The color of the lava-like flow of metal reported says it was steel and iron.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Quite to the contrary no discussions of thermite "failed".

Thermate is quite different from thermite.

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...

This goes against what much testimony the 9/11 Commission disregarded.

What other "multiple explosions" that the 9/11 commission didn't refer to are you talking about?

None were reported.

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...

So what cause the "fires above that"? Certainly not jet fuel...

No. Microscopic balls of iron would be expected. It's in everything from printer ink to breakfast cereal. Then it was pulverized.

There's pretty much going to be microscopic everything in the debris.

A huge plan loaded with Jet Fuel crashed into a building and exploded. Fireballs traveled down (and up?) elevator shafts. Other buildings were hit with burning debris. Once you have fire, it doesn't matter what started it. Once you have fire, fire burns. When you have fifty thosand desks and millions of tons of paperwork, plus a mall, plus 600 cars.... It will burn for weeks.

Not in the reported amounts, nor the sizes reported. Find a better debunking site...

Well, contrary to what you believe, it matters very much what ignites a fire.

And the temperature at which that fire will burn matters very much on what the fuel or material to burn is; nothing in the WTC would have or could have melted metal....

Iron is very common. This is not a surprise at all. I don't need a website to tell me that Iron is part a of my diet and is rather common.

You keep back to this fire and I understand why. Everyone saw the fireball, the flames, the smoke. Yet you seem to be surprised that it continued to burn for weeks. Well, if you take a city of fifty thousand people and then bury it, supply it with hundreds of cars, a shopping center, a power station, a subway station, and enough office furniture and paper for fifty thousand people... And then supply it with air (subway tunnels plus) and bingo, your gonna have a fire that will burn for weeks.

Why does this escape you? Give fire enough fuel and it will burn forever.

Look it up. Iron is not common in the form that it was nor the amounts in which it was present in the dust.

It will not burn at the temperatures it did.

No matter the fuel, fires don't burn hotter than a certain point. Iron, for example, will not burn beyond or BEFORE it's ignition point - the same for all substance and their ignition points.

For steel to have been melted under the ruins for weeks after the collapse, it would have to have been there before and during the collapse.

There is no office fire or subway fire or any fire that could have caused that slag to occur, under your official theory of what happened that day.

In fact, most of what happened that day couldn't have occurred if you and the government are correct about the events....

:D

BTW where do you get that the fires were above 1500 F? That's not in the NIST report... which in fact actually reports temperatures about one third to a quarter below that...

?

:D

Really? It took me ten seconds to find this on Wikipedia showing me it was clearly well above 500f...


The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.

I would imagine that Iron was present in every possible form when a city of fifty thousand people caught fire and crashed to ground.

Your making mountains of molehills here and it's comical.

There was microscopic particles of iron. All this proves was... There was microscopic particles of iron present - nothing else. There are microscopic particles of iron in glass. Case solved.

Next.

Look what just came in the mail....

http://www.rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/myths.jpg

This message is hidden because JohnnyClips is on your ignore list.

[QUOTE=Rochard;18845938]Really? It took me ten seconds to find this on Wikipedia showing me it was clearly well above 500f...

Note that there are multiple "ifs" in that paragraph.

More hypothesis.

What the study failed to mention, beyond the fact that collapse could not have been initiated at those temperatures according to NIST, is that the steel would have to have been exposed to those temperatures (actually higher than those) for about three hours before completely collapsing the structure.

Another "if" is the absolute removal of thermal insulation, which is entirely theoretical.

Regardless, the melting point of iron is way above 500f - more like 2800f, or 1500 celcius if you were maybe off in your charts.

Iron wouldn't turn to fine aerosol form and solidify as hard little droplets if a city caught fire and crashed to the ground unless that city was attacked by powerful elements such as thermite and/or thermate ...

Iron in this form is present only when temperatures present are high enough that it liquefies and turns into a mist - solidifying upon contact with air and becoming little hard balls.

Explain that.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]For the most part, the conditions of the tower are completely hypothesis - being as we didn't engineers and scientists up in the burning towers taking notes.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]Not true. The temps didn't need to melt anything, only bend it. That with the combined damage was more than enough.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]Really? When hundreds of tons of concrete fall, I'm guessing things get broken into little tiny pieces.

