It's only been posted and consistently debunked at least a dozen times.
maybe you'll strike gold with #13?

The screen grab is the same for the one claiming molten metals proved CD.
Should have read the title better!

He thought it was promoting the notion that the flow was nano/thermi/ate.

An investigation is what's needed to debunk.

but he says "rails" so it flowed down more that one and he says "you get down below and you see molten steel running down the channel rails..."
where is "down below"?

I was wondering if you did.

PS. I love it when you play coy.

Dozens of first responders reported observing molten steel beams that were literally melting and dripping before their eyes.

'underground fires smoldered for months, fed by molten steel...there were rivers of steel...at the canteen we hear truck drivers complaining that some of the girders (from Building 7) were so hot that they caused the beds of their dump trucks to crack and split open.'

TMI for some to grab hold of. Strange how the lobby windows are blown out, but windows above are intact. Strange how nobody believes the janitor who said he felt an explosion in the basement just seconds before impact, and he and others confirmed there had been an explosion. More facts that get in the way. Strange how a lot of people were describing explosions in the towers, even cops and firemen.

Next up, WTC owners want to sue airlines for planes damaging towers. LOL! I can't wait for that investigation. Where are the reconstructions of ANY plane. Are we sure it was a passenger plane? Others said it looked like a military plane. Were the black boxes found or weren't they? Some say they were, other say not. I myself say impossible. I'm a no planer. No seats= no planes. I sure hope the airlines have some "truther" lawyers. But will they go there? It would take down the whole facade.


<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>

If you watch the close-up high res video of Tower 1 burning, at the moment Tower 2 is hit, the fire in tower 1 'pulses'. Why? Because the air handling systems of the two towers had interconnections in the basement. Pressure will escape wherever it can find release from the air ducts in the central support columns. If it finds a weak point at ground level, bam, that's where it blows out.

I would question the individual's perception of timing under those stresses/conditions. Human memory doesn't record like a video tape. It's constructive. And as such, it is incredibly fallable.

There are other forces to consider. The shockwave, like the P-waves of an earthquake spreading from the impact. The flex of the building, under 7.7 million foot-tons of torque. The resonance of the buildings, absorbing that momentum. If the flex of the building on impact knocks loose a 500lb slab of decorative marble sheet at ground level, and it falls 2 stories in the lobby and shatters, might that sound like a bomb exploding? I'm thinking: yeah, it does.

lol thanks for the laugh.

but realistically, the lobby windows were blown out from the explosions going off in the basement and ground level area. and were widely reported by the local TV networks on 9/11.

What point are explosions in the basement, when the buildings clearly crumble from the aircraft impact points, down. Not from the basement like a controlled demolition?

What can you break or blow up in the basement to weaken the towers to the point they don't collapse right away, but eventually collapse from the impact point down?

Love to hear the logic behind this one.

Ground level explosions imply the use of CD. Bravo for getting that one.



http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

Yippee, you posted some information on how ACTUAL implosions work. Which of course have nothing at all to do with the mode of collapse (not bottom-up, not top-down, but IMPACT point-down) in towers 1&2.

You'd just like to pretend they didn't happen eh? Those reporters were lying!

I would not be shocked if some things exploded spectacularly at or near ground level. You're talking about 2 100 acre buildings full of electronics, plus another large building, plus a power substation.

Have you ever seen what electrical transformers do when shorted out?

I would also not be surprised if mechanical forces, such as extremely heavy objects falling, hitting the ground were mistaken for explosions as well. Recall that the soft, wet bodies of humans hitting the ground after jumping from the towers are clearly audible on multiple ground-level videos from many blocks away. Drop a 150lb chunk of aluminium cladding 60 stories, what does it sound like when it hits the concrete street below?

Shit, we still have people who witness tornadoes trying to describe what sort of locomotive it sounded like. Humans associate information. We don't record it like a reel to reel.

Edit: and you are STILL dodging the question of how ground-level demo charges produce or even aid an impact point-down collapse of the buildings. Not the top. Not the bottom. Collapse starts where the fires were hottest, where the planes hit the two main towers. Please explain what sort of witchcraft produces a 'controlled demo' that behaves in that manner.

what evidence do you have that the power stations exploded in the basement?

don't forget that Building 7 in fact went down in a conventional manner. it was a classic building implosion.

like Building 7 the two main towers also came straight down more or less into their own footprint, which indicates CD. but they also came down somewhat differently in a way that was never seen before, what you described as an impact point-down collapse. the floors were literally exploded one by one from the top down and why that is would require a proper investigation but I would surmise that it had something to do with the extraordinary height of the Twin Towers...

