Molten Steel

[thewholesoul]

Describing NIST as shameless liars is not exactly going to help here.

i posted a video of a high ranking member of NIST stating publically that there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement of the rubble piles. this is lie. if you think that there is no evidence of molten steel at teh rubble pile go and address premise one.

You've claimed that molten steel was a unique event never seen before following a building collapse.

it is not a claim it is a fact. dont believe me produce just one example prior to 911 or since when it happened.

Since there is no evidence of molten steel preceding the building collapse,

please read my early posts. i addressed this absurd argument already.

This is an absurd line of argument. Assuming molten steel was produced prior to collapse it would have been produced during the collapse and would therefore not be sighted amid the massive dust clouds. We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source . Moreover we know that these dust samples were produced during the collapse and not before because the WTC Dust samples were compared with controls

even if your first premise were correct the entire question is still irrelevant.

no its not even if - the first premise is a true statement unless you can provide some form of counter. can you do that? and why is it irrelevant? please elaborate?

In considering how and why the towers collapsed, NIST were entirely reasonable in not considering the effects of the collapse as possible causes.

the question I am raising is whether it is entirely reasonable to consider the "effects" as unrelated or irrelevant to the "cause" of the collapse.

If, indeed, there were temperatures in the rubble pile even a couple of days after the collapses that could have liquefied steel

,

not, if indeed - there were in fact temperatures hot enough to melt steel. hot spots were seen and recorded from SPACE only two hours after the collapse.

it has been shown over and over again that those temperatures must have been sustained by slow combustion in the rubble pile.

well show me an academic paper that tells me a slow, low temperature form of combustion can reach temperatures sufficient to melt steel in a mater of hours. i have posted an academic paper in post#2 on smoldering which is a slow, low temperature form of combustion. guess what it cannot reach temperatures to melt steel. unless of course there is an abundance of oxygen which there wasnt.

so people can continue telling me what they think it is in their opinion but they need to back it up. and at the end of the day it needs to be proven.

Heat generated before or during the collapse would have dissipated over a matter of hours,

evidently false. do you even read my posts? i posted a link to the satellite images taken hours after the collapse. there was red hot spots seen from friggin SPACE just two hours after the collapse. hot spots are never seen even after a conventional demolition. so what caused these hot spots so soon?

Since you have no evidence that unexpectedly high temperatures were generated before or during the collapse,

melted steel forming microsphericules and evaporated particles found in the WTC Dust. but this debate is ongoing with crazy chainsaw if he would ever respond.

Conspiracy theorists have criticised NIST for considering possible causes of collapse for which there is far more evidence, on the basis that this evidence is insufficient; yet they insist NIST should have considered causes for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It's hypocritical and dishonest.

NIST was asked:

Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Answer: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921code.

And yet you have the nerve to call NIST "shameless liars".

i have a video to prove it.
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

How in the world could molten steel, if there was any, after the collapse have any bearing on how the collapse happened?

could question which actually supports my conclusion - go read it.

and it is not "if any" rather there was - go read the undeniable evidence i posted

Are you contending that multiple electric arc blast furnaces were secretly installed in the WTC and were operating on 9/11 and they collapsed the building?

yes, that is what i am contending.

Can you hypothesize any cause of molten steel weeks after the collapse that would have also been the proximate cause of the collapse?

can you hypothesis any cause of the hotspots seen from SPACE just two hours after the collapse?

in any case your question supports my conclusion - the reason we are hypothesising is becuase the cause of the molten steel has not been investigated or proven. and until this has happened i contend that it is impossible to consider why "there was" molten steel in the rubble pile as unrelated and irrelevant to why the buildings collapsed the way they did.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

grizzly i am noticing more frequently your failure to address the point i am making.

We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source

TWS, just an FYI that molybdenum is used in most grades of steel construction:

already knew that.

