IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Molten Steel Beams - 9/11, New Footage

9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 10 2011, 01:33 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



Hi guys check out this video i found which was uploaded only a month a go, it shows and engineer in a steel
yard with some huge beams from the wtc, you can see the bottom of a steel beam which collapsed, the steel
is severely corroded away, the engineer says the beam started to melt and burn right through due to heat,
and that it is significantly corroded and that the backside of steel beam is actually gone.

Seriously guys look at the start of the video look at what is glowing this just proves what the firefighters
have said all along to be true, no they are not mistaken as the idiotic OCT supporters expect you believe.
We have been saying it all along for years now that there was in FACT molten steel present at ground
zero and this proves it, the debate is over finished.

Obviously this attack was deliberate and inteneded to collapse the steel beam, no wonder the buildings
came down, who knows how many other steel beams their are just like this one. This evidence is of the
utmost and is of paramount importance.


I wonder what other gems they have hidden in that section of the scrap yard, my only guess this is where
they took it all to hide it before it was shipped of melted down and destroyed.

Molten steel beams - 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNHNvwI-P9g

whistle.gif whistle.gif party.gif party.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Dec 10 2011, 01:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 10 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



Is anyone here still not convinced the fucking assholes lied to us on 911? Just a quick update boys & girls i hope you like it.

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Dec 10 2011, 06:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 10 2011, 06:42 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (9/11 Justice Now @ Dec 11 2011, 08:32 AM) *
Is anyone here still not convinced the fucking assholes lied to us on 911?
Just a quick update boys & girls i hope you like it.




Anyone notice there is no ironworkers cutting the base of this steel beam sticking out of the ground where are his pixels? I dont see them.

So debunkers where is your ironworker this time show us where the god damn pixels are? Show us where the bloke is cutting the beam with
the torch? No pixels no god damn fucking ironworker, anyone who chooses to claim otherwise has the burden of proof.

[singing] "Soon they will all be in jail...Soon they will all be in jail...And we wont have to worry no more...And we wont have to worry no more..."

[singing] ''Soon the OCT will be finished...Soon the OCT will be finished...And we wont have to worry no more...And we wont have to worry no more..."

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Dec 10 2011, 06:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Dec 11 2011, 01:45 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



In the bottom photo it kind of looks like someone with dark coveralls, with two legs and a lighter thing on top like a head. He is standing back and holding a long lance like device it looks like.
It is a rather poor image quality.

But for the sake of it, in all the videos I've seen, the core columns are stacked on top of each other in three-story sections using plates and brackets to hold them in place end to end. If indeed demolition was used, the thick beams did not require cutting through, only the bolts or brackets keeping them atop one another. The perimeter columns on the other hand were put together in a staggered fashion as welded together sections with staggered bolt-together points. Also access would perhaps be harder through the ceilings than the core columns via the elevator shafts. It is possible by eliminating the core structural integrity, the floors may have brought down the perimeter columns until they got to be very thick-walled towards the bottom. Since all the debris except eight stories in the basement, ended up outside the perimeter of the buildings, there isn't sufficient load to have destroyed the columns dowm where they had two to four inch wall-thicknesses in the staggered perimeter columns. The mass of floor material would overcome the floor connection points easily as they aren't any stronger at the lower floors, but all the columns were thicker as they got lower and the common floor connection points wouldn't have as much effect in pulling or pushing the perimeter columns out of place. The basement core columns were so massive and stabilized by the ground attachment points and the ground, it seems unlikely that they would have been displaced significantly.

The video does show melting of steel beams. Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degree F. and it does wick away heat quickly, so the air temperature would have to have been over 2700 degrees for a long time. Longer and hotter than jet fuel and office furnishings will burn ? I think so. I have seen steel bend from fires involving oils and fiberglass with excellent air supply for 45 minutes plus, but not melt or erode/corrode. And not thick steel which can wick away more heat, only thinner steel.
Plus the steel was insulated for fire everwhere but where the planes may have removed the insulation, and we don't see hot fires left at the impact points at the time of collapse. The fire had moved away from those areas to the point people could look out through the impact holes.
That the core columns fell straight down first, as indicated by the antenna, and the top of the building collapses above the impact hole first (not below) indicates dismantling of the core columns above the impact zone. The verticle descent in an un-symmetrical damaged structure indicates another aprartus dismantling columns symmetrically COUNTER-ACTING the asymmetrical instability.

