Does the coli still believe planes brought down the towers on 9/11?

[xCivicx]

That is absolutely false.....

https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/publications/facts-for-steel-buildings-1-fire-facts.pdf
​

​

Your assertion doesn't disprove what experts in the field and evidence to the contrary have proven. The calls WERE possible then and now. Maintaining the calls was problematic, but not impossible.​

Please stop quoting me then posting fluff

You have refuted nothing in any of my posts so I'm not sure what your point is

You keep saying I'm wrong then posting things that prove my point

It was not possible to complete a 5+minute call from a cell phone on a plane back then without connection interruptions

There are recorded cell phone conversations that day from people supposedly in those planes. The call connectivity of those calls were uninterrupted

And again, fire a does not melt steel

 

[sfgiants]

I’m not white or stupid so no I don’t believe it and I never will

 

[OJ Simpsom]

 

[Mike Nasty]

I know how chemical reactions work. Do you?

No you don't you fukking idiot, everything you post is incorrect. "Steel doesnt soften when heated" GTFo you idiot.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Please stop quoting me then posting fluff

Science that refutes your assertions is 'fluff'. LOL.
​

You have refuted nothing in any of my posts so I'm not sure what your point is

You stated steel doesn't melt or weaken due to fires. I proved that assertion was false, thereby, refuting it.
​

You keep saying I'm wrong then posting things that prove my point

You're being disingenuous. You were proven wrong with objective evidence.
​

It was not possible to complete a 5+minute call from a cell phone on a plane back then without connection interruptions

It wasn't impossible to MAKE phone call from the planes. THAT is my argument and you've just proven it with that statement and the one following......
​

There are recorded cell phone conversations that day from people supposedly in those planes. The call connectivity of those calls were uninterrupted

Now, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either they couldn't make the calls, or they could but with interruptions in service which refutes your earlier assertion that they couldn't make the calls in the first place.
​

And again, fire a does not melt steel

That's not my argument. That is the argument of conspiracy theorists. There was no melted steel found at Ground Zero. It wasn't necessary for the fire temperatures to reach the point where that would happen as I showed in the link provided. All that was required was that the steel be HEATED for a period of time enough to weaken it's structural integrity and cause slight imperfections to become major liabilities. The temperatures required to accomplish that could be as low as 250 degrees F for 20 minutes.​

 

[DJ Paul's Arm]

@ 3:42

 

[Real N Quotes]

There was no 'detonation'. Building 7 got hit by a chunk of debris from Tower 1's collapse which opened a huge hole in the south side of the structure and caused fires that went uncontrolled for about 4 hours that weakened the steel supports holding it up......................



About 1:40 seconds in, a firefighter is heard saying 'Look at the hole in that building.'​

Breh, it’s on video record one of the WTC owners said they “ dropped “ Building 7.

 

[xCivicx]

No you don't you fukking idiot, everything you post is incorrect. "Steel doesnt soften when heated" GTFo you idiot.

Feel free to point out where I said this??

I said that conventional fires dont soften or melt steel

Again, scientific fact

You're so emotional that you're not even reading for comprehension

I'm actually embarrassed for you right now smh

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Breh, it’s on video record the WTC owners “ dropped “ Building 7.

No, it isn't. Here's what Mr. Silverstein actually said in it's proper context:
​

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

He was referring to the firefighters and their effort to contain the fire in WTC 7 while he was talking to the Fire Commander. 'Pull it' has been used by conspiracy theorists to mean that Silverstein actually gave the order to detonate the explosives in the building, but Silverstein is not in the demolition business and that term is not used by those in the demolition business to initiate a demolition. This story is backed-up by testimony by Chief of Department, Daniel Nigro, Citywide Tour Commander Chief Cruthers, and Lieutenant William Ryan.
​

 

[Child_Of_God]

lmao if you really think WTC 7 collapse was caused by a fire then I got a bridge in Paris to sell you.

 

[xCivicx]

Science that refutes your assertions is 'fluff'. LOL.
​

You stated steel doesn't melt or weaken due to fires. I proved that assertion was false, thereby, refuting it.
​

You're being disingenuous. You were proven wrong with objective evidence.
​

It wasn't impossible to MAKE phone call from the planes. THAT is my argument and you've just proven it with that statement and the one following......
​

Now, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either they couldn't make the calls, or they could but with interruptions in service which refutes your earlier assertion that they couldn't make the calls in the first place.
​

That's not my argument. That is the argument of conspiracy theorists. There was no melted steel found at Ground Zero. It wasn't necessary for the fire temperatures to reach the point where that would happen as I showed in the link provided. All that was required was that the steel be HEATED for a period of time enough to weaken it's structural integrity and cause slight imperfections to become major liabilities. The temperatures required to accomplish that could be as low as 250 degrees F for 20 minutes.​

More fluff

You did not prove that conventional fires melt or even soften steel

You posted a word jumble of theoretical hypotheticals.

Show me an office fire causing steel to bend. I'll wait

If you had read my posts about the phone calls before posting, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. My statements regarding airplane phone calls have been consistent. Reread them

There was melted and exploded steel found at ground zero. There was MOLTEN STEEL found at ground zero. There were steel particles found in the air at ground zero

You have literally no idea what you're talking about smh

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

More fluff

More denial of evidence and facts.​

You did not prove that conventional fires melt or even soften steel

I didn't prove that because that isn't my argument. What you're referencing is commonly known as a 'Straw Man'.​

You posted a word jumble of theoretical hypotheticals.

