Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
But yet, we have hundreds of pictures of the cleanup efforts. Not only from firefighters, but also from the NYPD, FDNY, FBI, ATF, FEMA, and other local, state, and national LE agencies.
But yet, in all of the pictures, not one of them shows a column or piece of steel that was melted.
Why might that be? Do you have some pictures that back up your claims?
So you expect a layman to recount, amidst all of the wreckage, molten pools, massive heat and human death, that he saw a large nugget of solidified steel?
Were these quotes from "laymen" or were they from firefighters and other professionals?
I would expect someone to notice a large chunk of solidified steel. In fact, we have the "meterorite" as it is called, and just about everyone has heard of that. I wonder why nobody else has accounts/pictures of another huge, SOLID chunk of metal?
Because the initial fires themselves were not that incredible. The North Tower exhibited more fire than the South Tower, but its fires were not that emergent. The First Interstate Bank fire burned longer and hotter yet a report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
Page 21
"It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good"
On page 22
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections
during construction, and developing codes.
This heat, we are told, is the principle cause of this building's collapse. It was hit last, it collapsed first, there is no visible fire externally when it collapses, and evacuees passed right through the crash zone and reported no serious heat.
That is because that is the LOWER point of the involved area. He was also standing in the area of the stairwell, and guess what? Would only be able to see a portion of the floor. he cannot see what is going on in the rest of the floor, or what is above him. He also reports seeing lots of dead bodies too.
Now, to a layman (Uneducated, like youself) knock down might mean extinguish. This is NOT true at all. It means, to bring down to a level where it is easier to maintain. Also, two lines (Most like 1 3/4" or 2" dia.) can flow anywhere from 150-200 GPM. Mean, fill your bathtub in 15-30 seconds.
This fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building. How is this a fire that weakened this structure to the point of rapid failure in less than an hour?
Thermite was found in Neils Harrit's study. Don't like it? Move on, or present me with a counter argument to that study by men and women with comparable credentials.
Then how in Gawd's name can you assert that explosives were used? You must have some idea, some senario by which this was done?
Or is your entire contention built upon a political world view that requires that this be a giant conspiracy, and hand waving arguement?
There has been a lot of talk in this thread about mollten steel in the pile being proof of something. Big steel beams didn't actually melt, but I do recall seeing some red hot steel after several weeks. No puddles of steel found in the base though.
And of course if the steel had melted then all the aluminum, lead, copper and some glasses would have melted first and the smaller elements such as rebar, pipes, tin sheet, filing cabinets, cladding, ceiling panels would have melted before big things like big beams.
You don't need much to make steel red hot or even melt thin sections. Only three things really:
Just lots of insulation protecting a flame, concrete dust, gypsum boards etc would be good.
Lots of flammable material to feed the flame... Nist estimated that there was 20~30kg/m2 of combustible material, which gives about 20,000~30,000 tons plus jet fuel, gas, etc
And a concentrated supply of air. Fortunately the steel work kept the pile nicely ventilated with hot air shafts running through it.
Here is a picture of an ancient Egyptian Kiln, used to melt errr... metal.
.
Now just imagine it 200 ft x 200ft, by 80ft tall for each tower. If you made the egyptian kiln big enough you could walk on top of it, just like people walked on the pile.
There was not much combustible material left by the time it was shipped to Freshkills. And I cannot see why a few tons of thermite in the pile would have made any difference to the fires in the pile, except to make them burn for a shorter period of time rather than a longer one.
I am not sure how that prooves CD, but you need to look carefully to see the Truth.
Except, it doesn't. Temperature does not decrease linearly. The hotter a material is, the faster it cools down. For example, I don't expect even the best isolated material to be at more than 2000 F after just one day of having peaked at 5000 F. Julio already pointed you to the relevant article, and GlennB already expanded on this.
Which leaves us again with the question: how would thermite explain the testimonies of people talking about molten steel months after the attacks, since it's now clear that thermite-induced heat that lasts a few hours could not be responsible for that?
Imagine you spread gasoline all over a house with the purpose of inducing a fire. It starts igniting at many points at a time. However, the fire does not become raging instantaneously, and the gasoline itself doesn't affect the structure of the house significantly. The fire still has its developing time, despite the initiator. You just made it start simultaneously and with reasonable guarantees of propagation and not self-extinction.
