Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because a metal becomes a liquid doesn't mean that the metal remains liquid forever C7. When liquid metal cools it returns to a solid.
Correct

If the metal is to remain a liquid then it needs extra heat energy for it to remain liquid otherwise it's going to cool down.
Correct.

How can thermite produce this energy over weeks?
I don't know.

Yes, yes we know thermite melts steel, but you are not telling us how it can do this over a period of weeks. You have to show how.
Why?

This is typical example of the denial tactic:
"Ask a question that cannot be answered and use that as an excuse to deny the witness statements."

However, there has never been any proof of liquid steel so your question is moot.
The witness statements are proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are an unreasonable doubter. [denier]

If we say fires you'll say they weren't hot enough.
Such is the case.

[Stupid, unanswerable, point dodging questions deleted]
 
Last edited:
The FAQ hypothesis requires all the weight of the upper block being applied to the floor connections. That is not what happened.

The north tower tilted a few degrees and fell straight down. Most of the weight was on the interior and exterior columns.
Even if the top section moved to one side a little, the weight of one exterior wall would be outside the building and the weight of the core would still be mostly inside the core area.

It would be physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the floor connections.

You said they did not explain it and they did. Retract that false claim.

It does not matter which part of the upper tower hit the bottom part first the weight is the same but the force would have been concentrated. They require the weight of the top section to be applied dynamically. It does not have to be applied suddenly to all florr connections. The upper part tilted and broke free from the columns and fell down on the bottom section. The columns did not directly impact each other and the floor below could not accomodate the extra weifgt applied to them so they failed. When they failed the core and perimeter columns could not stand. Bill posted an excellent example of large amounts of the core standing long after the collapse front had passed yesterday.

It would be easier for you to pass off this travesty if the top section did not tilt but it did, this is more in favour of collapse.

What was going to stop the top section falling and destroying the floor below?
 
If you don't know then why are you claiming it does?!!!!! If you can't show how it can produce enough heat then why are you claiming it can?

This is why the questions are asked, because if you don't know and cannot show how then there is absolutely no argument for thermite! Is there? So why keep pushing it as a reason?

If you say liquid steel is present then you have to show how it could be present. It is not a "denial tactic" (whatever that is) it's asking a legitimate question.

Thermite doesn't cut it (sorry for the pun). If thermite is not the answer then you have to look else where. It's a process of elimination. If ultimately you find that there is no answer then you have to question the whether liquid steel was ever there. It's not hard it's just logical deduction.
 
You said they did not explain it and they did. Retract that false claim.
No they did not and stop lying about it.

It does not matter which part of the upper tower hit the bottom part first the weight is the same but the force would have been concentrated.
But not where NIST said. If the weight is not applied to the floor connections evenly and simultaneously, their hypothesis does not work.
 
No they did not and stop lying about it.

Thye december FAQ is an explanation of why the collapse did not stop and therefore why it progressed. It is an explanation to questions asked by truthers about the coillapse. You are one who is lying here.

C7 said:
But not where NIST said. If the weight is not applied to the floor connections evenly and simultaneously, their hypothesis does not work.

Rubbish, that is blatantly untrue. That is not what the explanation says.

What was going to stop the top section falling and destroying the floor below?
 
The question asked of NIST

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

In other words, why did the collapse progress after initiation.

Answer

NIST December FAQ said:
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

That is an explanatuion of the collapse post initiation.
 
If you don't know then why are you claiming it does?!!!!!
I'm not!!!!!

If you can't show how it can produce enough heat then why are you claiming it can?
Thermite would heat the steel to 4500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. What kept the molten steel molten is debateable.

This is why the questions are asked, because if you don't know and cannot show how
Ya got that part right. :p

then there is absolutely no argument for thermite!
Ya got this part wrong. :(

Thermite is the only possibility. Come up with an alternative or stop denying this fact.

If you say liquid steel is present then you have to show how it could be present.
Why?

If the witness statements aren't enough for you then nothing will be.

i.e. You are in denial.

Thermite doesn't cut it (sorry for the pun).
Assumption based on personal incredulity.
 
And a later question

10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?

NIST december FAQ said:
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.

PS point out where NIST say evenly or simultaneously in the answers above.
 
Last edited:
The question asked of NIST

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

In other words, why did the collapse progress after initiation.

Answer
[edited]
"This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.
Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors.
Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

This is NOT what happened.