....which may have been too tall to bring down in a conventional manner (e.g. knocking out the supports and letting gravity do the rest--the classic CD method). they were too tall to bring down conventionally so they did it by literally annihilating each floor one by one. that's what it looked like to me. you can see that in the collapse footage of the Twin Towers that shows each floor exploding and being vaporized to dust one by one from the top down.

If you want to see that sort of problem, next time a major storm hits Seattle, like the Inaugural Day Storm, do what I do. Go down to alki beach. Stand with your back to the ocean, and watch the transformers blow up all over Seattle.

It's quite the show.

Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically. All you have to do is a look at a top-down photo of the wreckage to see the bias of the towers in their fall.

I'm curious by what method you think each floor was 'exploded'? No thermite is visible from the outside. Not sure if you've ever seen thermite or thermate in action, but it's pretty obvious because it burns with all the appearance of an arc welder. So that rules out that. What explosive do they hypothetically use to pulverize concrete into 100 micron dust, FLOOR BY FLOOR, in a steady roar, with no bangs? Recall, there is video not only from the outside, but the INSIDE of the towers as the collapse started. It is a roar. The kind of roar consistent with a progressive collapse, not a series of bangs. (Doubly impressive since this alleged demo went off without a hitch, where real life, actual demolitions do sometimes have hilarious failures.)

In towers 1 and 2, I see floors smashed to dust. The two towers had, respective of the impact points, a WWI top-tier battleship, and the other, the equivalent mass of WWII's Yamoto, sitting on top of the impact points. The supports, which were visibly pulled inward prior to the collapse, snap, and the mass above comes slamming down, dropping 20 feet unopposed.

Possibly the largest wrecking ball humanity has ever unleashed.

your hairsplitting about what constitutes a symmetrical collapse into a building's footprint is tiresome. by your rigid definition then no building in history has ever been blown symmetrically into its own footprint.

you can see in the following clips of several known building demolitions that they do not collapse perfectly symmetrical even though they are considered successful demolitions. there is often a noticeable lean as they collapse, and they do not exactly fall into their own footprint. that would be impossible because in any building demolition some debris will always land outside of the original footprint area. but for all intents and purposes they have collapsed into their own footprint, because most of the debris is inside the footprint area.

if anything building 7 came down more symmetrically than than any other known skyscraper implosion I have ever seen.

The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings.

Not a one of them came 'straight down'. If you want to point to the incredulous symmetry of the collapses, qui bono? Certainly not the insurance companies in this case.

You haven't addressed the logistics of hauling all those explosives into occupied buildings without anyone noticing either.

Nor the lack of 'bangs' from sequential explosions. I won't deny some stuff blew up that day, there are 4 or 5 recorded 'explosion-like' bangs. Nothing capable of bringing a building down though, and none during the progressive collapses.

Building 7 couldn't be a CD because it didn't come down symmetrically.
Now you want to tell me it couldn't have been a CD because it came down too perfectly, because a real CD would have been biased! in your words

Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically.

The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings.

"Not even 7 came down in its own footprint. If that was a CD, the owners of the surrounding buildings would have maxxed out their insurance in a heartbeat. NONE of the towers came down symmetrically."

You seem to have understood what I said here ok...

"The lean is fine. They bias an implosion in a controlled direction. Not so with the towers and building 7, all of which physically impacted other buildings."

You don't seem to know what I am saying here. I said the lean is fine, in reference to an ACUAL CD. They lean it on purpose. What they don't do, is lean it INTO OTHER BUILDINGS. 7 hit other buildings. Quite significantly so.

1&2 completely wrecked shit in all directions.

Even building 7 would be considered a complete and utter spectacular FAILURE of a CD by any actual CD firm. Ignoring of course, the actual facts of how the collapse unfolded, and the fire and building codes changed as a result, because you know people just LOVE doing all that work for shits and giggles.


"I don't think it would have been too hard to disguise the work of setting up the buildings for demolition. they could have done it under the guise of building renovations, asbestos removal since the towers were known to have an asbestos problem for example, under the guise of replacing and upgrading old wiring or whatever else they could think of. these kind of things are done on buildings all the time and no one would ever know the difference."

Great fucking Gnu, do you have any idea what you are saying? Do you know how much explosives it takes to pulverize just ONE out of 100x2 ACRES of concrete flooring? How many TONS PER FLOOR? You think they could just slap it on the beams under the guise of asbestos abatement? Well, ok, that totally explains how the floor BETWEEN the inner and outer core got pulverized then. Boy, you got me there.

