DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Grizzly Bear]

I repeat my question for TheWholeSoul:
What I fail to see, and people have failed to answer to me is whether or not it can explain the molten steel:

• How does molten 'metal' found weeks later support thermite given how fast a reaction it is?
  
• how did thermite not only survive the collapses without being damaged beyond ability to function?
  
• how did such items survive the collapses without being destroyed period?
  
• how are such incendiaries able to sustain a 'steel cutting' reaction over an extended period of several weeks, if thermite is such a fast reaction?
  
• How much is required for it?

There's a fundamental problem with your argument that molten steel supports your consensus
I am asking this again because you have not answered to it.

The inability or reluctance of people to explain this detail makes detracts from the credibility of such claims.

Does the length of time required for the reactions support the theory of thermite? YES OR NO?

Are you saying that the thermite SURVIVED the collapses to continue a reaction somehow for SEVERAL WEEKS in order to support the.

Can you point out a controlled demolition which resulted in pools of molten steel? Are there any precedents that support that unsubstantiated claim? By your statement are you implying that controlled demolitions should result in MOLTEN METAL weeks after the fact? You seem to keep a distinction between 'natural collapse' and 'controlled collapse'.


Please address the weakness in your presentation of evidence. You have failed to address the concerns I have with the argument of molten steel found weeks after the collapse supporting your argument that thermite was used.

By evading the question are you conceding that you have no explanation to explain the questions I asked you?

 

[Alt+F4]

the official story cannot explain the molten pools. that is the main point.

Why don't you contact some members of the FDNY who actually fought the fires for months after after 9/11?

Initially, it was anticipated that the fires would cease burning within the first few weeks of the disaster. Unfortunately, they continued to burn at the site. In most situations, fires in buildings can be put out quickly. In the case of the WTC, the fires burned below the surface and were fed by large quantities of combustible materials like carpeting, furniture, computers, and other building materials. As steel and rubble are removed and the pile shifts, oxygen is added to the hot embers and the fires can be revived.

Please note that all the fires were not finally extinguished until December 19.

 

[thewholesoul]

As you will.

Go do your homework.
The answers to your questions, as I have said, are easily available.
And they do not evidence a vast complicated conspiracy.

Edit:
Don't bother replying. As you have rejected my offer (and called it "arrogant") I have no use for discussing with you further. You refuse to consider alternate thypothesis, and refuse to research your claims. Plainly, you are commited to your conspiracy theory.
The rest of us have examined it, and found it wanting.
Maybe one day you'll realize how stupid most of the theories are, too.
Until then, you are on my ignore list.

i find you one of the most puzzling individuals in this forum.
instead of refuting my claims you say that they have already been refuted and then you dont even provide me the link where i can find these refutations?

 

[thewholesoul]

Why don't you contact some members of the FDNY who actually fought the fires for months after after 9/11?

Please note that all the fires were not finally extinguished until December 19.

it was a day of historical precedence
after the first three skyscrapers in history collapsing due to fire there was the the longest-burning structural fire in history which lasted over 2 months.

now i told you what my main point was i.e. that fires cannot melt steel.
you counter by saying go ask the firemen
here you will find plenty of testimony from firemen attesting to pools of molten metal http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

 

[DGM]

I'd say Thewholesoul doesn't know as much about what happens to iron in the presence of sulfur as blacksmiths did hundreds of years ago. If he did he'd know how they worked iron with charcoal fires.

 

[thewholesoul]

I have a few questions.

Does thermite cause steel to evaporate?

yes

Can thermite be used to cut vertical columns?

yes

Is there any evidence for thermite?

yes

good questions Garb and thanks for asking them

 

[twinstead]

What exactly is the evidence of thermite again? I might have missed that.

Oh and:

• How does molten 'metal' found weeks later support thermite given how fast a reaction it is?
• how did thermite not only survive the collapses without being damaged beyond ability to function?
• how did such items survive the collapses without being destroyed period?
• how are such incendiaries able to sustain a 'steel cutting' reaction over an extended period of several weeks, if thermite is such a fast reaction?
• How much is required for it?

These questions might be important...

 

[thewholesoul]

I have bolded your insults and temper tantrums.

Now again, explain fully why the presence of molten metal found weeks after these buildings collapsed contributes to your CD theory.

