The fire was hot enough to melt the steel!

well the fires according to the few tapes that got out from the firemen was the the fires were almost out in the building, another type from a firemen said the bombs are going off. Also take into consideration that if it was really that hot then how could people be standing in the blast area..and in the cracks..i highly doubt people could surive 3000degrees...unless it really wasnt that hot..also another point is that building in spain that burned for days and days...everyone thought it would fall in hrs like the trade centers.....nope the building is still standing and that fire was white hot

Originally posted by ANOK
C'mon LeftBehind you know that PM garbage has been de-bunked for what it was...Government sanctioned BS.

I knew someone would say that, which is why I posted two sources for the information.

I have yet to see anyone debunk the info contained in the PM peice, because it is factual. The so-called debunkings I've seen here call foul because they didn't cover everyones pet theories.

If you have some evidence that the interpretation of the seismic record in the PM article is wrong please post it.

If you have nothing to dispute it but cries of previous debunking or government involvement of some sort, keep it to yourself.

Edit:

Confederacy are you talking about the picture with the woman standing right next to torn beams where the plane hit? If so that was taken early after the initial crash and the fires had not reached their full potential yet.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Confederacy are you talking about the picture with the woman standing right next to torn beams where the plane hit? If so that was taken early after the initial crash and the fires had not reached their full potential yet.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by LeftBehind]

But, since it was early in the crash, the fires wouldn't have migrated that far from the crash site as of yet. So, you're saying that the initial fire was so hot it melted steel but a woman could stand there?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Fires can only get so hot in open atmosphere, and no hotter without special conditions like pre-heated air. That max temperature, with a perfect fuel/air ratio, at sea level, is around 825 C, and the black smoke coming from the Twin Towers after the jet fuel burned away indicated a poor fuel/air ratio, so you probably didn't even have anything near that sustained in the WTC. Not hot enough.

Is it possible that the black smoke was caused by the office materials near the exterior of the building (started from the initial blast of the plane exploding) and that a hot well oxygeniated fire was burning in the core with its smoke just blending with the black smoke ?

Also how hot would the air need to be... I know this is alot of what if's but we got a asbestos insulated building here. Isn't it also possible that the asbestos insulated those people from the heat. The pictures we see with the people below the plane was shortly after the plane hit... and later we have people jumping out ... some people say from smoke but weren't they in smoke for like an hour... i think it's cause it got unbearably hot...i remember seeing one guy with no shirt as if trying to stay cool.

I wish someone would do a scaled experiment of this theory o-mine where the shutters designed to prevent the chimeny effect were malfunctioning or inneffecient because the fire was strong enough to find alternative routes...or over power them...

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

i will try to find links to the many videos of Diffrent people at diffrent times jumping out of the blast areas...also if u watch any of the clips...the smoke does die down towards the end...play it in slow motion and u see blast points from a bomb above the blast area and a few storys below..at simutaniously...i will also try to find links to the firemen...if i have to i will cut them out myself and post them on myspace or something and the give a link

This maybe nothing but from all those videos i've seen, the load bearing core of the building is far in the center of the building...so maybe those puffs were compressed air blowing windows? Just saying.

When i saw the history channel episode on building demolition they initially cut big parts of the load bearing parts of the IBeam (with blow torch or grinder) leaving only the straight center and then in their diagonally they would stick these copper backed cutting explosive strips developed by NASA (according to show) (If you saw movie entrapment, it was the stuff they used to blow those rocks apart... Here's a pic of the real stuff: www.ebco-aerospace.com... , and here's site that has this and other cool varients of explosives i didn't even know about! www.ebco-aerospace.com... ...explosive sheet! lol)... However their would be a block of explosive used of variable size called a kicker charge to blow the ibeam off its base the second after it's cut so maybe that did the blast... the only thing is the small number seen in film... I think for the building to totaly pulverize you'd have to do alot of these around every core ibeam for every floor because (and this is just a educated guess) if you only did like 4 floors around where the plane hit then you'd have a big chunk of building that would be effectively cut from the whole building and could either just sit their, albeit a bit tilted, or slide off and fall from the building while rest of the building remained... So i think their would have to be tons and tons of these little puffs... but then theirs always the possibility that we only got those puffs cause the windows were open or blown out and that evidence of the rest was contained in the building... but then theirs the lack of audio evidence for all these... at most 9 sounds were pointed out in one film, and in loose change they point out like 9-12 of those little puffs... AND No film that i've seen indicate and view of flashes related to what you would see from those cutter and kicker charges going off. But all this stuff i learned from watching history channel shows, not about wtc, so what do i know

