If the planes that struck the twin towers one hundred floors up are the reason they collapsed, why was there 3000F molten steel in the sub basements four weeks later?

I think you answered your own question

More conspiracy drek . . .

There was no molten steel.

If the floors “pancaked” as the 9/11 commission suggests, then why did the steel core collapse as well? Why did the top floors of the building fall at the same speed as if you dropped a billiard ball off the top of either of the towers? Wouldn’t the pancaking slow down the collapse? Where were the pancakes? Why so much dust?

How were they able to perform a controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the same day, as evidence by the building’s owner stating on camera that they gave the order to “pull” (a demolition term) the building? Why did the BBC and another media outlet report that WTC 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did (with building in the reporter’s camera shot)?

Why did all three buildings fall into their own respective footprints and not topple over?

How do you explain that drek?

There are way too many unanswered questions regarding 9/11, that we all need to keep asking.

YAY ZEITGEIST MOTHER FUDGERS!!!
You know what, I don;t care, it’s never gonna change anything.
Even if the gov’ or whoever did admit to it, then it’s not gonna make a difference, it;s happened, and they’ll still be in charge. unlucky :)

What is the source for that ridiculous statement: “3000F molten steel in the sub basements four weeks later”?

From the Journal of Metalurgy:

“It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.”

Based on your explanation, Marina, that might explain WTC 1 and 2, due to jet fuel, but how do you explain WTC 7 falling at near free fall speed?

remember this regardless innocent people were killed. And we as a country have seem to forget what being a united nation is.

This site details clearly the false premises and faulty thinking and ignoring of evidence that does not fit their theories that conspiracy theorists use. It was too long to show all of it and it quite complex. This is only an excerpt, but the video evidence is clear.

“As you can see, if columns above the bridge were taken out, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect the mechanical floors (Behind the louvers and above the lobby) with heavy equipment to fall into the open lobby. Yes, the mechanical floors are built stronger but the heavy equipment equals things out. It’s extra strength is taken by holding up the heavy equipment. There were transformers on these levels.

“WTC 7 contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor.” – FEMA report

Transformers are filled with oil and can blow up. Did those large transformers blow up taking out the floors below? Remember that the building was on fire for hours. It’s well within reason to suspect the building was progressively getting worse. Conspiracy theorists seem to think one dimensionally. They think if there was light damage immediately after the collapse then it must have been that way throughout the event. This super simplistic thinking is the Achilles heel of the conspiracy story. They take photos of a part of a building and quotes from one moment in time and try to apply it to the whole event or building.

Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman’s quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. 360 of their brothers perished that day.

But the main point of the image is to show the building was FAR more damaged their conspiracy theorists let on. It was never a few small fires as the deceptive north face photos show. In that sense these photos are conclusive.

Below is another image which seems to show damage inline with the hole in the previous image.”

I’m guessing it fell there in the building’s collapse. But I’m no conspiracy expert.

Still waiting for that evidence to support the questioner’s contention about the so-called molten steel.

@Marina, watch zeitgeist, that’s why I said it above :)

@cage Sorry, I am not familiar with zeitgeist other than as a term meaning climate of the times.

@Marina
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
there you go
A nice laugh and a half if you don’t believe in Jesus, 9/11 and that the Central bank is your friend :)

As an electrician, any of the oil filled transformers I have seen indoors, are filled with a non- flammable oil. Do you have the specs on those transformers?

This site actually mentions indoor transformers in its FAQ.
Why don’t oil filled transformer manufacturers fill power transformers with something that does not burn?
Actually they do. Some electrical power transformers are filled with nonflammable fluid such as liquid silicone or “less flammable” fluids such as Rtemp or other high fire point hydrocarbons (ie Fire point of at least 300 0 C). But these fluids are much more expensive than mineral oil, therefore manufacturers only use them when required by code or specification such as when the electrical transformer is going to be placed inside a building.

Being an electrician right across the river, I am under the impression that NYC has some of the strictest codes in the country.

1”

2

3

4

5

Everyones focus is all wrong.

We won’t ever know, or agree on, if it was planes or explosives that took out the buildings. But there are things we do know.

a.) The administration of the United States was warned of the attacks by many sources

“During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it “something very, very, very big.” Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us “the system was blinking red.”

~9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary, p6

b) governments around the world have used 9/11 as a pretext for “preemptive war”, rolling back civil rights, increasing population control and surveillance.

Regardless if planes cause the implosion or explosives… we are on a dangerous path.

@btko All true and a good refocusing!

@marina, why is the WTC owner on video stating that they made the decision to “pull” (a demolition term) WTC 7? (He later said that he actually meant for them to pull the firefighters, but the firefighters had vacated the building by 11 a.m. that day. The building came down around 5:30 p.m.) How would they bring down the building without demolitions?

@marina, I think the “black smoke” photo in the Journal of Metallurgy article was photoshopped. Here is a photo taken roughly at the same moment. I’m sure similar photos will show lighter smoke.

Also, the article states that “no designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.” Technically true, but they did anticipate the impact of a 707, which despite it’s age is only slightly lighter and has a faster cruising speed. http://Globalsecurity.org states “This particular variant (767–200) of the aircraft, available in 1984, has nearly the same gross weight as the Boeing 707–320B but carries about 100 more passengers over a much shorter range. Maximum cruising speed of the 767–200 is about 40 miles per hour slower than that of the 707–320B, and takeoff and landing field lengths of the new aircraft are significantly shorter than those of the 707.”