Do not make demands of me or any other member on this forum, stop throwing hissy fits because I or anybody questions you and please answer straight forward questions.

The reason my question are important is because they come from the real world and not the make believe world you live in, whereby secret death squads went into each building armed with goodness knows what and secretly planted goodness know what in front of everybody.

Now,for the final time of asking.

HOW DOES MOLTEN METAL OF ANY DECRIPTION FOUND WEEKS AFTER THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED STRENGHTEN YOUR CASE FOR A CD?

Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

They are a simple questions; they are real questions but you are avoiding them.Please explain fully.

Do not post further unless you intend to answer in a mature, adult fashion and explain exactly why pools of molten metal strengthen your case. Any further insults from you will result in me reporting you. This is a debating forum, not a place for you’re to vent off and throw hissy fits.

Answer the questions or do not post at all.

i can see you do not have the courtesy to answer my questions. and go report me if you wish such behaviour would be fitting of your character.

the reason any sane person would become annoyed with you is because you repeatedly ask the same questions and i keep answering them only for you to turn around and ask them again. not to mention the fact that you still refuse to answer any of my questions!

so here goes. and this is the last time.

here: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/200...metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/ you find plenty of tetsimony in relation to the molten pools of metal
so this fact is not debatable

Here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf you will find lots of good information on the causes behind the molten metal at ground zero.

Q1:Why the presence of molten metal found weeks after these buildings collapsed contributes to your CD theory

- thermite cutter charges can cut through steel like butter
- molten iron is an end product of a thermite reaction
- thermite reaction is hot enough to evaporate steel when in contact

if you dispute or contest any of the above points please make your argument.

now the fact that molten iron was found at ground zero raises the question well what produced it? various other anomoly in the WTC dust were also discovered. the molten iron and other anomly in the dust are consistent with high temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX, RDX or some combination thereof. if you contest this point please provide your reasons.

so the presence of molten pool supports a controlled domiltion hypothesis because if a controlled demolition was conducted using thermite, HMX, or RDX, one would expect to find molten pools of iron etc beneath the rubble.

Q2: Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

this question is less significant: it is less significant because it is a fact that the underground fire was the longest in structural fire in history. either way there must be an explanation for why the fires lastest so long.

- the underground fire at ground zero was (i) oxygen starved
- the underground fire was (ii) saturated with water
- the underground fire at ground zero was the longest ever structural fire in history

"thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction can be smothered, even with water"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

by any standard this was not a normal fire. a normal fire under such conditions could not sustain itself. pools of molten metal heated by a thermite reaction is by far a stronger hypothesis. so the reason why the fires lastest so long is because there was so much molten iron. and the reason there was so much molten iron is because there were thermite reactions to take the buildingds down

so my questions once again to you:
Q1: Where did the temperatures to create molten iron come from?
Q2: why do you think the presence of molten metal supports the official expalantion?

 

[DGM]

I also see thewholesaul has no idea what happens to gypsum wallboard when it decomposes in the presence of heat and water. No surprise there.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Q1:Why the presence of molten metal found weeks after these buildings collapsed contributes to your CD theory

- thermite cutter charges can cut through steel like butter
- molten iron is an end product of a thermite reaction
- thermite reaction is hot enough to evaporate steel when in contact

if you dispute or contest any of the above points please make your argument.

We are not disputing what thermite is capable of doing to steel, or what it's purpose is.

now the fact that molten iron was found at ground zero raises the question well what produced it? various other anomoly in the WTC dust were also discovered.

Still evading my questions. Seriously... do you intend to answer them or not? They are the weakest parts of your conjecture. Considering the fact that virtually all of the building's contents excluding the steel columns was pulverized. Give me a reason to believe that thermite would have survived such an event..

I can tell by your answer that you have assumed that the charges survived the collapses to continue a reaction. Why are you evading my question? Perhaps because assuming that the thermite miraculously avoided pulverization from the collapses is SPECULATION?

the molten iron and other anomly in the dust are consistent with high temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX, RDX or some combination thereof. if you contest this point please provide your reasons.

-- You have failed to convince me that the thermite charges not only avoided destruction in the collapses assuming they were in the buildings at all, but managed to supply a reaction.