O yea theirs one more thing, the IBeams would look like they were cut and melted in straight lines across where the cutter chargers were placed...so did any fireman, contractor, policemen, or even officially collected evidence indicate that? That would be the smoking gun righ there that explosives were used

For your viewing pleasure, it was Sean Connery that took down the building: www.propstore.com...

[edit on 27-3-2006 by FocusedWolf]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I have yet to see anyone debunk the info contained in the PM peice, because it is factual. The so-called debunkings I've seen here call foul because they didn't cover everyones pet theories.

Look at this:

911review.com...

If that's not factual then you can't be argued with. They even divide PM's claims into supported (agreement), not analyzed (not important; undecided), and debunked (shown to be deceptive).

Just read more than the first three sentences of the material.

Whats really absurd about the 9/11 collapse theories is that fuel survived the impact with the towers.

The idea that fuel ignited on impact, then somehow found it's way to the basement to ignite a second time is so ludicris that I have trouble even saying it.

When a plane crashes into a building the jet fuel blows up right then and there. Boom oneshot deal. All thats left is the inferno. It can't mysteriously bend the rules of physics. The fuel can't just say to itself, Ok one half of us will explode while the otherhalf finds it's way to the basement to ignite a second time. It just doesn't work that way.

Maybe things go that way in Bush La La land but in the real world things are a little different.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

The 9-11 review article is interesting, but no where do they show that PM made anything up. Their complaint like many others is that they debunked the silliest arguments instead of concentrating on what 911review wanted to have looked into.

Read the article, there is no debunking, they are just calling strawman. No where do they refute what is presented by PM. They present their speculation as if it is somehow more valid than PM's speculation.

They just rely on the same "No building ever fell that way" argument.

And in fact they agree with me about the seismic evidence.

911review.com...

To the contrary, there was nothing strange about the seismic spikes recorded by the Palisades station. As the video and photographic evidence shows, the towers exploded into expanding clouds of rubble that were about 400 feet from top to bottom by the time they reached the ground. Those rubble clouds contained virtually all of the mass of towers -- thousands of tons of rubble falling from as high as 1000 feet. That could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Whats really absurd about the 9/11 collapse theories is that fuel survived the impact with the towers.

The idea that fuel ignited on impact, then somehow found it's way to the basement to ignite a second time is so ludicris that I have trouble even saying it.

When a plane crashes into a building the jet fuel blows up right then and there. Boom oneshot deal. All thats left is the inferno. It can't mysteriously bend the rules of physics. The fuel can't just say to itself, Ok one half of us will explode while the otherhalf finds it's way to the basement to ignite a second time. It just doesn't work that way.

Maybe things go that way in Bush La La land but in the real world things are a little different.

We are talking about fuel here... the plane didn't run on semtex

I didn't hear that fuel did make it that far (first time i heard of this was in your post), but it could of poured there... even if it burned along the way. At the very least an engine or a portion of the wing could of been severed from impact and fall down elevator shaft...fuel pours out (even if on fire) and presto fuel falls like 40 floors of whatever... sets things on fire and fire spreads...