The Debunking site that you point to has a quote about the smaller, slower 707. It’s not slower as a quick look on Wikipedia will confirm. Why would they say it is slower? Is that a mistake?

I realize these are smaller rebuttals, but there are way too many questions for the official story to make sense.

Another 707 v 767 comparison.

@marina, I’m not picking on you… just the article. ;-)

I am suspect of the Journal of Metallurgy article’s statement that: “Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large.”

Can anyone dig up info that speaks to this assertion? Are skyscrapers really designed to last only 3 hours in the event of a fire? Does the “tube in a tube design” of the towers make a difference?

If it’s true, then there was a lot of wrongheadedness that day about telling folks to remain in the buildings.

To add a little bit to what Kev said, here are some pictures and descriptions of some skyscrapers that have had serious fires, one which burned for 2 days, none of which collapsed.

I just stumbled across this report from the National Enviornmental Health Association that contains the following quote,“To some, it was an environmental health disaster from the very first. “Standing down there, with your eyes closed,” says Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived in New York to help September 11th but didn’t arrive to the Ground Zero the site until the night of September 12th, “it could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano.”

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “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,” he said.

Once you believe something enough, there’s no limit to the “evidence” you can find to support it.

Funny how the science zealots criticize the Christians to no end, but give the consipiracists a pass.

Flagged, you troll.

What?

how is he a troll poser?

Funny you would choose your OWN name to be “POSER”

Are you George Bush? Calling others terrorists, while YOU. YOURSELF, terrorizes the world.

Calling others trolls in a post that adds no substances, provides no references, and makes personal attacks? THAT is trolling DEFINED.

If this were a serious question, asked in an attempt to gain information or understanding, I would add something of substance to the discussion. But this question was asked in an overt attempt to push your 9/11 conspiracy theory beliefs upon the Fluther. Flagged. Trolling.

BTW—Maybe you should get your prescription refilled.

Good point

Im so sorry my view point is not yours, but the question is ENTIRELY valid. Not trolling, even by the most frivolous definition.

If you can explain why there was molten steel in the sub basements of the WTC for 4 weeks after being struck 100’s of floors up, I would love to hear it.

However, here is what you have offered:

“Once you believe something enough, there’s no limit to the “evidence” you can find to support it.Funny how the science zealots criticize the Christians to no end, but give the consipiracists a pass. Flagged, you troll.”

Followed by:

“If this were a serious question, asked in an attempt to gain information or understanding, I would add something of substance to the discussion. But this question was asked in an overt attempt to push your 9/11 conspiracy theory beliefs upon the Fluther. Flagged. Trolling.

BTW—Maybe you should get your prescription refilled.”

So how is the above not trolling?

You have entered this thread merely to express your personal viewpoint about anyone who doesn’t believe the Official 9/11 Report. You have added nothing but personal attacks since this was first pointed out.

Again, who is the troll?

Please continue spewing your hateful ignorance all over this lively discussion. It is entertaining to no end to let you reveal the depth of your character.

I entered this thread with nothing but curiosity. After reading the question and your subsequent posts, I quickly realized that the question was simply a guise to spout your opinion about the 9/11 attacks. This goes against the Fluther guidelines (see “thinly masked propaganda”).

@poser, Is your Mummy question more than a guise to spout your opinion about the latest Mummy movie?

Certainly, though it’s hardly a controversial topic. And apparently the Fluther gods disagree with my opinion, as this question remains.

Controversial isn’t on the list of guidelines… or I can’t see it.

Perhaps not, but my Mummy question wasn’t “thinly masked” as anything. Of course it was my opinion, but the question was a genuine inquiry into others’ opinions. This question is a soapbox, which, IMO is what the Fluther restriction on trolling is supposed to eliminate.

You know, the questioner didn’t participate in the discussion (where one would presumably perform a soapbox-type tirade) except to respond to a direct inquiry from another participant about whether there was in fact molten steel. I don’t see how that is soapboxing. That’s just asking a question.

Do you have an answer to contribute, by the way? Do you believe there was no molten steel or do you have an explanation for why there was? I think it would be poor form if you’re taking time to criticize this thread, but do not have a more relevant response to offer.

I give no credence to the conspiracy “theorists” (I hesitate to call them theories as they typically lack any of the usual trappings of science) or their beliefs.

I’ll take that as a non-answer. I guess there’s nothing left but to cue music and fade to black.

I read something really disturbing a few days ago and it has been stuck in my mind ever since…...did you know that they found a bound pair of hands on the roof of a building near the twin towers? And there was also a body of a flight attendent found that also had bound hands???
I had never heard that shit before…but it trips me out….

Here’s a more reputable resource. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

I’ve just watched the video Blueprint for Truth, which was lent to me recently by my physical therapist. It’s a talk, with quantities of supporting evidence, by Richard Gage, AIA, of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, cited above.

When he offered it, I cocked an eyebrow and said, “I’m not interested in any conspiracy theories.” He said, “Please just watch it.” I have. And I have to say that it presents what I consider to be hard scientific evidence that the way those three buildings collapsed points to explosives and not to fires caused by the collisions.

In the nearly ten years since this disaster, I have not thought very much about the claims of conspiracy and the possible real causes because I figured there was no way I would ever know the truth. And I still think that. But on the basis of this video and the credentials of those who contributed to it, I am prepared to say this: I believe that what we have been told officially is not the truth. I would be in favor of a much more complete and thorough investigation than our officials have so far provided.