Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ya can't debate facts. Please find me one professional that disagrees with my previous post in regards to the color of smoke.

Ill find the study that was conducted in reference to the oxygen starved smoke, i know i have seen it some where, if it has not been removed.

Hold on now, we dont know what brought down the towers in regards to "unconventional" methods...then what would NIST have tested for?

As stated NIST should of tested for any kind of residue that might have left compounds of explosive matter. Obviously they did no such testing of the steel, or maybe they did and they found explosive matter in which they will never release. But lets focus on what they actually said:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Not really. What if it was a CD and it wasnt Thermite??

Did you read the question that it was asked?

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

For either EXPLOSIVES or THERMITE.

They tested for neither of them.

Give me time to look into all your other stuff. The Steven Jones stuff has been disproven several times in the past...thats why he and his paper on Thermate were shown the door at BYU.

Actually what i posted in relation to Steven Jones was relatively new.

You should actually watch the video before posting.

Moreover,

"The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, I said 'Lord, you take control, I can't help myself here.' " Stanley then dove under his desk. "My Testament [Bible] was on top of my desk," explained Stanley. "I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lord was going to take care of me once I got there." As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to his shoulders."

Source

Wow Jet fuel, temperatures so hot that it weakened steel yet this gentleman survived the plane hitting the building. Amazing.

BeZerK

[edit on 11-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by BeZerk
Ill find the study that was conducted in reference to the oxygen starved smoke, i know i have seen it some where, if it has not been removed.

Dude, I don't disagree with what you're saying. But lack of oxygen and soot are not the only reasons why smoke is black!

Remember...burning plastic = black smoke

WTC = thousands of computers.

As far as testing the metal.... i would be pretty naive to think that the Engineers would not have wanted more steel to test and more time to test it. I miss read your question and thought it was only to do with thermite.
The steel they have from WTC7 however is being tested for explosives, so by the end of the year you may have some answers.... but you wont believe them anyway.

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor. The plane impacted the south tower between the 78th and 82 nd floors.....Obviously Stanley's office didnt take the entire plane or fireball....please read HIS account of what happened. stanleypraimnath.com...

I dont have time tonight to watch another Steven Joned theory....but i will and get back to you.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by BeZerk
There were numerous people who survived the impact of the plane, who were on levels above the impacted floors, who actually passed through the impact hole to escape.

First of all...I'd like your source for this.

Sorry, CO, but it's call-out time but big time here. The source is you.

Either you have selective amnesia or you are playing fast and loose with the facts to suit your agenda at any given moment, because you had posted exactly this information here, on p. 2 of the thread "LIVE loud explosion heard by firefighters at WTC site"

Here's the relevant quote you posted, from your friends at the 9/11 commission, since you have forgotten:

The only survivor known to have escaped from the heart of the impact zone [Stanley Praimnath] described the 81st floor-where the wing of the plane had sliced through his office-as a "demolition" site in which everything was "broken up" and the smell of jet fuel was so strong that it was almost impossible to breathe. This person escaped by means of an unlikely rescue, aided by a civilian fire warden descending from a higher floor [Brian Clark], who, critically, had been provided with a flashlight.
– 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9

You know, as we all do, that you came to this board with that insulting animated avatar that said that anyone who bought into 9/11 truth was a mindless fool, and since then you've been posting around here like the Dutch boy at the dyke on speed, trying to jam your finger in any threatening leak.

At first you were an insulting know-it-all, but after being quickly warned and dropped into negative territory, at least you've learned to exhibit a modicum of civility, I'll grant you that.

But most of us, I think you'll agree, know this subject well and also don't need to rehash much of the subject for you simply because you exist and protest. Also, we read all the posts, and have functioning brains.

When you start posting the same info on two threads--that a survivor who actually witnessed the wing slice through his office also smelled kerosene to prove the point that the smell of kerosene was present in the towers (excuse me, but "duh") and then a few days later, here, you demand proof of survivors in the impact zone, having previously cited at least two, then that is but one thing: trolling.

If, in your frenzy to debunk us all at every turn, you have not looked at the top of your screen, do so now. There is a big, flashing yellow notice:

Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny. Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

It would do you well to reflect on the meaning of these sentences.

Originally posted by gottago
Sorry, CO, but it's call-out time but big time here. The source is you.

Post the rest of my quote please...and read the rest of my threads please.
I asked what "numerous" meant to him and then I personally posted that ZERO people from the North Tower survived above the impact. Which is true. I also posted that 18 people were identified as to have escaped the SOUTH tower from above the impact point.(via a stairwell, Stanley did in fact have to bust out some sheetrock to escape) His post (Bezerk) appeared to me that he was stating the people survived above the impacts in both towers through the impact holes. So, I called HIM out on that. Sorry Gottago... If you read the post above yours from ME you will see I posted about Mr.Praimnath as well with a link to his website. Remember please that he was in the South Tower.

Originally posted by gottago
Here's the relevant quote you posted, from your friends at the 9/11 commission, since you have forgotten:

I know what I posted on other threads and actually is not relevant if you bothered to read the rest of my posts in this thread or the posts from Bezerk. If you followed the dialog, you will see that it was quite civil and we both offered several points.

the comment about my "friends" is uncalled for, but it's expected.

Originally posted by gottago
You know, as we all do, that you came to this board with that insulting animated avatar that said that anyone who bought into 9/11 truth was a mindless fool, and since then you've been posting around here like the Dutch boy at the dyke on speed, trying to jam your finger in any threatening leak.

I didn't call anyone a fool with that avatar.The avatar stated in simple terms that the truth movement talks alot without thinking. I stand by that avatar.

IF you think my posts are like the dutch boy, well thats your opinion. My posts are to question the so called "truth" that some post in here. If I make a mistake, i will admit it with an apology.

Originally posted by gottago
But most of us, I think you'll agree, know this subject well and also don't need to rehash much of the subject for you simply because you exist and protest. Also, we read all the posts, and have functioning brains.

No I don't agree. Sorry I don't "rehash" anything. I counter what is posted with facts. If I start a thread, it's because I learned somthing and want to share it with this forum. Simple though..you don't like the facts I post, please feel free to put me on ignore. You won't hurt my feelings.

Originally posted by gottago
It would do you well to reflect on the meaning of these sentences.

It will do you well to stick the moderating to the mods.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

No I don't buy that, it's a simplistic debunker tactic and has been done by other posters. I think one poster put it best when he said many at ATS haved formed their views and moved on. They don't bother to debate it endlessly with people. Molten Metal in the basement = CD tech. to bring down the buildings, simple really. And since people with degree's in physics
and engineering are saying this, I am inclined to believe them over some armchair wanna-be's banging away on their keyboards.

Blue_jay - Yet you would ignore all the engineers and physists and such which Popular Mechanics used?

Originally posted by ferretman2
Blue_jay - Yet you would ignore all the engineers and physists and such which Popular Mechanics used?

Popular Mechanics only cited one engineer on the WTC collapses themselves, and that was Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST's WTC team.


It's broken down and shown in all its hit-piece, propaganda glory here: 911review.com...

Some more evidence from NIST that they did not test for any explosives or chemical, and the fires were not that hot.

wtc.nist.gov...

Highlights:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.


A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I am not going to try not to repeat things pootie and others have pointed out in this thread. Saying that jet fuel melted the steel is ridiculous, saying that friction caused it to turn to liquid during 10 seconds of freefall and stay that way for days is even more crazy. Don't even try and say you aren't talking about friction because that is the exactly what makes the hanger get hot in your example. The fact that concrete is a good insulator only explains why the molten steel was there for days, it doesn't give any evidence to your claim. Like you said energy can't be gained or lost so how does insulation make the steel any hotter?

The example is also misleading for more than obvious reasons. If you are holding a hanger than that means there is a force on each side of it and the resistance causes the heat. The fact that the building was falling means there was alot less force on one side (causing it to give out and collapse). Therefore the time the most force was acting on the beam would be right when it bent and right when it hit the ground, not during free fall. So if you are claiming this then that means that you think the steel melted immediately as it bent or immediately as it hit the ground. We are talking about a couple seconds to liquify high quality metal. IF THAT. That is just illogical.

It is more logical to say the jet fuel did it but even you seem to disregard that nonsense.

OK let’s look at a few overlooked details:
The structural metal had to meet ASTM specifications.
These structural steel members were covered in asbestos.
What happened to the sprinkler system? Not that it really matters. Just odd by its absence.

Looks like the planes would have caused some isolated structural damage after 24 hours of steady fuel burn.