Ever heard of it?

collapse. Not even on the enormous nearly football-field sized chunks of the building literally tossed aside, exposing the interior.

Do you imagine nanothermite doesn't burn brightly? Does it have a nano-cloaking shield? Why don't we see any explosions propagating through the building behind the infamous enormous section of tower 1's north wall that physically impacted WTC 7?

Are these nano explosives fucking INVISIBLE? Explode without concussion?

You're just waving a magic wand here, you know that right? You don't understand how mechanical kinetic forces EXPECTED to be present in that form of collapse can pulverize concrete, so you reach for a deus ex machina that you don't understand, and hope it'll FUD up the discussion enough for you to pretend you are winning.

Not a chance. WTC 1 & 2 were pulverized from the impact points downward, by purely mechanical forces brought on by a sudden failure of the outer supports.

Tell me, what magical nano explosive SUCKS the outer walls INWARD at the floor where the fires are hottest, letting them snap just prior to the collapse? Those outer walls are half of the tube-within-a-tube support core of the building. It cannot physically stand with just the central core supports intact. Once the outer supports fail, total systemic collapse is inevitable.

do you know for a fact what nanothermite is supposed to look like? have you ever seen it in action? if not, then quit your baseless speculating. it's lame and getting old.

Please. Knock it off.

"Like conventional thermite, super thermite reacts at very high temperature and is difficult to extinguish. The reaction produces dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn."

It burns just like regular thermite: BRIGHT AS FUCK

Things don't burn invisibly just because you nanoscale the reaction material.

nanothermite produced the molten metal, and why in your words it was bright as fuck.

should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

You realize the materials hoisted into the air and installed in the towers, every last bit of it, stores potential kinetic energy to be released when it can fall, right? En total, the amount of energy released by the collapse of the towers, IGNORING the fires, was on the order of one percent of a small atomic bomb.

Less than 1% of that energy was converted to seismic energy, and each tower still produced a 2.0 on the Richter scale. About 30% of that energy went into breaking apart the materials of the building. The remaining ~70% is converted into heat. Heat located in a concrete oven-like environment that retains heat excellently well, in the rubble pile.

Every floor was 3.2 million pounds of concrete and steel. A layer of concrete 4 inches thick. You break that up by smashing it and dropping at least some of it 100+ floors, you generate a lot of heat. 10^12 Joules is a shedload of energy. Energy is never created nor destroyed, only converted.

'Fires and friction of the collapse?' lol

Do collapsed buildings normally produce molten metal? If so then there would have been pools of molten metal seen after every controlled building demolition in history. But that's not the case! There has never been anything like it ever seen until 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC.

It's good to see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, no matter what subject we move to.

Here, let me break it down for you to something very very small, without power exponents, etc.

In order to look for dark matter in the universe, there are experiments set up in mine shafts around the world. Deep enough to shelter them from cosmic rays, but dark matter has almost no mass, and can pass right through the earth. In these experiments, they have a bool of solid germanium, and they chill it close to absolute zero. When one of these particles scores a direct hit on one atom of germanium, the collision will produce heat, and heat the bool 1 one millionth of a degree.

That's two atoms, one with almost no mass, colliding, and producing waste heat.

You cannot escape physics. It's real. You could ignore it, but you cannot ignore the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring it. Friction produces heat. Work/energy is stored as potential energy. Every bit of energy used to lift the building materials into the air, is stored as potential kinetic energy.

Pretend it isn't all you want. It's how the known universe works.

your theory about destroying each floor with explosives involves TENS OF THOUSANDS of tons of conventional explosives. Snuck, apparently, and wired up, inside an occupied business building.

Kinda strains the credibility, doesn't it?

If you're serious about the subject of 9/11 then you really should do some serious research. The problem with getting all your information from "truther" sites is that you won't know what you're talking about.

No offense, of course, but the notion that there were demolition explosives in the basement and then an hour later the buildings collapsed from the top is a really stupid theory.

I clearly saw a "Mini-Nuke" go off, anyone else??? Anyone????

the first responders clearly saw something else.

perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

While first responders may be super men, you're claiming that they can do metallurgical analysis with their eyes? I have to doubt that.

There were thousands of tons of aluminum in the buildings, and aluminum is easily melted at the temperatures in an office fire. Why is it, then, that there aren't any reports of molten aluminum? My guess is that some people did see it but just assumed it was molten steel, whereas other people who saw it realized that they couldn't identify it by sight, so they just reported seeing "molten metal." At any rate, there is no physical evidence of molten steel in the debris, so any wild theories that use that as a premise aren't credible. And even if there was evidence of molten steel, why would you take that as evidence of controlled demolition? Please name a demolition method -- even a hypothetical one -- that would leave molten steel weeks after the attack? Finding molten steel would be an interesting puzzle to solve, but just jumping to vague and irrational conclusions to feed your conspiracy theory inclinations doesn't do the trick.

but if you were paying attention you would notice that they said they were pulling out glowing hot steel girders that were hot enough to cause the beds of their dump trucks to crack and split open. sorry but support beams or girders aren't made of aluminum.

... not distinguishing between "glowing hot" and "molten"?

Mystery solved.

Clearly there were molten metals in the wreckage. But what kind? Tens of thousands of tons of aluminium on the buildings. Undoubtedly tens of thousands of tons of copper and lead present as well.

they were pulled partially submerged from the pools of molten metal. if those pools were molten aluminum they could not have heated the steel girders enough to make the steel truck beds crack and split open because the temperature wouldn't be hot enough.

It was ALL being heated by the kinetic energy/friction of the collapse, PLUS things that can burn.

You know, like iron? Iron can burn under some circumstances. Heat it to about 300c and spray steam on it. Burns quite nicely as plasma. There's all sorts of fuel to burn in that pile of rubble, and very little heat loss, due to the insulating properties of the concrete and other rubble.

there's a new one. no reports ever about pools of Al until you present them.

No one has offered any evidence it was steel. The 'meteorite' chunk didn't corrode much, indicating some non-ferrous metals. The building was clad in tens of thousands of tons of Alcoa aluminium alloy.

You do the math. Ockham's razor suggests: molten metal observed in the pits most likely a lower melting point metal, like aluminium.

it was AL either! it's just a guess. Eyewitnesses said it was molten steel. Do they know the difference? Maybe so, maybe no.
do you think molten Al would stay red hot for weeks?
Why?
And do you know how a heat sinks works?

I saw NOT A SINGLE PERSON in any of those film clips saying 'molten steel' actually performing ANY sort of test to see what metal it was.

The 'meteorite' is pretty much the only chunk of corroding metal that we were shown. And it's not really totally melted either, it's a compressed amalgam of lots of stuff including concrete, some metals that aren't corroded, and some metal that IS corroded, but still recognizable as rebar and stock steel. Not pools of solidified steel.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl has pictures.

The FEMA Appendix C report is about melted steel that was thoroughly analyzed. You don't know the 2002 FEMA report? You're not very familiar with the issues, are you?

The Report tells of steel that showed signs of intergranular melting due to a sulfidation attack. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm The New York Times characterized this steel as having been "vaporized" and "evaporated", and declared that this was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". The Report called for further investigation. NIST didn't do it. The melted steel is one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged in its half-report.

Check NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4.

They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They suggested maybe rubber or plastic, but they did no tests to show that burning rubber or plastic on steel would result in a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel producing the intergranular melting showed in FEMA Appendix C. They could not determine whether the "corrosion" was the result of solid, liquid, or gaseous attack.

They claimed they lacked information about the circumstances under which the material was recovered (why didn't they just ask the WPI investigators?) They do not know what was the source of the corroding element, how long the process took, or the temperature at which it occurred.

They assumed that the steel was in a "prone" position when this occurred. They stated that the temperatures were actually much higher than the 700 C to 800 C range estimated in the FEMA report.

They claimed that the corrosion of the steel took place after the tower fell, that it played no part in the tower falling, and thus implicitly justified their failure to do tests that might answer the questions they did not answer.

They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They did not demonstrate that the sulfidation mechanism they propose can happen. If it could, you'd think it would happen pretty commonly in fires.

Certainly in some conditions present in the wreckage. (Steam+Heat, and the sulfur can come from sources like drywall, at certain times, from certain vendors. (Some recent Chinese-made drywall contained strontium sulfide, even. Ugh)) Erosion (as your source specified) does not automatically indicate melting. (at least not in the context of pure heat slagging beams, like a cutting torch.)

However.


I grant you the win here. You are asking tight enough, good enough questions that the conversation has now failed my cost-benefit/time consumption ratio. I cannot quickly find answers to your questions outside the NIST and FEMA and other official reports, reports which, I accept, you consider suspect. IF there is a conspiracy the nature of which you are asking about, than it must needs follow that the official reports are dodgy.

Going outside official reports, to materials that support my position, is an effort. It is incredibly time consuming to sift through all the, what my side labels 'truther' info to find what I consider unbiased and supporting evidence for my position. And I accept that from your viewpoint, my sources are biased.