And small bits of iron doesn't mean the towers was brought down by explosives. At all.

Not True.

Jet fuel starts the fire, but its the other materials such as carpet, desks etc, that burn longer and hotter. After a short while the gasses that these materials emit become extremely hot and the Gassess too begin to burn, and burn at extremely hot temperatures. Oxygen sucked in from the broken windows only add to the fire.

All the iron beams had to do was melt enough to weaken the structure. As a weak point bends inward, millions of tons of pressure start to push in on it.

Say it with me. No. Controlled. Demolition.

video is of course definitive proof these days heh

theres video of a plane and people will still call it an ORB lol

You are screwing up by using "melt". The steel does not need to "melt". It weakens. Not "melts".

Nutjobs continue to rely on the word "melt" and point to the fact that it was not hot enough to melt steel as if ANYONE said the steel melted. Regardless of the temperature required to melt the steel, its irrelevant to the fact that it was quite hot enough to weaken the steal, allowing it to buckle.

Yes, we all saw the buildings collapse. Thats not an event that's in dispute.

If you think I take any offense to being called moron to the one person who currently stands alone as the biggest lunatic on a forum known for its lunatics, you're mistaken.

I couldn't agree more. The iron didn't melt, it got weakened until the point it buckled.

You mention oxygen getting sucked in from the broken windows. You also need to remember the oxygen getting sucked up to the fires. The WTC towers were closed - air tight. The elevator shafts were air tight when sealed, but they were compromised somewhere along the line. So air was forced up to the fires too.

Damn,this is so long thread :)_

You are right.

Page 27. Any evidence yet for all these claims?

Let me guess, no?

GFY structural engineers to the rescue.

That is your style.

this isn't MIT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Apparently it is.

You'd think it would be cut and dry, two planes hit the world trade centers and buildings fall, but a lot of intelligent people, some scientists and engineers, dispute the official story.

dwb just because someone is in a position of AUTHORITY does not mean they are correct.

it is called an appeal to AUTHORITY. look it up.

again, this is not MIT ROCKET SCIENCE.

stored in the same place as your MIT degree maybe.

for those not deluded http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FB...entagon_videos

johnny even if a plane crashed into your house you would see a missile or orb.

you are extremely deluded or possible insane.

that is why your claims about truth are laughable. you see only what you want to see. not what is front of your eyes.

did you even read that you fucking moron?

no of course not. you are despite you MIT claims you also pretty much illiterate. maybe ask your mom or neighbor to read that to you slowly.

I love the part where he says "words can be deceptive".

Then he says "Do you see the rapid ejection of explosive material?". As a matter of fact, no, I do not. I see exactly what I would expect to see when one floor falls onto another floor in an air tight building.

Do you know what else I learned today? WTC 7 had gas lines leading up from the basement level to higher floors to power emergency generators there.

Imagine that.

Ok...

Sigh... forgive my use of the word "melt" - actually the temperatures never reached the heat, hotness, height, that would engender melting, softening, weakening or in any way compromise their integrity...

First, you're right, many things got broken.

And second, you're wrong: while small bits of iron doesn't mean the tower was brought down by explosives, small beaded aerosoled iron means that temperatures above the melting point of iron had to be present. Temps that couldn't be present in office fires, as NIST classified the temperature conditions in the building, btw....

Regardless of what ignites a fire, it's fuel determines its burning temperatures.

These "gasses" you make reference to do not increase the temperatures at which carpets and desks burn. Use your logic.

First, the temperatures reported did not explain why the steel weakened.

Second, the myth that the WTC was a "tube" or air tight has been proven as a lie. Wny do you keep repeating what has been proven a lie?

Yeah, you just don't read my posts, which provide the information that explosives and incendiaries were present in the towers...

Then you apparently don't even have an instinctive understanding of what you're looking at...

There were no explosions reported.

Even if there was natural gas, how dould that affect steel?

:D

Coach Trip as in "We're being taken for a ride"

Bart waves wad of cash "It's being done for money"

Notice the Coupon/Coup On at the bottom right :thumbsup