Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Who said it was steel? Was it steel, or a steel alloy? Or was it just metal?
|
The color of the lava-like flow of metal reported says it was steel and iron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Are you really telling me that there was weeks of underground fires, and that your surprised metal melted?
|
The metal melted prior to the collapse, or during the collapse if you want - but it wasn't the cause of melting metal. The melting metal was caused by temperatures the equivalent of a foundry, inexplicably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Why would anyone debate this? Everyone in the world saw huge fireballs.
|
Everybody who saw fireballs could not say what their cause was. They were victims of instant, explosive immolation. Their testimony is reserved to what they and only they saw. The conclusion that there were fireballs is reserved to one conspiracy theory - the one that ignores testimony of explosions from below.
Why would one set of testimonials be ignored over another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
When the towers collapsed, some of it was on fire. It continued to burn underground. There was a shopping complex, a subway station, and a power sub station underground, as well as over six hundreds cars. Why does it surprise you that it was on fire and why does it surprise you that it burned for weeks underground?
|
What does the amount of flammable material matter? Does any of that stuff combust and then burn at temperatures above the melting point of steel?
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Stop thinking of this as a two story building. It was a city of fifty thousand people.
|
Regardless, does anything in any city catch fire at temperatures considerably below the melting point of steel and then burn hotter than that?
Are buildings in cities built so that they melt upon ignition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
They are discussing thermite, which is very common. And when that failed they started calling it "nano thermite".
|
Quite to the contrary no discussions of thermite "failed".
Thermate is quite different from thermite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Did they use thermite after the towers fell to start cutting away the debris?
|
Entirely possible. Except that none of the "debunking" sites brought it up.
All evidence points to standard acetyl propylene torches, but that wouldn't cause iron mirospheres to appear in the dust several days and weeks after...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There was no explosive event.
|
This goes against what much testimony the 9/11 Commission disregarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There was an explosion from when the planes hit, and then multiple explosions from there on out when flaming debris hit other buildings, setting them on fire.
|
What other "multiple explosions" that the 9/11 commission didn't refer to are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Again, you thinking of this as a building. It wasn't "just a building". This was a massive city with hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline, back generators, sub stations, subway stations, a shopping mall, a parking garage etc etc etc. Once there was multiple fires at multiple locations, there was explosions everywhere.
|
None were reported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I think that people work worked six or eight stories underground had no idea what was happening above ground. Even if they were able to hear it, I would imagine that it would echo around and they would be unable to determine the original source. It's entirely possible they never heard the original impact, but instead heard smaller and local explosions as fireballs raced down elevator shafts.
|
Entirely possible, that they would be unable to distinguish the source of the impacts. But the force and effect of explosions beneath them? Come on...