Can you please explain all the flashes of light and horizontal explosions? How can air fires cause all this?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

Explain:

1. What caused all the bright flashes of light?

2. What caused all the horizontal and rapid explosions so far
below the collapsing levels? (and please don't say it was
due to air pressure, because these look like focused point
source explosions, and this cannot possibly be caused by
built up air pressure, since this is not an "air tight" leak-proof
sealed environment, due to all the cracked ceilings and
damaged upper floors) - don't tell me you can inflate & pop
a balloon if the balloon has lots of leaks and holes in it!

3. What caused all the molten metal dripping out of the South
Tower? Melting point of steel = 1532 C, but the hottest
temperature that a jet fuel (kerosene) fire can reach, burning
in still or stationary air (not moving air) is only 250 C. And
don't say this is molten aluminium ( melts at 600 C).
Why do steel or Al frying pans not melt?

Here's another interesting video about Building 7, a 47-storey steel building that collapsed about 7 hours after the Twin Towers on 9/11, and it was not even hit by any plane!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

Can you please explain how a few small fires could completely level an entire steel building right down to the ground?

Watch this video too: showing evidence
of molten metal being created on 9/11, remaining red hot for up to 6 weeks after, at ground zero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y&mode=related&search=

>>Temperatures of 1200-1300 C in residential fires are not unknown.


This is simply not true! Air fires typically cannot melt even aluminium, which has a melting point of around 580-650 C.

Try it yourself! If you can create liquid aluminium from an open air fire, you have proven that you can exceed 580 C so go ahead and try this. And in virtually all house fires, you NEVER find any pools of liquid aluminium (warped, yes, but not dripping liquid)... it is even more impossible to say that air fire can melt steel, because that would mean that all our motorcycle and car engine pistons (all made of steel) should melt away and go all soft and rubbery, causing all our engines to fail... this is not what happens! (and don't say that combustion engine pistons are water cooled, they are not, only the cylinders), but even air-cooled motorcycle engines made of steel do not melt or sag when idling and stationary.

Please explain the yellow/orange liquid steel dripping out of WTC2 ?

One more thing... paper can also be a hydrocarbon fuel to feed the fires. Paper combusts at Fahrenheit 451 F = 233 C. Paper fires and kerosene air fires rarely exceed 250 C in still air, even in a gentle breeze, due to low availability of oxygen in 101.3 kPa open air pressure. The temperature of a fire depends on the "reaction rate" - or equal availability of hydrogen (fromt the fuel) AND available oxygen.

Try this yourself. Start an open air jet fuel fire (or burn kerosene in a steel tray), and measure the temperature of the flame with a pyrometer. You should get temperatures under 250 C. TRUE!

Now try to melt some aluminium foil in the fire you made and try to get liquid aluminium. Next, try to get liquid steel in that same fire. Don't believe me, just try it for yourself ! Air fire does not even weaken steel by any significant amount, because steel only starts weakening over 300 C, and is still at half full strength at 600 - 650 C, the melting point of aluminium.

Answer 1

This is obviously a "baited question." Do you really want an honest answer?

Now, I can't yet 100% discount the *possibility* that the building was secretly demolished. I merely consider it extremely unlikely, since that sort of explanation makes far too many arbitrary assumptions, and since conspiracy theories are almost always rotten with faulty logic and reasoning. The WTC demolition theory is no exception to this.

But, since you did ask the question, I think I'll give it a shot anyway; against the chance that you'll actually believe me.

1)First off, the flashes of light could easily be sheets of broken windows, or bits of the aluminum cladding of the building; But the creator of the video rejects this possibility offhand, without providing evidence as to why it *could not possibly* be glass, or cladding. Perhaps he wishes to believe explanations which are *more sensational*, rather than those which are boring, but more likely. In the segment that shows the actual collapse, several flashes are visible in the empty space above the building, *after* it collapses. I find it hard to believe that *those* flashes were explosives, since the building isn't really there anymore.

2) So, really, it *just has* to be explosives, it *can't possibly* be air escaping from the inside of a collapsing building? Or, perhaps steel girders on outside shell of the building buckling and rupturing, it couldn't be that either, could it? So then, what happens to the air inside the building? Where does all the air go? Does it just *dissapear*? When a building collapses due to structural damage and fire, how is it *supposed* to look, as opposed to if it was a planned demolition? I guess I'll just have to take your word for it, on this one.
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

3. The fact that the creator of the video can't spell "thermite" says wonders for his overall credibility. Again, he just assumes offhand that what he is seeing *must* be thermite, and doesn't provide any good evidence. Again, he is making the errors of misleading vividness, false attribution, and hasty generalization. Especially when he is obviously not an expert on engineering, pyrotechnics, demolitions, or failure analysis.

Jet fuel, in "open air", will burn around 250-350 C.

However, the fire in the WTC was certainly *not* in open air. Even without jet fuel present, a fire in an ordinary house can easily reach 400-600 C in a matter of minutes. Walls and ceilings tend to reflect and concentrate heat from a fire, and "preheat" the incoming fresh air, raising final combustion temperatures. Temperatures of 1200-1300 C in residential fires are not unknown.

WTC consipiricists often make the "straw man" argument that that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel. However the official WTC report never claimed that this was the case in the first place; merely that the fire was hot enough to *weaken* the steel. Even at 400 C, structural steel loses about 30% of it's yield strength. Above1000C, steel is about as soft as plastic...(just go visit a blacksmith shop...) Considering how severely the towers were damaged in the first place, it is really a testament to their designers that they lasted as long as they did.

In fact, the creator of the video is just parroting some of the theories first introduced by the physicist Stephen E. Jones, whose ideas have since been almost completely discredited. I might add that Jones was also not an expert on demolitions, engineering, forensics, or failure analysis. His prior work was largely in the realm of theoretical physics, particularly, cold fusion, (that never ending scientific graveyard......) Every man to his own profession, I guess.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Hope that was what you expected,
~W.O.M.B.A.T.

Answer 2

If you watch videos closely I've heard you can also see planes crashing into the WTC. You conspiracy theorists get annoying. The WTC collapse was caused by terrorists crashing planes into the building. Accept it, live with it. It's funny that you will believe some nut's "science" when he can't even spell simple words correctly. The truth is staring you right in the face. Keep in mind your actions are also a slap in the face to the people that were directly involved with it. How would you feel if you had to clean up charred corpses and plane wreckage at the Pentagon only to hear from people like you that a plane was never found?

Answer 3

Here ya go:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

Hope that helps!