This bars all the other potential sources which members have discussed before, so I ask you, which are you focusing on? The presence of molybdenum itself, or the quantity to determine validity as evidence?

the WTC Dust had a unique signature. the question is how the molybdenum was created in the first place. does it always require extreme temperatures as alleged by truthers or can sphericules be formed in lower temperatures? i am currently trying to get my hands on some dust samples recorded from office and building fires then we can compare and determine whther or not these microsphericules the variety and the quantity are common to building fires. i'm guessing not.

Bolded... forgive my nitpicking but which category of building construction are you talking about? reinforced concrete? steel? wood?

spagetti and noodles.

why do answer a question with a question? i asked how did the rubble pile generate high temperatures so hot and so soon?

if you have an example of hotspots, molten steel etc being found under a rubble pile of a collapsed buildng made of cheese, cocktail sausages - or whatever - please present it and stop the pointless nitpicking.

We've discussed this before. How many controlled demolitions have ever used therm?te?

and i answered none to my knowledge. so what? why is this point significant?

Are there any precedents to verify what we should expect in a therm?te induced collapse?

we know thermite does generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel does it follows if thermite were used in a contolled demolition one would expect to find melted steel. in the end this claim needs to be proven. personally i would like to see a small 4 storey house planted with thermite and watch if it collapses like we saw on 911. i would like to see if molten steel is produced etc.

Were any of the buildings in controlled demolitions ever on fire before they sat off their explosive charges? (This might be telling you something)

what is it teling me? spell it out.

Was any physical evidence found and verified to be either explosives or incendiaries? Despite the impossibility of explosives or incendiaries being able to retain a coherent form after the collapse, there should have been some physical remains that should have been found in the last 7 years, if your claim has merit.

yes. the WTC dust had a unique signature that has been verified. furthermore unignited THERMITE was verifed by jones. but it awaits independent verification.

Conventional thermite has been ruled out in a post collapse situation, and you've since turned to claiming super/nano thermite instead, which is a claim which has neither been verified by Jones, nor by any independent third party.

it has been verfied by jones. and awaits third party verification.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that incendiaries were responsible in the first place (in other words the evidence is useless).

i accept. and examination of the red chips is ongoing as we speak.

You've ignored the mass of evidence that contradicts the use of incendiary devices

we can discuss that in the other thread amigo

and hinge your premise on a single stream of sparks/molten metal which has not been definitively identified, semi-molten metal (metal that retains a solid but very malleable, being lifted by a tractor), and molybdenum particles which were a part of the steel work in the towers, among others

which premise? you have not addressed any directly. i will be happy to discuss all the other "change the subjects" in the other thread but in this thread i would really appreciate f you could address premises one, two or three. and then outline clearly and plainly why they are false for reasons x y and z. that would be fantastic because then a conclusion can be reached very rapidly and we can move.

peace

 

[ihaunter]

Several posts have shown why the quotes you listed are not sufficient evidence to prove your first premise. It would be nice if you would address those with more than a hand wave. I think this would be a good one to start with:

You bolded the wrong part of number 7...

7. But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt."

 

[thewholesoul]

As rubble piles from 110 story buildings aren't exactly common I have to wonder what in the world is being used as basis of comparison? Have there ever been rubble piles from 110 story buildings that didn't have high temperature fires in them?

well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile.

now i know you just love to harp on about the twin towers, but building 7 was only 610 ft but when it was destroyed hotspots, melted steel, and even evaporated steel were found in its rubble pile.

but what your saying is an empirical claim that can be tested. so what you have to do is find a steel frame building or make a minature. sever some core and perimeter columns then set it on fire. now it would be extremely unlikely that it will totally collapsed in 1 to 6 hours given that historically no steel framed bulding has ever collapsed from fire - but if it did somehow miraculously collapse then you could observe whether hotspots, melted steel and evaporation takes place. this would be some achievement Travis since melted steel and evaporation of steel has never been observed in the rubble pile of a collapsed building.

another experiment you could do is get a load of hydrocarbons as much as you like, smother it will dust and concrete and throw in some steel for good measure. then simply watch how it burns for months on end producing hotspots, melted steel and evaporation

