a steam explosion, the driver of the grappler would be severely burned. But who ever heard of orange steam anyway? Take a look at the Solid Orange Slag picture and notice similar orange fumes.
Why would the 9/11 perpetrators fabricate such a story when they know people will eventually catch on? The perpetrators are planning a police state, following the next false flag terror attack. When the police state is in full force, the public will be powerless. No new 9/11 investigation. I encourage everyone to read Andrew Johnson’s article “A Touch of “The Hidden Hand”? - Is the Next False Flag Attack on US Soil Near?” and to spread the information as far and as wide as possible. People need to work together to prevent this from happening.
Hopefully, this "wtc molten metal: fact of fiction" article helped to expose what's happening.
Last edited by CB_Brooklyn on Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 445 Location: melbourne, Australia
Thanks for a well written and informative essay
I have often thought that the excavator handling molten steel was a bit far fetched! If anyone here has ever worked in a foundry or steel mill (as i have years ago) then they would notice that hydraulics are never seen on equipment that has direct contact with molten metals. Most of a foundries equipment is mechanical so there is less chance of a failure, due to faulty hydraulics.
S.Jones is a "gatekeeper" and I put him in the same boat as Alex Jones. They are hiding the fact that the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 was either caused by micro-nukes or orbital weapons systems (remember the masses of weather satellites they keep launching? and they still can't predict the weather properly!)
As for the next false flag op. I have a bad feeling it will most definelty involve a full scale nuclear blast in a major city that will kill millions. Iran will be blamed as well as the possibilities of China & North Korea. This would probably result in WW3 that the zionists and xtians cream their pants over.
Why would the 9/11 perpetrators fabricate a molten metal story?
The only thing that is fabricated is this humongous crap of an article. Whoever wrote it is certainly not deluded, but treasonous. Even if (for the sake of the argument we assume) there was no controlled demolition, even that doesn't negate that there was a molten metal.
Of course there was molten metal. What's next? WTC Towers existed: Fact or Fiction? lol
The fact that somebody went to write such a hodge-podge of nonsence article is yet another proof of that.
Unbelievable how these bloodthirsty perpetrators are still in the act of covering for their crime.
The heat didn't melt the grapplers' "arms" because grapplers were above ground, duuuh. If they dropped those machines down into the pool, it would have been another story.
They are hiding the fact that the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 was either caused by micro-nukes or orbital weapons systems (remember the masses of weather satellites they keep launching?
Even if WTC was destroyed by shape-shifting space-reptillians who zapped the buildings with their "eye" pods, even that doesn't negate the existence of molten metals.
Why would the 9/11 perpetrators fabricate a molten metal story?
The only thing that is fabricated is this humongous crap of an article. Whoever wrote it is certainly not deluded, but treasonous. Even if (for the sake of the argument we assume) there was no controlled demolition, even that doesn't negate that there was a molten metal.
Of course there was molten metal. What's next? WTC Towers existed: Fact or Fiction? lol
The fact that somebody went to write such a hodge-podge of nonsence article is yet another proof of that.
Unbelievable how these bloodthirsty perpetrators are still in the act of covering for their crime.
The heat didn't melt the grapplers' "arms" because grapplers were above ground, duuuh. If they dropped those machines down into the pool, it would have been another story.
The ad hominem's in your comment does nothing to refute the data and does everything to affirm the validity of my claims. Can't attack the data, attack the messenger!
Thanks for verifying there was no molten metal at Ground Zero
Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:39 am
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8559 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Thanks for the work CB_Brooklyn. Here's some threads that address the ad hominem's.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem \Ad hom"i*nem\ [L., to the man.]
A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the
principles, interests, or passions of a man.
[1913 Webster]
-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Wow, the fact that the molten liquid changes windows is reason enough to doubt this story's credibility. I've always thought if someone tells one lie, that it's enough to doubt his whole story. Although it's blowing my mind thinking of what the reason for creating this could be, this is a great article.
