it doesn't matter what it was. If it was hot enough to glow and flow like lava the energy came from a source greater than office fires. Sorry bud. I'm not in the mood for people like you. Go fuck yourself man.

And if it's that bogus "fire engineering" webpage from the "University of Manchester" then please try to corroborate it somewhere else. Normal building fires generate temperatures of 2000 degrees F??? What the Fahrenheit?! You need to check that buddy. Aluminum is silvery when molten, not orange hot like lava (as mentioned by the firefighter) or well, molten steel. Is lava silvery now? These aren't facts that embarrass us, these are facts that you can't explain with your evil muslim fixation blocking your thought processes. Why not be honest and desire the whole truth like we do? Why do you think it's OK to deceive yourself about basic scientific facts? Have you even read the FEMA report? Start with appendix C, where they talk about the odd melting of steel from building 7. They also found sulfidation on melted parts of that steel. Sulfur is used in thermate to make the steel melt at a lower temperature. Why can't you address these issues?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

OK.... hydrocarbon fires reach maximum temps..... don't you need a constant oxygen source for this?

Fires burried under rubble..... where's the common sense?

SMOTHERED fires increase in temperature the longer they stay covered, dude. According to Popular Mechanics, anyway. Which is why your oven always melts any time you try to cook your thanksgiving turkey. Get a clue! :)

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

You mean other than the fact that the firemen actually used the words "molten steel"? Watch the video again. I think you missed it.

explanation? How do you define proof? Isn't a logical conclusion proof? Like if I said prove gravity exists, and you drop a ball and say--there, gravity exists, otherwise why did the ball not just float in the air. Ahh, I say but you haven't proved the existence of gravity. Unless I can show that something else is creating the illusion of gravity where in fact there is none, why should you need to prove that it's gravity? It is self-evident, just like when you pull out a steel beam that is dripping on one end--you can speculate as to an alternate explanation, but it is pointless to do so when the obvious explanation fits the rest of the available evidence (like the clear destruction of the core of the towers by an explosive force.) Now of course you will say prove it was an explosive force and not gravity, and I will point out the huge steel beams that were launched outwards and embedded themselves in a building 400 feet away. But that won't satisfy you either, and that speaks volumes about your sincerity. You will just say, well, that's the compressed air. It makes no sense but you will pretend it does. Anyone can play that game.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

because you don't want it to be. In my opinion, both sides of this arguement are speculating. We say it is likely molten steel, which we have no way to prove with 100% assurance and the debunkers say it is not likely, or at least point out there are other possible explanations. This doesn't mean we are wrong people. Anon, do you at least think it is POSSIBLE this COULD be molten steel?

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Once again I must ask that you provide the source of the existing empirical evidence. There are thousands of tonnes of evidence in the WTC debris in local dumps. Can you find out who I can talk to, so that I may gain access to this evidence?

.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but can’t afford an air force. ~ William Blum

I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world, in the field of advertising, and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency. Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious. I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours and we tend to disbelieve ours. ~ A U.S. based Soviet correspondent

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle

Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority. ~ Leon Battista Alberti

I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability. ~ Oscar Wilde

But denial, he has yet to make even ONE single intelligent point.

Obviously to anyone not delusional, Aluminum can not possibly stay molten for weeks as any child knows it cools off extremely quick and it does not glow orange/red in daylight.
There is no possible way that office fires fueled by fire retardant furniture various office supplies and Kerosene could even remotely get to any 2000 degrees F, that is complete bullshit.
Carbon based fires can not attain over 1800 degrees F MAX and that is WITH force fed oxygen at just the right amounts which obviously did not happen here, these fires were clearly oxygen starved and mostly extinguished from the 1000s of gallons of water dumped on it from the sprinkler system as can be seen without any doubt by the thick black smoke, soot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wp_wtc4.jpg

Even NIST report admitted they found no evidence the fires reached much over 600 degrees C, not to mention they only burned for less than an hour.
So burning that short a duration it really would not have mattered even IF the fires reached OVER 2000 F.

Fire temp does not translate to STEEL TEMP by any stretch of the imagination.
500 Tons of thick construction grade steel all interconnected is a huge heat sink/radiator means the steel would dissipate heat very well.

In order for ANY fire to produce molten steel that remains molten for weeks it would have to be well in excess of 4000 degrees F AND have a catalyst to keep the heat generating, that catalyst is obviously Thermate.

In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours)and MUCH hotter that started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th.
The reason that fire burned longer and hotter is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system and it started in the middle of the night. It burned at least 65% of the 11th floor.
There was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned hotter as was seen by fire fighters as most all the windows on the 11th floor blew out which means the fire attained at least 1300 degrees F.
On 9/11 this did not happen thus the fire never reached 1300 F.
The 1975 fire also burned 3X longer, there was no water to slow it down or put it out and no fire stopper material in several gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through.
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour.
We also know that 1000s of gallons of water was dumped on the fire, when water hits fire it vaporizes, the volume of water vapor is 1700 times greater than liquid water thus for every 1 gallon of water 1700 gals of vapor was created to displace oxygen, this creates soot and even the soot itself displaces oxygen and helps put the fire out.

This is "Empirical Evidence" and irrefutable.

and I myself have been part of the scientific community (marine biologist) for 23 years, I am perfectly aware of the scientific method and what constitutes empirical evidence as I have used it for 23 years now, I have taken 4, IQ test in my life and the "lowest" score was 136.
So put that in your pipe & smoke it.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

can you disprove what the firemen saw was steel?

number one we know it is NOT Aluminum.

We know it was glowing red/orange hot and that is was positively metal.

whether it was steel or whatever other metal is really a moot point, fact remains that there is no way ANY metal would be glowing red hot for days because of a carbon based fire PERIOD.

For this is the book Aftermath, which is a big officially sanctioned book of pictures of the cleanup. it talks about the workers pulling out a beam from the pile and then having the pile explode with ash and dust from below because of the oxygen that seeped in. In other words, what you had was pockets of molten steel that were smoldering there with no need for oxygen since the metal was already melted by thermite which even works underwater, fyi, since it is a self sustaining reaction (the oxygen is provided by the iron-oxide) When air was let in by pulling a beam out the oxygen in the air would ignite from the extreme temperature suddenly exposed to it. Kind of like when you blow or use a bellows on a log that is glowing orange and make a flame appear.

Also in that book you see that when they cut the steel as part of the clean up, they used regular little torches, NOT thermite to cut it.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

If air could reach the fires then couldn't the air cool the fires and thus wouldn't Popular Mechanics explanation fail?