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Several posts have shown why the quotes you listed are not sufficient evidence to prove your first premise. It would be nice if you would address those with more than a hand wave. I think this would be a good one to start with:

to contest the evidence from testimony without refuting the other two accounts of evidence is ultimately a pointless endevour. this is why i have not addressed the objections raised against testimony.

the quote you referenced should be removed. but unfortunately i cannot edited it out. however there are still plenty of accounts and some testimony of firefighters on video!

now the reason it is pointless to object to the testimony without refuting the other accounts is because the meteroite proves that temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel. if you have a problem with that then please outline your reasons and i will address them.

such temperatures are then confirmed by the third piece of evidence namely, the thermal images. if you have a problem with this then please outline your reasons.

now becuase temperatures were sufficient to melt steel in the rubble pile and becuase there was steel in the rubble pile then OF COURSE steel was melted in the rubble pile and OF COURSE some people excavating the rubble pile would have SEEN MOLTEN STEEL just like they SAID THEY DID

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No to pretend that 3 types of incomplete evidence some how make them complete is dishonest. Trying to set up such an argument so when someone points out the flaw in one of them, you point out that they are not looking at the other claims which are just as unusable is dishonest.

Soul, do you not see why legitimate researchers think you are dishonest? Do you really think that the little song and dance to try to get around having no evidence for your claims is going to work? You're just using several false premises to reinforce each other.

but perhaps you can explain how the paper sticking out of your meteorite didn't burn while claiming that it's made from melted steel?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile. "

How long did that building burn before being the collapse?

 

[ihaunter]

now the reason it is pointless to object to the testimony without refuting the other accounts is because the meteroite proves that temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel. if you have a problem with that then please outline your reasons and i will address them.

The meteorite was not molten steel. It was the result of several floors impacting and crushing together. It is largely comprised of concrete. There is no evidence of melting on it. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that there is even pieces of paper visibly embedded in it. If it was made from molten steel, the paper would have burned away.

Yes, that quote should definitely be removed. There are others that should be removed as well, and your inclusion of them suggests a carelessness when it comes to looking at the facts. So far, everything that you have claimed as showing your first premise to be undeniable has been shown to be wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i posted a video of a high ranking member of NIST stating publically that there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement of the rubble piles. this is lie. if you think that there is no evidence of molten steel at teh rubble pile go and address premise one.

The only thing the video highlights is anecdotal claims that the said material was steel. The photographic evidence is rather dubious:
@ 1:00 I'm inclined to ask exactly what your definition of 'molten' is. It's clear from the photographs that although the metal is heated it must have retained some amount of plasticity to have enough viscosity to not pour out of the 'scoop' for lack of better wording. My observation is that if that were actually steel with a temperature over 2000+ degrees Fahrenheit, it would have virtually NO plasticity left, and it certainly wouldn't be in any recognizable shape hanging off a backhoe.

This is what molten steel looks like at over 2000 oF:

and this is what the sample shown at 1:00 shows:

Given the difference in their apparent properties it seems to suggest something other than steel.

@ 1:02 The image is of an unknown source. As a first timer looking at it I can neither tell when the image was taken, if it was cut during cleanup, or otherwise. There is no mention about it... It proves nothing to the claim.


@ 1:23 into the video we see firefighters gathered around an apparent light source. I'm confused as to what purpose it serves in advancing your thesis. If the 'steel' is hot enough to be molten, the radiant heat from it wouldn't make it safe for firefighters to simply gather around in one spot right on top of that, at least assuming they didn't want to get cooked in the process.

There is also no date given for that image, as far as we know the light source could very well be totally different than what it is intended to insinuate. Remember that intensive rescue efforts were underway for at least a couple of weeks, is there anything to indicate that the image is not of spot lights or other similar light sources that would have almost certainly been used in the rescue operations?

