What really happened on 9/11 ?

[daws101]

i believe there is way more to 911 then what we are being told.(as usual!) i am amongst those who believe that jet fuel did not bring down the towers alone. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and fell at free fall speed. There is a truth, and let's hope we get the truth soon! I seen 911 in plane site and some other videos, i do not know what exactly happened but what we were fed is .... b.s

you have much to learn. The only part of building 7 that fell at freefall was the facade for a whole 2.25 seconds. Now how could the facade do that? Because everything behind it started collapsing 9 seconds earlier. Facts, we got em..........

so the entire inner structure collapsed silently in seconds without disturbing the facade ..and then the facade fell in secs
you really buy that ?...lol

who said it was silent....leave it to eots to say something really stupid.

 

[Koios]

What really happened on 9/11?

My little brother had to vector off of his decent into Newark and fly his passengers to a military base in upstate NY, who were bussed back to Newark. But Kever (little brother) had to stay with his plane, along with his flight crew, for some days ... missing my wedding on 9/14, in Seattle.

Also, the Twin Towers came down in a terrorist attack, and it was nearly unbelievable to me having had lunch there the day prior on my way to the airport, flying back to Seattle.

Sort of close to home, for me. But I cannot even fathom what it was like for those directly involved. No words to describe it.

And to think anyone other than the lunatic-fringe religious zealots who committed the act would wish for such a thing, disgusts me. They are the perps, period; and merely exploited a vulnerability that existed since the act was too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done.

 

[Mr. Jones]

What really happened on 9/11?

My little brother had to vector off of his decent into Newark and fly his passengers to a military base in upstate NY, who were bussed back to Newark. But Kever (little brother) had to stay with his plane, along with his flight crew, for some days ... missing my wedding on 9/14, in Seattle.

Also, the Twin Towers came down in a terrorist attack, and it was nearly unbelievable to me having had lunch there the day prior on my way to the airport, flying back to Seattle.

Sort of close to home, for me. But I cannot even fathom what it was like for those directly involved. No words to describe it.

And to think anyone other than the lunatic-fringe religious zealots who committed the act would wish for such a thing, disgusts me. They are the perps, period; and merely exploited a vulnerability that existed since the act was too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done.

"too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done." For someone who says the 9-11 sorta hit close to home, you don't like someone who is even the slightest bit knowledgeable about it.
We had people close to us escape the close call by missing work that day, and he wasn't employed by Odigo or Jewish.
I developed an immediate interest due to that but mainly because of the way the buildings were destroyed.
Then all the lies and inconsistencies after that...The "hijacker" passport flying through the
inferno and kerosene "melting" massive steel columns and beams was too much to ignore as well.
9-11 as brought to you by your government, NIST, AND the 9-11 report are bullshit.
Give thanks you weren't there and your family didn't have to endure the horrors the other families did, especially the farce of an "investigation" afterwards that many of them complained and were forced to go public and embarrass the Bush cabal about.

 

[Koios]

What really happened on 9/11?

My little brother had to vector off of his decent into Newark and fly his passengers to a military base in upstate NY, who were bussed back to Newark. But Kever (little brother) had to stay with his plane, along with his flight crew, for some days ... missing my wedding on 9/14, in Seattle.

Also, the Twin Towers came down in a terrorist attack, and it was nearly unbelievable to me having had lunch there the day prior on my way to the airport, flying back to Seattle.

Sort of close to home, for me. But I cannot even fathom what it was like for those directly involved. No words to describe it.

And to think anyone other than the lunatic-fringe religious zealots who committed the act would wish for such a thing, disgusts me. They are the perps, period; and merely exploited a vulnerability that existed since the act was too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done.

"too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done." For someone who says the 9-11 sorta hit close to home, you don't like someone who is even the slightest bit knowledgeable about it.
We had people close to us escape the close call by missing work that day, and he wasn't employed by Odigo or Jewish.
I developed an immediate interest due to that but mainly because of the way the buildings were destroyed.
Then all the lies and inconsistencies after that...The "hijacker" passport flying through the
inferno and kerosene "melting" massive steel columns and beams was too much to ignore as well.
9-11 as brought to you by your government, NIST, AND the 9-11 report are bullshit.
Give thanks you weren't there and your family didn't have to endure the horrors the other families did, especially the farce of an "investigation" afterwards that many of them complained and were forced to go public and embarrass the Bush cabal about.

