"pools" and "streams" of Molten Metal
The Best Photographic Proof that Steven Jones Could Find?
The five pictures below are the entirety of photographic proof of molten or incandescent metal found in the WTC rubble that Steven Jones offers in his paper "Why Indeed Did...".
I'll show the photos one by one and offer commentary.
The Best Example
The picture shown above is the very first photo that appears in the paper "Why Indeed ..." by Steven Jones. He uses the same picture once again, on page 16, to estimate the temperature of the glowing substance.
It is a forged photo, a photoshop manipulation combining at least 3 separate images into a single deceptive lie. I offer proof of forgery here
The following photo is the second one shown by Steven Jones in his paper.
Please look closely at the above picture. This is the second photo that appears in Steven's paper, after the first fake one.
Where was the photographer standing? Where is the actual machine located which controls this bucket? Behind the photographer?
Or is this a cropped photo? Has anyone seen the original uncropped photo? Do these people usually work in total darkness without site lighting?
This photo is accredited to the same person who took the first picture shown (which I prove to be a fake).
Since the glowing object is not a core or perimeter column, what is it? In fact, can anyone recognize just what the glowing object is in any of these photos? Scrap?
Steven follows up these two photos with a third photo, shown below.
Can anybody tell what that glowing thing is? Can anyone tell where the picture was taken?
Can anyone distinguish a single object in the background?
If you download this photo and zoom in on the details and pixilization,
Please compare the glowing objects in the 3 photos I've shown so far.
Can anyone recognize what the glowing object actually is in any of the 3 photos?
They are clearly not core column or perimeter column sections. They are clearly are not large structural members. This is clearly not something "dripping from the end" of a major structural member.
Why would anybody lead their evidentiary list with this crap?
Are we all being taken for a ride, or what?
Wake up, folks. We can do much better than this.
Below are the last two photos that Steven Jones presents as evidence of, as he says, "molten metal: flowing and in pools".
Perhaps these workers were just chilly that day, and that is why they gathered around the dangerous and highly toxic ball of molten metal?
Or perhaps they were just cutting steel?
This picture appears on page 17 of Steven's paper, apparently as evidence of foul play on 9-11-01.
What the....? How can a photo like this make it past proof-reading and "peer review"?
You would think that the "pools and streams" of molten metal would eventually solidify and harden. Therefore, among the hundreds of photos of the debris fields and clean-up operations, you would expect to see at least some evidence of pieces of metal that appear to be highly deformed through the process of becoming liquid and resolidifying.
Yet there is not a single picture showing a solidified metallic "pool" or "stream". There is not a single picture showing solidified metallic drippings on main structural members within the debris.
Instead, Steven offers us the following single picture of "proof" of metallic resolidification.
Does This Look Like A Solidified Pool To You?
This is the sole existing picture of a solidified, previously molten "stream" or "pool" which Steven presents as "evidence".
It sure looks as if there is a lot of concrete in there, no?
Hot enough to melt steel? Do the pieces of rebar look previously melted to you?
Could this piece have come from the base of one of the buildings? A footing, perhaps?
Say that one day there actually is another investigative body formed to study what REALLY happened to these buildings on 9-11-01.
Would you feel confident and comfortable about presenting the pictures shown in this essay as your best evidence?
Created on 11/17/2007 03:22 AM by admin
Updated on 05/03/2009 11:58 PM by admin