@ 1: 37: the lady is referring to a temperature of 1100 degree, is this Celsius, or Fahrenheit? This isn't established and being either Celsius or in Fahrenheit units makes a HUGE difference when we are talking specifically about steel. The only mention I hear of 'melted' in her statement refers to the shoes of those working on the debris pile.

@ around 1:45 the account says "...and as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It's probably 1500 degrees. We've had some more windows into what we thought/saw (inaudible) looked like an oven, it was just roarin' inside. It was just a bright bright reddish-orange color"

• The only thing that is clear from this part of the video is that the clean up crews were encountering hot spots upwards of 6 weeks later. If the purpose of that clip was to provide 'visual documentation' it failed miserably.
  
• 1500 degrees. which units? Celcius or Fahrenheit? it makes a significant difference in temperature. For every increase in ONE degree celcius the Fahrenheit unit increases by 1.8
  
  - 1500 oC would be 2700 oF (Beyond the melting point of steel)
  - 1500 oF would be 833 oC (well BELOW the melting point of steel)
  
  The units aren't specified and to try and 'fill the blank' would be wildly speculative. We don't know for certain if he is referring to Celsius or Fahrenheit so this proves nothing.
  
• See the bolded word. He's making a guess on the temperature.
  
• "It was just a bright bright reddish-orange color"
  According to the charts a bright red color would indicate a temperature of around 1,550 oF or 843 oC, so if he's working in Fahrenheit units he's not far off...
  Source
  Another more detailed graphic
  So even if what he is referring to is in fact steel, the temperature would be far from 'melting'. But steel or for the matter any kind of metal is not explicitly mentioned here. It's described only as an oven and 'roarin' inside' serving a grammatical emphasis.

@ 2:50-3:01 the focus shifts to WTC 7 and:

• the fact that the final report hasn't been released yet. May I ask what the relevance to molten metal is here?
  
• Immediately following, the person brings up the straw-man/red herring (whatever you want to call it) that the entire collapse of the tower took 6.6 seconds "in freefall" and states that freefall in a vacuum is 6 seconds.
  -- The overall collapse time was 18 seconds, 6.6 seconds is a complete false hood.

@ 4:06 the focus tacks on your argument that NIST has not answered to what caused the collapse. The progression of the collapse from impact zone to ground level does not involved the initiation. NIST was tasked with finding out what brought about the critical failure in the structure. WHY did the collapse initiate? The collapse initiation is a result of cause and effect.

it is not a claim it is a fact.

petitio principii: In the context of the evidence the video provides, see above.

well show me an academic paper that tells me a slow, low temperature form of combustion can reach temperatures sufficient to melt steel in a mater of hours.

tu quoque: I'll take the chance to as well call upon you to address how therm?te accounts in the post-collapse. Since we've cleared up the fact that normal therm*te charges would not have survived the collapses to account for post-collapse heating. You (as stated earlier) claimed then that nano therm*te could be responsible.

Are there any industry related websites that can verify that such thermite exists? Or is this claim hinged solely on the claims made by Steven Jones?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile.

Again, all three towers were on fire at the time they collapsed. I don't recall any controlled demolition in which the contractors decided to light the structure on fire and implode it while still burning. Apples and oranges.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

But but but he said the evidence was undeniable. Isn't that scientific?

 

[gumboot]

well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile.

Probably because it didn't have one. It was dismantled piece by piece, from the top down.

 

[Travis]

can you hypothesis any cause of the hotspots seen from SPACE just two hours after the collapse?

Sure. After the buildings collapsed some of the remaining jet fuel as well as other building combustibles found themselves in a space in the pile that was vented at the bottom and top. Air was drawn in through the bottom and fed the fire from below and this produced a blast furnace effect especially as oxygen began to run out. I know from personal experience that it is possible to get abnormally hot fires from normal combustible materials in a condition such as I described.

in any case your question supports my conclusion - the reason we are hypothesising is becuase the cause of the molten steel has not been investigated or proven. and until this has happened i contend that it is impossible to consider why "there was" molten steel in the rubble pile as unrelated and irrelevant to why the buildings collapsed the way they did.

However finding out the cause of any molten material is merely to satisfy scientific curiosity. I cannot think of a scenario in which something that caused the buildings to collapse could have also been the proximate cause of molten material many days later. The most likely cause is, as I've already laid out, quite mundane and in no way related to the collapse except in that the collapse produced the rubble pile in which it later occurred.

 

[tsig]

Gentlemen

i opened this thread and there is going to be rules and structure in our discourse. i posted three premises. if anyone has an objection to any of these premises then i will respond. this is how debate works.

i posted a modest conclusion, merely that an investigation is warranted.

peace.

p.s. those that have posted in particular grizzly and almondo and TAM i will try and identify the parts of your post that are relevant to my premises and respond in kind.

There was no molten steel. It takes energy to melt steel. There was no source of energy. Open hearth furnaces do not spontaneously self-construct.

 

[tsig]

The only thing the video highlights is anecdotal claims that the said material was steel. The photographic evidence is rather dubious:
@ 1:00 I'm inclined to ask exactly what your definition of 'molten' is. It's clear from the photographs that although the metal is heated it must have retained some amount of plasticity to have enough viscosity to not pour out of the 'scoop' for lack of better wording. My observation is that if that were actually steel with a temperature over 2000+ degrees Fahrenheit, it would have virtually NO plasticity left, and it certainly wouldn't be in any recognizable shape hanging off a backhoe.

This is what molten steel looks like at over 2000 oF:
[qimg]http://www.rimcapital.com.au/Molten%20Metal%20Graphics/molten%20steel.jpg[/qimg]

and this is what the sample shown at 1:00 shows:
[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/molten_steel.jpg[/qimg]

Given the difference in their apparent properties it seems to suggest something other than steel.

@ 1:02 The image is of an unknown source. As a first timer looking at it I can neither tell when the image was taken, if it was cut during cleanup, or otherwise. There is no mention about it... It proves nothing to the claim.


@ 1:23 into the video we see firefighters gathered around an apparent light source. I'm confused as to what purpose it serves in advancing your thesis. If the 'steel' is hot enough to be molten, the radiant heat from it wouldn't make it safe for firefighters to simply gather around in one spot right on top of that, at least assuming they didn't want to get cooked in the process.

There is also no date given for that image, as far as we know the light source could very well be totally different than what it is intended to insinuate. Remember that intensive rescue efforts were underway for at least a couple of weeks, is there anything to indicate that the image is not of spot lights or other similar light sources that would have almost certainly been used in the rescue operations?

@ 1: 37: the lady is referring to a temperature of 1100 degree, is this Celsius, or Fahrenheit? This isn't established and being either Celsius or in Fahrenheit units makes a HUGE difference when we are talking specifically about steel. The only mention I hear of 'melted' in her statement refers to the shoes of those working on the debris pile.

@ around 1:45 the account says "...and as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It's probably 1500 degrees. We've had some more windows into what we thought/saw (inaudible) looked like an oven, it was just roarin' inside. It was just a bright bright reddish-orange color"

• The only thing that is clear from this part of the video is that the clean up crews were encountering hot spots upwards of 6 weeks later. If the purpose of that clip was to provide 'visual documentation' it failed miserably.
  
• 1500 degrees. which units? Celcius or Fahrenheit? it makes a significant difference in temperature. For every increase in ONE degree celcius the Fahrenheit unit increases by 1.8
  
  - 1500 oC would be 2700 oF (Beyond the melting point of steel)
  - 1500 oF would be 833 oC (well BELOW the melting point of steel)
  
  The units aren't specified and to try and 'fill the blank' would be wildly speculative. We don't know for certain if he is referring to Celsius or Fahrenheit so this proves nothing.
  
• See the bolded word. He's making a guess on the temperature.
  