Anyway nano-thermate in the dust and trade 7 is enough to raise doubts very high about fire/damage induced collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 11 2011, 08:38 AM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Maha,
A careful viewing of the videos shows the following sequence for the twin towers:

A period no movement.. smoke from fires.
In tower 1 the antenna begins to move down... a fraction of a second before the roof line show movement
The dismemberment/dissociation of the section above the plane strike zone. In both towers this looks like a CD instigated at the elevation of the strike zone with the top sections losing axial support and dropping down... largely on to the undamaged top floor of the lower sections.
A period of destruction of the lower section then commences from the strike zones down. The floors are destroyed and the columns... facade and perimeter lose their bracing... progressively from top to bottom. The columns... facade and core become increasing less stable as the bracing is stripped away by the collapsing floors. The upper column then begin to break apart at their connections. Once a connection fails... the stress is removed from other connections in the column and this leads to large column assembly failures.
As the collapse front moves down... only some of the core bracing is unaffected - inside the elevator shafts where the bracing did NOT support floor slabs. This is seen in the final demise of the core *spire* where rows 500 and 600 remain connected by the bracing within the elevator shafts. But those columns also succumb to Euler buckling and break apart and the weakest place - a column to column connection.. again once that happens the other connections are not under stress... this can be seen in the very tall toppling core columns at the end.
All of the collapse can be predicted if the floor (or some other mass) can be used to destroy the floor system... which would destroy the bracing and lead to the collapse/buckling/breaking apart of the steel frame... with no explosives or cutter charges required to destroy the relatively weak column to column connections.

The question to be solved... is how were those tops made to collapse? Were there explosives in the core? How much did the plane damage contribute to over all core weakening? How much did the fires contribute? And if this wasn't sufficient what WAS the other source of weakening?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 11 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 11 2011, 10:38 PM) *
Maha,
A careful viewing of the videos shows the following sequence for the twin towers:

A period no movement.. smoke from fires.
In tower 1 the antenna begins to move down... a fraction of a second before the roof line show movement
The dismemberment/dissociation of the section above the plane strike zone. In both towers this looks like a CD instigated at the elevation of the strike zone with the top sections losing axial support and dropping down... largely on to the undamaged top floor of the lower sections.
A period of destruction of the lower section then commences from the strike zones down. The floors are destroyed and the columns... facade and perimeter lose their bracing... progressively from top to bottom. The columns... facade and core become increasing less stable as the bracing is stripped away by the collapsing floors. The upper column then begin to break apart at their connections. Once a connection fails... the stress is removed from other connections in the column and this leads to large column assembly failures.
As the collapse front moves down... only some of the core bracing is unaffected - inside the elevator shafts where the bracing did NOT support floor slabs. This is seen in the final demise of the core *spire* where rows 500 and 600 remain connected by the bracing within the elevator shafts. But those columns also succumb to Euler buckling and break apart and the weakest place - a column to column connection.. again once that happens the other connections are not under stress... this can be seen in the very tall toppling core columns at the end.
All of the collapse can be predicted if the floor (or some other mass) can be used to destroy the floor system... which would destroy the bracing and lead to the collapse/buckling/breaking apart of the steel frame... with no explosives or cutter charges required to destroy the relatively weak column to column connections.

The question to be solved... is how were those tops made to collapse? Were there explosives in the core? How much did the plane damage contribute to over all core weakening? How much did the fires contribute? And if this wasn't sufficient what WAS the other source of weakening?


Yes Sander O however the steel that we see in the video is entirely inconsistent and cannot be explained by jetfuel office fires or the OCT, here
we have it melted steel for all the world to see, those firefighters where right the steel did melt and this is just part of what they saw who knows
what else is hidden in this section of the scrapyard, however though it would be good to know what section area floor of the towers this piece
came from, i think its time someone took a good look at this video and start hassling NIST again to please explain?

But i think the only way we are ever going to truly find out what happened is if we get a new investigation and this piece may prove very useful
in acheiving that goal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 11 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



9/11 Justice,

There might very well have been some parts of melted steel which was caused obviously by the presence of concentrated heat. Self evident that isn't it? The question is could this heat be the result of some very unusual process associated with the destruction of the skyscrapers?

While we KNOW that there exist incendiary devices which COULD do that... substances such as themite which COULD explain this... have we ruled out that some chemical process resulted FROM the collapse which could have produced such exothermic reactions? I am not a chemist and don't know what the precise chemicals present were at the time. I can only speculate. But I did see someone produce a video of how to make thermite (Kevin Rynan perhaps?). He did it with some beakers, some elemental materials, water and heat... I don't remember precisely how he did it... google the experiment. But it got me thinking that IF.... IF the collapse process DID break many materials down to dust and powder size AND cause them to be mixed together AND there was water and sufficient heat present it seems POSSIBLE that some odd exothermic reactions could be kicked off and they COULD melt steel or aluminum etc. I am not asserting this is what DID happen... as much as proposing that it COULD have happened. And this is something for chemists and physicists to look into.