Sorry; I do not buy-into the tinfoil hat theories. But have a ball, if it works for ya.

 

[GuyPinestra]

"too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done." For someone who says the 9-11 sorta hit close to home, you don't like someone who is even the slightest bit knowledgeable about it.
We had people close to us escape the close call by missing work that day, and he wasn't employed by Odigo or Jewish.
I developed an immediate interest due to that but mainly because of the way the buildings were destroyed.
Then all the lies and inconsistencies after that...The "hijacker" passport flying through the
inferno and kerosene "melting" massive steel columns and beams was too much to ignore as well.
9-11 as brought to you by your government, NIST, AND the 9-11 report are bullshit.
Give thanks you weren't there and your family didn't have to endure the horrors the other families did, especially the farce of an "investigation" afterwards that many of them complained and were forced to go public and embarrass the Bush cabal about.

Sorry; I do not buy-into the tinfoil hat theories. But have a ball, if it works for ya.

You've already bought into the conspiracy, hook, line and sinker. The idea of EXPOSING that conspiracy is what you won't buy, because it would seriously upset your preconceived notions about what our current government really is.

 

[ERGO]

Really??????????

Please show me the posts where I've commented on:

yellow cake,

Pat Tillman,
Jessica Lynch,
Iraq throwing baby's out of incubators in Kuwait,
Iran Contra,
, Vietnam,
CIA OPs in South America,
secret medical testing on American civilians,
the Federal Reserve that isn't "Federal"
flouride and GMO's being "good" in our water and food supply,

Don't have to. I said you are one of these types of people who subscribes to government lies and coverups as being truthful, as evidenced by your bone headed ignorance about 9-11. Christ you actually believe that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire, despite the huge inconsistencies and out right lies by NIST.
The fact is something had to remove the massive steel structures and columns to achieve such a rapid descent, and fire can not do that. It burns too cold to melt steel connections of the WTC type. Any moron should have the common sense to put this together. Especially after watching the video of its collapse. 108 ft of free fall acceleration in 2.25 seconds...because of sporadic fire?
Steel spreads the heat of fires to its cooler sections ass hat. The building should have at least come down in a staggered manner with the "weakened" melted parts going first, just like the towers.
This is what I mean when I say you would believe anything they put in your trough.

So you admit that fire brought down the towers, that's a good start. Now go watch the full videos again of WTC 7, you know, the ones that show the first 9 seconds instead of the ones on the truther sites. Look at the initial collapse of the first penthouse. See how it's suddenly staggered? And what will melt steel other than fire? Besides the fact that steel loses it's strength as it heats up. But you know all this, we've told you hundreds of times....

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Don't have to. I said you are one of these types of people who subscribes to government lies and coverups as being truthful, as evidenced by your bone headed ignorance about 9-11. Christ you actually believe that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire, despite the huge inconsistencies and out right lies by NIST.
The fact is something had to remove the massive steel structures and columns to achieve such a rapid descent, and fire can not do that. It burns too cold to melt steel connections of the WTC type. Any moron should have the common sense to put this together. Especially after watching the video of its collapse. 108 ft of free fall acceleration in 2.25 seconds...because of sporadic fire?
Steel spreads the heat of fires to its cooler sections ass hat. The building should have at least come down in a staggered manner with the "weakened" melted parts going first, just like the towers.
This is what I mean when I say you would believe anything they put in your trough.

So you admit that fire brought down the towers, that's a good start. Now go watch the full videos again of WTC 7, you know, the ones that show the first 9 seconds instead of the ones on the truther sites. Look at the initial collapse of the first penthouse. See how it's suddenly staggered? And what will melt steel other than fire? Besides the fact that steel loses it's strength as it heats up. But you know all this, we've told you hundreds of times....