The north tower tilted a few degrees and fell straight down. Most of the weight was on the interior and exterior columns.
Even if the top section moved to one side a little, the weight of one exterior wall would then be outside the building and the weight of the core would still be mostly inside the core area.
It would be physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the floor connections.


Stop lying funk. :mad:
 
guys 50 pages and C7 is repeating the same lies since he started here.

IGNORE HIM already and let this thread die.
 
WTC fell due to fire. Much to complex for 911Truth to grasp. 7 years and they have failed to gain knowledge – 911Truth the cult where critical thinking is like the evidence they have gathered.
 
Last edited:
guys 50 pages and C7 is repeating the same lies since he started here.
...in 2006.

IGNORE HIM already and let this thread die.
Seconded. This isn't even Whack-A-Mole. It's just Whack. The mole never submerges because he thrives on abuse. Please, everyone, stop giving him what he wants.
 
NIST did NOT demonstrate how the towers collapsed after collapse initiation.

That's what I said. Learn to read.

NIST demonstrated easily that after collapse initiation the energy was more than sufficient to bring down the towers. Your silly claim is a red herring and was invented as a 9/11 Denial Movement excuse to cover your complete inability to refute the evidence and conclusions.

So stop your own denial, Chris. You've failed.
 
I think he's failed with everything in this thread. I think it's best to leave him with his delusions although it is hard not to resist poking him to get a response just for the fun of it.
 
And a later question

10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
"The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above. "

This is an assumption, not an explanation.

As I have pointed out, #1 above requires the weight of the top section be applied to the floor and cause the floor supports to fail. That is not what happened.

PS point out where NIST say evenly or simultaneously in the answers above.
Good point. It does not. [It's Bazant's theory that requires even, simultaneous application of the weight]
 
I think he's failed with everything in this thread. I think it's best to leave him with his delusions although it is hard not to resist poking him to get a response just for the fun of it.
Wrap yourself in the security blanket of denial and go back to sleep little sheep.

Don't be deluded with witness statements about molten steel running down the channel rails or melted girders.

There was no molten steel at the WTC. The government says so and your government never lies to you.

All is well.

Sweet dreams. :)
 
NIST demonstrated easily that after collapse initiation the energy was more than sufficient to bring down the towers.
Saying the energy was there does not prove that it resulted in the total collapse. That is speculation, not science.

Furthermore, NIST did not allow for the energy necessary to eject debris up to 600 feet in all directions.

ETA:
NIST did not subtract the energy lost as a result of debris falling outside the perimeter. Estimates run as high as 95% [Blanchard]
 
Last edited:
[edited]
"This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.
Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors.
Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

This is NOT what happened.

Yes it is, when the top section broke free and fell on the bottom section the load of the top section was applied suddenly to the intact floor below which could not handlle the weight so the floor connections broke. NIST say this.

You are twisting and lying about what their explanation says. You said they did not explain it yet you are quoting the explanation. What a failure.

You use words like evenly and simultaneously which NIST do not use.

C7 said:
The north tower tilted a few degrees and fell straight down. Most of the weight was on the interior and exterior columns.
Even if the top section moved to one side a little, the weight of one exterior wall would then be outside the building and the weight of the core would still be mostly inside the core area.
It would be physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the floor connections.

That is complete mumbo jumbo, you ahave no idea what you are talking about. If the top section tilts enough then the columns break. This section is now a moving weight. When the top section falls it hits the floor below. That floor cannot support the dynamic load that hits is. The weight cannot be transferred outside the building. Stop being dishonest.


C7 said:
Stop lying funk. :mad:

I have already proved it is you who is lying. NIST expalned the collapse, you said they had not.
 
"The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above. "

This is an assumption, not an explanation.

Wrong the answer for question one give calculations to back up the explanation.

Dictionary said:
Explanation

–noun
1. the act or process of explaining.
2. something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3. a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4. a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.

You are a liar

C7 said:
As I have pointed out, #1 above requires the weight of the top section be applied to the floor and cause the floor supports to fail. That is not what happened.

Yes it was and there was even more chance with the tilt. Less chance with no tilt.

Did the top section not hit the floor below? Does this mean every floor was blown so that the section above would not stop it?

C7 said:
Good point. It does not. [It's Bazant's theory that requires even, simultaneous application of the weight]

And theirs was more biased towards the collapse stopping but it still did not show this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom