911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[Capstone]

The RJ Lee Group's dust study showed that the WTC dust had a unique signature that was marked primarily by "spherical iron particles", from which it concluded that "[iron had] melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles". The study also showed that the iron particulate content of the WTC dust was nearly 150 times greater than normal, and that temperatures "at which lead would have undergone vaporization" had occurred (that's 1,749°C/3,180°F).

The US Geological Survey's WTC dust study independently verified the RJ Lee Group's findings, but further found that molybdenum had melted, which meant that temperatures at ground zero must have reached at least 2,623°C/4,753°F.

Not to mention the study that was carried out by the Harrit Group, my somewhat lengthy defense of which can be found in another thread on this board.

FEMA's infamous chunk of swiss-cheesified steel, a number of fused iron/concrete formations like the so-called 'meteorite', the providentially welded-together cross of iron, the inexplicably non-deformed 'horseshoe', and the 3 independent dust studies mentioned above constitute a body of physical evidence that steel had indeed been melted. Alongside the video documentation that was captured during the clean-up at ground zero and the several highly credible eyewitness accounts of "flowing, dripping, running, pool[ing], molten" metal that was variously described as the sort of thing seen "in a foundry" or in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption ("like lava" and "little rivers of molten steel"), the hard physical evidence that was entirely ignored or outright denied by the NIST group is especially damning.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

and so when it is a contest between "mythbusters" & people who hold advanced degrees + state licenses to be ENGINEERS, people accept the "mythbusters" as proof?

thats the loyal Bush dupes for you.

 

[SAYIT]

Still waiting for real proof of molten steel.

9-11 Research Forensic Metallurgy

Bogus, self-serving speculation. The thinning and holes were deemed to have been the result of corrosion, not melting. As you twice bailed out when Gamelon agreed to play your pseudoscience game, your presence here is now strictly for amusement only.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls,.^^
gomer Ollie and dawgshit,your handlers sure are worried the fact they sent you here so quick to troll this thread.lol.

 

[SAYIT]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls,.^^
gomer Ollie and dawgshit,your handlers sure are worried the fact they sent you here so quick to troll this thread.lol.

And you are what passes for "rational & mature" in the now defunct "Truther" Movement. You may well be the reason it's so D-E-A-D..

 

[daws101]

 

[Capstone]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

 

[SAYIT]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what they thought it appeared to be at a glance? You should know that many eyewitnesses also saw planes slam into the Towers and the Pentagon as well as plenty of damage to WTC 7 from large chunks of falling debris. You must also know that many within the now defunct "Truther" Movement deny the existence of those planes.
BTW, all steel was once molten and if you examine virtually any large steel beam you will find plenty of imperfections including small sphericals.

 

[Faun]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage?

Oh ... wait ........

 

[Capstone]

So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what they thought it appeared to be at a glance?...

Should I list the credentials of some of the individuals who independently reported what appeared to all of them to be molten metal? This agreement among several highly credible eyewitnesses should have served as one of several bases for the NIST group's decision as to whether to test for evidence of explosives/incendiaries (which they've admitted they didn't).

...You should know that many eyewitnesses also saw planes slam into the Towers and the Pentagon as well as plenty of damage to WTC 7 from large chunks of falling debris. ...

Exactly where have I argued to the contrary?

In fact, my appeal to an entire body of eyewitness accounts is crucial to my claim that the aircraft/drones were not the Flights we were told they were...

...You must also know that many within the <snip> "Truther" Movement deny the existence of those planes. ...

That's not my problem, nor is it relevant to the issue of the widely reported presence of molten steel at ground zero.

...BTW, all steel was once molten and if you examine virtually any large steel beam you will find plenty of imperfections including small sphericals.

Not in the vast quantities discovered and documented by the 3 independent dust studies, as I'm fairly confident you know.

Beyond that, indicators of vaporized lead, melted molybdenum, and active/unreacted chips of an apparently nano-engineered incendiary remain to be considered.

 

[Capstone]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage?

Oh ... wait ........

Again the distinction between molten aluminum reflecting the color of the heat source within whatever crucible is responsible for its molten state and the color attained while being poured (as it would have been in the case of the south tower) is ignored in order to prop up a misleading argument.

 

[Faun]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage?

Oh ... wait ........

Again the distinction between molten aluminum reflecting the color of the heat source within whatever crucible is responsible for its molten state and the color attained while being poured (as it would have been in the case of the south tower) is ignored in order to prop up a misleading argument.

Had you watched the video, you would have seen it poured glowing orange. Next nonsense?

 

[Capstone]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage?

Oh ... wait ........

Again the distinction between molten aluminum reflecting the color of the heat source within whatever crucible is responsible for its molten state and the color attained while being poured (as it would have been in the case of the south tower) is ignored in order to prop up a misleading argument.

