Melting steel?

a reply to: smurfy

That doesn't mean that there wasn't molten steel as well though does it?

There were no pools of molten steel at ground zero because there were nothing at ground zero capable of producing such pools.

The 'buckyball' above is a specimen from ground zero, and God knows what other molten stuff...metal is in there.

Microspheres were expected to be found at ground zero, and in fact, you can produce such spheres with a simple cigarette lighter and steel wool, or even in a barrel of burning wood and steel scrap. The RJ Lee Group, which examined WTC dust samples found no evidence of explosives or thermite in their samples.

And, as a side issue, even more reason for the WTC steel not to be moved, if anything it should have been impounded...but it wasn't.

Actually, over 200 pieces of WTC steel were examined.

The RJ Lee Group, which examined WTC dust samples found no evidence of explosives or thermite in their samples.

But they did find evidence of 3180* F...

a reply to: wildb

Irrelevant... stop misleading people..

Of course it is relevant and the proof will come as you explain to us all with the law of physics as to why the steel columns of WTC 1 remained standing within that huge bomb crater.

Actually, over 200 pieces of WTC steel were examined.

Yeah, 0.03%...

originally posted by: Echo007
Most of the jet fuel went up in a huge fireball, the rest of it was in wide open area. The last time i checked wide open flames with limited fuel supply have a hard time hitting 1500º or higher.

and that`s why the whole story of burning jet fuel weakening the beams is BS!

How much time elapsed between when the jet hit and the beams were weak enough to make the building fall? 30 minutes? an hour? and jet fuel was feeding the fire for that long? that`s a lot of jet fuel considering most of it burned up in the initial explosion.
All of the jet fuel would have burned up long before the temperature reached 1500 degrees, unless it was some special jet fuel that remained stable and unburnable at 1000 degrees as it flowed towards the beams.
The jet fuel and the vapors would have burned up long before they got anywhere near those beams.


Obviously the jet fuel from the plane that hit the pentagon was COMPLETELY different jet fuel than the fuel used in the planes in new York.
look at pictures of the pentagon crash site it sure doesn`t look like any jet fuel was burning there and definitely no jet fuel that was burning at 1500 degrees.
the leaves on the trees next to the building aren`t even wilted from the heat of the burning jet fuel.
in new York jet fuel burns so hot it melt steel beams in Washington D.C. jet fuel doesn`t even burn hot enough to wilt the leaves on trees.

look at pictures of the pentagon from 9/11 it`s like a game of where`s waldo, trying to find anything that looks like it was subjected to 1500 degree burning jet fuel.

since the WTC fell straight down we have to assume that the steel beams on all 4 sides were weakened at the same rate.
how far was it from one side of the WTC to the other side? a couple hundred feet? probably more.
look at pictures of the pentagon, do you see any damage from burning jet fuel a couple of hundred feet in any direction from the point of impact?
since all 4 sides of the WTC were weakened at the same rate we can assume that there were temperatures of 1500 degrees or higher on all 4 sides at the same time.How hot do you think it was in the middle of those 4 1500 degree walls?
we are suppose to believe that there was unburned jet fuel inside those 4 1500 degree walls for an hour feeding the fire.

why didn`t the jet fuel at the pentagon spread out for hundreds of feet in every direction and continue burning for an hour like it did at the WTC?

Of course it is relevant and as proof, explain to us all, why the steel columns of WTC 1 remained standing despite the detonation of a huge bomb beneath WTC 1.

Easy, low yield explosive..

a reply to: wildb

Any investigator will tell you there was no need to check every steel column of the WTC buildings. Simple common sense logic, you understand.

a reply to: wildb

Easy, low yield explosive..

That is a non-explanation as well. Have you ever seen a steel frame building withstand the shockwave of a nuclear detonation?

I think it's funny that all these debunks do silly videos like this yet forget they need to account for the millions of pounds of weight resting on top of the steel that is being super heated to a point that it will fail....but yeah....let's heat it in a forge to prove a point....

a reply to: Tardacus

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure..

a reply to: wildb

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure..

That is false. Firefighters have stated that fires within WTC 7 were out of control and fires were still burning when WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure.. it's a fact... MOSTLY OUT..

a reply to: DeceptioVisus

Wouldn't it be illegal to make a building that firefighters cannot enter? Do you have a source for this claim?

It's not that they can't, it's because the threat of imminent collapse it too great.
Almost any fire in a Walmart type construction results in roof collapse.

a reply to: wildb

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure..

Not true.
Black smoke doesn't mean the fire is almost out.
If you need proof just set some plastic, foam or carpet on fire.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: wildb

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure..

Not true.
Black smoke doesn't mean the fire is almost out.
If you need proof just set some plastic, foam or carpet on fire.

Yes it is, we know from the FDNY, we know from the people standing in the holes in the side of the building. Its just a matter of fact that means nothing..

a reply to: wildb

The fires were mostly out before the collapse , we know that for sure.. it's a fact... MOSTLY OUT..

False again!

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: skyeagle409

We are talking about the towers, get a clue.. please..

a reply to: wildb

Then, let's take a closer look at WTC 2 for starters and tell us about the fire raging within that building.

a reply to: and14263

WTC steel was primarily A 36 and A 572 grades of steel

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: wildb

Yes it is, we know from the FDNY, we know from the people standing in the holes in the side of the building. Its just a matter of fact that means nothing..

Let's hear it from here.

The WTC Fires

Fifteen fire pumps in each building fed the standpipe and automatic sprinkler systems. Each building was also equipped with seven water storage tanks that could supply water to the system prior to activation of the fire pumps to sustain initial firefighting operations. The standpipes were arranged in three zones. Therefore, a loss of one standpipe did not mean the loss of firefighting water throughout the building, though it could conceivably mean long hose stretches for firefighters.

Two firefighters operating in the South Tower on 9-11 made it up to the lowest crash floor, the 78th floor, and reported fires burning there. Had the building not collapsed, it is conceivable, at least in theory, that the fire department could have mounted a fire attack from a standpipe connection up to the fire floor.

In other words, fires were still raging to the point where WTC 2 collapsed. Now, let's continue.

The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.

en.wikipedia.org...