Actual test results conducted in labs and in real world applications are 'theoretical/hypothetical' now. Okay.
​

Show me an office fire causing steel to bend. I'll wait

Steel doesn't 'bend' at those temperatures and is not my argument. It is subject to a force called 'strain' or 'creep' which was addressed in the link I provided earlier which you neglected to read. You are more than welcome to continue arguing against a straw man, though.
​

If you had read my posts about the phone calls before posting, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. My statements regarding airplane phone calls have been consistent. Reread them

Your posts about the phone calls in response to what I posted have been refuted. You're embarrassing YOURSELF now by continuing to argue a moot point that you, yourself, refuted.
​

There was melted and exploded steel found at ground zero. There was MOLTEN STEEL found at ground zero. There were steel particles found in the air at ground zero

There was no molten or melted steel found at the site and the temperatures of the fires weren't high enough to cause that to occur. Steel particles being found means nothing since a lot of stuff was pulverized in the collapse and it would be expected to find such particles as a result.
​

You have literally no idea what you're talking about smh

Also false. I'm a mechanical engineer. One of the very first tests I took while earning my degree was to show how the collapse of the buildings was not from a demolition. Would you like to see the math?

From what I've seen you post thus far, YOU have no idea what you're talking about, but that's to be expected since the math and training to understand this lie outside your education.

Feel free to keep making yourself look stupid by not refuting ANYTHING I've posted with ANY evidence contrary to ANY assertion I've made.
​

 

[Brandon M.]

600 miles an hour at that weight, y'all really don't think that shook the building huh

 

[xCivicx]

More denial of evidence and facts.​

I didn't prove that because that isn't my argument. What you're referencing is commonly known as a 'Straw Man'.​

Actual test results conducted in labs and in real world applications are 'theoretical/hypothetical' now. Okay.
​

Steel doesn't 'bend' at those temperatures and is not my argument. It is subject to a force called 'strain' or 'creep' which was addressed in the link I provided earlier which you neglected to read. You are more than welcome to continue arguing against a straw man, though.
​

Your posts about the phone calls in response to what I posted have been refuted. You're embarrassing YOURSELF now by continuing to argue a moot point that you, yourself, refuted.
​

There was no molten or melted steel found at the site and the temperatures of the fires weren't high enough to cause that to occur. Steel particles being found means nothing since a lot of stuff was pulverized in the collapse and it would be expected to find such particles as a result.
​

Also false. I'm a mechanical engineer. One of the very first tests I took while earning my degree was to show how the collapse of the buildings was not from a demolition. Would you like to see the math?

From what I've seen you post thus far, YOU have no idea what you're talking about, but that's to be expected since the math and training to understand this lie outside your education.

Feel free to keep making yourself look stupid by not refuting ANYTHING I've posted with ANY evidence contrary to ANY assertion I've made.
​

I never said I was gonna respond to anything you posted

You responded to my posts first

I don't care what kind of strawman you created to argue the phone call issue, the fact is that you responded to my post about that initially, meaning from the very start you should have been reading the post you were responding to. You clearly didn't, because you're literally arguing against something I never said. An ACTUAL strawman

The math is irrelevant. Show me a real world case of an office fire working WHATEVER MAGIC that you're saying the office fires in the wtc worked on steel frame. Stop stalling and post a real world case of this occurring

And at the bold, I'm glad that you're finally admitting that you're brainwashed

It's funny how you dodged the majority of my posts and cherry-picked what you responded to, yet you seem to think I'm gonna let you talk in circles instead of proving your assertions

Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself though



https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-molten-metal-at-9-11-Ground-Zero

Why was there molten metal at 9/11 Ground Zero?

That’s a good question and the truthful answer is no one knows. Regardless of people trying to convince us otherwise, there wasn’t a thorough forensic investigation of the materials at ground zero.

Here are a few facts about fire and temperature.

Typical house fire. Will have a maximum temperature of 600°C or 1100°F. A temperature that any pre 9/11 paper will state, “is not hot enough to melt any metal or earth made objects” . It’s important to keep in mind that offices, unlike homes, are required to be outfitted and furnished with fireproof or fire retardant materials and therefore do not reach the same temperatures as house fires.

Steel and aluminum melt at very high temperatures. Steel melts at from 1350°C to 1510°C (2500°F to 2750°F). Aluminum melts at 680°C (1221°F). Aluminum alloys melt at lower temperatures but are not components of structures.

Jet fuel. In particular JET A used in the US has an open air burn temp of 350°C (662°F). It is basically a refined kerosine. If it could melt metal then camping lanterns would be disastrous. Speaking of which, propane burns at about 1900°C (3452°F) which is clearly hot enough to melt your metal stove but it doesn’t. This is because only the center of the flame reaches that temperature. The remainder of the flame is far cooler mixing with the ambient air. So too would the flame from jet fuel in an open air environment burn cooler than its stated maximum temperature.

Adding oxygen makes fire hotter. Rust is a form of oxidation just like fire. Fire is considered rapid oxidation. In order for the fires at the WTC to burn hotter, to melt metal it would have required an infusion of oxygen or oxygen compound. As I said there is no proof of this but it would seem like a logical conclusion and in need of investigation. Until then, we just don’t know.

George Washington's Blog: Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “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”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. Also see this essay showing that the post-collapse temperatures under Building 7 were very similar to those under Buildings 1 and 2, even though Buildings 1 and 2 were much higher.

Now go ahead and continue to deflect and talk in circles

It's funny how suddenly you're a "mechanical engineer" smh

 

[xCivicx]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Remember, you JUST posted this complete lie

There was no molten or melted steel found at the site and the temperatures of the fires weren't high enough to cause that to occur. Steel particles being found means nothing since a lot of stuff was pulverized in the collapse and it would be expected to find such particles as a result.