Lol. nice tactic there. "THe first time I heard it was in your post"

I guess you didn't watch any media on 9/11 because the main argument for the towers collapse was that fuel leaked to the basement and melted the collumns there. Thats the governments excuse for why the towers collapse initself like a controlled demolition. And perhaps you should get eye glasses because I"m against the conspiracy theory that fuel can survive an explosive impact to leak into the basement. Nice try on twisting my words there though.

Don't you get it though? All the fuel explodes on impact. There isn't anything to pour into the basement to melt the steel there.

Samething with the second plane. How can anyone listen to the CNN tripe when for the second plane the majority of it's fuel exploded outside the tower.

those government 9/11 conspiracy theories just don't hold water when you put them up to common sense.

On top of that airplane fuel doesn't burn remotely close to the tempatures needed to melt steel. Does anybody remember the skyscraper in Madrid?

everyone thought it would have repeated what happened on 9/11 however in amazement it burned for days at tempatures hotter then the WTC yet the building didn't collapse in a style similar to a controlled demolition.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

Who is arguing that the fuel leaked down and melted columns in the basement???

I had heard that fuel traveled down the elevator shafts and burned up parts of the lobby. Nothing to do with the columns.

Neither that or thermite in the basement make any sense, as the buildings fell from the top down. While many of you seem to think this is a characteristic of controlled demolition, it is not.

Most demolition's are done from the bottom up. Please show me some pictures of a building that destroyed like the WTC towers, if you are going to insist it resembled controlled demolition.


As to the Madrid fire.

All that proved is that concrete cores will not collapse, and that the steel sections on that particular builiding will collapse. Not much of a relation either way, especially as the Windsor building was not hit by an airplane at high speed.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Neither that or thermite in the basement make any sense, as the buildings fell from the top down. While many of you seem to think this is a characteristic of controlled demolition, it is not.

Most demolition's are done from the bottom up. Please show me some pictures of a building that destroyed like the WTC towers, if you are going to insist it resembled controlled demolition.

It's just a matter of changing the order in which the charges go off. I don't know what makes you think this would be so hard.

All that proved is that concrete cores will not collapse, and that the steel sections on that particular builiding will collapse.

Have you seen the size of the steel beams used in that building? I know you're already aware of the intensity of the fire, and how long it lasted and all of that, but the size of the steel beams is kind of relevant too.



That would kind of affect the steel's ability to transport heat.

sorry to bust the elvator theory apart, but the thermite and fuel theory is wrong...the fuel and thermite never made it to the basement through elevator shafts for this reason....the building was built in 3 sections there wasnt any elevators that went from the bottom floor to the top...it would go a 3rd the way up and then u would hope on a diffrent elevator...thats how the made the building so high up......also....at the speed and rate of the fuel falling or thermite it would either cool or the flame would go out....

you dont have to destroy a building from the bottom....pancake effect destroy a floor about 3/4 of the way up the building cant support the weight and falls in on its self...technically when they do demos...they destroy the middle causing the building to fall in on itsself (goes from the ground to the top in the middle) but wtc is diffrent cause its not wide its straight up and down....well do the same thing and pancake it....also when its not controlled the building usually falls over on its side...now the building should have fell on their sides for the fact of being hit by a plane...if the steal really did get as hot as they said it did it would of leaned towards the weakest side (the blast area where the plane hit) and would of fell....yet they both fell practiically straight down thus a pancake effect....(controlled demo)

[edit on 3/29/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

and yeah i did mention that building Crazy...and yeah i did use it example..i totally agree....people did say it would fall like the wtc..and wow it didnt...yet it had flames that were white and it burned sky high...FOR DAYS

In the end, the building fell and no amount of internet quoting will change that, or decisively determine why and who did it. We need IBeams from the site...we need all that destroyed evidence.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley

On top of that airplane fuel doesn't burn remotely close to the tempatures needed to melt steel. Does anybody remember the skyscraper in Madrid?

So what? There was nothing remotely similar between the WTC structures and the Windsor tower.

