No bias in those sources. So, the molten steel testimonies really didn't mean molten steel. They were all mistaken? All?
Nothing like an argument from incredulity. Tell you what: Point out which of the witnesses actually took a sample and eliminated the plethora of other metals available from the towers from consideration and we'll talk. While you're at it, explain the state of the steel recorded in NCSTAR 1-3C for the main towers. Bottom line: You have yet to establish that the sightings were in fact steel. The witnesses certainly didn't. And you're not accomplishing it either.
While you're at it: Attack the argument, not the sites they're posted on. If you don't like the fact that, say,
Debunking911.com pointed out errors in the analysis of the molten flow falling from WTC 2, then state what's wrong with what the site said. Just bleating "bias!" is no counterargument.
As a bonus, if we presume that molten steel was indeed sighted, explain it's significance. And why the steel that was sitting in a burning rubble pile for months couldn't have been rendered molten
there instead of in the towers.
How did the strongest part of the building collapse then, one walking girder from an office fire that was out before the collapse? What isn't suspicious about a building that falls 100' without opposition deriving this claim from the strongest part falling-imploding from an “office fire”? And what would or could cause a strong inner core of A36 column steel and built up to well over 1000 lb/ft diagonally and laterally braced to collapse? Hm?
Why couldn't an entire section of 7 World Trade not fail as a unit? And what's supposed to be significant about the fact that it only was in free fall for part of the collapse? Why would there be resistence immediately before the period of free fall, and immediately after? Was it a batched demolitions job?
No, I
don't know why a "walkng girder" as you put it would or wouldn't be suspicious. What I'm trying to do is get you to move past arguments of incredulity and address
issues.
Oh yeah, of course, an office fire!
I'm so sorry, how did I miss this?
I don't know. How'd you miss the fact that no formerly molten then rehardened steel was reported to have been recovered?
Who could miss this? And how did I miss the stunning accuracy of the NIST models? You've convinced me, time to go now.
You're not even saying what's wrong with the NIST models beyond "Does it look right??"
Explain what's wrong with it!
I appreciate the links, and I will get to them. TFK invited me hear to "learn" more about WTC 7, and I only want to do just that. But still, I'm talking to a group of forum participants that who claim to be skeptics and see no need for another FEA to substantiate of refute what NIST has plopped on the ground.
What would be so wrong with NIST/ARA releasing their IGES and all sim, boundary condition, and input assumptions? You wouldn't be against that would you?
Nothing. I'm not against it. But that's not the element of your stance that's being disputed. What's being disputed are your 1. Overly credulous acceptance of anecdotal evidence for molten steel without confirmation via recovery of hardened pools, testing of such flows, or elimination of other plentiful metals like aluminum, lead, etc., and 2. Your organization's stance that somehow, demolitions were used to collapse the towers.
…without a heat gradient i.e. temperature differential there is no heat transfer, yes or no? Temperature differences will always attempt steady state.