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

 

[GuyPinestra]

So you admit that fire brought down the towers, that's a good start. Now go watch the full videos again of WTC 7, you know, the ones that show the first 9 seconds instead of the ones on the truther sites. Look at the initial collapse of the first penthouse. See how it's suddenly staggered? And what will melt steel other than fire? Besides the fact that steel loses it's strength as it heats up. But you know all this, we've told you hundreds of times....

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

Gravity, unless you think ALL 47 columns were 'weakened' at the exact same height.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Don't have to. I said you are one of these types of people who subscribes to government lies and coverups as being truthful, as evidenced by your bone headed ignorance about 9-11. Christ you actually believe that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire, despite the huge inconsistencies and out right lies by NIST.
The fact is something had to remove the massive steel structures and columns to achieve such a rapid descent, and fire can not do that. It burns too cold to melt steel connections of the WTC type. Any moron should have the common sense to put this together. Especially after watching the video of its collapse. 108 ft of free fall acceleration in 2.25 seconds...because of sporadic fire?
Steel spreads the heat of fires to its cooler sections ass hat. The building should have at least come down in a staggered manner with the "weakened" melted parts going first, just like the towers.
This is what I mean when I say you would believe anything they put in your trough.

So you admit that fire brought down the towers, that's a good start. Now go watch the full videos again of WTC 7, you know, the ones that show the first 9 seconds instead of the ones on the truther sites. Look at the initial collapse of the first penthouse. See how it's suddenly staggered? And what will melt steel other than fire? Besides the fact that steel loses it's strength as it heats up. But you know all this, we've told you hundreds of times....

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

Gomer Pyle Ollie obviously slept through junior high school science classes. He always ignores the fact that bld 7 was damagad far more severely than the other buildings much closer to the towers and the coincidence theorist also falls for the bizaare coincidence that the only buildings that fell that day were all owned by zionist jew Silverstein. talk about a tin foil hatter.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

Gravity, unless you think ALL 47 columns were 'weakened' at the exact same height.

Once the core columns separated at the collapse point, the columns in the top block would have started falling downward. What was the force that would have propelled them sideways past the perimeter?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

agent moron in the hat came back to fart again extremely quick.Boy this agent sure has an obsession with me and a pathetic life the way he is so obsessed with me.Even worse than fellow agent candyass and THATS saying a LOT!!!!!!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, that was certainly a compelling argument that is sure to convince anyone viewing the thread that 9/11 was in fact an inside job.

I'll bet that post will get at least 100 new signatories on THE PETITION.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

My little brother had to vector off of his decent into Newark and fly his passengers to a military base in upstate NY, who were bussed back to Newark. But Kever (little brother) had to stay with his plane, along with his flight crew, for some days ... missing my wedding on 9/14, in Seattle.

Also, the Twin Towers came down in a terrorist attack, and it was nearly unbelievable to me having had lunch there the day prior on my way to the airport, flying back to Seattle.

Sort of close to home, for me. But I cannot even fathom what it was like for those directly involved. No words to describe it.

And to think anyone other than the lunatic-fringe religious zealots who committed the act would wish for such a thing, disgusts me. They are the perps, period; and merely exploited a vulnerability that existed since the act was too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done.

"too horrific to even suspect it would ever be done." For someone who says the 9-11 sorta hit close to home, you don't like someone who is even the slightest bit knowledgeable about it.
We had people close to us escape the close call by missing work that day, and he wasn't employed by Odigo or Jewish.
I developed an immediate interest due to that but mainly because of the way the buildings were destroyed.
Then all the lies and inconsistencies after that...The "hijacker" passport flying through the
inferno and kerosene "melting" massive steel columns and beams was too much to ignore as well.
9-11 as brought to you by your government, NIST, AND the 9-11 report are bullshit.
Give thanks you weren't there and your family didn't have to endure the horrors the other families did, especially the farce of an "investigation" afterwards that many of them complained and were forced to go public and embarrass the Bush cabal about.