-- I am not disputing what thermite leaves behind, or what evidence is consistent with thermite. Please stop evading my questions.

so the presence of molten pool supports a controlled domiltion hypothesis because if a controlled demolition was conducted using thermite, HMX, or RDX, one would expect to find molten pools of iron etc beneath the rubble.

I am repeating my questions in the hope that you eventually clear them up.
-- The pre requisites of the molten metal being found weeks later equires that:

• 
  (A) The thermite avoided damage/destruction in the collapses
  (B) That they be able to ignite and function and have an ignition source
  (C) That they can sustain a reation for several weeks
  (D) Is the amount available sufficient to sustain such a long reaction required to sustain metal in a molten state

Have you established that these conditions were met?

Q2: Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

"thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction can be smothered, even with water"

Bolded:
Requires that the thermite charges be able to avoid damage or destruction from the original collapses.
Determination of argment: You have not established that this condition was met. This argument is very weak.

pools of molten metal heated by a thermite reaction is by far a stronger hypothesis.

Requires that the thermite charges be able to avoid damage or destruction from the original collapses.
Determination of argment: You have not established that this condition was met. This argument is very weak.

so the reason why the fires lastest so long is because there was so much molten iron.

The heat sources were insulated by the debris, thus the heat produced could not be easily disbursed. Recall that 'fire' is an oxidation reaction, and steel oxidizes it releases heat.

-- The sustainment of molten metal is not as simple as you are conclusing it to be

-- Determination: Your point here is not sufficiently explained. You clearly either have ignored or are un-familar with other conditions which existed in the debris pile. This point is a very weak case.

and the reason there was so much molten iron is because there were thermite reactions to take the buildingds down

-- You stated that the molten metal found weeks later makes your case stronger. Thus I have listed problems with your contention. You have not established any of them,


-- The pre requisites of the molten metal being found weeks later in your contention requires that:

• 
  (A) The thermite avoided damage/destruction in the collapses
  (B) That they be able to ignite and function and have an ignition source
  (C) That they can sustain a reation for several weeks
  (D) Is the amount available sufficient to sustain such a long reaction required to sustain metal in a molten state

Lastly, You seem to have made a distinction in saying that molten metal is a product of a controlled demolition. Can you provide historical precedence that would support your distinction? Not the world trade centers, HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE before the WTC that substantiates your claims?

-----------------------------------------------------------

You have evaded these questions SEVERAL times. Can you please stop avoiding them. Your argument for thermite on the basis of molten metal being found several weeks later is extremely weak and unconvincing because you sat up a number of criteria that must be met in order for such thermite to be capable of generating it.


As you are the one pushing the case for thermite, the burden of proof has shifted to you. If you have no intention of clearing these criteria up, then please, let me know, so that I know you don't care for clearing them... your argument on the basis of molten steel will be baseless until you can come up with a good explanation for them

 

[thewholesoul]

• How does molten 'metal' found weeks later support thermite given how fast a reaction it is?

• 
  
  the thermite may well have all been consumed once the buildings were demolished. it was the molten iron produced by the thermite reactions that sustained the underground fire for a record amount of time.
  
  

  [*] how did thermite not only survive the collapses without being damaged beyond ability to function?

  
  it was most likely used up but some may have remained in an unreacted form
  
  

  [*] how did such items survive the collapses without being destroyed period?

  
  
  most likely they didnt survive the collapse because they were used during the collapse to bring down the building.
  
  

  [*] how are such incendiaries able to sustain a 'steel cutting' reaction over an extended period of several weeks, if thermite is such a fast reaction?

  
  it didnt
  
  

  [*] How much is required for it?

  
  i dont know
  

There's a fundamental problem with your argument that molten steel supports your consensus

molten steel does not support the official explantion who by the way have no official explanation for the molten steel.

Does the length of time required for the reactions support the theory of thermite? YES OR NO?

sure why not. the thermite cuts the steel beams the towers fall. molten iron is produced from this reaction, and this sustains the logest structural fire in history

Are you saying that the thermite SURVIVED the collapses to continue a reaction somehow for SEVERAL WEEKS in order to support the.

no thats not what i am saying.

