Molten Steel at Ground Zero?
I'm agnostic on this issue.
I've no doubt that Ground Zero was very hot, but I sure would love to see some pictures of this flowing molten steel, or pictures of the solidified pools of steel they should have found.
One reason to DISTRUST the molten steel finding, is that it is pushed strongly by Steven Jones, who uses it to push his thermite findings. And Jones isn't exactly the most trustworthy person on evidence for molten steel and on 9/11 in general.
I've no doubt that Ground Zero was very hot, but I sure would love to see some pictures of this flowing molten steel, or pictures of the solidified pools of steel they should have found.
One reason to DISTRUST the molten steel finding, is that it is pushed strongly by Steven Jones, who uses it to push his thermite findings. And Jones isn't exactly the most trustworthy person on evidence for molten steel and on 9/11 in general.
posted by spooked at 10:06 AM
5 Comments:
it would indeed be nice to see photos of this alleged molten steel.
if there was no molten steel in the wtc basements why would they have had to spray water on it continuously for 99 days?
^h
----
"Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive"."
www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm
"fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water."
911eyewitness.com
Judy Wood thinks the water spraying was just to keep the dust down from the dustification process.
ground zero 9/13/01
only 2 days after 9/11 the dust doesn't seem to be flying around much. would it really take 100 days of continuous dousing to contain the remainder of dust? most of the dust was dispersed into the air and away from ground zero.
then again, would it really take 100 days of continuous water dousing to cool off any molten steel?
maybe the claims of molten steel are just a cover for the fact that much of the steel simply disappeared into thin air.
^h
^h-- that pic wasn't taken 9/13, as explained here:
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
are there even any photos of the alleged 'constant dousing for 100 days'?
there's 2 photos of 1 lonely stream of water from that neighboring building:
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
and many reports of melted steel and hot spots weeks later but of course no real photos:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots
--------
1 thing is for sure - a jet-fuel (kerosene) fire cannot burn hot enough to melt the massive steel columns of wtc which would have acted as a giant heat-sink. and if the towers had actually collapsed in the manner that govt/NIST claimed then any fires would have been smothered.
what conclusion can be drawn from this?
the official investigation of the events of 9/11 were actually an official cover-up.
h.
Post a Comment
<< Home