Ok, I can add a bit to this discussion, but I'm kind of behind...
Anyways...first of all.
I have posted NIST's quotes. We disagree whether or not they were referring to more than collapse initiation, especially since NIST stated that they do not support the
"“pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers" (my emphasis).
NIST doesn't believe pancaking floors caused the
collapse initiation, once the collapse begins, what else will the floors do? Fly away?
There's evidence that pancaking floors resulted from the collapse initiation. Look here, note how the truss seats are bent downwards on both the core columns and the perimeter.
If you wouldn't mind, please describe what NIST believes is the mechanism of collapse for the Twin Towers.
What you've gotten wrong: You said there was a raging inferno in the towers. Smoke yes, fire yes, inferno no.
Come on...you should know better than to use those horrible photographs to show the fires inside of the Towers. I've never been able to understand why people believe that showing the impact zone of the North Tower is a good example of the fires.
Here's why.
Some floor trusses collapsed, blocking the view inside of the building. Do you expect any fires to be visible in the above photo? Then why should they be visible in the photo you showed?
Use the photo above as a reference for what floor area is being discussed below. According to NIST a 40 ft. width of the 96th floor slab was broken 80 feet into the building. So there's not much intact floor area left on that side of the building on the 96th floor for massive fires to be burning on. A large portion of the 95th floor slab was also broken about 60 ft into the building.
Now if you look at photographs from the other sides of the building, the fires are huge. Especially on the South face where some of the perimeter was bowing inwards by 4+ feet.
As for the South Tower, the fires aren't as visible from the photographs I have. However, you can tell that fires were raging inside of the building based on the bowing columns and sagging floor trusses.
or in the words of many on the scene, molten steel.
Take a look at the 911myths page on who reported seeing molten steel.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
Your challenge will be supporting the official story. The question is not what caused molten metal or steel. The real question is: Is it possible that gravity driven collapse can cause molten metal or steel? Has it ever happened before?
ah, I can finally answer this question with a more detailed response. Most of this information is from Gravy's site linked in his sig, as a lot of pretty much everything is there.
Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after 9/11 showed some temperatures near the surface of the piles to be nearly 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature isn’t hot enough to melt steel, however, it can melt aluminum which was in abundance at the WTC site, the cladding on the outside of the perimeter columns was all aluminum.
William Langewiesche, the only journalist who went with the engineers during their explorations beneath the debris, wrote about previously melted aluminum under cars in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center.”
“Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.”
Did whoever planted thermite in the Towers walk around and plant it on tire wheels as well? Or were the fires intense enough to melt aluminum?
In addition, controlled demolitions do not produce pools of molten metals, demolition charges don’t melt the steel, it simply slices through it, and incendiaries like thermite/thermate burn themselves out very quickly.
Popular Mechanics talks about the molten steel in their book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths.”
“The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting incresingly hot beacuse the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings.”
Another article about the fires under the debris piles and battling the blaze talks about this subject.
“It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said."
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fightingthefiresinthewtcdebrispiles
NIST talks about the molten steel a bit in their faq:
“Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Also, when it comes to molten steel, looks can be deceiving, it is often difficult to tell whether steel is molten, or if it has simply oxidized.
“A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.”
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
“It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized.”
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
A metallurgist examined four steel bedsprings that appeared to have been melted by a fire and it turned out all but one had simply oxidized.
“We had four apparently identical bedsprings which had experienced temperatures which differed by up to 400 degrees. Three of the four bedsprings had not melted at all, but merely oxidized."
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.
Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.
...The 9/11 Commission Report wasn't an engineering report, it was meant to cover the terrorist attacks and ways to prevent future attacks, not cover the collateral damage from the attacks.
The 9/11 Commission also didn't devote a single sentence to the destruction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church either. Conspiracy!
Your friend, David Griffin Doherty Hicks Hoffman Jones Thompson Avery Gage
Wow, quite a score for the terrorists to get that additional bldg to fall as well. Forgive my skepticism.
So the Government, or whoever you think COULD HAVE rigged WTC 7 for demolition decided to blow up WTC 7. What if WTC 7 wasn't struck by any debris from the collapse of the North Tower? Would the building still have been destroyed when it wasn't suffering from extensive structural damage and massive fires? Just a question...
Also, don't you think the bomb sniffing dogs would notice people bringing explosives into the Towers and WTC 7?
Well, I don't see a point in going over any of the other points for now, seems like everyone else has them covered.
jberryhill
