Firefighters at the scene on 9/11 speak of molten steel

[Coronado]

Watch the witnesses again in the documented statements from actual firefighters at the scene.

Why do you dismiss their personal accounts?

You are chosing to believe whatever fits your comfort zone....

Since when did eyewitness testimony trump science?

I choose to believe verifiable, repeatable scientific findings over eyewitness testimony, which any attorney worth his salt can poke holes in without even breaking a sweat. Why do you throw out science to grasp at testimony? Is it because the facts don't fit your ridiculous little conspiracies?

Once again I ask, explain to us how a person can stand next to an object that is at least 2000° F in equipment that is only rated to handle 1/4th the temperature and keep from vaporizing.

Comfort zone indeed.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

are ment to believe that all that distruction was from jet fuel alone?

Structural fires get very hot and have tons of fuel. Before you go on about how this was, "the only steel structure in history to collapse from fire," a couple things: much of the fireproofing was knocked off by the impact, the building was already severely weakened by the impact, and steel does expand and become more brittle in temperatures as low as 1000 degrees (firefighters are warned about this in even the most basic training).

 

[majora$$hole]

What incredibly simplistic and one-dimentional thinking ... who says jet fuel was the ONLY thing burning ???

You do realise that huge office and commercial buildings have enormous amounts of contents which are flammable, and by being soaked in jet fuel would then burn hotter and fiercer, as fuel is an ACCELERANT, than they would in isolation ... please tell me you do realize this ... that it was fuel AND contents ???

hot enough to melt 2 six ton titanium jet engines and last for three months? yeah right! so where are the examples of other large buildings that were hit by planes and that happened to again?

 

[majora$$hole]

Structural fires get very hot and have tons of fuel. Before you go on about how this was, "the only steel structure in history to collapse from fire," a couple things: much of the fireproofing was knocked off by the impact, the building was already severely weakened by the impact, and steel does expand and become more brittle in temperatures as low as 1000 degrees (firefighters are warned about this in even the most basic training).

nope sorry but no structural fire in history has got hot enough to melt 2 six ton titanium jet engines and lasted for 3 months.

 

[Coronado]

nope sorry but no structural fire in history has got hot enough to melt 2 six ton titanium jet engines and lasted for 3 months.

Please submit proof that this happened.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

hot enough to melt 2 six ton titanium jet engines and last for three months? yeah right! so where are the examples of other large buildings that were hit by planes and that happened to again?

Reality check ... aircraft engines are NOT constructed in titanium ... there are ONLY some components which are.

You also have zero understanding of physics when you fail to realise that the aircraft which hit the WTC buildings on 9/11 did so with the EIGHT times the kinetic energy of the one that was used in the 1960's study.

But hey! don't let reality and science get in the way of an ignorant delusion !!!

 

[Coronado]

Reality check ... aircraft engines are NOT constructed in titanium ... there are ONLY some components which are.

You also have zero understanding of physics when you fail to realise that the aircraft which hit the WTC buildings on 9/11 did so with the EIGHT times the kinetic energy of the one that was used in the 1960's study.

But hey! don't let reality and science get in the way of an ignorant delusion !!!

Also, since airplanes are basically just gigantic aluminium tubes with aluminium wings, and since the melting point of aluminium is 1220° F, that would most likely explain the "rivers of molten steel" the firefighters said they saw.

Of course that would make way too much sense though ...

 

[majora$$hole]

Please submit proof that this happened.

show me where a high-rise building that was hit by a plane was totally demolished and so were the 2 six ton titanium jet engines and continued to burn for 3 months like the twin towers. sorry the burden is on you for i can not come up with another example.

 

[Coronado]

show me where a high-rise building that was hit by a plane was totally demolished and so were the 2 six ton titanium jet engines and continued to burn for 3 months like the twin towers. sorry the burden is on you for i can not come up with another example.

Did it ever occur to you that this may be the first time in history a large commuter plane has crashed into a high-rise tower at almost cruising speed?

 

[majora$$hole]

Reality check ... aircraft engines are NOT constructed in titanium ... there are ONLY some components which are.

You also have zero understanding of physics when you fail to realise that the aircraft which hit the WTC buildings on 9/11 did so with the EIGHT times the kinetic energy of the one that was used in the 1960's study.

But hey! don't let reality and science get in the way of an ignorant delusion !!!

i let your last post directed at me go but from your previous posts it seems you enjoy belittling people to get your point accross. i hate to be the one to tell you this but it only makes you appear to be the ignorant one.

 

[505]

show me where a high-rise building that was hit by a plane was totally demolished and so were the 2 six ton titanium jet engines and continued to burn for 3 months like the twin towers. sorry the burden is on you for i can not come up with another example.

1. The engines were not six tons (x2) of titanium.
2. This was the first time that these unfortunate events happened.
3. What's your point?

 

[creativedreams]

Why is there such a difference in fire and temperatures of the scene at the World Trade Centers compared to the Pentagon fire?

Why is there no significant fire damage at the Pentagon compared to the Twin Towers?

These picks of the damage at the Pentagon sure don't show much charring or burned office equipment....

These picks of non-molten material at the Pentagon don't match the pools of molten steel at the World Trade Centers....

Look at the WOOD at the bottom of this picture that has no burn marks at the Pentagon....yet at the World Trade Centers the fires were hot enough to form pools of molten material

 

[creativedreams]

Here's another one of the Pentagon showing no significant fire damage....not even close to what was at the World Trade Centers for some reason....

 

[505]

Why is there such a difference in fire and temperatures of the scene at the World Trade Centers compared to the Pentagon fire?

Once again, the answer is incredibly simple. The pentagon fire was not 50+ stories above ground, and firefighters were able to put it out.

Are you honestly trying to suggest with those pictures that there was NOT a fire at the pentagon?

 

[creativedreams]

Are you honestly trying to suggest with those pictures that there was NOT a fire at the pentagon?

No...just that there sure is a lot of equipment right at the impact zone that didn't catch fire for some reason from all that jet fuel that would have been in the plane that we are told hit the building.

 

[505]

No...just that there sure is a lot of equipment right at the impact zone that didn't catch fire for some reason from all that jet fuel that would have been in the plane that we are told hit the building.

Are you ****ing blind?

Hello?

 

[505]

"...all that jet fuel that would have been in the plane that we are told hit the building."

 

[Coronado]

Why is there such a difference in fire and temperatures of the scene at the World Trade Centers compared to the Pentagon fire?

Because it was braced for an attack. That is widely known.

It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out

Or wait, maybe that's part of the grand conspiracy! :shock:

These picks of non-molten material at the Pentagon don't match the pools of molten steel at the World Trade Centers....

THERE WAS NO MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WTC, THAT'S WHY.

But go ahead and change the subject when the chemistry and physics don't match with what Alex Jones told you. :roll:

 

[Coronado]

"...all that jet fuel that would have been in the plane that we are told hit the building."

Obviously those are doctored photos, because an eyewitness saw the area three weeks later and there was no fire. [/idiot conspiracy ko0k]

 

[505]

Obviously those are doctored photos, because an eyewitness saw the area three weeks later and there was no fire. [/idiot conspiracy ko0k]

Haha. Yup obviously. Those evil government henchmen can do anything you know? They even "infiltrate" message boards I hear. Wait! YOU! You evil henchmen you!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

i let your last post directed at me go but from your previous posts it seems you enjoy belittling people to get your point accross. i hate to be the one to tell you this but it only makes you appear to be the ignorant one.

Does it never occur to you that there is no good excuse for this level of ignorance ... for the simple FACT is the engines were NOT titanium.

Seriously ... exactly what is so hard to understand about that ???

Wilful and continued stupidity in the face of ample real knowledge deserves ridicule !!!

 

[majora$$hole]

what about the plane that hit the ground where in history have we seen such complete damage to the plane. looked like a hole in the ground with small pieces of plane other ground wrecks i've seen looked like the plane was fairly intact with both large and small pieces.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

what about the plane that hit the ground where in history have we seen such complete damage to the plane. looked like a hole in the ground with small pieces of plane other ground wrecks i've seen looked like the plane was fairly intact with both large and small pieces.

You are aware that pilots tend to DUMP fuel in the event of an emergency ... whether just a routine medical emergency to get weight down to the full on crash type emergency, they try to get rid of as much fuel as possible to increase survivability and lessen fire damage ...







The 9/11 hijackers KEPT the fuel ... it makes an immense difference !!!

Hopefully, you are aware of this small fact.