Why do people keep repeating tripe that has been thoroughly debunked?

Molten steel ?

Who exactly saw it ?

Answer.....Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
- Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
- and the American Free Press newspaper

portland.indymedia.org...

Actaully the only person that saw "molten steel" was Peter Tully who then phoned Mark Lorieux. The APF asked Mark Lorieux if there was molten steel he replied "Yes,hot spots of molten steel in the basements." Although he hadn't actually seen it himself.

www.serendipity.li...

Here is an email from Lorieux confriming he didnot see any molten metal.

groups.google.com...

All be it this email could easily be fake, I take it at face value and the Free Press simply repeated what was said to them, so it is quite credible the only person who ever saw molten steel was Peter Tully. Or did he?

Since he is the president of the company is it not feasble the information came from ground level, ie constuction workers? If so are they qualified to make such claims, if not who performed the analysis to figure it out?

Molten steel has a very high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Since the buckets used to remove the debris was also made of steel, would they not have melted, or been slightly damged by this molten steel? Ever seen a photograph of damaged digger buckets?

According to NASA they recorded hot spots in the range of greater than 800 degrees F, slightly short of the 2800 required to melt steel, on Sept 16th

pubs.usgs.gov...

Other sources put the hot spots at 1341 degrees F

pubs.usgs.gov...

Of course NASA was only measuring the surface temperatures, but these were recorded four days afterwards.

Of course there are other reports of molten metal not motel steel

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer , "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer , September 3, 2002, p. 6;.)

Please notice molten metal and red hot, not molten steel.

And of course there are these reports....

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences , summer 2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn, 2002

Firstly Leslie Robertson account is second hand and came from James Williams, SEAU President, in an account of a Robertson presentation.

www.seau.org...

As for Sarah Atlas, with her trusty dog, doing searchs amongst molten steel, running beneath her feet....well really, is she actually qualifed to judge what is or isn't molten steel ?

Then there's this photograph, actually its the forth one down showing a digger clearing molten metal.

web.archive.org...

Or is it, anybody actually know when or where this photograph was taken?

Or can everybody see what I see, that the metal is red hot and not molten?

Or that the bucket is not hot at all, there is no heat conduction at all?

Or more importantly underground fires do burn excedingly hot .Australia as a underground coal fire that records temperatures of 1700 F.

www.abc.net.au...

Of course this all proves nothing and certainly doesn't dispell the molten metal, so I'll take it one step further.

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.

"In some pockets now being uncovered", so she didn't actually see molten metal on her site visit?, maybe she is just recounting second hand news.Again is a public heath vistor even qualified to say ?

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)

www.globalsecurity.org...

Again "molten metal"...not molten steel.And notice this was in building 6.

In summarry I believe there really is lack of credable evidence that supports molten steel. Facts have been distored and twisted. Truth has lost it's way and been replaced by half truths and second hands reports, which are now viewed as facts.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that temperatures where high enough to produce molten steel, irrespective of what you believe caused the towers or WTC 7 to collapse.

If you want to believe that then fair enough, but it makes no sense to me.

Here is an interesting paper on the effects of a standard fire scenario on the trusses of the type that were used in the WTC towers.

fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

The numerical analyses demonstrated that the protected composite trusses would resist 60 minutes of the standard fire within a deflection of L/100, under loadings of 4.8kN/m2 and 3.9kN/m2. Unprotected simply supported trusses initially lost stability at 12.5 and 13.4 minutes due to buckling of the second compressive web diagonal. Both of the protected trusses with a supporting column deflected approximately L/90 at 60 minutes of the standard fire without any local instability occurring. The unprotected composite truss with a supporting column was shown to resist for 16.1 and 18.0 minutes of the standard fire before the progressive buckling of web compression diagonals caused a loss of stability.

So if the fireproofing was knocked off the truses by the shock of the airplane impact, then it would only take about 15 to 20 minutes of exposure to a full developed fire before the trusses buckled and failed.