University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

And where in the article does it discuss molten metal? Molten metal found? The glow is the result of workers using thermal lances during clean up. How in the heck is metal hot enough to be molten hanging there and not melting its way down? A little logic please.

All right. I'm done. We've already gone down this same road on the prior page (33). I don't know what your game is, but you are wasting my time and pissing me off.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry, just people that misused the term molten and not understanding what the actual material was. Like saying a squishy candy bar from the heat is melted.

Other mixtures of building materials with lower melting points that would realistically create molten material.


Again, prove from the reference article molten metal was present.

Show collected and recorded data on the WTC fires and WTC pile ever each temperatures in the range to allow molten steel to be present.

originally posted by: Elbereth

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

And where in the article does it discuss molten metal? Molten metal found? The glow is the result of workers using thermal lances during clean up. How in the heck is metal hot enough to be molten hanging there and not melting its way down? A little logic please.

All right. I'm done. We've already gone down this same road on the prior page (33). I don't know what your game is, but you are wasting my time and pissing me off.

That is it. You only had the same arguments that have been debunked and discredited for at least 11 years? New to the conspiracy movement.

And what? Two "smoking guns"
And a statement of molten steel not backed by any physical evidence or verification.

I wish you held the movement to the same scrutiny you do others?

a reply to: neutronflux

The article was referenced ONLY to show the source of the image was from a reputable news source (BBC), not because the content of the article was germane to my argument.

originally posted by: Elbereth
a reply to: neutronflux

The article was referenced ONLY to show the source of the image was from a reputable news source (BBC), not because the content of the article was germane to my argument.

Since the article mentions no molten steel, you fell for the spin that the use of a thermal lance was really a self sustaining floating ball of molten steel?

"Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures."

NY Times: A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards

I have seen the attempted debunkings of this type of evidence. More examples of contrived scenarios on the outermost edges of probability intended to blow more smoke around this issue in order to keep the barely conscious public oblivious to the abyssal depths of the betrayal perpetrated upon them. What a champ you are to help in that effort.

a reply to: Elbereth

From your article

mobile.nytimes.com...

A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.

You do know dry wall and plastics contain sulfur. It's not a mystery.

a reply to: neutronflux

Have you ever tried to burn drywall? It has a very high fire resistance. And can you provide examples of other high-rise fires where similar steel melting occurred and was determined to be caused by sulfur contributed from drywall and plastics?

I would be willing to bet this is presented as another amazing, low-probability one-off event never seen before or after 9/11.

a reply to: Elbereth

Drywall does not need to burn. Just heated to the point it starts to breakdown / decompose and release sulfur.

a reply to: Elbereth

Also, who knows how much pulverized drywall, water / leaching chemical attacks the steel underwent while laying in the hot and steaming pile containing smoldering material waiting for sources of oxygen to reignite.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Also, who knows how much pulverized drywall, water / leaching chemical attacks the steel underwent while laying in the hot and steaming pile containing smoldering material waiting for sources of oxygen to reignite.

True. From reading the debunking sites, that's the only way it could cause a eutectic reaction, because mere exposure to sulfur gas is insufficient. This whole area of 9/11 debunking seems like quite a stretch to me and perhaps just another way to sweep the most obvious cause, CD, under the rug.

If this apologia for the molten steel isn't, as I believe, just another extremely unlikely explanation of the evidence that points to CD, which is the method of collapse most in conformity with the witness testimony, video evidence, and expected and historical steel frame high-rise building behavior, then where are the examples of this process occurring in other much more intense and longer duration high-rise fires? I could accept this sulfur based eutectic reaction explanation if I knew that we had some indication that it wasn't yet another never before and never since (like liquefying airliners) 9/11 miracle.

Did it happen here? This was the Windsor fire and a partial collapse so a good candidate for proof of concept:


Or here (Guagzhou). High sulfur Chinese drywall I assume:

a reply to: Elbereth

Not sure what you are asking? The WTC steel was In close contact with smolder material and leaching chemicals and steam for weeks on end with the spraying of water to cool work areas? The WTC pile?

The WTC building were a design onto themselves. Pointed by others.

The WTC floor beams were long and lightweight, and only support at the ends. No additional supports along their lengths. Traditional buildings have heavier floor beams and concrete which are support by multiple columns along their span.

Fact, the insulation for the WTC was found insufficient.

Fact, the concrete core of the WTC was not as robust and was lighter than traditional buildings. Save money on concrete and weight.


What you need to answer.

What caused the buildings to collapse, then the debate can continue.

a reply to: Elbereth

I never said fire caused the WTC to collapse.

It was poorly insulated steel not protected by fire sprinklers that tried to expand longways.

The floor beams, becoming more workable due to heat, could not expand in length. So the workable beams drooped.

It was the cooling of the sagging floor beams causing them to contract which started the collapse by causing the vertical columns to pull inward. The vertical columns lost they strength at the sections of miss alignment and buckled.

See thread and video.
www.metabunk.org...

Can you debunk this or not......

a reply to: neutronflux

What I am asking is, to your knowledge, has the sulfur based eutectic reaction allegedly resulting in melted steel at the WTC site that the NY Times called "Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" been seen at any other high-rise building fire, or any other type of building fire, for that matter, or is this just another remarkable one-off occurring never before or after 9/11 creatively conjured up to support the doddering OS by a debunking community that is capable of explaining away the sun, moon and sky as mass psychosis or a one-off, transitory entopic phenomenon.

If you don't know, no problem. I am not asking you to be my research monkey, but I don't want to waste time if you already have this information handy. Thanks.

As for the core, you said "Fact, the concrete core of the WTC was not as robust and was lighter than traditional buildings. Save money on concrete and weight." That doesn't seem to square at all with this:


Link to image

a reply to: Elbereth


Sorry, I was not specific. The WTC Towers did not have a tradition concrete core. A concrete core concept that has been traditionaly used which has helped buildings survive past fires.

And how would you distinguish if the steel suffered from sulfur attack before or after the collapse.

Prove heated drywall does not decompose / break down into sulfur and calcium.

Prove there was not a source of sulfur from plastic or fabric.

Finally, what is you theory on how the WTC collapse occurred. I specifically stated my belief. Do you not understand your own concept of the WTC collapse? How can you prove my belief wrong if you are not willing to give a better alternative.

a reply to: Elbereth


In EVERY example of a high rise fire used by truther sites the buildings are

1) NOT tube in tube steel frame
2) NOT impacted by aircraft and suffer STRUCTURAL damage
3) DON'T have floor slabs on trusses attached to small steel truss seats on core/outer wall.
4) THEY have REINFORCED concrete floors or slabs within the structure.
5) YET STEEL part of the construction FAILS even though the concrete survives.

Check the example in YOUR pictures

a reply to: Elbereth

When engaging with a person who still believes the official story 15 years later, the chance of adult and honest conversation is a distinct long shot. Dishonest tactics are commonly encountered.

a reply to: Salander

And please state a model of collapse that supersedes inward bowing? Please state and detail a theory that would cause people to abandon inward bowing as outlined here?

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Informer1958

House of cards, is the metaphor I would employ.

Only takes one card to "pull it"...

originally posted by: SecretSector
a reply to: Informer1958

House of cards, is the metaphor I would employ.

Only takes one card to "pull it"...

9 threads you've posted on and not added a single thing to any of them. What was the point?