Sorry; I do not buy-into the tinfoil hat theories. But have a ball, if it works for ya.

Sure you do,this is the biggest tinfoil hat theory of all time that you are afraid to tackle the issue on and admit you have been brainwashed on. you guys dont even try to counter these facts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...onspiracy-theory-in-under-5-minutes.html:lol:

 

[GuyPinestra]

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

Gravity, unless you think ALL 47 columns were 'weakened' at the exact same height.

Once the core columns separated at the collapse point, the columns in the top block would have started falling downward. What was the force that would have propelled them sideways past the perimeter?

Irrelevant. Those 47 core columns were impervious to a fuel fire. The whole "Fire weakened the steel" canard is based on fire weakening 1/2 inch steel, not 1/2 FOOT.

What force conveniently severed them every 80 feet ALL THE WAY DOWN?

 

[ERGO]

So you admit that fire brought down the towers, that's a good start. Now go watch the full videos again of WTC 7, you know, the ones that show the first 9 seconds instead of the ones on the truther sites. Look at the initial collapse of the first penthouse. See how it's suddenly staggered? And what will melt steel other than fire? Besides the fact that steel loses it's strength as it heats up. But you know all this, we've told you hundreds of times....

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

The lateral force, referring to the Jet's penetration of the perimeter columns, of which there were 59 on each face of the building. We don't really know if the lateral force, the Jet's impact, "disconnected" any of the core columns. Engineering experts have stated that given the thickness, tinsel strength and amount of the core columns (47), that lateral force wasn't responsible for the collapse of the twin towers into it's own footprint at near free fall speed. It would have required the lower part of the 47 columns to give way simultaneously all the way down as a number of videos show the buildings collapsing without any resistance all the way down into it own footprint.
The reason that all three buildings, WTC 1,2 & 7, looked like a controlled demolition is because it was. Knowledge of Physics & common sense helps.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Claiming that fires alone brought down the WTC 1,2 and & 7 as witnessed in videos of the collapse is unscientifically sound. Take building 7...fires were sporadic and limited. Even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken a few steel columns, which they didn't. The way building 7 collapsed, which was at near free fall speed and into it's own footprint, would have required all of the columns to give way simultaneously at every two or three floors and this goes for WTC 1 & 2, which had 47 core columns and the odds of that are at least a trillion to one. The fires in twin towers were at the top of the building, even if the fires managed to get hot enough to weaken all 47 core columns just at the top of the building we would have seen the top of the building topple over because the strength of the core columns underneath that weren't exposed to the fires would have maintained their integrity.

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

The lateral force, referring to the Jet's penetration of the perimeter columns, of which there were 59 on each face of the building. We don't really know if the lateral force, the Jet's impact, "disconnected" any of the core columns. Engineering experts have stated that given the thickness, tinsel strength and amount of the core columns (47), that lateral force wasn't responsible for the collapse of the twin towers into it's own footprint at near free fall speed. It would have required the lower part of the 47 columns to give way simultaneously all the way down as a number of videos show the buildings collapsing without any resistance all the way down into it own footprint.
The reason that all three buildings, WTC 1,2 & 7, looked like a controlled demolition is because it was. Knowledge of Physics & common sense helps.

I'm not talking about the force from the jets. What I'm talking about is once the collapse started, and the core columns of the upper block separated from the core columns in the lower block, what lateral force would have been imparted to push the upper block past the side of the building.

Gravity would have pulled it downward through the floors. In order for it to not collapse the rest of the building it would have to have been pushed over the side. What force would have done that pushing?

 

[Duane16]

The TRUTH shall prevail, and there's absolutely nothing that will prevent it!

There are many people all over waking up, and lots of groups of Scientists and those with knowledge on the Twin Towers construction, Physicists who have studied the temperature it takes to melt steel,and they know (Jet fuels ) temperature. Also lots of Pilots and through Aviation that are taking a stand and speaking out.

THOSE who ARE REALLY responsible will have Their day!
Righteousness WILL prevail over Evil!

