Molten steel,jet fuel and WTC.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


I vote for some type of harmonic resonance generator. Those towers turned to sand before they hit the ground. Never seen jet fuel do that. And what about the cars with incinerated frames but untouched interiours. With the flood of technology being released today, nothing suprises me anymore.

I'm not satisfied there were big pools of molten anything but if there were, you can't just look at it and know if it's steel, aluminum, pot metal or glass. Did anyone get a sample and have it analyzed?

Another_Nut
reply to post by projectbane

 

Nist and we all know how reliable they are

Another great argument by a truther!!

I will take NIST over the deluded any day!

I presented factual data (temps and burning color) and you present the above!!

See, truthers have a nasty habit of asking the same old tired questions over and over again. When someone legitimately asnwers your questions the truther DISMISSES it because he can not fathom that there is a correct answer that doesn't fall in line with his own deluded thinking.

Truthers always like to point to the members of their movement and the degrees and honors they have. YEs you had around 1900 engineers, architects and other people on board for a while. And I admit those numbers sound pretty remarkable.

UNTIL you look at the Figure for Licensed Engineers in The WHOLE of the USA. Just Licensed engineers number of 610,000. California has 62000 on its own. Engineers (Just using the resident ones)

Never mind architects and surveyors etc. Make the Truthers numbers seem rather insignificant. And they ARE!!


I find it very silly that truthers have given no clear evidence EVER of what happened that day. NEVER once can they present an argument that has not been subverted by actual EVIDENCE!!

reply to post by projectbane


Im sure you will take nist over truth

And ignore any evidence contrary to nist

And there is plenty

Deny (your) ignorance

Good day

I find it very silly that truthers have given no clear evidence EVER of what happened that day. NEVER once can they present an argument that has not been subverted by actual EVIDENCE!!

reply to post by projectbane


There is an abundance of evidence for molten steel at ground zero.. many, many witnesses, the "meteorite" etc. Do you have any evidence for molten aluminium?

projectbane

John_Rodger_Cornman
Why was there molten steel at the WTC on 911?

Jet fuel is hot enough to soften that type of industrial steel but not melt it into a liquid form. So what heated it up to melt the steel?

If there is ONE type of person I hate more than any other on this planet it is the 9/11 truther.

Not for nothin', why join a conspiracy website if you "hate" people who embrace or are open to alternative theories?

Especially since 9/11 is the father of all conspiracies.

Wouldnt you be happier on an establishment forum for say Fox, CNN, the NSA, CIA, DoD, FBI, Pentagon etc.?

Just sayin'.

reply to post by projectbane


Hate is not allowed here, friend, unless we are talking about Hitler.

Remember that.

Golly, from the looks of it, the whole thing backfired.

...dinosaurs roaming the earth....

# 142

reply to post by projectbane


If you hate truthers (those that care about the truth), so much, then why come here and pick that wound? a masochism fetish ? What else is happening in your life to have you this depressed and frustrated? When you get lies for answers do you reject them and still seek the truth? Or maybe that would make you a truther, okay, skip that theory..

Why was there molten steel at the WTC on 911?

I never knew there was any, I do know however there was molten metal and that many in the 9/11 truth movement just love to proclaim that it is "steel" with out any proof.

This is a really good video that discusses the "molten metal" in a little more depth.



Oh and this one



Now not withstanding the fact that the use of thermite (or thremate) has ever been proven to have been present at ground zero ( See this Thread) There is also this amazing link which discuses the Molten Steel and again challenges the idea that ground zero was littered with these "pools of molten steel"

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Nvm.

The link i posted is in the post above me.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Tried reading your link, but got as far as this quote

Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column.

and just couldn't take it seriously.

reply to post by projectbane


planes also have a lot of magnesium and titanium,burns a lot hotter than steel.And just the mass weight of the engines and the speed would send them thru an office building,to break thru the other side like a wrecking ball.

Scientist debunking the "official" account

Zilly sed it happened the way he wanted it to happen - uhhh I mean the way he recorded it and put the b.s. out to the folks by way of NIST - National incredible solution technology.
not to mention the entire report that Chenney ok'd.

projectbane

John_Rodger_Cornman
Why was there molten steel at the WTC on 911?

Jet fuel is hot enough to soften that type of industrial steel but not melt it into a liquid form. So what heated it up to melt the steel?

If there is ONE type of person I hate more than any other on this planet it is the 9/11 truther. These people are so devoid of any actual reasoning they conjure up plenty of BS to fit their wild theories. Even when they are debunked they throw around words like - disinfo, troll and other similar words that a person who has lost an argument will do.
Character attack and straw man.