Can you point out a controlled demolition which resulted in pools of molten steel? Are there any precedents that support that unsubstantiated claim? By your statement are you implying that controlled demolitions should result in MOLTEN METAL weeks after the fact? You seem to keep a distinction between 'natural collapse' and 'controlled collapse'.

no i cant point out a CD when pools of molten steel were left behind. nor can i point out a CD when thermite cutter chrages were used to take down the building.

can you point out an example of a gravity and fire collapse that left pools of molten steel behind?

which type of collapse would you suppose had a greater likelihood of producing pools of molten steel (a) a CD using thermite cutter charges? or (b) a gravity and fire collapse?

By evading the question are you conceding that you have no explanation to explain the questions I asked you?

i am like you grizzly, when someone evades i take it is a concession.

 

[thewholesoul]

I also see thewholesaul has no idea what happens to gypsum wallboard when it decomposes in the presence of heat and water. No surprise there.

hey DGM why dont you explAin to me how a hydrocarbon fire or office fire can produce sufficient temperature to melt steel

 

[DGM]

hey DGM why dont you explAin to me how a hydrocarbon fire or office fire can produce sufficient temperature to melt steel

It didn't have to get any hotter than normal fires. Blacksmiths knew this years ago. Why are you so behind the times?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

it was the molten iron produced by the thermite reactions that sustained the underground fire for a record amount of time.

So you concede that thermite is not a direct cause of the molten metal found several weeks after the fact? We will shift focus based on this in a short while.

it was most likely used up but some may have remained in an unreacted form

I'll take this as speculation.

most likely they didnt survive the collapse

Established then

because they were used during the collapse to bring down the building.

The argument will shift to prior to the collapse from hereon as this subject is concerned then since it no longer has relevance to the post-collapse conditions.

it didnt

Thank you for establishing.

i dont know

We will shift the next section of our debate to pre-collapse conditions as we continue with this part of the subject.

molten steel does not support the official explantion who by the way have no official explanation for the molten steel.

As you are aware, my purpose was to attack the evidence you gave to support your theory for thermite based on post collapse and 'at-clean up' findings of molten steel. I have not read NIST in enough detail to determine if it is a part of the 'official report' My purpose is to find more plausible causes of the molten steel wherever it is not covered.

sure why not. the thermite cuts the steel beams the towers fall. molten iron is produced from this reaction, and this sustains the logest structural fire in history

I will be shifting the thermite case to 'pre-collapse' conditions. If it were agreed that thermite created the 'initial' molten metal, then it is speculation to assume it eventually caused the molten steel weeks after the fact, as sustaining it would require external sources (IE conditions in the rubble, oxidation reactions, and other potential causes which would play a hand in sustaining it -- IE separate events)

no thats not what i am saying.

As stated with the other points we will be shifting to pre-collapse conditions now, to continue the thermite conjecture.

no i cant point out a CD when pools of molten steel were left behind. nor can i point out a CD when thermite cutter chrages were used to take down the building.

can you point out an example of a gravity and fire collapse that left pools of molten steel behind?

which type of collapse would you suppose had a greater likelihood of producing pools of molten steel (a) a CD using thermite cutter charges? or (b) a gravity and fire collapse?

I asked this because your basis in the argument up to this point was from the finding of molten steel several weeks after the fact. As you have been unable to provide a historical precedent for a controlled demolition leaving behind molten metal weeks later, and there are no known 'natural' collapses (as that is the distinction you use), then this conjecture can be eliminated as it serves no purpose in proving a controlled demolition one way or the other.


Shall we shift focus now that we have moved on, to the pre-collapse conditions to either convince you that it was not a controlled demolition or convince people like myself that is was? It is my impression that this debate will move no where if we continue to debate the logistics of establishing thermite through just the basis of molten metal. At the same time the conjecture involving molten steel does not hit the conspiracy theory at its core, establishing the conditions required for collapse.

Who should start the next phase? You? Myself? Or would another person like to begin this phase?

 

[thewholesoul]

We are not disputing what thermite is capable of doing to steel, or what it's purpose is.

so your part of a team now grizzly?

I am not disputing what thermite leaves behind, or what evidence is consistent with thermite.

good

The heat sources were insulated by the debris, thus the heat produced could not be easily disbursed. Recall that 'fire' is an oxidation reaction, and steel oxidizes it releases heat.

lets say your right and this is the reason for the longest structural fires in history. you still have to explain where the molten steel came from and r¡the temperatures required to produce it.

how long are you going to avoid that?