I happen to think that the collapse was gravity driven and it released enormous amount of heat in the mechanical destruction of the materials. I don't think this amount of heat production is inconsistent but a predicted outcome... from so much mechanical destruction. This heat then went on to do *work"... it caused the enormous dust clouds to billow up and carry dust and debris for very long distances from the site... it may have initiated unusual chemical reactions as well. Could these be hot enough to melt steel? Seems unlikely.... but I can't say it's not possible.

It's easy to explain the destruction by claiming it took energy to dismantle the structure. This is true and cannot be denied. We know explosions and intense heat will destroy organized structures. And we can look at the result as see it as the effect of that energy input.

But we also need to consider that a huge structure, such as a skyscraper weighing hundreds of thousands of tons contains enormous stored energy... gravitational and also chemical.. stored in the bonds that hold materials together. Destroy the structure and energy is ALSO released. This needs to be considered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 11 2011, 12:02 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The molten steel, held that way for days or even weeks, required large amounts of energy.

My hunch is that tactical nuclear weapons were somehow employed. The large residual levels of radiation tend to support that theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 11 2011, 01:07 PM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Yes the heat remained for months... there was a heat sink with a huge debris blanket of insulation over top... not unlike how heat is confined within a furnace. I am not familiar with how the high heat of a nuke is disbursed... but an in the air one causes an intense heat flash which radiates... look at what happened in Hiroshima.

Underground nukes too would produce very high local and destructive heat concentration... I don't know what that would look like... but I do know that some of the steel in the basement levels was hardly effected at all and some of the core and perimeter columns even stood above the rubble and supported down to bed rock. Why wouldn't that steel be melted?

I'd like to see an explanation of how blast nukes which also produce enormous localized heat matched the debris... I am not saying this is impossible... but I don't see it. Please explain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 11 2011, 01:25 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 12 2011, 02:02 AM) *
The molten steel, held that way for days or even weeks, required large amounts of energy.

My hunch is that tactical nuclear weapons were somehow employed. The large residual levels of radiation tend to support that theory.


Amazed what we are actually seeing is due to corrosion and melting i assume sulphur played a huge parts in this, i assume it would
take a huge amount of sulphur and and a huge amount of heat to do this. I see the government supporting scumbags over at the govt loyalist site
are having a lot of fun with this topic showthread.php?t=219791&page=56. I would love to go over their with this video and spoil
their little party, that would surely smother their flames, i would just love to be the party pooper, but my account over their has
been banned a long time a go, god these guys are slow to catch on, i have already posted this video on Kevin Ryans & Tony Tzamboti's
facebook pages i also made a post about it at Phil Jaydens forum, they will catch on eventually but they are slow, speaking of slow
anybody that supports the governments version the OCT only does so becasue they must be slow in the head, either that or they
have brain damage or some sort of mental illness that stops them from being able to realise the truth.

However this video only goes to supprt the testimony of the firefighters and others at ground zero who reported seeing molten steel,
there can be no more doubting their testimony, not to mention the numerous others.

The debate is over the can no longer be any doubting the testimony of those who witnessed molten steel at ground zero, there is no
more room for reasonable doubt anymore, now we know they are not mistaken, and now their testimony can be back by hard evidence,
what we see here in this video strongly corroborates and supports their testimony, anybody who still doubts what they saw after watching
this video is a fool, and i personally myself do not have the time and energy to waste on fools, now it is a proven FACT that there was molten
steel present on 9/11 and what we see in this video also tells us that the conditions where right for molten steel, so now we know the conditions
in the pile on 9/11 where right for this to happen, we also have other evidence available that proves that this is the case and supports this
conclusion. The ball is our court now the OCT is slowly starting to crumble, it demise is not far off the days of the OCT are almost numbered
it is slowly starting to fade away and soon it is going to take down everyone involved in executing and planning it, the cat is out of the bag
and soon there will be no denying what really happened.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 12 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Considering the way the US military improves and refines its many weapons systems, the improvements in nuclear weapons must be substantial since 1945.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 13 2011, 06:50 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
but I do know that some of the steel in the basement levels was hardly effected at all and some of the core and perimeter columns even stood above the rubble and supported down to bed rock. Why wouldn't that steel be melted?


