To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Overheal

Has nothing to do with melting of aluminum: if thermite was used to melt/cut the part, there would be a significant and detectable amount of aluminum present in the same grain boundary that they tested.

Further reading: check out Case Hardening of Steel. They heat steel up and subject it to a pressure and carbon. Carbon bonds to the outside layers of the steel, giving it a very hard and tough shell, usually only microns thick.

Similarly if the steel here was subjected to high heat and thermite - a source of iron, oxygen and aluminum, you would naturally expect there would be aluminum present. It doesn’t just disappear or melt or burn off. The element Aluminum would still be present as Aluminum Oxide.

Overheal

There is nothing to say they would not see aluminum oxide simply because it is below the melting point of aluminum either: you can put salt, sugar, etc etc etc into a liquid even if the liquid never reached the melting point of salt or said compound.

Case and point, steel is a combination of iron carbon and other elements, even though carbon has a melting point which is far greater on its own than the melting point of iron. In fact steel is not forged at the temperatures that would be required to melt carbon

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Has nothing to do with melting of aluminum: if thermite was used to melt/cut the part, there would be a significant and detectable amount of aluminum present in the same grain boundary that they tested.

Further reading: check out Case Hardening of Steel. They heat steel up and subject it to a pressure and carbon. Carbon bonds to the outside layers of the steel, giving it a very hard and tough shell, usually only microns thick.

Similarly if the steel here was subjected to high heat and thermite - a source of iron, oxygen and aluminum, you would naturally expect there would be aluminum present. It doesn’t just disappear or melt or burn off. The element Aluminum would still be present as Aluminum Oxide.

FEMA said it was the sulphur liquid penetrating the steel plus the high heat caused the steel to melt.

Present in what form? A solid a liquid? On the surface of the steel? Clearly, the aluminium oxide can not melt at low temps so it was never going to be mixed with the Iron and sulphur content. Would the Aluminium oxide not just disappear if did not embed deeply into the steel? This steel was sitting out in rain conditions and bad weather. And fireman was hosing the steel down with water to cool temps, aluminium powder is not going to just sit there on the surface of the steel.

End of the day NIST believes fires were not hot enough to melt steel. (ignore nanothermite was the cause) They even said so on video no steel melted and there was no molten Iron. Clearly they are mistaken.

FEMA claims 1000c heat + sulphur would have done this, but where can we find an experiment to prove it? FEMA and NIST did know test to prove this theory even correct.

Overheal

FURTHERMORE: the so-called thermite chips have already undergone extensive forensic spectrographic microscopic and chemical analyses. Absolutely no trace of aluminum was found, which would be required to suggest that the chips were either thermite or a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

https://www.machinedesign.com/blog/another-blow-wtc-conspiracy-theorists

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

FURTHERMORE: the so-called thermite chips have already undergone extensive forensic spectrographic microscopic and chemical analyses. Absolutely no trace of aluminum was found, which would be required to suggest that the chips were either thermite or a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

https://www.machinedesign.com/blog/another-blow-wtc-conspiracy-theorists

The link to the report is broken, have you another

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

. I want to see who tested the chips.

Dohnjoe

Still waiting for answers to basic questions, an outline of the conspiracy, and evidence for that

Absolutely no credible alternative provided in this thread and 183 pages

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The link to the report is broken, have you another

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

. I want to see who tested the chips.

http://docplayer.net/36319251-Revised-report-of-results-mva9119-progress-report-on-the-analysis-of-red-gray-chips-in-wtc-dust-prepared-for-classical-guide-denver-co.html

I appear to have misunderstood what was reported on machinedesign.com - no elemental aluminum was found. They did find aluminum-silicon compounds, but this compound isn't relatable to thermite - its part of a clay present on the samples.

"Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments [aluminum-silicon based].