Lastly, You seem to have made a distinction in saying that molten metal is a product of a controlled demolition.

can you quote me where i said that? what i say is that molten iron is a product of a thermite reaction and a contolled demolition using thermite cutter charges would be expected to produce pools of molten iron



[/QUOTE]

 

[thewholesoul]

now grizzly before you go running off avoiding ypour end of the bargin i have some questions i would like you to answer

Q1: can you point out an example of a gravity and fire collapse that left pools of molten steel behind?

Q2: which type of collapse would you suppose has a greater likelihood of producing pools of molten steel (a) a CD using thermite cutter charges? or (b) a gravity and fire collapse?

Q3: why do you think molten metal weeks after event supports the official story?

Q4: why do you think NIST pretends the molten metal does not even exist?http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

So you concede that thermite is not a direct cause of the molten metal found several weeks after the fact?

no i dont think you can jump to that conclusion. i stated that thermite is the direct cause for producing the molten metal that remained long after the towers collapsed. you yourself accept that molten iron is a end product of a thermite reaction.

As you are aware, my purpose was to attack the evidence you gave to support your theory for thermite based on post collapse and 'at-clean up' findings of molten steel.

and as you are aware my purpose is to attack the official explanation or lack thereof pretaining to the molten metal.

I have not read NIST in enough detail to determine if it is a part of the 'official report' My purpose is to find more plausible causes of the molten steel wherever it is not covered.

under question 4 i posted a link to you tube where you can see the chief engineer at NIST denying the existence of molten metal

I will be shifting the thermite case to 'pre-collapse' conditions. If it were agreed that thermite created the 'initial' molten metal, then it is speculation to assume it eventually caused the molten steel weeks after the fact, as sustaining it would require external sources

do you agree that thermite created the "initial" molten metal?

i would dispute that the underground fire given the saturated conditions and lack of oxygen could have reached sufficient temperatures to produce molten steel. so no initial molten steel, no molten steel period.

I asked this because your basis in the argument up to this point was from the finding of molten steel several weeks after the fact.

not true there are numerous anomoly to be explained.
- spherical particles of iron and silicates (1450 - 1538 C)
- Volatilized lead (1740 C)
- Mo rich sphericles (2623 C)
- swiss cheese evaporation (2760 C)

*Evidence of melted molybdenum (spherical formation) was studied in the USGS report. The findings however were not publicised with the rest of the information. it took a freedom of information act to get this information released. i wonder was it because Molybdenum is a refractory metal known for its extremely high melting point?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

As you have been unable to provide a historical precedent for a controlled demolition leaving behind molten metal weeks later, and there are no known 'natural' collapses, then this conjecture can be eliminated as it serves no purpose in proving a controlled demolition one way or the other.

i beg to differ. It eliminates the possibility of a conventional CD but not an unconventional CD. moreover it eliminates a natural collapse from gravity and fire which in turn forces to discover unconventional explanations (being the longest structural fire in history).

Shall we shift focus now that we have moved on, to the pre-collapse conditions to either convince you that it was not a controlled demolition or convince people like myself that is was? It is my impression that this debate will move no where if we continue to debate the logistics of establishing thermite through just the basis of molten metal. At the same time the conjecture involving molten steel does not hit the conspiracy theory at its core, establishing the conditions required for collapse.

you could save us both a lot of time if you could simply explain to me where the temperatures came from to melt steel and produce the various anomolies in the dust samples.

Who should start the next phase? You? Myself? Or would another person like to begin this phase?

you can tell your new my friend. the rest are not like you, they prefer making little one liners and then running off to suck on their thumbs. they are unlike you because you are interested in debate, the exchange of arguments.

take care buddy and if you want to start the next line be my guest.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

so your part of a team now grizzly?
lets say your right and this is the reason for the longest structural fires in history. you still have to explain where the molten steel came from and r¡the temperatures required to produce it.

Allow me to establish a few conditions that deal with this:
-- First off, oxidation of steel alone, without a preheated environment will occur very slowly. Oxidation (example being rusting of metal) gives off heat as a component of the reaction, however, under normal circumstances the production of heat is incredibly slow and the heat has plenty of time to disperse.

-- Lets' now establish the conditions in the debris pile:

• The mix of debris included but was not limited to parts or remnants of: Gypsum, sheet rock, concrete, office contents (IE Furniture, paper, and other items typical of an office building). Essentially the mix of debris was not homogenous.
  
