Molten steel proves the government's/media's story is invalid.

Yes, In truly doubt he cares what you think. Why would he? Now, that you've had your little troll fit, do you care to address the failures in your premise? Or is cherry picking to score points the limit of your intellect?

Why can't truthers demonstrate their much touted premise?

 

Point noted. But don't you think that if you are going to push a line of reasoning, that one would at least make an attempt to demonstrate the premise (molten steel = CD)?

That should have bee the first step in the development of their argument.

 

Perhaps when and if you actually post something in a professional manner as you hypocritically want others to.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/

This article rebuts most of the specious technical arguments advanced by 9/11 truthers. The key point to remember is kinetic energy. Truthers invariably fail to account for the massive kinetic energy produced by falling steel and concrete. The heat generated by this kinetic energy is more than sufficient to account for heat retained inside remains of the fallen buildings.

 

LOLOL The troll's off again. I know you're just trying to distract everyone from the fact that the truther premise is flawed. Keep trying.

 

This is yet another example of propaganda written to NOT even fool semi-critical thinkers. And in no way it debunks the premise of this thread that:

A JET FUEL FIRE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY JILLIONS OF GALLONS OF JET FUEL THAT IS THROWN ON, AND HOW MANY DESKS, CARPETS, COMPUTERS AND CEMENT DUST DOES NOT DO THAT AND NEVER WILL!

You, sir, apparently like Blues and Ron, fall for the lowest level of propaganda imaginable. And sadly, because of how much our schools suck, there will always be this giant segment of the population that will never even consider how obvious what happened that day truly is.

If you cannot see how molten steel makes the governments story impossible, then there really is nothing left to explain to you.

 

You can't even prove the science behind the meme, so why should anyone listen to you? You make leaps of logic that are endemic throughout trutherdom, and you can't prove the premise you take as a given. Sorry, your hypothesis fails, and it is quite telling that you ignored the point about KE.

 

I'm sorry but I see nothing professional or even relevant about the above. Care to try again? I would certainly be conducive to respond to any post from you that is polite, professional and relevant to the discussion and especially if you could possibly discuss it without invoking some contrived group think entity. A polite discussion is strictly between the parties participating, it has nothing to do with phantoms.

 

Okay, get down to specifics.
What does "THAT" refer to above? If you are talking about molten steel, then you need to do the calculations.
1) What is the kinetic energy of the mass of the aircraft striking the tower at its impact speed?
2) How is that energy dissipated?
3) What percentage is dissipated in the form of heat?
4) Is the dissipated heat from the aircraft's kinetic energy enough to heat the steel past its safe structural point?

If the answer to (4) is yes, then you have the initial impetus for the collapse. Next you have to do the calculations for the kinetic energy of the falling building.
5) What is the kinetic energy (mass X speed) of the total weight of the floors above the impact point, in the initial seconds as the entire mass falls below the point of original damage.
6) Is the kinetic energy of the falling mass in excess of the maximum load bearing capacity of the structure?

If the answer to (6) is yes then the ensuing domino effect only becomes worse as more floors are involved. The building is gonna fall.

7) What is the total kinetic energy of the falling structure as it reaches the ground?
8 How is that energy dissipated? What percentage is dissipated in the form of heat?
9) Is the heat generated enough to be retained for several days, and result in molten beams being pulled from the wreckage?

You cannot just assert the answer to any of these questions. You must identify the physical principles involved, and then do the calculations. Some of these calculations must necessarily be approximations. We don't know exactly what percentage of kinetic energy will be converted to heat, since there are so many variables. But you should be able to get a reasonable ballpark figure of the energies involved.

I have already pointed out the failure to include calculations of kinetic energy. This alone invalidates any resulting conclusions.

 

Flamebait noted. Keep it up and I'll report you. It's not my fault you can't prove your premise, so take your butthurt elsewhere kid.

It's quite telling that you're avoiding the subject of the unproven premise. You couldn't answer the question the last time either.

 

You are the victim of propaganda and you are unable to see that.

If you told me that you melted an ice cube at 20 degrees F, no matter how complicated that you tried to make the discussion based on propaganda that you have take to heart, I would still tell you that you are wrong. This is because of physical laws.

This is no different. You just can't see it.

 

I have asked specific questions based on physical laws. Are you willing to address them, or not?

 

That is a perfect example of a truther 'non answer'. Keep the faith, Bro'.

 

LOl, no because none of it is relevant. Melt an ice cube at 20 degrees F and then we can talk.

 

Cool, you're following the script by evading and trying to change the subject. Who's a good truther then?

 

That isn't it either. I tried to get you to post something adult that I might want to respond to but you just can't do it. In some past cases, I was able to pick out something from your post that I felt was worth discussing but lately, I can't find even one word, never mind a coherent and relevant sentence. I'm not even sure I'm responding to an adult, you don't exhibit any reasonable level of maturity in your posts. It's ok though, I didn't think you were capable.