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips,therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

This paper refutes the pseudoscience finding in a previous 2009 paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228660396_Active_Thermitic_Material_Discovered_in_Dust_from_the_911_World_Trade_Center_Catastrophe) that Bentham Open Journal accidentally published. I say accidentally, because their editor resigned over it. The journal's peer review process has been challenged.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

http://docplayer.net/36319251-Revised-report-of-results-mva9119-progress-report-on-the-analysis-of-red-gray-chips-in-wtc-dust-prepared-for-classical-guide-denver-co.html

I appear to have misunderstood what was reported on machinedesign.com - no elemental aluminum was found. They did find aluminum-silicon compounds, but this compound isn't relatable to thermite - its part of a clay present on the samples.

"Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments [aluminum-silicon based].

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips,therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

This paper refutes the pseudoscience finding in a previous 2009 paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228660396_Active_Thermitic_Material_Discovered_in_Dust_from_the_911_World_Trade_Center_Catastrophe) that Bentham Open Journal accidentally published. I say accidentally, because their editor resigned over it. The journal's peer review process has been challenged.

I had a strong feeling it was James Milette you were talking about.

I just posted this info. I don't feel like writing a long post debunking him when already been done.

This peer review paper mentioned in this article never came out.

When Dr. Millette´s preliminary report first saw the light of day in February 2012 - about 18 months ago - the JREF crowd heralded the report as the ultimate debunking of Harrit et al.(2009) who document the discovery of active thermitic chips in the WTC dust. When Rev. Chris Mohr delivered the report to his followers at the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, he announced that, "..the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". But the report never made it to the publishing stage, and 18 months constitute enough waiting to confirm what we have suspected all along: Dr. Millette cannot publish the report.

One of Dr. Harrit´s co-authors pretty much predicted the inevitable failure of Dr. Millette a couple of weeks prior to Mohr´s public release of the preliminary report, calling it the "official non-response".

Chemist Kevin Ryan notes in the article that Millette had participated in the official WTC dust studies and that a whistle-blower has charged those studies with fraud. The article also doubts Millette´s intention to actually address the evidence that Harrit et al. present in the 2009 paper, since Dr. Millette had consistently ignored the abundant iron spheres in the WTC dust in his previous studies. But those spheres happen to be the signature residue of the thermitic red/gray chips, and the tell-tale sign of a thermite reaction.

And as I and Talboo document in detail in the third chapter of our fundraising article for Mark Basile - first posted in November 2012 - the Millette report has never given the impression of having been intended for peer-reviewing and publishing due to its fundamental flaws: Although Millette´s chips do have some superficial similarities to the chips studied by Harrit et al., neither the red nor the gray layers actually match the composition and characteristics of Dr. Harrit´s chips upon close inspection. And as Mr. Ryan had predicted, Dr. Millette does not even attempt to address or refute the ignition of the Harrit et al. chips at about 430°(C) and the resulting iron spheres in the residue. Dr. Millette actually refuses to replicate the ignition tests with his chips, and we speculate in our article that this is because he knows that these tests would confirm that he has not been studying the correct chips.


There more to this story, but this guy is not credible.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/09/millette-chip-study-debunked-and-buried.html

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA said it was the sulphur liquid penetrating the steel plus the high heat caused the steel to melt.

Kinda sorta, yeah. But only at the microscopic/sub-microscopic level. The conspiracy theory contents that thermite was used to cause the bulk material to melt. And the intergranular melting that occured, anyway, doesn't involve thermite in any way, which is iron oxide and aluminum.

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000 C (1800 F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

eu·tec·tic
/yo͞oˈtektik/Submit
CHEMISTRY
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

Present in what form? A solid a liquid? On the surface of the steel? Clearly, the aluminium oxide can not melt at low temps so it was never going to be mixed with the Iron and sulphur content.

Like I said before, the melting temperature of a doping compound is irrelevant: the melting point of elemental carbon is 3550 C, yet the forging temperature of steel is ~1300 C.