It's really funny how I went from thinking blaming Jews for example was discrediting the 'movement' and how I thought suggesting space weapons or micro-nukes were involved was stupid. (Note: I don't actually know at this point what to blame for the demolition) But it's funny how everything literally turns on its head. It's proof that this web of disinformation works. In fact right now, I know I won't actually check any of the sources of this article
I'm glad you can talk about anything on this forum, it's the only truly free forum I know of, everyone elsewhere, on youtube etc tries to talk as if they've never been wrong as if they've known the definative answer all along, here you can admit to mistakes; to being deceived, that's what makes this place what it is.
Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:31 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8559 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
Although it's blowing my mind thinking of what the reason for creating this could be, this is a great article.
Discrediting the whole "truther" movement.
Quote:
It's really funny how I went from thinking blaming Jews for example was discrediting the 'movement' and how I thought suggesting space weapons or micro-nukes were involved was stupid.
Take note of the "leaders" that used ad hominems against these ideas. Daryl Bradford Smith was one.
Quote:
(Note: I don't actually know at this point what to blame for the demolition)
Good! I don't know either, and it's good if we don't run around calling people "sheeple" and acting as if we know it all.
Quote:
I'm glad you can talk about anything on this forum
Not really. We're limited by advertisers TOS, the server's TOS, and my TOS. I do ban a lot of people for deliberate disinformation, being stupid, breaking TOS's, etc. I don't want anyone to get the false impression that we are one of those "free speech" forums. The closest to that I've found is the former Icke forum (closed now) and Liberty Forum (which did censor one of my articles that even had to be edited a bit for here). Try to look at the site as a news/ information source where the writers are volunteer, and subject to termination and editing. I like free speech forums IF I have the time to wade through the BS. The truly free speech forums are rare. One of the best tests for free speech is questioning the Holocaust, but it isn't a sure test. Locking threads is a form of censorship. -Again.. we don't claim to not censor and we aren't "free speech" but we do discuss the Holocaust in a taboo way.
I did consider going with a "free speech" forum but knew of two already at the time. I started the site to fill a void.
Stephen Jones is one of the guys who killed the *supposedly* real cold fusion. but i don't get why it really matters whether there was molten steel at the base of the towers or not. to me it's trivial. you can assume there's people planting disinformation around 9/11. but who cares? when it's absolutely beyond any kind of rational dispute that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. -- i've even seen people take issue with the expression "controlled demolition," as though the expression is some kind of disinformation itself.
whether it be conventional explosives, or seventh generation micro nukes, or microwave beams, or something altogether new and exciting in the fun-filled world of military hardware, the simple fact is that the buildings were taken apart in mid-air. you saw it happen. everybody saw it. whatever you want to call the event -- controlled demo or whatever -- the amount of energy required to break every steel column at every other floor level is several hundred times the gravitational potential of the buildings. this is to say nothing of all the concrete that turned to dust and the "pyroclastic flows." ENERGY IN is not equal to ENERGY OUT. the equation must be balanced. you can put as many airplanes full of jet fuel into the FALL DOWN BUILDING side of the equation as you want, and it's still grotesquely unbalanced. it's a couple orders of magnitude of missing energy we're talking about here. snapping a steel girder in half is probably something like picking up an SUV and hurling it a mile. and this happened hundreds and hundreds of times. drop a concrete block off the roof of a building and it's not going to turn to dust. yet all of the concrete did. how much energy is that? where does all this energy come from?
people get one foot wet in political reality, and that's as far as they'll take it. then they just keep pulling their foot out and getting a pedicure and dipping it back in. just mull over every little detail of 9/11 like it's going to get us somewhere.
