1980-1990: MS Viking Sally
1990-1991: MS Silja Star
1991-1993: MS Wasa King
1993-1994: MS Estonia

Bad luck to rename a ship... you just don't do it!

Quote from LiveForBoobs :

Have you ever seen or heard about molten anything after a building being demolished caused just by the released potential energy? I've read that the steel was at 2000ºC when they found it molten. The fuel of the plane burns at 500ºC. I'm no expert on this issue, but i wouldnt say potential energy would be enough to cause a more than 1500ºC temperature raise, considering the temp it lost on 2 weeks.
If this is possible ok then, thats a point in favor of the official theory otherwise, i also read that one of substances used on controlled demolitions is thermite, which burns at 2000ºC, and they believe it was used for taking down the towers, dont ask me why i dont remember the details.

Again, I should point out that I have not read the official report, so I don't actually know or care what it says with relation to this hot matter. Bt even if it was thermite, it wouldn't have been in the form of molten metal that long afterwards - things just don't stay molten like that (except water. And Vodka. And things that are molten at room temperature).

The potential energy idea was a silly one, and I think I mentioned it was stretching things a bit.

BUT

If they had something to hide, don't you think they'd have done a rather better job of it? If it was demolished, don't you think they'd have got a contractor without the word demolition in it to clear up? If the buildings were going to be detonated from below, why fly planes in to it? Why not just say it was terrorist explosive experts who demolished it? With the Pentagon why not make it look more like layman want a plane crash to look like? Ever occured to you that perhaps most of the plane never even reached the building after classified (for your safety and mine) defense systems took care of the rest?

I notice that Racer XNZ conveniently ignores posts that have sense in them, and proceeds to cite random, poorly written quotes as 'research and evidence', rather than just 'speculation'.

Quote from flymike91 :

You're being disrespectful of all American people.

Here you have a free geographic class :

U.S.
America

Someone needs to be disrespectful to them. It's either some forum users or some extremist terrorists. Either way, the world hates the US (and most of it's citizens), so just live with it.

Quote from wark :

1980-1990: MS Viking Sally
1990-1991: MS Silja Star
1991-1993: MS Wasa King
1993-1994: MS Estonia

Bad luck to rename a ship... you just don't do it!

Interesting. So you think it was karma that sunk the ship? Could be.

Nah, I still prefer the weapon smuggling, Russians, MI6 and CIA theory. Could make a Van Damme movie out of it.

Quote from Kalev EST :

Nah, I still prefer the weapon smuggling, Russians, MI6 and CIA theory. Could make a Van Damme movie out of it.

Didn't some crazy bitch make a movie about the Estonia? I think she added all the above into it. Not too sure about Van Damme though.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Just for Tristan - FDNY fireman talking about non existent molten metal 8 weeks later. ( guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either.... )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE

Obviously he doesn't, or he misinforming you on purpose.

Tell me, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how molten metal can remain molten for 6 weeks. Oh sorry, 8 weeks now (make up your mind).

I'd love to know how you think it's possible. Really I would.

If you don't think it is possible, was it brought there at a later date, or did they have a "mains powered metal melter" on site? Or was there in fact no molten metal at all, and it was a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, or simply chinese whispers by the time it got to the camera????????????

And no, I didn't watch the link. I might do tonight, as I'm planning on tiring myself out with a late night to get my bodyclock out of sync, but don't count on it. I'll probably watch old episodes of QI or something.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Obviously he doesn't, or he misinforming you on purpose.

Tell me, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how molten metal can remain molten for 6 weeks. Oh sorry, 8 weeks now (make up your mind).

I'd love to know how you think it's possible. Really I would.

If you don't think it is possible, was it brought there at a later date, or did they have a "mains powered metal melter" on site? Or was there in fact no molten metal at all, and it was a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, or simply chinese whispers by the time it got to the camera????????????

And no, I didn't watch the link. I might do tonight, as I'm planning on tiring myself out with a late night to get my bodyclock out of sync, but don't count on it. I'll probably watch old episodes of QI or something.

OK, it was trucked in. I'm not the one giving you the official story, all I'm saying is that there was molten metal at the site of the three buildings for at least six weeks after their collapse.

If the official story says it couldn't be there then I suggest that someone who believes in the official fairy tale give you an explanation.

According to my theory a large quantity of thermite ( or derivitive ) as well as small nuclear charges ( SADDAM's ) were used to bring down the three buildings and that would account for it.
Check out the clean cuts on the central pillars in the attached photo, as well as the runs of melted metal on the far pillar.

