well if you find it odd that they are rusted, think about when the fire dept was pulled from searching, that should put a bit of a time stamp to it. Also its the norm to find surface rust and steel that is that old, even when wraped in a wall, humidity will do it.

Quote from: d3adp00l on August 02, 2007, 09:33:28 PM
well if you find it odd that they are rusted, think about when the fire dept was pulled from searching, that should put a bit of a time stamp to it. Also its the norm to find surface rust and steel that is that old, even when wraped in a wall, humidity will do it.

Yeah metal rusts pretty fast unprotected (Oil or paint) or after it has been burnt

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 02, 2007, 01:45:12 AM
I hate to ruin this, but does that cut beam at least start to make our case? You seemed especially noteful of the thermate viens. Any further comments on that picture or possible cutting devices?

~Dingus Mungus

No it doesn't make your case. a little melted iron doesn't qualify or disqualify it as thermate. it just says that there was atleast 2750 to 3000 degrees within the structure as it collapsed. as i said before the trapped air as the structure fell probably made a efficient natural gas axe or a blast furnace as the building fell. the fire was what set these structers on a course of disaster and sets them apart from an implosion standpoint.

Sure i have seen images and video concerning molen metal recovered from the structures. it is misleading because when we think of molten metal we think of a refined glob of iron. this wasn't the case. it had debris in it that it collected as it saught other molten metals within the flow of debris as the structure collapsed. 

First of all, blast furnace with what for fuel, a desk?!? The kerosene aka jet fuel aka stuff that won't run in any other engine was 800 feet up and burned away. And on top of that a blast furnace is just that not a laser beam 45 degree cut, and other flat cuts. If the steel had an area of melted steel, I would say there is not fuel to support the theory but there is more damage than could be described by a shape charge, which is the only way I can think of or have seen that can cut 4" of solid steel in a single pass. As far as what your point was about there molten balls of iron and debris I didn't get it. If a thermite/mate compound was used it would leave as a by product molten iron, not steel, iron, which was what the sames where tested for. And they came up with iron, less the carbon and other additives. The big balls, best know was the "meteorite" could be explained by only one thing molten iron flowed and gather in a low point and mixed itself with the debris it ended up in. And there is not a single plausible explanation for the liquid metal, neither the balls of it or what was seen by construction workers flowing down c channels and i beams. There was nothing in the towers that could produce that heat FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD, end of story. The only possible explanation is something was in there that shouldn't have been and some of that something didn't ignite when the rest of it did. Which can happen when the source of ignition is severed when a building comes apart and breaks the connection. Which could later be reignited by the proximity of other stuff that wasn't supposed to be there.

Quote from: d3adp00l on August 03, 2007, 01:30:57 AM
First of all, blast furnace with what for fuel, a desk?!? The kerosene aka jet fuel aka stuff that won't run in any other engine was 800 feet up and burned away. And on top of that a blast furnace is just that not a laser beam 45 degree cut, and other flat cuts. If the steel had an area of melted steel, I would say there is not fuel to support the theory but there is more damage than could be described by a shape charge, which is the only way I can think of or have seen that can cut 4" of solid steel in a single pass. As far as what your point was about there molten balls of iron and debris I didn't get it. If a thermite/mate compound was used it would leave as a by product molten iron, not steel, iron, which was what the sames where tested for. And they came up with iron, less the carbon and other additives. The big balls, best know was the "meteorite" could be explained by only one thing molten iron flowed and gather in a low point and mixed itself with the debris it ended up in. And there is not a single plausible explanation for the liquid metal, neither the balls of it or what was seen by construction workers flowing down c channels and i beams. There was nothing in the towers that could produce that heat FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD, end of story. The only possible explanation is something was in there that shouldn't have been and some of that something didn't ignite when the rest of it did. Which can happen when the source of ignition is severed when a building comes apart and breaks the connection. Which could later be reignited by the proximity of other stuff that wasn't supposed to be there.

Good analysis.

There is little possiblity that the jet fuel explosion could have melt steel in the first place, let alone melt it so hotly that molton steel was being pulled out of the ground month later.

Quote from: d3adp00l on August 03, 2007, 01:30:57 AM
First of all, blast furnace with what for fuel, a desk?!? The kerosene aka jet fuel aka stuff that won't run in any other engine was 800 feet up and burned away. And on top of that a blast furnace is just that not a laser beam 45 degree cut, and other flat cuts. If the steel had an area of melted steel, I would say there is not fuel to support the theory but there is more damage than could be described by a shape charge, which is the only way I can think of or have seen that can cut 4" of solid steel in a single pass. As far as what your point was about there molten balls of iron and debris I didn't get it. If a thermite/mate compound was used it would leave as a by product molten iron, not steel, iron, which was what the sames where tested for. And they came up with iron, less the carbon and other additives. The big balls, best know was the "meteorite" could be explained by only one thing molten iron flowed and gather in a low point and mixed itself with the debris it ended up in. And there is not a single plausible explanation for the liquid metal, neither the balls of it or what was seen by construction workers flowing down c channels and i beams. There was nothing in the towers that could produce that heat FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD, end of story. The only possible explanation is something was in there that shouldn't have been and some of that something didn't ignite when the rest of it did. Which can happen when the source of ignition is severed when a building comes apart and breaks the connection. Which could later be reignited by the proximity of other stuff that wasn't supposed to be there.

Think about the bigger picture involved. were talking about alot of mass seeking to reach a rest point. Building and contents, the contents are flamable for the better part. the fuel you ask? The contents are the fuel so yes the desk the entire contents of the cubicles the entire contents of the offices and the whole contents of every floor. As for the heat, I would think it's pretty hot at the core of the planet with molten elements churning about like they do. There is no magic to this the sheer mass with the contents as fuel a fire roaring with red hot iron inject air at high pressure and you have a cutting torch of macro portions. that's not taking into account for the carbon minoxide present in the air, add the fact that churning elements of great proportions tend to get very hot (due to friction) as with the core of the earth. You may research how a blast furnace works to better understand what was happening in the buildings as they were collapsing. no thermite required! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace 

Essentially the heat wanted to rise but was forced downward by debris/fuel/energy seeking a rest state via the path of least resistance. This was an enormus release of energy with an extreme amount of mass with more than an ample amount of fuel. If it didn't burn for weeks than i would be suspicous.