Sorry but unless the planes were built by the makers of Lee Harvey Oswald’s bullet it just would not happen.

Too many people tell of an explosion from the basement and several vacant floors so what happened there?

Personally I believe Silverstein bought this mostly vacant real estate 6 weeks earlier expecting to make a 7 billion dollar insurance profit but settled for about 2 billion.

It is documented there were two weeks of planned power outages. Survivors spoke of loud drilling going on in vacant floors and seeing workers with reels of wire in the basement. They also reported when the powers (and security cameras) were running again there was gray powder all over their offices (concrete).

I’m a certified inspector that was called on to inspect those towers after the first bombings and I have to side with the trained fire fighters and NYPD officers that say this looks like planned demolition.

I KNOW of government cover-ups, several of them and this smells like the same animal. It does not mean the government had a hand in it. Not any more than they did when the MOVE got hold of the munitions from the NY armory SNAFU that allowed two planes to be “wind sheared” out of the sky with the help of a few LAWs. It was at landing and short range but regardless the MOVE was nearly paid out $230 million to lay off the terrorist acts. They were backed by an Islamic extremist from Saudi. The MOVE was also helped by a group here in the states that has helped with other terrorist acts. Perhaps this same group helped with 911. I wish there were a way to be certain.

I think the biggest question is exactly who on the US side helped to set all this up for 911.
An awful lot of money has crossed hands since 911 and tracing the money trail would tell the tell I am certain. Perhaps some bad members of Halliburton with the use of the near by Rockefeller Foundation?

It has been my experience that stopping terrorist acts has never paid anyone any money. But let one take place and look at the money flow. Once again the money trail should be looked at. Who profited after 911 on both sides of the pond?

ok, Im back. First let me say something about black smoke from a fuel fed fire. There are three basic types of fires.

1- jet burner fire.
2-pre-mix fire.
3 a diffuse fire

The fire at the trade center fires where diffuse.look up these types of fires and you will see why.The black smoke you seen was soot generated from incompletely burned fuel, evidented by the copious black smoke. Factors such as flame volume and quanity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire. Moving the temperature close to 1000 degrees C.But not hot enough to melt steel.

An initial microstructural analysis of a36 steel from world trade center 7 was done by J.R. Barnett of fire protection engineering and
R.R. Biederman and R.d. Sisson Jr. professors of materials science and engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute of Massachusetts.

Analysis

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating in oxidation with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees c., forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmiths weld" in a hand forge.

But please note that this cannot happen without the presence of sulfur.
this report was done in 2001.

The beam that was tested was also compared with a beam without the presence of sulfur. Here is what was found.

The micro structure of untreated a36 steel- White ferrite and dark ferrite.uniformed and seperate. The trade center beam- pearlite region. pearlite forms in bands due to manganese segregation and prior hot working.

The only beam that was tested is from building 7. that is because they shipped the evidence out of the country from the other two buildings. So i would speculate that there was two different components used to bring down the main buildings and 7 was brought down with just one source. That is just my conclusion and ill be waiting for you sceptics to tear it apart for me. thank you and as always, play nice.

Originally posted by russ1969
An initial microstructural analysis of a36 steel from world trade center 7 was done by J.R. Barnett of fire protection engineering and
R.R. Biederman and R.d. Sisson Jr. professors of materials science and engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute of Massachusetts.

Analysis

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating in oxidation with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees c., forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmiths weld" in a hand forge.

Wow, so you basically have a source from 2001 saying basically the same thing that Steven Jones came along to say a few years later: there was a thermite reaction. That's basically what they're saying with "eutectic liquid", as from a eutectic reaction, ie thermite. With sulfur added.

I'd like to see what size piece of steel we're talking about though. If it's a relatively small area, like a thin cut through, then that might be evidence for a thermite reaction. If the whole chunk of steel is warped and sulfidated as if exposed to extreme ambient temperatures all around (and I've seen at least one of these), then I would say that this may actually be evidence of an extremely exothermic reaction of a totally different scale, like a miniature nuclear reaction, and I've heard before that nuclear reactions can cause air to turn brown because of something to do with a reaction involving sulfur. There was sulfur already in all three buildings, and if it was vaporized near the steel, and then the steel was subjected to both insane temperatures and sulfur, you'd get the about same result I would imagine.