Your talking about two 110 story buildings collapsed to 3 stories with none of the 47 pillars left standing, all collapsed into their own footprint. Must be damned good jet fuel to melt that much steel if you choose the official story. And if, as is said, that jet fuel couldn't melt the pillars then where were they ????
110 stories high, maybe they were taken by the same pixies that were at the Pentagon and managed to vanish a 757 ...........

I know, let's test the steel, what ?, it was all sold and shipped off without allowing any testing to see why it failed ? Well, that makes sense doesn't it .......

Check for yourself regarding it's existence and prove to me it wasn't there as I've provided several sources which say it was.

http://www.infowars.net/articl ... mber2006/171106molten.htm
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/molten.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926
http://www.cooperativeresearch ... jsp?item=a090301robertson

Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars both burned and pristine, were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ ... on_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://911research.com/press_releases/blueprints.html

And so on ......

Even the 911 commission accepted that there was molten metal for a long period after the collapse of the buildings. They just avoided asking or explaining why !!!!!

Intentionally left blank

Quote from Racer X NZ :

OK, it was trucked in. I'm not the one giving you the official story, all I'm saying is that there was molten metal at the site of the three buildings for at least six weeks after their collapse.

If the official story says it couldn't be there then I suggest that someone who believes in the official fairy tale give you an explanation.

According to my theory a large quantity of thermite ( or derivitive ) as well as small nuclear charges were used to bring down the three buildings and that would account for it.

Check for yourself regarding it's existence and prove to me it wasn't there as I've provided several sources which say it was.

http://www.infowars.net/articl ... mber2006/171106molten.htm
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/molten.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926
http://www.cooperativeresearch ... jsp?item=a090301robertson

Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars both burned and pristine, were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ ... on_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://911research.com/press_releases/blueprints.html

And so on ......

Even the 911 commission accepted that there was molten metal for a long period after the collapse of the buildings. They just avoided asking or explaining why !!!!!

Nuclear? Now you are clearly mad! But I noticed that you completely failed to give any thinking of your own to it. What kept the metal molten, huh? Please tell me how even a nuclear charge would somehow stop metal from solidifying for about two months? Can you please inform of the amount of energy required to make and keep, say, 20 tonnes of steel in a molten form for that length of time in the open air (roughly - I know it was quite heavily secluded, but it wasn't exactly a furnace scenario. And furnaces pump a lot of energy keeping metal molten for any length of time. When was the last time you even melted lead in small quantities (e.g. a 50kg billet)?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

According to my theory a large quantity of thermite ( or derivitive ) as well as small nuclear charges were used to bring down the three buildings and that would account for it.

Hmmmm!!! OK so you have a theory,

Now you have to give us some reasons if not proof for this theory, I doubt it myself for many reasons, but I'm not going to dismiss out of hand - you or anyone else until I have heard/read your arguments.

I'm happy with the thermite bit as I have seen enough to suggest this is entirely possible - but for me still not conclusively proven.

Edit:
I will accept that there was molten pools of liquid steel underground as there are some explanations for this, I know myself that if the mass of molten metal is sufficient, then in itself it will retain heat for many days even in open conditions (this is within my own experience) and being underground it will be insulated from rapid heat loss.
This will be further possible because of the heat generated in the collapse, so any molten metal would be in a very warm if not hot environment anyway.

From this the only bit that really puzzles me is why any molten metal (whether from explosives or otherwise) would be able to pool together in sufficient mass to retain its heat in a molten state for weeks after - yet I have also read that this indeed was the case.

So, your explanation for your theory please

Not being a firefighter or an engineer quite frankly I'm buggered if I can scientificly explain why there should be molten metal for that long. I would assume that -

a) There was a huge amount of heat, far more than can be explained by jet fuel, which caused a large amount of the steel to melt and pond in,

b) the seven story deep foundations. This then retained the heat.

The point is more that there was molten metal for this period of time, would someone who believes the official version of events care to explain it as the 911 commission avoided answering this at all.

I've included further evidence pointing out it's existence below but I'll just point out again that there must have been an incredible amount of heat in the first place to achieve this.


Here 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. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a 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/ ... 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 Lawy ... The Daily Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' ... ime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on mo ... ger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, John ... Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04

The pentagon isn't exactly made of wood.

Here's what a proper wall does to a plane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Mz_zGJmgc

The plane went into the 5th ring (or at least some rescue workers say it did - some say the hole was made by them to get into the section) - plus the walls are not that thick.

The pane could have totally disintegrated, but then it would have done little damage to the building.

@ Racer X NZ - The energy also comes from the building itself - compress something enough and it will make heat, compress an 80+ story building into ~3 stories and you'll get heat.

