Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

Why wouldn't it? as it is,the planes that hit the towers were carrying THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel still..

Not beyond belief that the fuel went down into severed elevator shafts to the basement

 

No one is claiming that jet fuel did, that's a straw man argument. If you actually took time to read the reports, you'll find that jet fuel ignited fires on multiple floors.

- - - Updated - - -

Not just 'went down' or 'fell down' but propelled down (via the momentum of an aircraft traveling at near full throttle) the elevator shafts.

 

That too,but I didn't want the truthers head to pop with that bit of info...call me kindhearted..

 

Which presents yet another physics impossibility. You say it ignited other fires, which then you would have to assume that those fires created the molten metal.

Problem.... What was burning? Paper products? Wood desks? It certainly wasn't Gypsum Board. The problem there is, wood and paper products, as well as carpet, all have a much lower burn temp than even the jet fuel. Wood open air burn temp is around 200ºC. Again, Steel melts at 1370ºC, and we have pictures of melted metal.

So unless there was some other fuel source, specifically placed in that building, intentionally to burn at a high enough temperature to melt metal, the ignited fires on multiple floors could never have resulted in melted metal falling of the side of the building. It is impossible. Basic physics man. That can't happen.

Doesn't matter. First off, even if the plane was able to sever a 52 by 22 inch box-column, after exploding into bits going through the outer steel wall of the building... (not even remotely likely), the force of that impact would be diffused throughout the core area, not concentrated on one or two elevator shafts.

And remember, it would HAVE TO BE concentrated on one or two elevator shafts, because the rest of the elevators didn't go all the way to ground floor.



From this pict, you can see that only one elevator went all the way to the top floors. The WTC1 plane hit where there were two elevators to ground. WTC2 plane hit were there was only one elevator going to ground.

Then you have to assume that the force of the blast was magically able to home in on the elevators that went to the ground floor.

Further, even if we magically assume the force was concentrated on the elevator shaft, it would be dispersed going UP as well as DOWN. Heat rises remember? Burning jet fuel would likely go up rather than down. Unless you want to claim it wasn't burning. Good luck with that one.

Moreover, even if we magically assume that not only did the plane stay together with enough speed and force to sever the box columns, and magically had all that force go down, you then have a problem with the dispersion of the fuel in the 79 floors worth of air. Fuel dispersed enough, doesn't explode. And we're talking about jet fuel, that is designed to vaporize faster than gasoline.

And lastly, we're ignoring the fact that the shaft didn't end at the ground floor. It continued on into the basement, which is a good 10 floors down? Why did the blast damage the lobby, instead of continuing to follow the shaft into the basement?

And back to this "airplane traveling at full throttle". The wings are where the fuel is stored generally. The wings didn't go with the rest of the aircraft. Go back and look at the crash impacts. Both planes were tilted. One wing high, and one wing low. Both would have been severed from the rest of the plane on impact, because they hit the concrete steel floor above and blow where the body of the plane hit.

With the bulk of the fuel separated from the body of force of the aircraft, it is unlikely that it could do anything, but make a huge fireball throughout the floor where the wings hit, which is exactly what we see in videos. Most of the fuel just blooms into fireballs going out both sides of the floor.

 

You keep building this strawman argument. While steel is an alloy of metals, all metal is not steel. You can have 'molten metal' and not have 'molten steel'. Lots of aluminum in the WTC, with a much lesser melting point.
But this argument is fruitless anyway, as no one claims that the steel had to melt in order for the building to fail. As for the fuel to burn? Here's a quote:

and, further:

You should really look into the multiple investigations done. This has all been addressed years ago. For now:

The fuel aerosolized and went in multiple directions upon impact. Up the shafts, down the shafts, through different areas of the WTC within seconds, igniting fires. Damage was indeed done in the basements and sub-basements, as several eyewitnesses attested to.

 

Let me follow this up with a question:

Since molten metal (even molten steel) isn't a product or result of a controlled demolition: How does molten metal found at the collapse site indicate evidence of a controlled demolition?

 

I have two questions:
1. If those steel columns were deformed from the heat and that was the most important factor in the chain of events leading to the collapse, would that mean that simple cooling or conventional fire extinction in the offices would have prevented the complete collapse?
2. Someone (hypothetical) willing to bring down another high building, would this person have realidtic chances of success by setting one or two large offices on fire and somehow blocking the sprinkler system (preferrably on a weekend to let the fire "work" for some minutes)?

 

Apparently an elevator freefell from the 107th floor to the b2 floor,and the resulting explosion went back up the shaft to the lobby area

 

1-Not likely,since the deformation will remain

2-No,because it wasn't just the fire alone...the jets tore the guts out of the towers as well...

 

Oh wow! You got me there completely! There was aluminum at ground zero! You absolutely correct, because the planes that hit were made of aluminum! And further you are right again! Aluminum does have a 'lower' melting point than steel! The melting point of Aluminum is about 660ºC.......... compared to the open air burn temp of Jet Fuel of 315ºC.

But wait wait.... let's believe that magically the fire did burn over 660ºC.



Hey Sparky.... That's a picture of melted aluminum. Notice a problem? Review the picture dude....



This is molten iron. See a rather obvious, and perhaps one might even say 'glowing difference' between the two?

Now look at 9/11 again.



So back to the arcane wisdom of sesame street.... which of the above two melted metals, looks most like the one from 9/11?

Here I'll help you out..... ALUMINUM when melted is...... **SILVER**........ not bright yellow.

One of the reasons why talking with people about 9/11 is such a frustrating endeavor, is because I learned all this when I was a freshman in high school. This isn't some deep conspiracy theory. This isn't some Quantum Physics that requires a Ph.D from Harvard or MIT. Yet here you are saying "Well you don't know what metal it is! I could be Aluminum.............." Yeah..... Aluminum that I know from being a dumb a hell 8th grader in high school 15 years ago.... melts silver, not bright yellow..... yeah that bright yellow stuff is obviously really a silvery molten aluminum here in fairy land.... because we mindlessly believe whatever the government says like good little lemmings.

Well yeah, it's fruitless as long as you toss in red herrings constantly. Listen, you don't want to believe anything else, that's fine. Spare me, and go away.

But if you want to continue discussing this, stop with the red herrings. I DO NOT CARE about how the building fell. We'll get to that later. What have a problem with right now, in this discussion, is where did that melted metal come from? Buildings don't carry large blocks of random low-melting point metals on random floors in the building, set conveniently near the outer walls... just in case....

It's *NOT* aluminum.

That leaves only a few other possibilities. It is either steel from the building itself, or someone placed that metal in the building on purpose. If it's the steel of the building, then how the hell did it get hot enough to melt?

Again, 8th grade.... physics class.... look up the open air burn temps of rugs and furniture, and paper products. They all burn at a LOWER TEMP than the jet fuel! Fail! I don't care what the NIST report made up that temp at, they are wrong! You can look up the numbers yourself! You can't get to 1,000ºC with fuels that burn at 200ºC, or 315ºC, or 250ºC. I'm sorry. Magic faeries, and unicorns do not exist. You can't get to 1,000ºC with fuels that top out at 315ºC. Not possible.

Yes, the magic faeries flew the fuel all the way down 79 floors to the basement, and damage the lobby, magically causing them to remain concentrated, and unburnt, during the 79 floor journey, and then magically exploded them in the sub-levels and lobby..... and I have a live troll in my backyard, guarding the ring of Lord Sauron. Actually, it was me fighting Lord Sauron at 9/11 that destroyed the buildings.

Just flat out.... if you actually believe what this idiot said, then you must have failed physics class. Just that's all there is to it. Anyone rational can see that line of thinking is insane.

If you really really believe what you just posted there, then we should agree to disagree now. Because if you don't understand basic physics.... high school level physics, then nothing I say will you even be able to understand. Like telling an isolated African tribe about lunar landings. You just won't be able to grasp it. Like burning officer furniture is going to reach 1,000ºC because some mindless NIST twit said it? Really? That's all that is required for you to believe? Just "Dhur..... NIST said, I believe it, that settles it!" The Baptist Preacher of Government, right here.

Anyone else here who has the ability to "think for themselves" instead of blindly following government, I am available to discuss this topic.

 

Wah??? .... resulting...... explosion....?

....... what...... in an elevator...... explodes?!?

"Well just the other day, I chucked a rock off the roof of my house, and hit it hit the front porch, the resulting explosion destroyed my front door........"

Have you been watching too many B rated movies? Do you think TNT and C4 are commonly stored at the bottom of elevator shafts or something?

Good grief! What city do you live in, so the rest of us will know to never use the explosive laden elevators there!

 

Are you normally this much of a smartass,and not able to discuss a topic without being rude?

The force of the car dropping from 107 plus the burning fuel in the shaft made the 'explosion'

 

Here's another picture of molten aluminum.



Note the color.

There was more aluminum in the towers than just the plane, if we're going to nit-pick. The entire outer cladding of the towers was aluminum. There was lots of lead, copper, cadmium, etc in the towers too. So you cannot categorically claim what substance you see in the picture.

If you're going to argue that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel ... tell me how people forged steel using only wood as their fire fuel back in the middle ages.

Think for yourself and examine the evidence.

 

Still waiting for you to tell me how 90 day underground fires and molten metal comes from a controlled demolition...

 

You people.... seriously? First off, I highly doubt that was actually aluminum. I looked up the source, and could not verify.

Second, yes if aluminum is heated to approximately 900ºC, you can get it to glow like iron. The problem is, that defeats your point. If it has to be that hot to glow that color, then that means you have to have a fuel source that is 900ºC. Again... get any amount of aluminum you want, and get all the Jet Fuel or Wood, or Gasoline, burn it in open air, and try and make that aluminum glow like those pictures. (hint: You can't).

Third, aluminum when poured turns silver. As I have said a dozen times. If you doubt that, look at this video of actual aluminum being poured. In the pot, it glows. When it's poured, it turns silver. You can look it up. It's a fact.

[video=youtube_share;nhbaiuK3M3U]http://youtu.be/nhbaiuK3M3U[/video]

There wasn't nearly enough to make a river of liquid metal flowing from the side of the building. And further, there is no possible way that the out side sheath got hot enough to melt. No way. Just from the official explanation, there is absolutely no indication that out side surface of the building was that hot. Supposedly the super hot fires were on the inside anyway. Not a valid explanation.

Constant misdirection. If you want to discuss the differences between sagging steel frame, verses a totally and complete collapse, we can do that later.

Right now there is only ONE question I have. If you can answer that, we'll move on. Where did the bright yellow glowing liquid metal flowing from the sides of the buildings come from? Where did the glowing pools of molten metal come from?

All your other questions, for now, at this point in time, I don't give a crap about.

In order for you to believe that two planes brought down those two buildings, and were the only cause of their destruction, you have to explain to me where pools of molten metal came from.

Everything else, I don't care.

Again, it's not aluminum. You claim there was lead, copper, cadmium. Copper has a 1,000ºC melting point, so that's not it. That leaves lead and cadmium. I would love to hear you explain where you think that much lead and cadmium was, that it melted and created that much flowing liquid metal, and I certainly have not heard anyone anywhere claim that it was either of those. So do tell where you think such came from. And as far as I know even if there was massive quantities of lead and cadmium at 9/11, conveniently placed near the windows for the purpose of melting into streams of molten metal, as far as I know, both when melted are silvery, not bright yellow, unless they are again, heated to around 900ºC.

Of course I still don't know of anyone that found pools of molten lead and cadmium at ground zero. If you do, please post.

 

So I post evidences, and ask a question, you ignore it and demand I explain something I didn't say?

Tell you what.... I'll even answer your question, if you first answer this....

Tell me why anyone should not simply put a poster on their ignore list, who when faced with evidence and questions he has no answer to, is not mature enough to simply admit he doesn't know, but rather replaces everything with "[snip]!" as if that's a valid counter argument, and at the same time, comes up with a red herring not related to the topic directly at hand, and demands the other person answer it? Can you answer that for me?

Why should ANYONE deal with someone who has such a lack of balls, that they replace evidence and questions with "[snip]!" is their idea of an arguement, and demands for explanation of a red herring I never said?

You answer that question, and I'll answer yours.

 

Quote:If you're going to argue that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel ... tell me how people forged steel using only wood as their fire fuel back in the middle ages? End of quote

Wood had to be turned into charcoal to reach the necessary temperature to produce bronze. Iron could not be processed before some form of blast furnace had been invented.

