Serious 911 question. What burned hot enough in all three buildings to liquefy steel?

Question

Molten metal pools were found at the bottom of all three debris fields on 911. And the steel stayed in liquid form for over a month.

Scientific fact: An open air jet fuel fire can reach a maximum temperature of 1200*F.

Scientific fact: It takes a temperature in excess of 2750*F to melt steel, and you can only achieve that temperature using a controlled blast furnace, or using thermite explosives.

It's a scientific question that requires a scientific answer. It's not a question about who did something, or why they did it. It's only about what caused the steel to melt.

ARG.....You did not answer the question, what debri are you talking about, what other factors. Come on, you can do it.

bigdaddy.....Nope Jet A fuel does not burn hot enough.

Warren D......could you please site the source of the source that has adequately addressed this question.

Naughteus....You and I concur on this, I think the science proves it. But we also probably agree that 911 was an inside job. Now I'm waiting for someone who believes the governments lies to give me a clear answer.

gandamack....Yes, thermite or thermate would do it. Of course this would be clear evidence of controlled demolition.

Slappy....maximum burn temp for jet fuel in a controlled furnace is a 1475*F.
That's it, we still need to reach 2750*F.

joecool.....There's a bunch of souces out there, with plenty of eyewitness accounts....here's one of them.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6420538550978334150&q=911+coincidences+part+eight&total=21&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

joecool....sorry, forgot to tell you to watch part "eight"of this series, I sent you the link to part "eleven". Just look to the links at the right of the page.

justgetitright...what I have stated is verifiable on hundreds of sites on the net. You failed to answer my question. I'm sure any site I try to give you would not be "bona-fied", try google.

laughing.....thank you for your detailed answer, even though you insult me at the beginning. Most of your answer is about what "did not happen" instead of "what did". At the end you say you believe the melted steel was the aluminum from the two planes.

NIST gives this explanation as well in on of the many revisions they have put out since 911. But this explanation is inconclusive, and the various building materials to whose combustion it attributes it's orange glow instead of silver would have been unlikely to have remained mixed with the molten aluminum to the degree needed to produce the homogeneous color seen in the videos of that day.

And there is also one other big problem with the aluminum from the planes theory......no plane hit building 7.

sagian....you are wrong, the facts I have stated are absolutely verifiable. Be specific, which of my facts are "unsubstantiated". Google "911 Mysteries" to view first hand accounts of the molten metal.

sagian...please watch the Youtube links from Naughtian's answer below....

sagian.....let me try one more time. The videos I mentioned show interviews with first hand eyewitnesses and emergency responders. You will also see satellite thermal imaging and video of the molten steel as proof. I'm not trying to argue with you, just looking for the truth no matter how ugly it is. Watch the videos and prove me wrong, I'd rather be wrong in this case.

Answer 1

Building debris wouldn't do it either.

The correct answer is Thermite or Thermate (a derivitive). It is an incendiary, and traces of it were found in the debris. Also, in some video footage, it can be seen yellow/orange hot gushing out of the sides of one of the towers as it was doing its deed of cutting the steel beams.

Answer 2

You answered your own question...what do think ignited JP5 (jet fuel) and combustible material inside an elevator shaft (ie...controlled furnace) with no real way to let the heat escape would do.

Heat and flames with little room to escape, cause intense heat compounding ...something tells me that the towers elevator shafts had no problem reaching 3000+ degrees.

in short, both towers became controlled blast furnaces because not enough heat was able to vent from the buildings.

That is also why liquid steel pools were claimed to be seen for a month. under all the debree - no room for heat to escape

****************************PART 2********************************


Yeah...but your not accounting for the other factors like Hydraulic fuel from the elevators and metal that continues to heat without any ventilation. At that point the shafts would become a cauldron of materials capable of almost anything...

Science does not have all the answers, but to assume a conspiracy theory as a possible fact, is down right ridiculous!

We are all thinking too hard here. It happened and there is nothing we can do now to prove or disprove any of this conjecture, unless we actually line up a few buildings and do it again.

Answer 3

Thermite/Thermate.
(as for the reports of explosions- caused by EXPLOSIVES perhaps? )
congratulations to David Ray Griffin on his latest book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other
Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory " which exposes the kind of pathetic pseudo -scientific junk excuses being dreamed up by the culprits and their apologists.

Answer 4

Hillary and Rosie O' were in the bathroom lighting farts
the both started laughing so hard all of the hot air melted
the steel. Once they realize the building was on fire
Rosie jumped over to building 2 and it collapsed, on her way
down she managed to jump over to building 7. Hillary
got caught up in all of the trash and was dumped in
New Jersey but somehow managed to find her way back
to New York so that she can continue to destroy whatever
is left of that state.

Where is your bona-fide link that show the metal stayed
molten for over a month. The jet fuel was not in open air and
the correct burn temperature is a bit over 1500 degrees.
This temperature can be raised by other accelerants
such as hydraulic oil (from elevators) and other elements
that may have been in the buildings.

My story of Rosie and Hillary makes as much sense as
your conspiracy theory.

Answer 5

Steel stayed in liquid form for over a month?

assuming the the steel was liquid in the first place, due to jet fuel/thermite/controlled detonation...etc...

What was the continuous heat source that could have KEPT the steel liquid for a full month? Are you suuuuure that there was LIQUID steel just lying around, with hundreds of workers clearing the site, and without any form of continuing heat input?

Where are your sources for the liquid steel puddles assertion?

Answer 6

Mil grade thermite would do it. It utilizes barium sulfate, traces of which were found in the debris dust across the street.

Aluminum is silver grey when molten. The yellow liquid was molten steel.

What is the budget for internet disinformation agents? They have the time to be "top contributors". They all seem to read from the same OPS manual.

Answer 7

Steel can also burn. The jet fuel was just an accelerant.

I think there have been several sources that have adequately addressed the science involved in the 911 case. And we pretty much know who dunnit.

Answer 8

Google 911 Mysteries Recut

for all you smart a_ss believers of the official story

Answer 9

I have not seen any evidence, or prior to your question, suggestion of liquefied steel at 911.
What is known is that the support structure of the towers was weakened by the initial impact and the heat. Hence the buildings fell down.
Stop asking questions that are only relevant due to unsubstantiated "facts" that you yourself are introducing. If you have an ounce of real evidence (as opposed to paranoia or cherry picking of small details) then produce it.
But of course you don't!

Answer 10

I am including a link to a site which goes through each question one by one and provides actual scientific fact. I have no confidence you will actually read it, but I will provide it anyway. Here is just a small piece:

They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chock this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...

One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...

Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Well, you just proved me right. I said this was a piece of it. You have to read the entire thing. It is too long to actually post here.