Totally amazed reading up on the WTC though - theres all sorts of stuff i'd never considered (i.e. refrigerant, seismic recordings etc).

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Your talking about two 110 story buildings collapsed to 3 stories with none of the 47 pillars left standing, all collapsed into their own footprint. Must be damned good jet fuel to melt that much steel if you choose the official story. And if, as is said, that jet fuel couldn't melt the pillars then where were they ????

For the ****ing bajillionth time, the jet fuel only melted TWO FLOORS WORTH of material. That's all it needed to do to bring the building down.

Look at the video and you will see that the pillars are actually peeled off the building as it collapsed. Giant 20-story-high sections. I'd assume they didn't stay intact because they fell away from the building and hit other buildings. It's not that hard to see how the outcome turned out as it did. I think you're just too wrapped up in your necessity to explain it with an alternate theory that you don't want to accept that.

Another thing I'd like to bring up: People talk about how oddly these buildings collapsed, but you have to realize that this is the first time that structures built in this way and this big ever collapsed (controlled demo or not.) This means that you cannot compare these to other building collapses. There are always instances of scientists discovering new things. They collide a small molecule and it explodes. They predict that a bigger molecule will produce a bigger explosion but then when they try it, it creates a black hole instead, and they have to go back and re-evaluate and determine why the result was different than expected.

And please, by all means, explain how nuclear charges were used.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Again, I should point out that I have not read the official report, so I don't actually know or care what it says with relation to this hot matter. Bt even if it was thermite, it wouldn't have been in the form of molten metal that long afterwards - things just don't stay molten like that (except water. And Vodka. And things that are molten at room temperature).

The potential energy idea was a silly one, and I think I mentioned it was stretching things a bit.

BUT

If they had something to hide, don't you think they'd have done a rather better job of it? If it was demolished, don't you think they'd have got a contractor without the word demolition in it to clear up?

Lets suppose it was a inside job. Didnt they do a pretty good job? You, and a lot (most) people believe on the official version. I don't have much expertise on blowing buildings apart but i suppose it would be a pretty damn hard job to make all 10 million New yorkers fall for it.

Quote from tristancliffe :

If the buildings were going to be detonated from below, why fly planes in to it? Why not just say it was terrorist explosive experts who demolished it? With the Pentagon why not make it look more like layman want a plane crash to look like? Ever occured to you that perhaps most of the plane never even reached the building after classified (for your safety and mine) defense systems took care of the rest?

I don't know why simply not demolish them. :\ But people that worked on the towers said just before 9/11 repairs started being made to the towers, and they even closed some parts of the buildings, a thing which had never happened before. There are more details concerning this. I just don't remember them. Ah, and when they demolish buildings they normally cut the pillars at an angle, so it slides down easily. And there are some photos of pillars of the twin towers with a clean angled cut.

And concerning the potential energy thing, molten steel was found on the building 7. I've never heard of potential energy of a building being able to molten steel, specially on a normal sized building like the 7.

Also, as far as i know, the military air patrol was confused because, if i can recall what i read/saw, they were on other missions on other places. Planes can't just change trajectory as they please. On a normal situation they would've been intercepted by the military air force and asked to change direction to the nearest airport, which didnt happen.

Quote from tristancliffe :

The potential energy idea was a silly one, and I think I mentioned it was stretching things a bit.

I thought that it made pretty good sense, actually. I suppose that a fairly simple calculation could be done, to examine whether it is, in fact, reasonable. This would require:

1) knowing the mass (or density) and dimensions of the building (to estimate its initial gravitational potential energy)
2) knowing the mass-fraction of steel, of the building, and assuming that the energy was equally distributed among all materials (I'm not actually sure if this is a valid assumption, although it seems reasonable, to me, at this moment), in order to calculate the mass of steel, and the amount of energy absorbed by it
3) knowing the heat-capacity of the steel, and its initial temperature (I suppose that one could assume that the steel was at ambient atmospheric temperature, initially, and this would suffice)

From this, one could calculate the final temperature of the steel, and compare it to the melting temperature of steel. I can only surmise that the initial potential energy of the building, was enormous, and the final conversion into heat energy, would be quite enough to cause some melting of steel.

As to why it could remain molten, after some time, adding impurities to a substance, lowers its melting temperature (this is why salt is placed on roads and sidewalks, in winter, to enable the water to remain liquid at normally freezing temperatures). Also, the circumstances of the "molten steel" may have been such that it was thermally insulated, and thus maintained at sufficiently high temperature to remain liquid.