People are getting MAD AS HELL AND THEY AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! Connect the dots with all the control, giving up rights for security. and invasive searches such as Public Schools and airports- TSA, The devil's time is very short now!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The TRUTH shall prevail, and there's absolutely nothing that will prevent it!

There are many people all over waking up, and lots of groups of Scientists and those with knowledge on the Twin Towers construction, Physicists who have studied the temperature it takes to melt steel,and they know (Jet fuels ) temperature. Also lots of Pilots and through Aviation that are taking a stand and speaking out.

THOSE who ARE REALLY responsible will have Their day!
Righteousness WILL prevail over Evil!

People are getting MAD AS HELL AND THEY AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! Connect the dots with all the control, giving up rights for security. and invasive searches such as Public Schools and airports- TSA, The devil's time is very short now!

you'll find these trolls that defend the fairy tales of 9/11 cant debate.they have the logic that all these people here are wrong


http://patriotsquestion911.com/

and that THEY are right.

and like i said,they always run off with their tail between their legs anytime you ask them to debunk the information in that short 5 minute video.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

The lateral force, referring to the Jet's penetration of the perimeter columns, of which there were 59 on each face of the building. We don't really know if the lateral force, the Jet's impact, "disconnected" any of the core columns. Engineering experts have stated that given the thickness, tinsel strength and amount of the core columns (47), that lateral force wasn't responsible for the collapse of the twin towers into it's own footprint at near free fall speed. It would have required the lower part of the 47 columns to give way simultaneously all the way down as a number of videos show the buildings collapsing without any resistance all the way down into it own footprint.
The reason that all three buildings, WTC 1,2 & 7, looked like a controlled demolition is because it was. Knowledge of Physics & common sense helps.

I'm not talking about the force from the jets. What I'm talking about is once the collapse started, and the core columns of the upper block separated from the core columns in the lower block, what lateral force would have been imparted to push the upper block past the side of the building.

Gravity would have pulled it downward through the floors. In order for it to not collapse the rest of the building it would have to have been pushed over the side. What force would have done that pushing?

How much lateral force did they allow for in it's design? Winds blow unobstructed 110 stories up, and the buildings actually swayed in strong winds. Would the lateral force of a 5 MPH wind over the top 20 floors be enough?

Maybe, but since the fucking thing didn't fall that way, what fucking difference does it make?

 

[ERGO]

What was the lateral force that would have pushed the top block past the perimeter walls after the core columns disconnected at the collapse point?

The lateral force, referring to the Jet's penetration of the perimeter columns, of which there were 59 on each face of the building. We don't really know if the lateral force, the Jet's impact, "disconnected" any of the core columns. Engineering experts have stated that given the thickness, tinsel strength and amount of the core columns (47), that lateral force wasn't responsible for the collapse of the twin towers into it's own footprint at near free fall speed. It would have required the lower part of the 47 columns to give way simultaneously all the way down as a number of videos show the buildings collapsing without any resistance all the way down into it own footprint.
The reason that all three buildings, WTC 1,2 & 7, looked like a controlled demolition is because it was. Knowledge of Physics & common sense helps.

I'm not talking about the force from the jets. What I'm talking about is once the collapse started, and the core columns of the upper block separated from the core columns in the lower block, what lateral force would have been imparted to push the upper block past the side of the building.

Gravity would have pulled it downward through the floors. In order for it to not collapse the rest of the building it would have to have been pushed over the side. What force would have done that pushing?

The perimeter columns, not core columns, gave way as a result of the Jet's penetration and the sagging down of the top portion of the building was, yes, gravity, but the core columns still had enough integrity and tinsel strength to hold the building up.
If you're working with the assumption that the fires weakened the tinsel strength and gravity caused the separation of the upper 47 columns from the lower 47. That would be false assumption.
The collapse was the result of linear thermal cutting charges placed on the core columns set to go off simultaneously at each designated floor and micro-nukes in the basement. This would be the explosions everyone around the towers heard. A controlled demolition. Plenty of thermite was found at ground zero.

I have question for you
Why was molten steel still found at ground zero weeks after the attack?