What film is this WTC clip from? (Crane picking up orange object)

[BigAl]

Can anyone identify what video this clip came from? It's a guy in an safety vest and a hard hat speaking about how hot the fires under the pile were.


Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY


I suspect that the right hand part of this image was grabbed from it. I'd like to see the entire video to confirm that.


http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg

[tsig]

Can anyone identify what video this clip came from? It's a guy in an safety vest and a hard hat speaking about how hot the fires under the pile were.


Red hot pools of molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY


I suspect that the right hand part of this image was grabbed from it. I'd like to see the entire video to confirm that.


http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg


"This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?"
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=2&t=771

This might help.

[BigAl]

"This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?"
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=2&t=771

This might help.

If we can find the video we will see what we will see.

I note that in Why Indeed, Jones doesn't say the picture is of anything molten. The paper has a list of "eyewitnesses to molten steel" and Silecchia isn't on it. I've never noticed him on any list of eyewitnesses.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

[tsig]

If we can find the video we will see what we will see.

I note that in Why Indeed, Jones doesn't say the picture is of anything molten. The paper has a list of "eyewitnesses to molten steel" and Silecchia isn't on it. I've never noticed him on any list of eyewitnesses.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I see that C7 hasn't found this thread yet.

[Jackanory]

Like many photographs and videos of 911, it always seems that the twoofers use sections or specific frames to attempt to highlight their 'findings'. Desperatly scratching and manipulating anything they can to regurgitate the same ol same ol.

Always referrences to an 'eye witness' of a friend of a friend or a paraphrased article written by another loon. Usually traced back to the usual suspects! Jones, Griffin, Balsamo yada yada yada!

$15 for a dvd containing cherry picked images certainly ensures to ensnare all those angry young men eager to prop up the sad existance of their twoofer masters!

[tsig]

Like many photographs and videos of 911, it always seems that the twoofers use sections or specific frames to attempt to highlight their 'findings'. Desperatly scratching and manipulating anything they can to regurgitate the same ol same ol.

Always referrences to an 'eye witness' of a friend of a friend or a paraphrased article written by another loon. Usually traced back to the usual suspects! Jones, Griffin, Balsamo yada yada yada!

$15 for a dvd containing cherry picked images certainly ensures to ensnare all those angry young men eager to prop up the sad existance of their twoofer masters!

This photo is one of their icons. I have seen many troofers use it to prove molten metal. It would be nice to know it's provenance.

[Drs_Res]

Well, I think the picture is just a still and not a screen shot.
Now I have not had a chance to look over this website in any detail, but there is at least one person who thinks that the image is photoshopped:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=32&MMN_position=55:55

I wonder if the video clip is from PBS, I doubt it's from the history channel since they usually have their logo on the screen. Maybe this show:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/index.html

It seems this is where people got the Demolition Dave clip from.

[tsig]

Well, I think the picture is just a still and not a screen shot.
Now I have not had a chance to look over this website in any detail, but there is at least one person who thinks that the image is photoshopped:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=32&MMN_position=55:55

I wonder if the video clip is from PBS, I doubt it's from the history channel since they usually have their logo on the screen. Maybe this show:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/index.html

It seems this is where people got the Demolition Dave clip from.

great site.

The name Steven Jones seems like a trademark for forgery.

It looks to me like 90% of the photo evidence for an inside job has been faked.

[BigAl]

great site.

The name Steven Jones seems like a trademark for forgery.

It looks to me like 90% of the photo evidence for an inside job has been faked.

I saw too much "MAX PHOTON" on that site and it's not clear what the relationship is. We haven't heard from mad Max from some time.

[GregoryUrich]

I saw too much "MAX PHOTON" on that site and it's not clear what the relationship is. We haven't heard from mad Max from some time.

That site is Major_Tom's, who got booted from STJ911 for challenging Jones on the authenticity of certain images. For the record, I don't believe Jones had anything to do with the banning. Their moderator is a tyrant.

[Kent1]

That site is Major_Tom's, who got booted from STJ911 for challenging Jones on the authenticity of certain images. For the record, I don't believe Jones had anything to do with the banning. Their moderator is a tyrant.

That site is ridiculous. Although I did like a few establishing shots of beam 1. Frank also took multiple photos. The photo Jones uses was taken from Franks site, also linked to on 911myths. http://www.wtcgodshouse.com/ is where the photo first appeared. Mike, myself and others knew about this photo before Steven Jones did.

[Kent1]

That site is ridiculous. Although I did like a few establishing shots of beam 1. Frank also took multiple photos. The original was taken from Franks site, also linked to on 911myths. http://www.wtcgodshouse.com/ is where the photo first appeared. Mike, myself and others knew about this photo before Steven Jones did.