For steal to melt it would take temps in excess of 2750 F and the temps recorded at WTC were around 1800 F

The commercial jet fuel that was used cannot melt the type of steel those buildings where constructed of.

Aluminum though has a melting point of 887 - 1180 F depending on the type of alloy it is. Flight 175 was 80% aluminum roughly 140,000 pounds of the stuff.

We are not talking about aluminum. We are talking about the type of industrial steel that was used and the type of commercial jet fuel that was burning in the building. Its does not burn hot enough to actually melt the steel into a liquid. Weaken. Yes. Melt into liquid form. No.

The Aluminum from the plane burned 1800 F for some time during which the trusses bowed and the aluminum spewed downwards towards the plaza etc etc!!
We are not talking about aluminum. We are talking about the type of industrial steel used in the building.
Not the aluminum that the plane had inside it.
And those that think Aluminum burns silver as that loser JONES claims, well only at its lowest temp, when burning at 1800 degrees it is light orange!!!!! FACT!!
Character attack all you want. The type of steel used cannot be melted into liquid form by the commercial jet fuel that was burning that day
NIST reported that it was Aluminum melting not steel!!

There are NO "confirmed" pics of molten steel, as in pics that are backed by scientific data on TESTED Molten steel!! NONE

edit on 9-2-2014 by projectbane because: (no reason given)

This 40 story skyscapper burned for 8 hours. Did not collapse.
Why didn't it fall?

www.cnn.com...

Why didn't these buildings fall either some burned as long as 18 hours?

reply to post by Another_Nut

Anyone who uses the nist report as evidence has not read it

I read it......and 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11....



...ENTER.....the 2008 NIST, IGNORES those findings to HYPOTHESIZE a story in the opposite direction they have NO supporting evidence for, and a refusal to peer review their data outside the authors....just an in-place, unproven official story that happens to contain BRAND NEW SCIENCE, that MUST be there, they refuse to provide.

you obviously have NOT read any of the reports.

reply to post by blkcwbyhat

planes also have a lot of magnesium and titanium,burns a lot hotter than steel.And just the mass weight of the engines and the speed would send them thru an office building,to break thru the other side like a wrecking ball.

and despite, the 2005 NIST still found MINIMAL localized asymmetrical damage to each tower following impact object....14.5%

you can see the 33 outer columns that were damaged from the impacts....count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. That's 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST did three scenarios of core damage from impacts, they estimate that 6-8 core columns were damaged. 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle scenario. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

Putting those two percentages together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal damage.

so knowing the MINIMAL damage caused....and the all-but NON existent fires that we see, HOW do the fires present, RENDER the remaining columns unless SIMULTANEOUSLY to have that tipping top fall in TWO directions AT THE SAME TIME!!!

NIST found the ONLY fireproofing compromised was ONE the columns INVOLVED with impact damage.....the 14.5%, NOT the remaining 86% that MUST simultaneously fail.....tell me how spot fire does that....


that 'tipping top' can only move as a SINGLE UNIT as we see by COMPLETE severance from the structure below....

NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".

and after ya done that...then ya can tell me HOW it impacts the SAME EXACT force on the opposite side when ALL it's energy is focused to ONE side?????

reply to post by projectbane

Another great argument by a truther

Hi....my name is Bob....I am a 'truther'

I ask questions and DEMAND the supporting evidence of the claims PUSHED as truth.

I need NO supporting evidence or agenda to do this.....it is my right and the DICTUM of Both Law and Debate.
FIRST come the official claims pushed as truth, now, 'truthers' asking questions and DEMANDING that supporting evidence.....

...got any?


I use the 10,000+ page NIST report also, and known science to DEMAND the supporting evidence of the official claims pushed....

Like the fact of 2005 NIST, NOT scientifically finding a reason why these three buildings fell on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


so, in 2005 they end with NOTHING and for 3 years a SMALL, HYPOTHESIS group stays, TRYING to hide certain FACTS concerning WTC7...
and then, SOMEHOW, 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, creating a "NEW PHENOMENON" stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing...
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
IMO, *ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.



are you able to tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance is NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else do we see those SAME numbers as seen in the global unified FFA, 9.8m/s^2 ????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....SOMEHOW, through a "BRAND NEW PHYSICS PHENOMENON", the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

Must have been something in the air - after all - and was not ok to breath.

Soften, yes, but do what it did, especially WTC 7?

I did some research into this specific detail. I found that the average jet fuel burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit below the melting point of the steel used in the WTC's.

I wish I had the exact numbers, it must be on my other computer, but I swear by this information.

If this were true, your exhaust components of your cars would be a mess, constantly.