I'd find it hard to believe that that much thermite was poured all over the surfaces of a column, especially when so much of it apparently didn't do anything but melt sulfur into the steel, if it's the piece I'm thinking of, though.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Tiloke
You seem to have missed the point of my post.

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

I said the kinetic energy of the building falling was transformed to heat energy when the building hit the ground. There was an incredible amount of energy in those falling buildings and it had to go somewhere. That means an incredible amount of heat was generated when that energy was transferred.

If that did not happen, what happened to the energy?

Pulverized concrete......

Was every little piece of concrete pulverized? Every tiny single piece?

I can turn concrete into powder in my backyard with just a sledgehammer, I don't need any squibs, thermite, etc.

Well, Mr. Tiloke, I am both a physicist and an engineer - when we want to prove something, we use a tool called mathematics. If you cannot prove your point with mathematics, then you also do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.

I'll give you hint, though - the pulverisation of concrete is an endothermic process. It consumes energy to break the concrete into smaller particles. Every material has a surface energy vs an interface - in this case concrete and air. If I have a big block of concrete, it has a lot of volume but not a lot of surface area. If I want to break it into a number of smaller blocks, I (necessarily) have to increase the surface area to volume ratio of the concrete - the smaller the particles, the more surface area you create and the more energy you need. The exact amount varies inversely with the sqare-root of the end particle size.

This also can't lead to heating, of course, because energy can't do useful work (breaking concrete) *and* turn to heat - it's one or the other. This is (partly) why car engines don't turn red hot - as the hot gas expands in the cylinder, it cools because that thermal energy is taken away, converted to mechanical energy when it turns the crankshaft. The amount of heat that escapes determines the efficiency of the system.

At any rate, any energy which led to brittle fracture of the materials is forever stored in the new surface area created by that fracture (or pulverisation) so it can't ever become heat at that point. In fact, the WTC energy that became heat is the energy which we didn't see do anything - energy that did not do useful work like smashing and breaking things, but simply ended up making atoms vibrate faster.

The towers each had about 1,000 GJ of gravitational energy stored in them. That's enough to melt about 2,000 tonnes of steel (0.64 GJ/tonne) if that is all it does (no crushing concrete, no bending or breaking steel beams, no expanding clouds to displace dust over half of Manhattan, etc).

Energy budget 1 -> Melt 2,000 tonnes of steel (about 1% of the WTC steel)

Now in terms of pulverising concrete, the standard method for recycling, for example, is mechanical crushing to a final particle size on the order of 1-2mm. This requires about 5-6 MJ/tonne. The WTC dust was reported to be an average of 60 microns, or 25 times more fine than this (requiring sqrt(25)= 5 times more energy) -- say 20MJ/tonne to be conservative. That's enough to crush 50,000 tonnes of concrete.

Energy budget 2 -> Crush 50,000 tonnes of concrete (about 10-15% of the WTC concrete)


So we either melt a bit of steel OR we crush a bit of the concrete OR we do a bit of mix and match with less of both- far less destruction than we saw on the day. Further, since none of this energy was expended in stopping the tower from freefalling, we can't even spend any of it on doing any of this stuff - or perhaps just a small fraction of it.

So let us see your numbers - mine don''t convince me that you have a hope of proving your point, but by all means, I love being surprised.

[edit on 16-7-2007 by justin-d]

To help shed some light on the concepts you are using -

Laws of Thermodynamics - Thermodynamics is the study of the the distribution of heat in a system. There are I think 4 plus some other associated laws, but the first one says something like the amount of energy in the universe is constant and it can't be created or destroyed. The second states that if heat is taken from one source, it will perform an equal amount of work somewhere else. Now to take your wire bending example - bending the wire back and forth causes a mechanical condition called strain hardening. This is caused from displacing the grains of metal which rub against each other and disrupt the lattice structure of the metal. The heat is from all that friction created. Bending the wire is applying work (you burn calories which is transferred into bending the wire which results in strain hardening and some heat from friction) which eventually fractures the wire. The wire didn't melt, it fractured - VERY different phenomenon. What happened to the towers has nothing to do with heat generated from bending metal.

