How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?, page 8

Originally posted by eyewitness86

" My opinion is that fires were buring underground ." How can fire burn uinderground where it is starved of oxygen? Where would the fire come from? If you watch the Towers turn to dust and explode outward on all the films, you see that there are no fires at lower levels whatsoever. Explosions reported, yes. Fires, NO. ALL fires were at the upper levels where the ' planes ' hit and above.

How can fires burn underground? Well here's an example:

The ruins of Centralia Pennsylvania no longer exists on some maps. The story began sometime in 1962 along the outskirts of town when trash was burned in the pit of an abandoned strip mine, which connected to a coal vein running near the surface. The burning trash caught the exposed vein of coal on fire. The fire was thought to be extinguished but it apparently wasn't when it erupted in the pit a few days later. Again the fire was doused with water for hours and thought to be out. But it wasn't. The coal then began to burn underground. That was in 1962. For the next two decades, workers battled the fire, flushing the mines with water and fly ash, excavated the burning material and dug trenches, backfilled, drilling again and again in an attempt to find the boundaries of the fire and plan to put the fire out or at least contain it. All efforts failed to do either as government officials delayed to take any real action to save the village. By the early 1980s the fire had affected approximately 200 acres and homes had to be abandoned as carbon monoxide levels reached life threatening levels. An engineering study concluded in 1983 that the fire could burn for another century or even more and "could conceivably spread over an area of approximately 3,700 acres."

" The materials that made up the Towers were great insulators.." What? ALL furnishings in a building like that are FIRE RETARDANT or approved for high rise buildings. You cannot place office furniture in a Tower without certain certifications..it is NOT a building made up of ' insulators' at all.

Fire retardant items can be very good insulators along with concrete, insulation, etc..

"...an oven like environment . " An oven is an enclosed box that has heat continuously applied to it in order to maintain a temperature, correct?

Applied to it or is already inside it.

Ovens have oxygen easily available, which you do NOT get under a massive pile of rubble, especially with tons of concrete dust everywhere.

See the coal mine info as example
Concrete dust is also an insulator.

Ovens have some source of heat being applied to them. WHERE do you claim the heat is comeing from to make the ' oven ' you envision get ' hotter and hotter "? Jet fuel fires were out after the crashes.

Once something starts burning, and is insulated from heat loss, it will continue to smolder for a very long time. If you have air flow through even a small area, the flames, coals, etc. can be fanned to stay hot or even get hotter. Take a piece of smoldering charcoal, put a piece of paper on it, now blow on the charcoal, it will heat up and burn the paper.

The big explosions seen used up almost all of the jet fuel..an hour later when the Towers were exploded the jet fuel was all gone. Only office fires were bring..black smoke showed clearly that the fires remaining far above were not hot at all; all evidence shows that the fires would have been put out within hours or less if they had not been brought down. Gravity CANNOT be used as some kind of excuse for high temps in a rubble pile. A Tower turing to dust is not creating a massive amount of heat, as dispersal insures no mass to react.

Once again, see coal mine example.

So WHAT massive heat source do you think was down there in that pile unders tons of junk and bodies and dust and steel..that could have not only created enough heat to melt steel, but to keep it molten for weeks afterward? What? Where was it coming from? To make things get hotter, you do not place them in an over at a certain temp..you must
RAISE the temp somehow to get it hotter,right? With me so far? SOME heat source HAS to be present to release the energy necesary to account for the molten steel seen. It could not come from above..as any fires under rubble pile would remain hot for a while perhaps, but without some external source to creat MORE heat, sooner or later it would cool.

So you claim an external source was artificially applied to the rubble to keep the steel molten? Assuming hte steel was molten and not just red hot.

To create MOLTEN steel at the lower levels, there HAD to be a source of heat so intense that it melted steel and kept it molten for a long period of time.

Was there actually liquid steel or was it very hot and flexible?
Also, you just wrote that it couldn't happen that way because everything in the rubble was oxygen starved so if you are right, it doesn't matter what the original heat source was, there would not have been any molten metal. So it was either oxygen starved down there or not, which is it?

WHAT heat source could you ascribe the molten steel to? It cannot be gravity, thats impossible. It cannot be fires from far above..thats impossible too. They were too cool and too high on the rubble pile as smoking debris to be of any consequence to the lower levels where the molten steels was seen. Simple enough? There is NO known source that can account for that much heat.

Problem solved. There was no molten metal then. Nothing to see, move along, move along.

Thats why many people believe that some kind of fission device, or small nuke type device, was used to sever the core supports at bedrock and turn them into dust ( see the film of the Spire ) from the sudden million degree temp shot from the bottom up, and also would explain molten steel weeks after the event as well. It would take a mountain of thermate type stuff to cause rivers of molten steel, so a nuke makes more sense.

The nuke idea makes as much sense as the hologram idea. No radiation and no EMP evidence, no nuke.