• Areas deep within the debris piles was not well ventilated, it was either semi-ventilated or insulated from air circulation. Thus capable of retaining heat produced in slower oxidation reactions
  
• there were very likely 'hot spots' from parts of the building that were already on fire at the time of the collapse (Specifically noting the fires located in the impact zones which came down with the towers as well as parts of WTC 7). These can be established as heat sources from which the oxidation process could be 'jump started'.
  
• Heat accelerates the oxidation process, so if we conjecture that the heat accelerates the oxidation process, let us concentrate on parts of the debris pile that represent remnants of structure within impact zones or fire zones Such acceleration allows more heat to be produced.
  
• Oxygen that is airborne would have been more sparse in unventilated areas. However molecules in water are composed of oxygen. And water was constantly used on hotspots. Oxidation of steel or the metallic components of steel can utilize the oxygen content in water to sustain itself and release the hydrogen molecules fro the water. This would include water in either a liquid or gaseous state
  
• gypsum decomposes under such heat conditions adding sulfur. However, it's contribution to any oxidation reaction would be relatively small

-- In other words, be it fire, or other forms of oxidation (IE 'rust') the conditions were sufficient for sustainment of the reactions. They were insulated, and in some areas 'pre-heated' as a result of the debris from regions that were on fire at the get-go.

Given several weeks time, this is my basis for the molten steel argument. The temperature should rise until it causes melting.

how long are you going to avoid that?

I will give you specifics when/if I am able to provide them pertaining to a maximum temperature, however I am not conjecturing a purely combustion sustained process, I am talking about a chemical reaction sustained process. As long as the reaction has fuel (IE Steel, there was LOTS of Steel to provide for the oxidation in very close quarters), it will continue to produce heat as a byproduct, and continue to do so until temperatures are sufficient to cause melting.

can you quote me where i said that? what i say is that molten iron is a product of a thermite reaction and a contolled demolition using thermite cutter charges would be expected to produce pools of molten iron

To avoid BS'ing you... you did not straightforward say that. It is an impression I got from your statements which you can either agree or disagree with.

I made the statement because you stated 'as if' molten metal could not be a product of anything besides a controlled demo, after which I followed with a counter-question to provide historical precedence.

you can tell your new my friend. the rest are not like you, they prefer making little one liners and then running off to suck on their thumbs. they are unlike you because you are interested in debate, the exchange of arguments.

take care buddy and if you want to start the next line be my guest.

I personally don't have a problem with how people react to the arguments... That is their decision to execute it as they see fit, and for the most part I agree with them, however, outright calling people stupid for making a claim that I agree with others to be outrageous isn't something I do well at.
I personally consider your arguments unsubstantiated but attacking them sarcastically at all is not my past time...

I will address your remaining points soon... after which I'd like to move on to the pre-collapse conditions as it's my impression that your arguments are more rooted in those

 

[stateofgrace]

i can see you do not have the courtesy to answer my questions. and go report me if you wish such behaviour would be fitting of your character.

the reason any sane person would become annoyed with you is because you repeatedly ask the same questions and i keep answering them only for you to turn around and ask them again. not to mention the fact that you still refuse to answer any of my questions!

so here goes. and this is the last time.

here: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/200...metal-under-ground-zero-for-months-after-911/ you find plenty of tetsimony in relation to the molten pools of metal
so this fact is not debatable

Here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf you will find lots of good information on the causes behind the molten metal at ground zero.

Q1:Why the presence of molten metal found weeks after these buildings collapsed contributes to your CD theory

- thermite cutter charges can cut through steel like butter
- molten iron is an end product of a thermite reaction
- thermite reaction is hot enough to evaporate steel when in contact

if you dispute or contest any of the above points please make your argument.

now the fact that molten iron was found at ground zero raises the question well what produced it? various other anomoly in the WTC dust were also discovered. the molten iron and other anomly in the dust are consistent with high temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX, RDX or some combination thereof. if you contest this point please provide your reasons.

so the presence of molten pool supports a controlled domiltion hypothesis because if a controlled demolition was conducted using thermite, HMX, or RDX, one would expect to find molten pools of iron etc beneath the rubble.

Q2: Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

this question is less significant: it is less significant because it is a fact that the underground fire was the longest in structural fire in history. either way there must be an explanation for why the fires lastest so long.