And actually, the melting point of elemental Aluminum is 660 C.

Would the Aluminium oxide not just disappear if did not embed deeply into the steel? This steel was sitting out in rain conditions and bad weather. And fireman was hosing the steel down with water to cool temps, aluminium powder is not going to just sit there on the surface of the steel.

In short: no. If there was any aluminum particulates or liquefied aluminum one would surely expect to have found it in the same intergranular cracks and boundaries as the liquefied sulfur. And, Iron and Aluminum are chemically compatible (and reactive with one another - the whole idea behind thermite), there are Fe-Al alloys for example. It would be stunning to me that if thermite burning really truly occurred that we would not see any aluminum bonded to the steel at the melting/cutting boundaries. Furthermore, their chemical and physical analyses would have been more consistent with conditions at 2200 C, not 1000 C as reported in the findings.

End of the day NIST believes fires were not hot enough to melt steel. (ignore nanothermite was the cause) They even said so on video no steel melted and there was no molten Iron. Clearly they are mistaken.

FEMA claims 1000c heat + sulphur would have done this, but where can we find an experiment to prove it? FEMA and NIST did know test to prove this theory even correct.

It's likely repeatable. And no, they can both be correct. The material properties of a bulk material and the same material at the nano-scale differ. Not only possible with the eutectic mixture (with its lower melt point by definition) but by a phenomenon referred to as melting-point-depression in nanoparticles, which the sulfur liquid was, to flow between the intergranular cracks seen at the micron scale.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Papers/Yetter.pdf

I'm also attaching a 1986 paper that touched on the phenomenon pre-conspiracy it's normally behind a paywall (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040609086904220) but I have it through University access.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I had a strong feeling it was James Milette you were talking about.

I just posted this info. I don't feel like writing a long post debunking him when already been done.

This peer review paper mentioned in this article never came out.

When Dr. Millette´s preliminary report first saw the light of day in February 2012 - about 18 months ago - the JREF crowd heralded the report as the ultimate debunking of Harrit et al.(2009) who document the discovery of active thermitic chips in the WTC dust. When Rev. Chris Mohr delivered the report to his followers at the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, he announced that, "..the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". But the report never made it to the publishing stage, and 18 months constitute enough waiting to confirm what we have suspected all along: Dr. Millette cannot publish the report.

I see. That would be more a case of rejecting his work because of his professional proximity to the event - understandable. However, it's not that Millette is himself not credible, in fact he still appears to be professionally esteemed and accredited.

https://www.astm.org/cms/drupal-7.51/newsroom/dr-james-millette-receives-award-astm-international-committee-air-quality

But, if the truthers are correct about this, we should be able to see some replication. Technically you shouldn't even need WTC dust - just some A36 steel and thermite. From that you should be able to reproduce these red/gray chips and get them analyzed independently to confirm thermitic compounds. I am not following how iron spheres have anything to do with it - the iron involved is specious, it could come from the steel or thermite or anything. The aluminum is going to be the more determining marker.

banie01

I see CS is back to the Harrit paper again.
This was discussed and debunked last year although not in the level of detail that Overheal brings to the subject.

From the lack of actual elemental or reactive Aluminium in the "red flakes" to the chain of custody for the samples.
The groping and grasping at the edges of the terms, topics and wantonly deliberate misunderstanding by CS coupled with the sheer volume of repetition of already debunked BS is really ridiculous.

We are at the stage now where it's rinse and repeat BS.

Overheal

TO BE FAIR, I was the one who mentioned the Harris paper because it was in the introduction of the paper I was referencing.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

TO BE FAIR, I was the one who mentioned the Harris paper because it was in the introduction of the paper I was referencing.

Ah, my apologies to CS then.

The paper is used as definitive proof of nano-thermite when it is far from anything of the kind IMO.

And as for the standards of its Publisher, it is common knowledge that the publisher and its parent company are little more than paper mills.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

I see CS is back to the Harrit paper again.
This was discussed and debunked last year although not in the level of detail that Overheal brings to the subject.

