9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts

[wildbilln864]

[wildbilln864]

1. good points from another poster:

"Some major problems with the melted aluminum theory: 1) What caused a 1220 degree fire to begin with? Just because heat has nowhere to escape doesn't mean an 800 degree fire from jet fuel can magically heat up to 1220 degrees to melt the plane. He says "huge amount of molten aluminum" contacts water and causes an explosion - but no jet fuel can melt an aluminum airplane. This theory misses some major points. 2) WTC7's collapse was not slower than the towers. Actually, once it started falling, it fell 105 feet in 2.25 seconds, which the NIST admits is "freefall acceleration". 1/2 the building fell in a freefall collapse, which means there was 0% resistance from the vertical steel columns. So far, zero journal or reports can explain the freefal collapse of building 7. IT's funny, the MIT professor Eager doesn't even buy the whole explosion theory at all. he says it's totally wrong. I am interested in what caused the extreme heat that melted the steel in the towers. The official reports of the govt have tried to cover up the facts, but some professors have attempted to explain it. None have succeeded. Will they ever?"

[William Seger]

2. Some major problems with "another poster's" claims

> What caused a 1220 degree fire to begin with? Just because heat has nowhere to escape doesn't mean an 800 degree fire from jet fuel can magically heat up to 1220 degrees to melt the plane.

In the first place, aluminum melts at 1,221°F which is only 660.3°C. The maximum flame temperature for burning jet fuel in air is about 1,000°C but the "800 degree fire" claim appears to be an estimate for the maximum that the WTC fire reached, which is 800°C -- i.e. well above the melting point of aluminum.

> Actually, once it started falling, it fell 105 feet in 2.25 seconds, which the NIST admits is "freefall acceleration". 1/2 the building fell in a freefall collapse, which means there was 0% resistance from the vertical steel columns. So far, zero journal or reports can explain the freefal collapse of building 7.

No, actually, as has been pointed out over and over and over, the 2.25 seconds of freefall came after 1.5 seconds of less than freefall, which was the time during which the NIST simulation shows 8 floors of columns buckling. Since there is no accounting for that 1.5 seconds in controlled demolition theories, "truthers" just ignore it. But there's absolutely nothing mysterious about the fact that columns that buckled to the point of breaking would provide exactly zero resistance. The "logic" that freefall implies controlled demolition is patently fallacious. What happened here was that the initial "truther" claims were met with responses that it wasn't freefall, i.e. the premise was false, so when freefall was demonstrated, "truthers" tried to claim that as validating their argument. The proper response should have been that the conclusion was invalid because it did not necessarily follow from the premise, even if the premise was true. That debating error does not validate fallacious logic.

> I am interested in what caused the extreme heat that melted the steel in the towers. The official reports of the govt have tried to cover up the facts, but some professors have attempted to explain it. None have succeeded. Will they ever?

And again and again, there is no need to explain things that didn't happen. There is absolutely no credible evidence of temperatures greater than what should be expected in such a fire.

[wildbilln864]

3. the NIST "simulation"

does not look anything like the actual collapse as their model shows exterior deformation before collapse. Also if there was "8 floors of columns buckling.", then why is there no movement seen in the videos of the collapse of the building?
Their examples seem to be plausible but not really true which is what sophistry is.

[William Seger]

4. We've been through all that, too

The NIST simulation didn't include the curtain walls because they didn't contribute to the gravity load bearing. However, since they were steel box frames holding granite panels set 2 feet out from the columns, they did have considerable lateral rigidity, which was necessary to resist considerable wind loading. Without those walls in the simulation, there's no reason to expect the visual appearance of the exterior columns collapsing to look like the videos. Whatever caused the interior to collapse, which clearly happened well before the shell collapsed, those curtain walls held the building's exterior shape. But that is irrelevant to the purpose and the conclusion of the analysis. You're confounding FEA with CGI.

In the full videos, the east penthouse is seen to collapse at the same time that several windows on those column lines are seen to be broken. Six seconds later, a wave of broken windows sweeps over north face from east to west and then the west penthouse is seen to sink into the roof, with the east end going first. Then a V-shaped kink develops in the visible roofline, near where the east penthouse collapsed. Then the entire exterior wall is seen to descend for seven feet at less then freefall. Then we see the 2.25 seconds of freefall. All of that, including the freefall, are in accordance with the NIST "probable cause" hypothesis of column 79 triggering global collapse -- which is precisely why they deemed it the "probable cause." On the other hand, disingenuous "truthers" like to claim that the freefall came "right at the beginning" of the collapse, ignoring everything that happened before. The rather obvious reason for that distortion of reality is that controlled demolitions theories cannot explain all of that without special pleading -- a "just so" story where the imaginary perps planned all of that, using unspecified methods and for some unspecified reason.

You keep using that word "sophistry." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[wildbilln864]

5. I know exactly what it means!

And that is what you are peddling. Unsuccessfully! When a building collapses at free fall acceleration, which NIST has admitted happened, then something had to remove the undamaged support structure below in order for that to happen. None of your's and JREF opinions and speculation changes that.