In your objection about the FDR's, and possible double-agents working against hypothetical conspirators.. again, I cannot source a credible defense. However, in parting, I would suggest one thing; what you are asking for is impossible. If the government is in any way complicit, further investigation (as you point out NIST did not perform about certain things) would be pointless, because it would always exonerate the guilty. You would need a party to perform that investigation that is A) Truly independent, and B) Truly competent.

Most of the entities capable of the latter, are not within the confines of the former. Even sources I consider fairly unbiased, like MIT, cannot truly be called such. At least, I cannot expect you to accept them as such, even if I personally rate them as acceptable.

So, I cede this territory to you. You have asked questions I am not prepared to answer with solid sources, so my objections would be merely opinion. Opinion I feel is qualified at least on some materials issues (I happen to make things with steel, or... do I? You have no way to know, and that's fair) but cannot prove to your satisfaction.

Heat that wrought iron fence to 600c and spray steam on it, and come back, and we'll see if you're still laughing. Add in some sulfur dioxide, as one can expect from decomposing sheet rock of that era, for bonus points.

Iron oxidation is an exothermic reaction.

2 Fe + O2 ? 2 FeO

Add in SO2 for additional fun.

NIST didn't. Show how a reductant aids combustion.

Jonathan Cole burned steel with powdered sheetrock and aluminum and diesel fuel for three days. There was no change in the steel.

Diesel fuel? You don't think that simulates the events in the rubble pile, do you? Even the JP8 (Kerosene, not Diesel) was consumed, or mostly consumed before the collapses.

Gypsum board is Calcium Sulfate, correct. It's fully oxidized. It's chemically inert. That's why they use it for fireproofing.

I am not aware that NIST ever claimed that gypsum or sulfur dioxide was an element in the sulfidation attack that the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

My fireproof safe is an inch thick layer of, what is essentially, gypsum board. It's only rated to 1000c for like, 15 minutes. That's not even very good, it's on the lower end of fireproof scale/cheap.

Refineries deal with this a lot, as sulfides are common in the fuels they are working with. There are specialized carbon steel compounds used to combat it. http://www.csb.gov/in-cooperation-with-cal-osha-csb-releases-technical-report-on-chevron-2012-pipe-rupture-and-fire-extensive-sulfidation-corrosion-noted/

The ATSM steel in the towers has none of that. I don't know why that guy's tests didn't show the problem. There are practical concerns in shipping loads of that sort of steel over oceanic distances, because if it starts corroding it gets hot, and the heat can damage the ship itself, start fires, etc. I will assume his tests do not account for all the variables present in the rubble pile. Heat, compression, convection, other catalysts like paint, etc. Did he spray water on it while the temps were still maintained? Localized steam on hot iron is problematic, like a plasma fire, etc.

Edit: Sorry about the title of my previous post. It looked ok in preview, but a couple Unicode characters in the formula blew up in the site software, apparently.

H2S is very corrosive. Do you have any evidence that Calcium Sulfide is corrosive? Jonathan Cole's experiment did not show any damage to the steel from cooking with Calcium Sulfide.

Which is done commercially and in the lab by heating it to between 600c and 900c in a reducing atmosphere, like carbon monoxide. End product is calcium dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

You see, heat liberates the H2O locked in that CASO4+2H2O gypsum.

Again, I don't know if his test used like for like gypsum. Some has additives that might prevent this, such as silicate fibres for fire resistance, or additives to prevent water damage. There are variations in composition of such drywall over time, such as the 2006-2009 fuckup with extra bonus sulfur dioxide in commercial drywall from China that corroded pipes in walls, and made people sick. You have to test with like for like materials from the initial construction of the building, from the same sources, PLUS take into account remodels on many different floors (an acre at a time) over the lifespan of the building.

The sulfur is still fully oxidized.

Calcium sulfide is not hydrogen sulfide. You're all wet.

This is basic chemistry. There is an entire INDUSTRY based upon the extraction of those components in those conditions as described.

You haven't demonstrated sulfur dioxide.

your interpretation may vary.

It's like creationism. The creationists claim irreducible complexity, and 'this must have been created because it isn't possible to happen naturally', and not being able to re-create the initiation of the universe in the lab, the best I have is work from people like Hawking showing that not only CAN it happen under certain circumstances, but that it MUST follow from certain circumstances.

I accept that and move on. It provides an excellent template for this issue. I do not feel compelled to build a multi-story kiln full of crap that would be present in a building manufactured in that era, and subject it to various forces present on that day. If the components are available, and to my satisfaction they are, then I am done, and need spend no further energy on it.

A failed experiment by one guy doesn't break that conclusion for me. Ockham's razor tells me his experiment was probably badly formed.