It's all circular. One of these days, if I could be bothered, I'll do a flowchart

lazy effort but..

"I can't believe it happened" -> therefore conspiracy
"You can't explain this to me" -> therefore conspiracy
"Sounds strange to me" -> therefore conspiracy
"I don't get it/understand it" -> therefore conspiracy
"This one witness/expert/"expert"/piece of info/ says differently" -> therefore conspiracy

and so on

All in one big circle of course

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

I see. That would be more a case of rejecting his work because of his professional proximity to the event - understandable. However, it's not that Millette is himself not credible, in fact he still appears to be professionally esteemed and accredited.

https://www.astm.org/cms/drupal-7.51/newsroom/dr-james-millette-receives-award-astm-international-committee-air-quality

But, if the truthers are correct about this, we should be able to see some replication. Technically you shouldn't even need WTC dust - just some A36 steel and thermite. From that you should be able to reproduce these red/gray chips and get them analyzed independently to confirm thermitic compounds. I am not following how iron spheres have anything to do with it - the iron involved is specious, it could come from the steel or thermite or anything. The aluminum is going to be the more determining marker.

Reply to your two posts.
That is true to (quote you) only at the microscopic/sub-microscopic level. Having said that. I still have to keep on about this the temp required to melt steel exceeds the temps of an office fire.

Fine in theory, but where the conclusive evidence sulphur +1000c will melt steel? It not much to ask for surely? Then we can say yep FEMA was right about this. What if they are wrong and sulphur +1000c heat can’t melt the steel. We both agree if true this can be repeated yes?

The more I think about it yes it would be unusual to not find any trace of aluminium on the steel. Then again I just speculating the red/grey chips were used to melt WTC7 steel. FEMA would never find aluminium if nanothermite was not used.

I think the evidence is good the chips are unignited nano thermite though. When you have time read this debate, I posted and you point out flaws you see. It was a really good debate you will appreciate the technical aspects of the back and forth between the two guys. It lot hard for me to argue for the nanothermite was used to melt steel during 9/11. Since it all rests on the chips being thermatic- we should take the discussion to there now.? I accept your point about the aluminium not mentioned by FEMA

To follow on to your next post.
I believe they only got a few samples and independent scientists have confirmed the chips are thermatic. But since they know supporting the truther cause they are no longer independent in the minds of others. 9/11 is sensitive and hot topic government contract institutions are scared to stick their neck out to the support them and verify their findings.

Supposedly there molten Iron spheres that form during a thermite reaction. Again if you believe nano-thermite was used this evidence found fits. I think it e difficult to manufacture chips alleged to be made in military industrial lab.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Reply to your two posts.
That is true to (quote you) only at the microscopic/sub-microscopic level. Having said that. I still have to keep on about this the temp required to melt steel exceeds the temps of an office fire.

Fine in theory, but where the conclusive evidence sulphur +1000c will melt steel? It not much to ask for surely? Then we can say yep FEMA was right about this. What if they are wrong and sulphur +1000c heat can’t melt the steel. We both agree if true this can be repeated yes?

The more I think about it yes it would be unusual to not find any trace of aluminium on the steel. Then again I just speculating the red/grey chips were used to melt WTC7 steel. FEMA would never find aluminium if nanothermite was not used.

I think the evidence is good the chips are unignited nano thermite though. When you have time read this debate, I posted and you point out flaws you see. It was a really good debate you will appreciate the technical aspects of the back and forth between the two guys. It lot hard for me to argue for the nanothermite was used to melt steel during 9/11. Since it all rests on the chips being thermatic- we should take the discussion to there now.? I accept your point about the aluminium not mentioned by FEMA

To follow on to your next post.
I believe they only got a few samples and independent scientists have confirmed the chips are thermatic. But since they know supporting the truther cause they are no longer independent in the minds of others. 9/11 is sensitive and hot topic government contract institutions are scared to stick their neck out to the support them and verify their findings.