Only 14 people escaped from the impact zone of the South Tower after it was hit, and only four people from the floors above it. They escaped via Stairwell A, the only stairwell which had been left intact after the impact.
No one was able to escape from above the impact zone in the North Tower after it was hit, as all stairwells and elevator shafts on those floors were destroyed.
Does that mean that the fire was not so intense? To me, it means instead that it grew in intensity so soon, that just 4 people had the time to escape from above the impact zone.
Except, it was not exactly the "crash zone". It was just the lowest floor that had been affected by the impact, and the one that was affected the least. The inferno was in the upper floors. NIST's observations confirm these of Palmer: they register just two isolated pockets of fire in that floor, while in the upper floors the photographs reveal much more intense fires.
Could you believe that? That quote is in agreement with NIST's observations!
Now what's the cause to reject the rest of said observations, again?
This building collapsed FIRST by the way. Two isolated pockets of fire were able to destroy this huge, over-engineered mass of steel and concrete? This fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building. How is this a fire that weakened this structure to the point of rapid failure in less than an hour? This fire was getting weaker over time. One would be absolutely foolish to believe that this fire did what we're told it did.
Point which, again, becomes moot in the light of reality-driven observations instead of cherry-picked anecdotal evidence (which is the truther's "truth").
And Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert who became known for being cornered to induce him to say WTC 7 was demolished, also explained how the towers were not:
Which leaves us again with the question: how would thermite explain the testimonies of people talking about molten steel months after the attacks, since it's now clear that thermite-induced heat that lasts a few hours could not be responsible for that?
Since the thermite and detonators had to be contained in fire-proof compartments so that they could survive the initial blast and subsequent fires, maybe some of the thermite did not blow up when it was detonated.
And then some of the fire protected compartments were not damaged in the collapse, but were damaged as the steel was being pulled out, therefore keeping the fire going longer.
Hence proving that the thermite was responsible for keeping the fire going and the red hot steel in the pile. And that seems to make Truth.
Because the initial fires themselves were not that incredible. The North Tower exhibited more fire than the South Tower, but its fires were not that emergent. The First Interstate Bank fire burned longer and hotter yet a report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
What would that have to do with the underground fires? Are you supposing that the underground fires were simply continuations of the fires 800 feet up?
ridiculous. here's a thought! What do you think would have occured to the vehicles parked in the underground garage levels when the towers collapsed on them?
Many people escaped through the crash zone of the South Tower, and none reported intense heat. This heat, we are told, is the principle cause of this building's collapse. It was hit last, it collapsed first, there is no visible fire externally when it collapses, and evacuees passed right through the crash zone and reported no serious heat.
On the contrary a few people did escape that way but the stairs were later impassable due to smoke and heat.
You fail!
Chief Oreo Palmer radioed from the crash zone of the South Tower:
Isolated pockets of fire. That doesn't sound that intense to me. This building collapsed FIRST by the way. Two isolated pockets of fire were able to destroy this huge, over-engineered mass of steel and concrete? This fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building. How is this a fire that weakened this structure to the point of rapid failure in less than an hour? This fire was getting weaker over time. One would be absolutely foolish to believe that this fire did what we're told it did.
This is one of the most classic 9/11 CT fails and you are buying into it.
Cheif Palmer was on the 78th floor(he reports it as so) He never reports being any higher than that. the 78th floor was the lowest fire floor in either tower. It was a skylobby and contained less combustibles than office floors. It is not clear that Cheif Palmer ever got water for his "two lines"
cheif Palmer is never heard from again.
But yet, we have hundreds of pictures of the cleanup efforts. Not only from firefighters, but also from the NYPD, FDNY, FBI, ATF, FEMA, and other local, state, and national LE agencies.
But yet, in all of the pictures, not one of them shows a column or piece of steel that was melted.
Why might that be? Do you have some pictures that back up your claims?
Nor does anyone have pictures of any molten substances to my knowledge, not glass nor aluminum, yet there are many eyewitnesses that saw glowing molten substances. So either they're all lying or it's possible what they saw wasn't photographed. Logic.