• "It was just a bright bright reddish-orange color"
  According to the charts a bright red color would indicate a temperature of around 1,550 oF or 843 oC, so if he's working in Fahrenheit units he's not far off...
  Source
  Another more detailed graphic
  So even if what he is referring to is in fact steel, the temperature would be far from 'melting'. But steel or for the matter any kind of metal is not explicitly mentioned here. It's described only as an oven and 'roarin' inside' serving a grammatical emphasis.

@ 2:50-3:01 the focus shifts to WTC 7 and:

• the fact that the final report hasn't been released yet. May I ask what the relevance to molten metal is here?
  
• Immediately following, the person brings up the straw-man/red herring (whatever you want to call it) that the entire collapse of the tower took 6.6 seconds "in freefall" and states that freefall in a vacuum is 6 seconds.
  -- The overall collapse time was 18 seconds, 6.6 seconds is a complete false hood.

@ 4:06 the focus tacks on your argument that NIST has not answered to what caused the collapse. The progression of the collapse from impact zone to ground level does not involved the initiation. NIST was tasked with finding out what brought about the critical failure in the structure. WHY did the collapse initiate? The collapse initiation is a result of cause and effect.




petitio principii: In the context of the evidence the video provides, see above.


tu quoque: I'll take the chance to as well call upon you to address how therm?te accounts in the post-collapse. Since we've cleared up the fact that normal therm*te charges would not have survived the collapses to account for post-collapse heating. You (as stated earlier) claimed then that nano therm*te could be responsible.

Are there any industry related websites that can verify that such thermite exists? Or is this claim hinged solely on the claims made by Steven Jones?

It's photo shopped. The machine operator could not be that close to molten steel, the hydraulic hoses would burst into flame and the very forks themselves would weaken.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I asked Apollo20 a couple of days ago if it would be possible to determine the source of the sulfur. His reply indicated that it COULD in the dust sample (I think), but he's neglected to answer my question if it could be determined what was the specific source of the sulfur that mixed with the steel.

Would you have any idea about the technical feasibility of this?

Since Frank's been banned, he won't be expanding on this, but I understand enough of what he was suggesting to explain a little further. Sulphur, like most elements, has more than one stable isotope, and so sulphur from different sources may have the different isotopes present in different ratios. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) is a technique that can measure differences in these ratios (that's a sweeping generalisation, but I don't have time to talk about the complexities of calibrating SIMS traces, and you probably don't want to know). Therefore, if we have, for example, (a) a sample of jet fuel from the same batch as the fuel in the planes, (b) a sample of drywall from the WTC towers and (c) a sample of corroded steel, we could in principle compare the isotope ratios and determine where the sulphur came from. Note, though, that (a) is almost certainly impossible to obtain. The work could be done by a suitably equipped university research laboratory for a fairly moderate amount provided the samples were available.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

The meteorite was not molten steel. It was the result of several floors impacting and crushing together. It is largely comprised of concrete. There is no evidence of melting on it. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that there is even pieces of paper visibly embedded in it. If it was made from molten steel, the paper would have burned away.

Yes, that quote should definitely be removed. There are others that should be removed as well, and your inclusion of them suggests a carelessness when it comes to looking at the facts. So far, everything that you have claimed as showing your first premise to be undeniable has been shown to be wrong.

Wrong meteorite. This is a common misconception of many people here on JREF. See the video in the OT.

ETA: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the object ihaunter is describing was saved and stored in the hangar at JFK. The object in the video was never seen again after that and presumably lies somewhere in the Fresh Kills landfill.

 

[funk de fino]

so what you have to do is find a steel frame building or make a minature. sever some core and perimeter columns then set it on fire. now it would be extremely unlikely that it will totally collapsed in 1 to 6 hours given that historically no steel framed bulding has ever collapsed from fire

This is a LIE.

This is a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire. Only fire. Not planes. Not debri damage. Just fire fueled by normal office and household items.




Change your claim or continue to be called a liar.

 

[eeyore1954]

well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile.



peace

Gee did it have one of the largest building fires in history raging inside of it when it collapsed.