Supposedly there molten Iron spheres that form during a thermite reaction. Again if you believe nano-thermite was used this evidence found fits. I think it e difficult to manufacture chips alleged to be made in military industrial lab.

Why are you so fixated with "molten steel"? the building fell due to weakened steel (and thermal expansion)

A straight normal answer please.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why are you so fixated with "molten steel"? the building fell due to weakened steel (and thermal expansion)

A straight normal answer please.

I don't believe NIST. Explained why I already.

I fixated as it a recorded phenomenon. I don't believe an office fire could have melted the steel and left holes.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Reply to your two posts.
That is true to (quote you) only at the microscopic/sub-microscopic level. Having said that. I still have to keep on about this the temp required to melt steel exceeds the temps of an office fire.

Fine in theory, but where the conclusive evidence sulphur +1000c will melt steel? It not much to ask for surely? Then we can say yep FEMA was right about this. What if they are wrong and sulphur +1000c heat can’t melt the steel. We both agree if true this can be repeated yes?

See the following:

http://www.materialsperformance.com/uploads/documents/Magazine/2009/AUG%202009%20Basics.pdf

Note that the melting point of Iron as a bulk metal is 1,539 C but as a Metal-Sulfide Eutectic its melting point drops to 985 C.

The more I think about it yes it would be unusual to not find any trace of aluminium on the steel. Then again I just speculating the red/grey chips were used to melt WTC7 steel. FEMA would never find aluminium if nanothermite was not used.

Then I am happy to agree with you, that thermite/nanothermite was not involved.

I think the evidence is good the chips are unignited nano thermite though.

When you have time read this debate, I posted and you point out flaws you see. It was a really good debate you will appreciate the technical aspects of the back and forth between the two guys. It lot hard for me to argue for the nanothermite was used to melt steel during 9/11. Since it all rests on the chips being thermatic- we should take the discussion to there now.? I accept your point about the aluminium not mentioned by FEMA

And the melting point of the eutectic-steel mix..

To follow on to your next post.
I believe they only got a few samples and independent scientists have confirmed the chips are thermatic. But since they know supporting the truther cause they are no longer independent in the minds of others. 9/11 is sensitive and hot topic government contract institutions are scared to stick their neck out to the support them and verify their findings.

Supposedly there molten Iron spheres that form during a thermite reaction. Again if you believe nano-thermite was used this evidence found fits. I think it e difficult to manufacture chips alleged to be made in military industrial lab.

Or those spheres could be the result of the eutectic melting.

And to be clear, I've seen people try to make a scientific argument that the chips were thermitic, but I am far from convinced this conclusion has been confirmed.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I fixated as it a recorded phenomenon. I don't believe an office fire could have melted the steel and left holes.

Fire weakens steel. At over 600 degrees C steel has lost half it's strength

Temps in WTC 1 reached 1000 C. Unprotected steel in those temperatures reduces to 10% of it's strength

That has nothing to do with "molten steel"

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fire weakens steel. At over 600 degrees C steel has lost half it's strength

Temps in WTC 1 reached 1000 C. Unprotected steel in those temperatures reduces to 10% of it's strength

That has nothing to do with "molten steel"

Yeeep.



Reaction of steel strengths to temperature...

DublinWriter

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Temps in WTC 1 reached 1000 C.

Hard to imagine how burning jet fuel and office furniture could even generate heat in excess of 300C.

Then we're also left with the thorny and well-documented issue of the pools of molten steel still extant at ground zero three months later.

Overheal

DublinWriter wrote: »

Hard to imagine how burning jet fuel and office furniture could even generate heat in excess of 300C.

Then we're also left with the thorny and well-documented issue of the pools of molten steel still extant at ground zero three months later.

Haven’t yet seen any molten pools of steel from ground zero.