 

Flamebait noted. Keep it up and I'll report you. It's not my fault you can't prove your premise, so take your butthurt elsewhere kid.

It's quite telling that you're avoiding the subject of the unproven premise. You couldn't answer the question the last time either (and you never will), and all your attempts to avoid the subject by trolling are nothing new to me.

Keep the faith, Bro'.

 

The following link explains the origin, history and the plausibility of the molten steel canard:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Personally, I have no problem with the existence of molten metal at ground zero, as the site contained vast amounts of aluminum, copper and alloys, and the temps recorded by NASA were high enough to produce this effect. However, I am skeptical of claims of molten steel. There are a few reasons for this, the first being that the colour of a metal in a molten state does not identify the composition of the material. Now there is a member here that no doubt will trot out his usual color chart, but that is a specious argument for it demonstrates the colors of certain metals in a pure state. It is unreasonable to expect that any 'pool' of molten metal in the basements of the WTC were 'pure'.

The next reason being, that the claim of molten steel proves the use of explosives on 9/11. This too has several problems as the high temps on site were recorded weeks later (NASA), thus having no connection to the claimed initial deployment of explosives. A 'thermitic' reaction is instantaneous, and concentrated on a small area, so this cannot be responsible for the high temps recorded. Conventional explosives too cannot produce this effect, as no clean up in the demolitions I've studied found any molten steel. The NIST claimed pockets of fires reached 1832 deg F.

There is no foundation for the premise circulated by AE911T. I've asked this question for some time now: 'how does the existence of molten steel in the basements weeks later prove the deployment of explosives?'

As you stated, It doesn't.

For AE911T to present this as evidence, they need to prove their premise, eliminate the alternative hypotheses (i.e. convection-the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove this effect, cf. long-term underground fires), and confirm the eyewitness accounts with follow up interviews. Until then, it will remain a cool story, bro'.

 

Another excellent source addressing the molten steel canard:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

It's becoming increasingly difficult to eliminate alternative hypotheses to that as claimed by 911research, and AE911T.

 

IMO the key issues with the molten steel claims are:

1. There were many corroborating eyewitness claims, not just one or two and for various locations around Ground Zero.

2. MOST of the claims were very specific, molten STEEL, not molten metal. The video below shows one firefighter claiming to have seen molten steel "flowing like lava" and other firefighters around him agreeing. It's quite obvious by his body language that he finds this extremely unusual, to say the least. When one claim is that he saw "the melting of girders at WTC", there's no question what metal a girder is made from and others saw the ends of girders "dripping".

3. While the 3 building collapses are unprecedented, so are the molten steel claims unprecedented. They all happened on 9/11 and for weeks following for the molten steel claims.

But the most troubling aspect IMO is that NIST was tasked with investigating the 3 building collapses and did not do so (see additional information: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html ). Not only did NIST fail to forensically analyze the evidence but John Gross, lead NIST engineer, denied knowing anything about the molten steel claims. NIST had full access to the eyewitness claims, more so than everyone else. NIST publicly released videos in one FOIA request that were previously unavailable. NIST has yet to release a ton of information about 9/11 they have in their possession.

"I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses who said so" - John Gross

[video=youtube;3evw61rgLtU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3evw61rgLtU[/video]

 

Exactly! And to this day there is this loud, little handful that flocks to the internet to explain away the molten steel and the extremely high temperatures as they forget or are simply unaware that the governments story on this topic still remains at outright denial.

If they only knew the story they were defending.

 

A post I can actually address.

The above is an anonymous opinion (see portion titled "Our take...") from a self admitted "debunking" site or at least one that only addresses "conspiracy theories" but not the official one. The opinion questions the molten steel claims and provides theories about how the temperatures could potentially have been reached to melt metal. In one case, it questions the Leslie Robertson eyewitness claim and claims a denial by Robertson. Here is the video:

[video=youtube;lDnbfXLUyI4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4[/video]

The opinion ends with the following:

"none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire."

While there may be some good information at that site, it is obviously biased and doesn't address the obvious lack of any official investigation into the many molten steel claims.

The next link is to a similar type of site (anonymous, self-admitted "debunking" site):

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The above is even more biased as it specifically attacks "conspiracy theorists" (e.g. "Now that you have the ignorance of 'Scholars for 911 truth'"), but not the ones who believe the OCT. It also contains information that may have value to some but it doesn't address the deliberate failure to officially investigate the molten steel claims and the denial of these claims by NIST.

 

FACT: none of the so-called "molten" material at the WTC was tested to see if it comprised of steel, aluminum, silver, gold, titanium, etc.

 

Thanks you're very perceptive, that's what I said, several times. NIST deliberate failed to forensically examine the evidence and denied eyewitness claims.

 

i know of no human being that can simply LOOK at a molten material and say if its steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, etc.

declaring with authority that it was STEEL, without actually testing the material, isn't very scientifically valid.