BTW, "thermite" is iron oxide and aluminum, both of which were undoubtedly present in the building. It seems at least somewhat likely that the destruction of the building, could combine these materials (and there was even a large amount of heat, to "ignite" the "thermite"), so as to produce a thermite-like residue (assuming that such a substance was found in the wreckage of the building).

http://video.google.com/videos ... eitgueist&sitesearch=

For those interested, and i suppose you are since you are reading this , thats a movie debunking some religion myths and where some experts talk about 9/11. Go to 35 mins to skip directly to the 9/11 part.

All to LiveforBoobs [what a stupid username I might add]: Don't make up claims like I believe the official version. For starters I've not read it, and I don't plan to - I don't care about 11/9, and I don't think it was that big a tragedy really, but that's just me. But I also don't believe in the ridiculous conspiracy theories, ALL of which can have huge holes poked through them with no effort.

But if it was an inside job, no they didn't do a good job of covering it up, because it's quite obvious why demolition companies were there for example.

The last two paragraphs are befuddled thought that don't warrant a reply. I don't really care what you think you remember from several years ago, because it's not exactly going to be accurate.

Quote from tristancliffe :

All to LiveforBoobs [what a stupid username I might add]: Don't make up claims like I believe the official version. For starters I've not read it, and I don't plan to - I don't care about 11/9, and I don't think it was that big a tragedy really, but that's just me. But I also don't believe in the ridiculous conspiracy theories, ALL of which can have huge holes poked through them with no effort.

But if it was an inside job, no they didn't do a good job of covering it up, because it's quite obvious why demolition companies were there for example.

The last two paragraphs are befuddled thought that don't warrant a reply. I don't really care what you think you remember from several years ago, because it's not exactly going to be accurate.

ahaha the hateful comment at last. Not only hateful but insulting. I don't care what you think about my nickname or any other of my opinions. If your mis informed or too high on your pedestal thats your problem. I was trying to discuss my doubts and what i know, but since you more worried about personal fights than discussing this, i'm done replying to you.

Quote from tristancliffe :

the world hates the US (and most of it's citizens)

Bolded part down to ignorance on their part.

Quote from tristancliffe :

and I don't think it was that big a tragedy really, but that's just me...

Well it was a huge loss of innocent lives, by who ever committed the crime, some say Bin Laden, some say inside job. I think the real vitcims of this terrible event deserve a little more respect.

Quote from Rdcranno :

Well it was a huge loss of innocent lives..

Compared to the innocent lives lost in Iraq or the 90,000 people that die in Africa every month from preventable malaria (now that's a tragedy), it wasn't actually that huge. It was just dramatic and highly visible.

I'm not saying it wasn't a tragedy for those involved or their familys, I'm just putting it into context.

Quote from tristancliffe :

the world hates the US (and most of it's citizens)

I think your very wrong there. Most of the world may hate the US government and it's foreign policy, but what makes you think everyone hates all of it's citizens?
Quite frankly the 50% that didn't vote for Bush must have something going for them.

Quote from LiveForBoobs :

http://video.google.com/videos ... eitgueist&sitesearch=

For those interested, and i suppose you are since you are reading this , thats a movie debunking some religion myths and where some experts talk about 9/11. Go to 35 mins to skip directly to the 9/11 part.

Let's be clear here, zeitgeist itself has been thoroughly debunked on this forum, as well as everywhere else. If you're falling for that crap, you are a sheep in the classic and WORST sense. I am not religious, but even I immediately spotted the complete fabrications made in that video within 5 minutes. A little thinking for yourself, 2 minutes of research on the film, and you'll feel damn stupid for pushing that crap from the "truth movement".

At the moment there is an international day of mourning when a soldier dies in a battle. In the past there have been thousands of deaths per day and that was considered quite a good day. I've never thought of a few thousand people dying to be a huge tragedy really.

The hateful comment about your username? Well, it is a stupid username, and I would have mentioned it in any thread. I can mention it in more if you like?

DWB: Sadly most of the world DOES hate most Americans. Whether that's right or wrong, based on stereotypes or fact doesn't actually matter. I know some very very pleasant, likeable and clever Americans, some of which aren't overweight. Many from this forum. But I still detest Americans as a whole, for whatever deep seated psycological reasons I may have. But this is off topic. The topic is about how daft conspiracy theories are generally more popular than relatively simple truths.

Edit: I should also point out I dislike the French, the British, the Spanish and the Chinese. I have a bit more respect for Germans, Japanese and Australians. I also don't recognise a difference between the counties with Britain/the UK. But that is certainly not to say I dislike ALL of the above, just as a whole (as a nation, if you will), and I always meet people or initiate conversations with people from any country or background with the same open mindedness - I like liking people individually.