For the same reasons why some parts of this steel structure survived and the rest of it didn't.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 13 2011, 12:49 PM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



One needs to understand how complex multipart structures come apart when they fail. If you look at the peeling of the facades of the twin towers you can see that there are many very large assembles of the facade panels which came off as a *unit*. And the facade panels themselves were compose of 3 columns and 3 spandrels each... the so called chex. But even the columns themselves were built of from 4 welded plated with an infill plate welded at each end.

When there is a failure to say... the wall *system* if one set of connections fails... it is unlikely that the welds holding the plates together will. The bolted connections being weaker than the welds... give way first and then there is little stress on the welds. So what happened with those multi panel assemblies which peeled off... is that the stronger connections held them together and the weakest ones failed and that where the assembly separated it from the facade.

If you imagine the facade like a patchwork fabric and you apply even pressure to it... let's say like a powerful wind with the patchwork held in a frame... at some pressure the fabric will fail... likely where some of the patches are sewn together. All seams will not fail at once... the weakest ones will and the failure may propagate along a seam from one patch to the next. But once the seam breaks the fabric is under ittle stress and flops and flutters in the wind like a flag attached to a pole.

In studying the destruction and the debris from the twin towers you can see that the frame came apart at the connections/joints and steel splices... which were ALWAYS weaker than the steel members they connected.

There was buckling and bending and so forth type of failures as well from overloading and dynamic loads which occurred as various parts of the structure failed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hdog
post Dec 15 2011, 06:33 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 22-October 06
Member No.: 137



Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 16 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (hdog @ Dec 15 2011, 06:33 PM) *
Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.



I agree completely.

Sander0 is one of those guys who, through innuendo, wants to have it both ways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 16 2011, 05:27 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 16 2011, 10:40 AM) *
I agree completely.

Sander0 is one of those guys who, through innuendo, wants to have it both ways.

Which is a shame, because he's obviously smart enough to know better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 16 2011, 08:54 PM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Excuse me?

Through inuendo?

Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.

They were "destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall"

Do you even know what you wrote there?

The path of most resistance presumably is mean to mean that someting is moving ... along a path... and in this case it mean FALLING or traveling down to the ground... and the path of most resistance would be *through* or crushing the steel columns.

So what was traveling through this path?

This is the kind of statements that people repeat because it sounds so *powerful*... but makes no sense at all. It's pure garbage. Of course what one sees the the structure coming down and those structures contained 3 main components:

1. Core columns
2. Facade columns
3. Flooring (concrete slabs... which were supported on trusses or beams which were connected to the columns)

then there was the contents which consisted of:

3a. super imposed dead loads - walls, machinery, elevators, stairs, hing ceilings, wiring, mech equipment, plumbing,
3b. live loads... people and furniture

The columns supported ALL loads.

The observations shows the following:

1. The top sections above the plane strikes collapse down onto the top of the lower section... some material falls outside the footprint
2. The floors begin collapsing/being destroyed beginning at the plane strike zone where the material from the top section landed and proceeding downward... between the facade and the core and the floors (minimal) inside the core.
2a.The material ON the floors, between the slabs... is blasted out of the way as the floors comes down. The over pressure forces it out the window... and this is seen as puffs of debris / ejecta coming out the windows all at once... one floor at a time. The floor destruction proceeds at 65 MPH during the time it can be clocked.
3. The facade comes off... in sheets of various sizes.. some huge with as much as 20 or 20 facade panels attached to one another.
4. The core survives the floor collapse...some of the facade does as well... the core stripped of the bracing becomes unstable and collapse from its own weight as described by Euler
5. A huge hot cloud billows up and away... carrying dust and debris for hundreds (or more) of yards from the site. The air (cloud) was heated from the friction released by the mechanical crushing of the materials.

Did you see something different?

What was the path of most resistance?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 17 2011, 12:37 PM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



To this layman, path of most resistance is the vertical line centered on the vertical axis of the structure.

The path of least resistance would be more theoretical because it seems on a practical level, there is none. Maybe off to the side or sideways?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 17 2011, 01:35 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The path of most resistance would seem to be through the columns which is what resists the gravitational loads - mass of the structure. This idiotic statement is telling us that the columns were crushed from top to bottom.

WRONG
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 19 2011, 12:01 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Crushed from top to bottom, or severed/compromised from the bottom up, as suggested by the explosions heard by Rodriguez and many others?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th November 2019 - 01:24 AM