9/11 is just a single event in a long time line of destruction and depredation. the only way to get answers to precise questions is to get the people responsible fastened to chairs. the people who run this world are filthy rich scum bags with an army of stone killers at their beck and call. marching around in the streets with cardboard signs doesn't phase either of those groups. nor does "independent investigation" into their exploits. the only thing they understand is power. you won't get power by pondering whether Stephen Jones is trust-worthy or not. you won't get power without the mass of people understanding who and how this planet are being controlled. i don't really think that's likely to happen, but if you're going to work towards something, at least have a clear goal in mind. determining whether there was molten steel at the base of the towers or not is not a part of the critical path towards that goal.
my understanding of the mechanism of the demolition is this:
the towers were commission by Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller, a NWO big wig. they were quite probably built with a view to their future use as part of the push for world government. they were never profitable. there was a huge outcry initially from downtown Manhattan property owners over the scale of the project. -- what if these things fell down? -- this outcry suddenly ceased at one point. it's logical to assume the towers were built with a fail-safe mechanism in place to bring them down in a controlled manner if it were ever necessary because of structural failure, and this was revealed to those property owners. in light of the outcome of the collapse, one logical supposition is that the poured concrete was itself an explosive compound that merely needed to be primed.
that's a plausible theory to account for the dust and the fact that there was nothing solid -- bodies, office furniture, etc. -- left in the debris. but it would still require precision explosives on the columns to cut them, and something massive to destroy the foundations. "9/11 Mysteries Part I: The Demolition" seems to me about the last word in what can be reasonably be said about how the demolition was accomplished. coupled with a book like "The New Pearl Harbor," you have pretty much all the main points of 9/11 operation. people who remain unconvinced of their government's complete complicity in the 9/11 cover-up after being exposed to those facts are not useful to a movement towards change. they can be dispensed as too obtuse to matter one way or another. whether it be willful and deliberate obtuseness or a simple inability to think critically is unimportant. they are pylons in either case from our point of view. what we need to concentrate on is how to bring awareness to the people who can receive and understand it. allowing yourself to be distracted from that is succumbing to the psy-ops designed to prevent awareness from spreading. action is the key. dwelling on who may be trying to stop you from acting, and how they're doing it, not only bogs you down, but it can bog down others who get wrapped up in your deliberations. you end up doing the psy-op agents' job for them.
Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:53 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8559 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
I'm going to take back what I said. I don't like/trust Fintan Dunne at all, but this stuff seems reasonable. If the cores were rebarred concrete, not steel, then they might mount a disinfo campaign around molten steel. And if the concrete was an explosive compound, that would make sense too. Then the towers just burned down like a gigantic sparkler on the Fourth of July.
Figures G and H on page 16 of that thread are worth the load:
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8559 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
I'm going to take back what I said. I don't like/trust Fintan Dunne at all
He buries anything Holocaust and WWII with locked threads and throws his support behind an obvious disinfo agent who is possibly himself as a PR scapegoat.
Quote:
And if the concrete was an explosive compound, that would make sense too.
Concrete explosive enough to blow steel beams the width of the building and being self detonated at near free fall speed?
Quote:
Then the towers just burned down like a gigantic sparkler on the Fourth of July.
Do you think the thermal energy traveled down the building at the same speed as the collapse? - I don't.
Quote:
Figures G and H on page 16 of that thread are worth the load:
He buries anything Holocaust and WWII with locked threads and throws his support behind an obvious disinfo agent who is possibly himself as a PR scapegoat.
you mean the guy talking about the concrete cores? Christopher Brown. you think he's disinfo? that was my immediate sense of it. he's just way too fast/smooth-talking. Fintan Dunne is a jackass and completely full of shit, but that doesn't mean he might not get real people on his show. Break For News is a huge operation, but it's so transparent i don't know what they expect to accomplish with it. the people who run the site are probably the ones who double as the tag team watchdogs on the forums. Ormond, Continuity, dilbert_g. Jerry Fletcher is apparently famous on the internet in general. i've heard him denounced as an agent somewhere else.
at this point most people know more about 9/11 than i do. that's because i did all my learning about it in the first year after it happened. after which i moved on to trying to understand what was going on in the world when something like that could go down and be completely ignored and covered up. six years later and everybody now wants to argue about how the buildings came down. i just really can't be bothered to spend any more time on it. it's pointless. people should worry about who exactly is running the show and what their agenda is. i think i've got a pretty good handle on that now. always assuming it's not some completely out-of-reality type thing like aliens or Satanists or multi-dimensional whatevers.