Had you watched the video, you would have seen it poured glowing orange. Next nonsense?

Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange.

Next misleading statement?

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

 

[daws101]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

 

[daws101]

WTC Molten Steel

The story...

Molten steel was discovered in the basements of the collapsed WTC. Fire couldn't raise the temperature high enough to melt steel, but explosives, particularly thermite, could.

As Lisa Giuliani put it:

The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by:

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

Please explain where these molten pools of steel came from, because hydrocarbon fires are not going to burn in an oxygen-starved environment as these underground fires did.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/312837.shtml

Our take...

So we have three sources? Maybe not. Let's go back to a more complete telling of the story.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

Okay, so we have two sources here, Tully and Loizeaux, who were then reported in the third (American Free Press). Or do we? Note that Tully is the one claiming he saw the steel, and the article then says he called Loizeaux. So it Loizeaux simply repeating what he's heard from Tully? That would make sense, and it appears to be confirmed by this claimed email from Loizeaux:

Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
Controlled Demolition Inc.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

If accurate, the source has now moved from Loizeaux back to contractors, but there’s no information here on how the substance was identified as “molten steel”, or who might have performed the analysis to figure it out.

There’s another complication in terms of the WTC debris temperatures, according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html ), but that's still well below the “about 2,800° Fahrenheit” we need to get "literally molten steel".

The get-out here is that NASA could only see surface temperatures, obviously. And they took their first measurements on the 16th, so temperatures could have been even higher before then. Keep in mind that the hotspots had reduced significantly by the 23rd, though, and excavators wouldn’t have been digging anywhere close to the basement levels until some time after that.

Other accounts suggest the temperatures needn’t have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Perhaps aware of these problems, some people use other accounts to support the "molten steel" idea. Let's look at a few of those.

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;.)

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.)

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.
http://www.reopen911.org/womaninhole.htm

Eaton's quote refers to "molten metal", not steel. The use of “glowing red” suggests he may not mean it’s liquid metal, either.

The "Leslie Robertson" quote comes second-hand from James Williams, SEAU President, in an account of a Robertson presentation ( http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf ). We emailed Roberston to find out if it was accuate, and his brief reply arrived quickly:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Details here

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

The Sarah Atlas story also appears to be use “molten steel” for dramatic effect, rather than anything else. How could she possibly know for sure that “molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"? We checked with the author, and he said this information would have been a quote from someone, but he doesn’t remember who (and none of the possible subjects would really qualify as an expert witness).

We recently discovered another pointer to the use of “molten steel”, too. A message on the LibertyPost forum referred to a now defunct site called WTCGodsHouse.com, where a WTC construction worker published a potentially relevant photo ( http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926 ). Could this be true? The site is dead, but there’s a copy in the WayBack machine, and the front page has this guys credentials:

My name is Frank Silecchia. I am one of the many WTC Ground Zero workers who was devastated by what I saw and encountered after the Twin Towers collasped.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020608142217/http://www.wtcgodshouse.com/

Proceed to the photos section ( http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/www.wtcgodshouse.com/photos.html ) and you’ll find something captioned “this is a picture of Tower #1 ..2 months later, molten steel”. Which looks like this.

Now maybe it’s just us, but we have some problems with that.

First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.

Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten” in the sense of “melted”.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is.

Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it’s completely black. There’s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it’s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn’t a good conductor of heat, it’s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?

And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm

Coal fires produce higher temperatures than we’d expect from the debris pile, but then Steve Jones suggests we only need 845°C to 1,040°C to explain our glowing steel. Could that be produced with the materials available, and oxygen filtering in from above, or from the subways connected to the WTC basement level?

There’s a clue in the results of this fire test intended to simulate conditions in a timber frame building:

Peak temperatures in the living area of the fire flat reached approximately 1000°C and remained at this level until the test was stopped at 64 minutes...

Despite average atmosphere temperatures in excess of 900°C for 30 minutes...

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm

The Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester tells us that adding plastics to the mix can make things hotter still:

The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm

Office fires can be severe, then. What temperatures are achievable? The same page details four different fire types, and shows their temperature range over time.

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit" Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.

 

[daws101]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit" Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.

AS BEFORE It's based on a false assumption. so any conclusion or observation based on that false assumption is also false..
yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site...my post explains it all...

 

[daws101]

USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS thermal

 

[SAYIT]

So did any of those eyewitnesses actually test the "rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles" to determine their composition or were the observers simply stating what they thought it appeared to be at a glance?...

Should I list the credentials of some of the individuals who independently reported what appeared to all of them to be molten metal? This agreement among several highly credible eyewitnesses should have served as one of several bases for the NIST group's decision as to whether to test for evidence of explosives/incendiaries (which they've admitted they didn't)...

Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be molten metal - not necessarily steel - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?