Because it is the ONLY thing that you have for molten steel. The ONLY thing.
You asked for eyewitness testimony in one part, and then you claimed that eyewitness testimony was nothing. You assign such evidence value in one part then claim it has zero value. You're inconsistent.
Were these quotes from "laymen" or were they from firefighters and other professionals?
Well they weren't metallurgists as you've pointed out, and if they saw pools of molten substances, which they claim was steel, why would you expect them to be equally startled by a chunk of steel?
I would expect someone to notice a large chunk of solidified steel. In fact, we have the "meterorite" as it is called, and just about everyone has heard of that. I wonder why nobody else has accounts/pictures of another huge, SOLID chunk of metal?
You expect, amongst acres of endless tons of steel, that workers looking for the bodies of their friends are going to stop and gawk and a chunk of steel? Your posts are becoming tiring.
A large chunk of solid steel would certainly have stood out, and would have caught SOMEONE'S attention. I mean, they found the meteroite......
Ok, last time I'll explain this. I've explained it at least 15 times on this forum.
The upper sections do not decelerate when they pass the crash zone and enter a zone of much greater resistance, therefore the upper sections are not destroying the lower.
Ok, last time I'll explain this. I've explained it at least 15 times on this forum.
The upper sections do not decelerate when they pass the crash zone and enter a zone of much greater resistance, therefore the upper sections are not destroying the lower.
Earlier in the day? The buildings collapsed after one hour and an hour and a half respectively. I read what you linked to from the NIST report. There was no evidence that was bowing and not simply impact damage.
If you'll believe that, I've got a bridge I would love to get rid of...
Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.
...
MICs can be also added to high explosives to modify their properties.
AMJ, are you asking me for a citation for my post 346?
It is a summary of the NIST report and Bazant's work. However I welcome correction if anyone would like to do so. If I got something very much wrong I'd like to know.
NIST determined that 2's collapse was due mainly to the off center plane impact/damage, not from the fires. This is why it fell first - less fire damage was necessary to reach failure. They mention it in the executive summary, IIRC, that 2 was much closer to collapse immediately after the impact.
Bazant really only looked at 1, so your summary sounds right.
Nor does anyone have pictures of any molten substances to my knowledge, not glass nor aluminum, yet there are many eyewitnesses that saw glowing molten substances. So either they're all lying or it's possible what they saw wasn't photographed. Logic.
is seen by many many many people. I saw the piece myself when I went over to FK to work. Amazing. They photographed this, but not a simmilar chuck of metal?
You asked for eyewitness testimony in one part, and then you claimed that eyewitness testimony was nothing. You assign such evidence value in one part then claim it has zero value. You're inconsistent.
You are eyewitness testamony of people who were not trained to identify a molten substance by sight alone, and you're touting it as if it is conclusive. It's not. It's an uneducated opinion.
The testomony of firefighters, about a fires condition, is an EDUCATED opinion, thus, carries much more weight that an UNeducated opinion.
Well they weren't metallurgists as you've pointed out, and if they saw pools of molten substances, which they claim was steel, why would you expect them to be equally startled by a chunk of steel?
You expect, amongst acres of endless tons of steel, that workers looking for the bodies of their friends are going to stop and gawk and a chunk of steel? Your posts are becoming tiring.
Yes. I do, because I did. I gwaked at the amazing destructive power that we had witnessed. I gawked at the absolute carnage that I was in the middle of. So, yes, we would have been amazed by a large chunk of solidified metal.
Ok, last time I'll explain this. I've explained it at least 15 times on this forum.
The upper sections do not decelerate when they pass the crash zone and enter a zone of much greater resistance, therefore the upper sections are not destroying the lower.
Earlier in the day? The buildings collapsed after one hour and an hour and a half respectively. I read what you linked to from the NIST report. There was no evidence that was bowing and not simply impact damage.
This isn't even on the side that was impacted. It also was not there at 9:15am.
You're acting like you know the first damn thing what you're talking about. It is CLEARLY obvious that you do not, in fact, know your elbow from a hole in the ground when it comes to this specific topic.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
