Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation
Really? That OpEdNews article you posted he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. You don't feel the dis?
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses
The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..
I read your opening post a couple more times. The above statement is based on the fact that people supposedly saw molten steel. As I have said, there is no way to be 100% sure that what anyone is seeing is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum.
The whole point of your argument relies on this molten steel assumption, and an assumption it is.
And many of those accredited experts also said "molten metal" because they were not sure what it was.
Right. Assumptions.
They got high enough to WEAKEN the steel didn't they? Steel starts to lose its strength at about 650C.
Correct. At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? Especially steel under a load. Hence the article I linked previously regarding fire proofing.
If you are referring to Leslie Robertson, I have already shown you that it was the author's words, not Robertson's. Robertson was never quoted in that article.
Only by sight, no testing. Assumption at best.
See above.
No. Melting steel and steel starting to lose its supportive capabilities are two different temperature ranges.
This confirms nothing. A huge pile of debris containing heat and fire within? So you have a hard time grasping why this would be so hot?
This temperature has nothing to do with what happened as you are basing this temp on the sight observations of molten steel and that there MUST have been enough heat to cause steel to become molten.
Couldn't have been thermite either then. Thermite burns quickly and would not have maintained those temps.
Right. Compare the temperature results to the temperature at which steel starts to weaken.So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..
Again you exhibit the patience of Job.
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.
yes their are and none of them had planes hit them...thanks eot's for presenting smoking gun evidence that you post half truth and out and out lies...
QUESTION: what did not happen in that Chinese hotel fire that make it a false comparison to the twin towers?
answer: no planes hit the hotel and the fire fighters were on scene in seconds....
no plane hit building 7 loser and NIST determined damage was not a factor in the collapse...and there are several different burning skyscrapers in that video
it's called banking a fire .I read your opening post a couple more times. The above statement is based on the fact that people supposedly saw molten steel. As I have said, there is no way to be 100% sure that what anyone is seeing is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum.
The whole point of your argument relies on this molten steel assumption, and an assumption it is.
And many of those accredited experts also said "molten metal" because they were not sure what it was.
Right. Assumptions.
They got high enough to WEAKEN the steel didn't they? Steel starts to lose its strength at about 650C.
Correct. At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? Especially steel under a load. Hence the article I linked previously regarding fire proofing.
If you are referring to Leslie Robertson, I have already shown you that it was the author's words, not Robertson's. Robertson was never quoted in that article.
Only by sight, no testing. Assumption at best.
See above.
No. Melting steel and steel starting to lose its supportive capabilities are two different temperature ranges.
This confirms nothing. A huge pile of debris containing heat and fire within? So you have a hard time grasping why this would be so hot?
This temperature has nothing to do with what happened as you are basing this temp on the sight observations of molten steel and that there MUST have been enough heat to cause steel to become molten.
Couldn't have been thermite either then. Thermite burns quickly and would not have maintained those temps.
Right. Compare the temperature results to the temperature at which steel starts to weaken.
Again you exhibit the patience of Job.
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.
Well, Mr. Jones wants to deal in facts. trying to visually determine that a molten substance is either aluminum or steel is ridiculous. I have posted pictures of both and they look the same. Then Mr. Jones wants to try and add "oomph" to his witnesses by proclaiming them "experts". This in no way makes them "experts" in visualizing molten substances. If I presented each one of them with similar photos, there is no way that ANY of them would be able to tell me that they were 100% able to identify which was aluminum and which was steel.
What I find funny is that Mr. Jones can't understand how a pile of debris as large as the one at ground zero could have attained high temperatures. If the smoldering debris covered by further tons of debris and fed air through the porous pile wasn't enough...
So Mr. Jones,
Unless you can 100% prove that the molten substance was actually molten steel, your opening statement/argument falls flat on its face.
There was plenty of aluminum to be able to create that molten metal. That is a fact.
According to the following study, aluminum was the most found substance in their testing.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS Leachate
Your move.
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
Moving on, I await you postings regarding the NIST testing that legitimizes the heat temps of the fires that were high enough to cause deformation of the steel that led to the collapses.
NIST findings seem to refute the pancake theory of collapse.
Will we find favorable results? What happened with the truss assembly testing?
NIST seemed to have also found that the steel was stronger then they anticipated too.
You can start by posting any relevant testing and results of any confirmation.
Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?
I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.
just as predicted, sister jones spun this to appear as if nist did not do their job...and feign superiority..Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
Moving on, I await you postings regarding the NIST testing that legitimizes the heat temps of the fires that were high enough to cause deformation of the steel that led to the collapses.
NIST findings seem to refute the pancake theory of collapse.
Will we find favorable results? What happened with the truss assembly testing?
NIST seemed to have also found that the steel was stronger then they anticipated too.
You can start by posting any relevant testing and results of any confirmation.
Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?
I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?
BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.
Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?
I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?
BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.
I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers. Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.
As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important. Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time? It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc. So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat. With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.
Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean? What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?
I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?
nothing ...if sister jones concedes that the molten metal is not all steel, it' a major hole in his something other damage and fire took down the towers.Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?
I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?
BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.
I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers. Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.
As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important. Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time? It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc. So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat. With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.
Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean? What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?
I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?
Reynolds wrap is best!Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?
BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.
I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers. Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.
As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important. Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time? It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc. So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat. With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.
Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean? What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?
I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?
An aluminum foil hat.
Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things. It cools faster than steel? It's used in heatsinks? How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal. It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves. So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum? Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool? Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?
I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?
BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
and again the shit monkeys resort to flinging their shit in a sign of defeat.....
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
I disagree.
NIST was provided with limited resources and time (everybody wanted answers yesterday) and charged with explaining what happened on 9/11, not what didn't happen.
They did that, just not to your satisfaction.
There are always CTs - see the Sandy Hook thread - who believe EVERYTHING is a nefarious gov't conspiracy.
Reynolds wrap is best!I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers. Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.
As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important. Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time? It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc. So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat. With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.
Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean? What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?
I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?
An aluminum foil hat.
