Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Gross laughs off and denies the presence of molten steal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 02:46 PM
Original message
John Gross laughs off and denies the presence of molten steal
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.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No dandp
I started here. I know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Trust you're right -- but they are quite the destroyers of records -- !!
Good post -- thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. ::Thump::
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. So the evidence for molten steel is that there is no evidence?
Pure D&P gold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ryan_cats Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Uncle Fester Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-14-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You are asking this question of someone who can't spell "steel"

Good luck, grasshopper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Ah yes

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

However, I was not addressing you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually this video explains that very well
Edited on Thu Sep-15-11 01:27 AM by hang a left
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You are right, I have a brain - that why I know that theory is nonsense
Edited on Thu Sep-15-11 07:07 AM by hack89
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Still with the 'traitors' bit? Not nice. Please try to not do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
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?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Your round and abouts are so useless...
Edited on Mon Sep-26-11 11:19 PM by hang a left
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Same here - it is important to point out how Truthers are dependent on scientific ignorance
Edited on Wed Sep-28-11 06:06 PM by hack89
All you are capable of is posting videos you can't understand or explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I see a bunch of PE being converted into a bunch of KE
Edited on Wed Sep-28-11 07:28 PM by hack89
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-11 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. How do you know it's steel?...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC