Motlen metal pouring from the sides of the towers 7 minutes to collapse

You are right, I can't make anyone read anything. That actually takes an inquisitive mind to read something. I also don't know if you can read.

 

more than likelyit is the floor pan...this is a thin layer of sheet metal that lightweight concrete is pour onto for the floor..if this melts the floor collapse onto the lower floor doublng the weight of that floor so now that floor collapses onto the next floor..then that floor has triple the weight it was designed for..and so on all the way down to the bottom floor

 

I dont need to read something I already know I dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if it came from god, you apparently needed to read it and have proven you did not understand what you read because if you did you would not be arguing about it now.

- - - Updated - - -

how do you know that just because one floor is sitting on another that floor must then collapse? post the data you base this on

 

How would you know, you didn't read it.

 

from 35 years of building those type of floors and from engineering books and classes

 

I assume it's metal because it certainly looks like metal, to me. Does it not? I assume steel because of the apparent volume that is flowing like a small river for approximately seven minutes prior to the final collapse. Do you know differently and if so, how?

So, one thing all can agree on is that it IS metal (of some sort). That's something, I guess. I'd like to rule out steel, if possible.

 

I for one, would like to know what metal the official supporters of the story believe that it is (better yet even, to prove what it is). If it were steel, higher temperature would have to be established. (than would be for aluminum). If it's all supposed to be aluminum, I'd like to hear someone on that side proclaim it, and show how they can verify it. Otherwise, I'll assume it was steel.

- - - Updated - - -

The floor pan(s) accounted for that volume of flowing metal? You said it is likely. Do you know for sure, or are you simply offering speculation?

 

Could have very well been glass..

 

being that the floor pans were missing in the debris pile you must assume they melted away..these were only on the floors near the crash that were missing...they just dont fly away...

 

Could have been? Anything in NIST's report of what it actually was though? I mean, it could have been the product of thermite as well. Anyone know for certain, or does NIST simply avoid it altogether?

- - - Updated - - -

So, you accept that it's aluminum, based on what? Theory, correct? Is there something more provable? What does NIST say?

 

not aluminum..galvanized steel...

 

So, it is steel then?

 

So, would the orange molten metal shown here: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-a...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html be aluminum also, or is this steel? I think this also answers the question of molten metal being there weeks later. Some here apparently contend that there was no molten metal at the site weeks later either.
Question. What would make molten steel remain in a molten state for that long? How does a fire develop that quickly (in about an hour) and create molten steel? How long do temperatures from office fires need to make metal molten (aluminum or steel)? Seems like an awful lot happened in hour for it to be 'unassisted' in some other manner that isn't being offered up by NIST.

 

All of that has been explained in previous links but some here find reading too hard. Remember, where the molten metal came from, which floor. Also realize that there was about 180,000 lbs of aircraft in the building, mostly 2000 series aluminum. Heck, you can melt aluminum cans over a fire at home.

 

Referring to the original post, do you stipulate that the flowing metal that occurred for about 7 minutes prior to the collapse, was steel? You seem to suggest either. Clarification please,

 

No, not steel. Aluminum. There was plenty of it and at the right temperature also glows. Read the dang link I provided earlier.

 

Fair enough. So, why does NIST deny the existence of it altogether? here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg

All of this in an hour, and so much apparent confusion on the matter (even by NIST as late as 2008?) Are we to take NIST at their word, or not? Either it was molten metal/steel/aluminum, or it wasn't.

 

Read the dang link I provided earlier.

 

Truthers don't read.

 

Do you read? There are a whole host of scientific 'leaps of faith' we're required to make, in order to read the official version of events. As the author of this link http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201 states, (and I'm paraphrasing) all we have to do to find unscientific analysis of NIST and their conclusions, is to simply read HOW they defend their own conclusions.

 

OK, so the answer is no.

 

No, to what? Anything in particular, or no to anything that counters NIST?

 

Thermite doen't burn that long

 

Well, then maybe some subcomponent or modification of the thermite was possible? The point being that whatever generated those temperatures that quickly, couldn't have come from office materials. Not without some help anyway.

 

Of course all of that has been explained but much like Salem witch trials, when someone cannot comprehend the science, they imagine other magic must be responsible.