And you do realize that a freaking cigarette even burns at nearly 300 C ?

It doesn’t appear you’ve given the matter much critical thought.

King Mob

DublinWriter wrote: »

Then we're also left with the thorny and well-documented issue of the pools of molten steel still extant at ground zero three months later.

Firstly, no pools of molten steel or metal existed.
There is no evidence of any such thing.

Secondly, controlled demolitions of any type do not and cannot result in pools of molten metal.
If you are maintaining that it can't be office fires because of these supposed pools, then you have to also exclude the possibility of a controlled demolition as well.
But something tells me you are not applying your own argument fairly.

Overheal

You’d think someone would have been able to build a longstanding pool of molten metal in their backyard just by getting their hands on some thermite and steel.

DublinWriter

Overheal wrote: »

Haven’t yet seen any molten pools of steel from ground zero.

Multiple sources here:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

It doesn’t appear you’ve given the matter much critical thought.

Is ad-hominem the order of the day here?

Overheal

DublinWriter wrote: »

Multiple sources here:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html


Is ad-hominem the order of the day here?

If that’s an ad hominem then I have a bridge to sell you.

You specifically expressed incredulity that jet fuel could melt even above 300 C. That in itself is evidence of a lack of critical thinking.

Overheal

Running through the links in your molten steel meta link:

1. Journalistic license by New York Post, no direct quote.

2. Broken link

3. Broken link

4. Embellishing narrative language present in Article. No by-line, no eyewitness attribution.

5. Broken link

6. Not seeing anything on mobile

7. Broken link

8. Broken link (but yes that is an accurate textbook definition of evaporation)

9. Broken link

10. No direct quote, note how they quote “the pile” but nothing else? Lol

11. A book? Can we say “lack of hard evidence and artistic license likely?”

12. This isn’t at all what the hyperlink suggests, it’s a panoramic of the ground zero site.

13. Broken link - you’d be pleased to know the domain name is back up for sale!

14. White page?

15. Another link that isn’t what it claims to be, the front page of some article that has no mention of molten anything.

16. Broken/gone

17. Is an active link and actually corroborates the quote claimed! It’s unfortunate that it has nothing to do with molten pools/streams/etc of steel.

18. Broken link (but wow, the disaster site was hot? That’s not news)

19. Broken link - but, if that’s a true quote it’s not proof of molten steel. Go look up the color chart for steel. Cherry red steel is consistent with the reported temperatures and far from molten (which is bright bright yellow)

20. Broken link and sounds like more editorial embellishment.

21. I don’t know if you’ve been following the credibility of Rudy Giuliani - but he is far from credible, and not shy to embellish or in this case seemingly round up the numbers to make it sound more grandiose. Besides you’d think the mayor of New York would need to be in on the conspiracy.

22. Broken link

23. Rather than click on these I’ll just address this:

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."

this is making wild insinuations on the ability of fire suppressants and water to permeate the rubble. Even if they had submersed the entire site in millions of gallons of water, you’d still have encountered pockets of air etc. where that would not reach. They did not douse the whole site enough to do close to that, and even if it had rained inches in both of those days, it would be far from what would be required to begin to douse that. That’s also ignoring just how much mass and latent heat was in the rubble anyway (hence why it was still hot months later), that heat had nowhere to escape to.

Overheal

I mean heck the burners on your oven get cherry red and they don’t melt. And those are nichrome, with a lower melting point than steel

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Haven’t yet seen any molten pools of steel from ground zero.

And you do realize that a freaking cigarette even burns at nearly 300 C ?

It doesn’t appear you’ve given the matter much critical thought.

another video .... sorry

from 1.55 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xysnVixh1sY

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Still waiting for answers to basic questions, an outline of the conspiracy, and evidence for that

Absolutely no credible alternative provided in this thread and 183 pages

I posted one ....you choose to ignore it


could you address the question below ?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109660027&postcount=2591