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

Real quick, here are just some of the molten steel quotes from those who were there!

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”

--Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek

The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

”I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.”

--Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe

“Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

--Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D.

“Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”

--National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

--The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center)

“Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.”

-- New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

Here is the physical evidence that cannot be denied:







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!

 

[video=youtube;nqJSDn5dgJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/video]

“I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.” - Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they’d come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero.

 

You bring up a very good point.

Actually, the preponderance of the evidence proves the official story is invalid, though certainly the issue of molten metal is a very essential and obvious part of that.

 

You don't prove your contention, that is, that molten steel proves the accepted version invalid. You make several leaps in logic here and don't actually prove your point.

Here is how you should approach this topic:

1). Prove that molten steel existed. Not by innuendo or hearsay.

2). Prove that convection in the pile could not have produced these conditions.

3). Offer an alternative hypothesis.

Furthermore, 9/11 truth repeatedly claim that molten steel is evidence of controlled demolition without actually ever proving the premise. Would you like to give it a go? You see, no controlled demolition I've investigated produced molten steel as a result. Why does 9/11 truth accept this a given without proving it? So much for the scientific method they so often bray about.

Oh, and thank you for answering my question of CJ's thread. Indeed, molten steel doesn't prove CD, and that was what I was looking for. It had nothing to do with my comprehension, but everything to do with exposing the flaws in logic behind this canard.

 

who says that the preponderance of the evidence invalidates the official story? ... you? ... Why don't you start an evidence thread and we can get some lists of "evidence" going ...

 

I'll give you a heads up. Eleuthera stated from the beginning that he is not interested in any sources we can provide, therefore discussion with this member will go nowhere.

 

Wrong, no leaps of anything, I just posted the facts.

LOL, do you think taking an arrogant tone is a substitute for facts?

Your vocabulary might be the problem. There was no innuendo or hearsay. You are confusing those terms with eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics handles that just fine.

It is not my job or intention to solve the entire crime. I simply provided this thread to remind everyone that the government's/media's story is crap, as it does not consider all the available evidence.

 

medical doctors are not qualified to identify molten "steel".

neither are chaplains

 

No, your thread title is a leap of logic, as you failed to demonstrate the link.

LOL, Do you think a poor interpretation of the facts is a substitute for academic process?

No, the physical evidence is lacking. Do not confuse evidence of an eutectic reaction with the molten steel myth (see the FEMA report). The eyewitness testimony needs confirmation. Why does 9/11 truth fail to confirm the quotes they misinterpret? Simple, it will expose the lies. In addition, my vocabulary is fine and your claim will remain hearsay until 9/11 truth can deliver confirmation (which they won't).

Please demonstrate as many experts disagree with you. Convection on the pile was recorded for weeks (see the NASA thermal imagery). How is it that explosives are held responsible for that? The effect hadn't been noted in controlled demolitions previously, or since, so why does 9/11 truth jump to such a flawed conclusion? I'm sorry, but convection makes far more sense than fantasies of termites or CD.

9/11 truth, it's about time you demonstrated the validity of your premises, instead of expecting educated individuals to accept them without question. 9/11 truth has had fifteen years to do this and they still can't.

Yes, I've heard it all before. You can't construct an alternative hypothesis because of a lack of physical evidence and a poor understanding of the mechanics. I already knew that.

 

Geez, Ron, even if you saw a steel beam that was dripping, you would be qualified to state that.

And what about Leslie Robertson who was the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center? You think he might know a little something?

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

--The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson to a packed house of structural engineers no less.

 

he's the ONLY one that is qualified to make such a claim.

now, we know that there were very hot fires inside the buildings.


then the buildings collapsed, bringing down 100,000 tons of steel ontop of itself.

that amount of mass, falling from 1,300 feet, makes a lot of friction.

it could be deduced that the friction and mass of all that steel was quite hot.

ever see a mound of dirt steaming? imagine that was steel, 100,000 tons worth.

 

You posted hearsay, not proof. You also make assumptions with no basis in fact or evidence.

 

So since he's qualified, he's right then?

Is that right? So you think all that steel was molten for weeks from all the friction that took place during a span of 12 seconds or so? I'm not a physics expert but I sure would like to see a legitimate computer model that could recreated a collapse of that magnitude and take into account the amount of friction, the metal(s) (steel being the prevalent one), office materials, jet fuel, etc. and the time and see hot much heat could be generated during a 12 second period or so. What do you figure the highest temperature produced would be?

 

i don't want to know what it must have been like at the bottom of 100,000 tons of steel falling from 1,300 feet, with some of it already at temperatures of 1,300 degrees F.

now, as far as his observations, Id love to see details

 

I agree, no one should post their way, they should post your way.

 

his suggestions are a perfect example of a legitimate inquiry based on the scientific method.

 

So you don't want to know then. So if you don't want to know, how do you know what the temperature was in the first place?

Me too. That goes for all the claims of molten steel. Good thing many of them are on video, eh? Who knows what other videos exist. NIST isn't saying and John Gross claims he never heard of molten steel, he never even heard of any eyewitness testimony about it. But for sure, they're not releasing their evidence. It would be extremely embarrassing if that evidence included molten steel claims by eyewitnesses, you think?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time I post something.

 

From what I heard, the aluminum, mixed with water, and subject to intense heat from the jet fuel, made in essense, thermite.

I think that Osama might even have planned that, as he was an engineer.

 

We're not allowed to point out their failures in logic. They get testy.

 

Why would it be embarrassing? The truther claim is specious owing to the fact that the premise is flawed. With that in mind, all claims thereafter are speculative tripe. If 9/11 truth can't prove their premise, why should anyone give a toss, especially the NIST?

Why can't 9/11 truther address their claims in a professional manner?

 

likely would do a slow burn. Possibly for days, or weeks.

 

Don't worry about it, you're not John Gross.

 

I truly doubt he gives a flying f*ck what truthers think. Again, why would it be embarrassing? The truther claim is specious owing to the fact that the premise is flawed. With that in mind, all claims thereafter are speculative tripe. If 9/11 truth can't prove their premise, why should anyone give a toss, especially the NIST?

Remember, no-one from 9/11 truth can prove their flawed premise. That says it all. Owing to that fact, all your claims mean nothing.

 

why can't a mathematician perform dentistry?

 

Like this?