Kinetic Energy - this is the energy that a mass with a velocity has relative to some reference point. So the top floor has potential energy, which is purely related to the fact that if let fall from that height, it would accelerate at 1 gravity and attain velocity relative to the floors below, and the earth itself. The amount of energy that a mass has is exactly equal to (1/2*M*V^2) That is 1/2 times the Mass times the velocity squared. Now when you have a massive object, like the top 12 or so floors of the trade center falling, they will impact the floors below. The kinetic energy of the falling mass will be applied in an "impact load" on the floors below. This will overwhelm the steel and concrete supports and cause them to fracture from the overwhelming shear stress. There will be some heat generated at the shear points, but not very much. The velocity needed to turn mass directly into large amounts of heat is so large (an asteroid traveling at 50,000 mph is fast enough, but don't tell me that the falling building was anywhere near that speed).

What happened to the trade centers is directly related to three things. The design of the building - it was held together by long steel rods under each floor, the lack of fireproofing on the rods which MAY have insulated them enough to prevent failure, and the 60,000 pounds of aviation fuel that burned hot enough to soften steel. Once the top support struts failed, the impact from that mass falling hit the floor below, shattered the steel and concrete supports below, picked up more mass (and more energy) hit the floor below, and so on until it reached the earth. Steel performs based on its heat treatment (temper), you wouldn't even have to melt the steel to make it fail - just heat it enough to change it's material properties (phase state in materials science terminology). I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but these buildings were not demoed. It takes months to set up a building for demolition, and you have to cut holes in walls and cut specific structural members. People would have noticed all the detcord and jackhammers in their offices.

CaptAvatar

Justin-d,

Well, you are right on some things. However when you are trying to prove something you use the scientific method, only a part of which is mathematics. When you pulverize concrete you are doing work. I also am not sure where you are coming up with specific numbers - you would need to know specific mass and velocities to calculate this, which only could be wild guesses. The kinetic energy of the falling debris was doing work by shattering concrete and steel and anything else that was in the way. This is NOT primarily a thermodynamic process, but a mechanical one, just like the rock crusher rollers used to make small rocks from big rocks. The energy of the falling debris is accounted for in 4 outputs in order of magnitude (largest to smallest) - moving the earth a tiny fraction, shattering concrete and steel, and I can't guess which would be larger, heat generated from fractures or entropy.

For those folks who may not know what entropy is (it took a while for me to wrap my head around the concept) it is also one of the tenets of thermodynamics - for any transfer of energy into work or vice versa, you always loose some, like an inefficiency factor.

CaptAvatar

[edit on 16-7-2007 by CaptAvatar]

[edit on 16-7-2007 by CaptAvatar]

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
To help shed some light on the concepts you are using - I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but these buildings were not demoed. It takes months to set up a building for demolition, and you have to cut holes in walls and cut specific structural members. People would have noticed all the detcord and jackhammers in their offices.

CaptAvatar

it's the golden age of wireless. so, ...no. there is also such a thing as pressure trigger, or a timed one.
what you are describing is a conventional controlled demolition. this was not. it was a controlled demolition trying to disguise itself as a terrorist act.

there are many types of devices which can destroy things. more than one type can be used. it doesn't have to be 'either', 'or' thermite/nukes/RDX... it can be all three.

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
and the 60,000 pounds of aviation fuel that burned hot enough to soften steel.

Even NIST concluded that the kerosene could not burn hot enough to cause the structural steel members to deform.

Here is a video of a mounted camera showing the camera shake well before the collapse of the building

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

And here is a good compilation of other possible facts about why this was caused by other forces and not from jet fuel melting the steel.

www.letsrollforums.com...

Now to be fair i found a site that debunks the debunkers.
Ill let you see what they have to say about the molten steel and why the towers fell. I found it quite amusing. Ill answer questions regarding it after i get bombarded by the apposing side.

www.debunking911.com...

have fun viewing.

If i hear yo right the force of the kinetic energy from the falling tower created enough heat to melt steel....yeah rriight...
Why dont yo take a sledgehammer and pound on that coathanger as hard as yo can to see if the kinetic energy will unload into the coathanger as enough heat to melt it....yeah rrriight...
bergle

I found another video that explains controlled demolition And also has some telling shots of the steel at the base of the W.T.C. site. Note that the beams are cut on an angle just the same way that A controlled demo would be in a steel framed building.

www.youtube.com...

And another reason why the molten metal theory must continue. The anomalies of the planes that hit the building would support a reasonable argument.

www.youtube.com...

If the planes where altered then the rest of the events where altered also.