 

You quite clearly said "jet fuel" cannot leave molten metal in the rubble. You inferred therefore that only a controlled demolition scenario could. So, Andelusion, how?

 

First YOU need to provide 'evidence' without being a rude b******

 

From an independent study by Stephen Chastain, Mechanical Engineer and Author

Doesn't it make sense that whatever metal (assuming it's metal and not glass, for example) is seen pouring out of the side is not that metal in its pure form?

There were also banks of batteries on the 81st floor of the south tower from an Uninterruptible Power Supply installed by Fuji Bank. These contained lead, sulfur, cadmium and hydrogen. These elements alone could account for higher temperatures as well as explosions.

Regarding the pools of metal in the rubble: Hot Steel will undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it literally melts. To demonstrate, here's an experiment from a grade school children's magazine.
http://www.highlightskids.com/science-experiment/iron-burns-slowly

No magic, just science.

It would be helpful if you would drop the incredulity and tone of your posts: it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Respectfully,

h

 

His entire argument is nothing but a red herring being blanketed in reverse burden of proof. It's his claim that it wasn't the other products. His claim is that it is melted steel, it's on no one to prove it wasn't, as it's not our claim.

Furthermore, it's endlessly going to go around because he actively refuses to accept any form of professional experience. Instead, he is replacing it all with his own incredulity. Look at the way he completely hand waived away the NIST information.

Just agree with him, say it's molten steel. Even if it is molten steel, then what? There is no demolition material that does that, and there is no way it was applied inside. This whole argument is just one ridiculous adventure is truther logic.

 

He needs to figure out how a rubble pile with a mixture of flammable materials,plus bits of decomposing bodies can spontaneously combust underground and burn really hot...

 

A story that makes me come closer to the official version of the 9/11 building collapse, quote:

Tanker Fire Causes Ca. Highway Collapse
A heavily traveled section of freeway that funnels traffic off the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday after a gasoline tanker truck overturned and erupted into flames, authorities said.

Flames shot 200 feet in the air and the heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked away from the scene with second-degree burns. No other injuries were reported.

"I've never seen anything like it," Officer Trent Cross of the California Highway Patrol said of the crumpled interchange. "I'm looking at this thinking, 'Wow, no one died — that's amazing. It's just very fortunate."

Authorities said the damage could take months to repair, and that it would cause the worst disruption for Bay Area commuters since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged a section of the Bay Bridge itself.

Nearly 75,000 vehicles use the portion of the road every day. But because the accident occurred where three highways converge, authorities said it could cause commuting problems for hundreds of thousands of people.

Transportation officials said they already had added trains to the Bay Area Rapid Transit light rail system that takes commuters across San Francisco Bay, and were urging people to telecommute if possible.

State officials said motorists who try to take alternate routes Monday instead of relying on public transportation would face nightmarish commutes.

The tanker carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline ignited around 3:45 a.m. after crashing into a pylon on the interchange, which connects westbound lanes of Interstate 80 to southbound I-880, on the edge of downtown Oakland about half a mile from the Bay Bridge's toll plaza.

A preliminary investigation indicated he may have been speeding on the curving road, Cross said.

The fire melted a second interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 located above the first interchange, causing a 250-yard section of the roadway to collapse onto the roadway below, according to the highway patrol.

Witnesses reported flames from the blaze reached up to 200 feet high.

Late Sunday morning, the charred section of collapsed freeway was draped at a sharp angle onto the highway beneath, exposing a web of twisted metal beneath the concrete.

End of quote

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/29/national/main2739222.shtml

In summary it says that burning fuel CAN make steel melt or impair its stability so significantly that it will not carry anymore the load it is supposed to carry.

 

Not to rain on any parades, but you needed a bridge to collapse in order to understand the effect that fire has on steel? Have you never heard of a blacksmith previously?

 

Regular gas none the less! It's not even the overpowered jet fuel, nor the quantity that was in the planes. The planes actually carried around 10,000 gallons, which is about 1k+ what the tanker was carrying. Also, the semi didn't crash into the bridge, just the heat caused the bridge to fail, there was no impact. Think about that when people claim that "no plane hit building 7" (*)(*)(*)(*).