- the underground fire at ground zero was (i) oxygen starved
- the underground fire was (ii) saturated with water
- the underground fire at ground zero was the longest ever structural fire in history

"thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction can be smothered, even with water"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

by any standard this was not a normal fire. a normal fire under such conditions could not sustain itself. pools of molten metal heated by a thermite reaction is by far a stronger hypothesis. so the reason why the fires lastest so long is because there was so much molten iron. and the reason there was so much molten iron is because there were thermite reactions to take the buildingds down

so my questions once again to you:
Q1: Where did the temperatures to create molten iron come from?
Q2: why do you think the presence of molten metal supports the official expalantion?

I am sorry does anybody who questions you suddenly become insane and annoyed?

I am neither, please stop trying to flatter yourself by thinking that I or anybody would actually care about the rubbish spewing by you onto this forum.

You have been asked repeatedly how the presence of molten metal of any description would make us belief that any of these buildings were brought down by CD. On each occasion you have failed miserably to answer.

Once again, please allow me to explain this to you.

MOLTEN METAL

Please site one example of a controlled demolition where molten metal was found weeks afterwards.

Please show how a gravity driven collapse of these buildings would not produce such results.

Please show how a controlled demolition would only produce such results.

Furthermore please stop trying to be clever and pretending you are dead cool and smart, it really is laughable. You are simply another twoofer who as no idea why the presence of such anomalies gives rises to anything.

You are the one promoting rubbish based on something you cannot even explain. You are the one willing to accuse your fellow countrymen of mass murder based on your complete lack of critical thinking, not I,twoofer.

So when you are ready, explain in detail, what you have desperately tried to avoid.

HOW DOES MOLTEN METAL OF ANY DECRIPTION FOUND WEEKS AFTER THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED STRENGHTEN YOUR CASE FOR A CD?

Why would molten metal be found weeks after thermite/explosions had gone off?

You think the molten metal is of mind blowing importance, not I.

So on you go, explain fully why it is of such utter importance, so important in fact that you believe you have earned the right to call people insane and angry because they question you.You beleieve you can accuse your fellow countrymen of mass murder on this important fact, so on you go, explain why molten metal found weeks after these buildings fell is so important.

When you are ready.

 

[twinstead]

Dude. I believe anybody who questions me is angry and insane. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[yodaluver28]

hahahahaha so your right and FEMA are wrong

hey pomeroo, do us all a favor and stick your head back in the sand

Yeah, he's right and FEMA was wrong. FEMA was wrong about alot of things. They wrote the preliminary report. They did the best they could with the information available at the time but they were not expected to get everything right or to examine these phenomena closely. THAT was NIST's job, they were the experts in the field.

As for the news articles speaking of melting and evaporation, those were speculations that ALL made within a few weeks of the collapses, before the site had even been examined by anyone other than rescue workers.

Q1: can you point out an example of a gravity and fire collapse that left pools of molten steel behind?

First you must prove that there were pools of molten metal and even if you can prove that there was, how are you gonna prove it was steel? And even if you can prove that it was steel, how and why would that in anyway indicate explosives or thermite? A fire left to smolder underground with tons of combustible material for two months would be far more likely to cause pools of molten metal than quick-burning thermite.

Q2: which type of collapse would you suppose has a greater likelihood of producing pools of molten steel (a) a CD using thermite cutter charges? or (b) a gravity and fire collapse?

All collapses are gravity collapses. Period. Even CDs. The only difference is the initiating mechanism. A fire left to smolder underground with tons of combustible material for two months would be far more likely to cause pools of any kind of molten metal than quick-burning thermite. Thermite doesn't start fires, that's not it's job. Thermite burns hot but it burns out quickly.

Q3: why do you think molten metal weeks after event supports the official story?

If it could be proven that there was molten metal under the rubble weeks after the collapses, it would prove nothing more and nothing less than the fact that the rubble pile was on fire for two months and everybody already knew that. The building was on fire when it collapsed. The fact that the building, now in much smaller pieces, continued to burn underground is no surprise.

Q4: why do you think NIST pretends the molten metal does not even exist?

NIST probably doesn't mention molten metal because they weren't able to confirm that it ever existed and therefore thought it to either be untrue or inconsequential.