Speaking of altered photos, Jones also got in trouble for using an altered photo of the collapse of the Twin Towers. He was using it to claim that the building collapse was made white hot due to the thermite. He had it along side the photo on page 11 to show how similar they looked. After myself and others mentioned this, he removed the photo.

[Kent1]

"This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?"
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=2&t=771

This might help.

One of the things that the site does note correctly is that the photo Chris7 keeps using, (along side his questionable color chart) had the intensity levels adjusted. Steven Jones made the same error and has since removed it. Personally I think Chris is far more extreme than Steven Jones.

[Grizzly Bear]

One of the things that the site does note correctly is that the photo Chris7 keeps using, (along side his questionable color chart) had the intensity levels adjusted. Steven Jones made the same error and has since removed it. Personally I think Chris is far more extreme than Steven Jones.

I wonder what he'll come up with once he finds this one out for the first time. I admit that's a detail I overlooked before. I also would note that with the grab photo the molten material doesn't cast any ambient light onto the machinery either. This material is supposed to be insanely hot and brilliantly visible yet it it doesn't cast light onto other objects...

[Kent1]

I wonder what he'll come up with once he finds this one out for the first time. I admit that's a detail I overlooked before. I also would note that with the grab photo the molten material doesn't cast any ambient light onto the machinery either. This material is supposed to be insanely hot and brilliantly visible yet it it doesn't cast light onto other objects...

It won't matter, it's not one of his bigger errors anyway. Excluding no-planers he's quite possibly the worst debater I've seen. Him or a guy named radical logic. Heiwa is bad also, although I haven't read his posts in a long time. Honestly I haven't even seen an attempt of any real substance from truthers lately.

There are a lot of variables to account for to try and make any sort of statement regarding the diffuse reflectivity. You can also see plenty of orange below the object and in the smoke around it. I think it's a really bad idea to suggest that Frank's photos are all faked.

[Grizzly Bear]

It won't matter it's not one of his bigger errors anyway. Excluding no-planers he's quite possibly the worst debater I've seen. Him or a guy named radical logic.

There are a lot of variables to account for to try and make any sort of statement regarding the diffuse reflectivity. You can also see plenty of orange below the object and in the smoke around it. I think it's a really bad idea to suggest that Frank's photos are all faked.
The nit pick I had with the light diffusion and reflectivity had to do with the lack thereof on the machinery that is holding the material since it's in direct contact... That doesn't make the photos faked but potentially altered. Admittedly it's not something I could prove unless there was an original copy floating around somewhere. I did bring up the material coming from the towers and NIST's disclaimer and well... you can see the results for yourself but I don't think you'll be too shocked by the outcome

[Kent1]

The nit pick I had with the light diffusion and reflectivity had to do with the lack thereof on the machinery that is holding the material since it's in direct contact... That doesn't make the photos faked but potentially altered. Admittedly it's not something I could prove unless there was an original copy floating around somewhere. I did bring up the material coming from the towers and NIST's disclaimer and well... you can see the results for yourself but I don't think you'll be too shocked by the outcome

Again difficult to say with the smoke, it does look like there is a little orange.
Also from my understanding Frank's original site stated that it was "Molten steel".
Of course his claim is questionable
If you are really curious I would track down Frank. Others have.

According to his chart it looks he could still match it up with some crazy high temp. Its funny that even Steven Jones himself only claims that it was around 1000 or 1100C (depending or which page you read)

[BigAl]

Again difficult to say with the smoke, it does look like there is a little orange.
Also from my understanding Frank's original site stated that it was "Molten steel".
Of course his claim is questionable
If you are really curious I would track down Frank. Others have.



Google says that that he made a public appearance in 2006 but was ill, possibly due to working on the pile.

The Jones "Why" paper never describes the contents of the crane as molten and the paper has a list of alleged witnesses to molten steel and Frank isn't on it.

[Kent1]

Google says that that he made a public appearance in 2006 but was ill, possibly due to working on the pile.

The Jones "Why" paper never describes the contents of the crane as molten and the paper has a list of alleged witnesses to molten steel and Frank isn't on it.

The original website claimed it was molten steel where the photo came from.
He was later contacted and more photos surfaced. I never spoke to him personally but others have. I don't know why he isn't mentioned as a wittness.
Molten is a subjective term anyway, I think many put to much stock into it. You can also find molten steel claims in common house fires.
Personally I think its just glass at around 900C.

I think the falling material is oxidized Aluminum, glass, possibly some lead and other junk, soot, garbage etc. at around 1000C