But no one is saying steel melted into liquid but you guys.
And carbon based fuels are all we have ever had to melt steel for a thousand years. Did the Damascenes use Florine to make their swords? Are you seriously suggesting that?
Here is a chart of various metals melting points.
Aluminum melts at 660*. I am sure there was a lot of aluminum in the towers. Maybe lots of zinc and brass. I don't know if they used much nickel, but it has a low melting point. The only really high melting point metal in the list is tungsten at 3000 degrees.
The whole argument about the steels is they gave up structural integrity. The portion of the towers beneath the fires was crunched by the weight of the upper stories.
People who have a clue, think people without clues trying to out guess the folks who know are demented.
You seem to put some thought into your reply, you don't call people names etc I can respect that even though we have our differences. With that said,
The melted/molten steel is a reference to what was lingering under all 3 buildings for 3 months, look it up it has never happened before, and it is said could only occur by the use of highly incendiary devices. But what gets me about the collapses is that the buildings fell so symmetrical, as though all the critical points of the weight bearing connections let go in a controlled fashion. I know heat distorts steel and metals, I've worked with torches and did some welding for a living, but the thinking goes, if the heat distorted the crucial points of the building, how did it get to all the critical points, when the same amount of heat placed on one end of a beam, can not transfer itself with the same intensity to these other points!
Bottom line is that all the buildings displayed almost all the characteristics of a CD, which caused many many people to become suspicious. This could all be put to rest if not for the unwillingness of the government to conduct a new investigation with both sides bringing in everything and everyone forward to testify. The 9-11 commission members have even said they were stonewalled. How can people have confidence with them saying that? But you are also correct in stating what I did in my thread. That even if the buildings would not have collapsed, there was still a severe breach in security, and warnings ignored, which then brings up a whole other can of worms.
You have a lot of continus cooking at high temperature (kerosene and the like, burning carpets, you have seen burning plastic, haven't you? ) keeping the temperature at a high level for over an hour.
Also bear in mind that a huge number of supporting beams on at least one side (and a bunch more on a second side ) of both buildings were broken.
YOur main issue is with two things. One, is the symmetry of the collapse. This is due to a common misunderstanding of how things fall down from watching too many paul Bunyan pictures. A tree falls sideways because it can't go down. There is more tree there.
In a building, most of what is inside is air. Any object that falls will fall in a strait trajectory being pulled by gravity from the center of the mass. In the case of the world trade center, as each floor fails under the percussive slam of the floors above, it fails in sequence and the load continues in its direct path. Each level only was constructed with a live load requirement of what was on that floor, not 20 stories of building ramming on it at once.
(remember here, in WTC 1 and 2 the girders were there to take the load from the upper levels down. The runners from the center to the outside supported the live load of each floor. When the girders going up and down lost the load for the floors that failed, the top 20 stores became the live load for each floor in sequence as the buildings compacted. Each floor broke in sequence as the connections from the runners to the girders were unable to handle the percussive load.)
WTC 7 had fires that raged continuously for 7 hours. The supports lost a lot of strength due to that. (Some numb nuts had the bright idea of storing large amounts of diesel fuel on the top floors to run generators up there. When that broke loose and caught fire, that didn't help much either.)
WTC7 also had a huge amount of material scooped out by the crashing of WTC 1 and 2
Since the building is mostly air, when it collapsed, the failure would go strait down, rather than in a leaning tipping motion many imagine. The whole structure was compromised and the whole thing let go from the bottom up, and the top went down as the bottom gave out beneath.
The issue with the fires is they caused expansion of the joists running from the center to the outside, and the joists were under continuous heat for over an hour. Thermal expansion caused the links to the supports to break, and caused the joists were unable to handle the load, and so they failed. You had several different thermal failures working together, and the top 1/3 of the building just could not be held up any more and began compacting the lower 2/3.
This structure wasn't beam and girder like most previous construction. There was no support except from the outside frame to the inside frame.
As for the insults, bear in mind folks have been arguing about this forever and the same silly stuff keeps getting put up and knocked over. It is exasperating. People who argue it get very angry at how truthers just won't learn basic stuff.
Now with Occams razor, we slice up every alternative theory. Running det cord through the buildings in the manner suggested by some would have resulted in thousands of guys running miles of cord through the structures. It would have taken weeks of prep, and an army of demolition guys, and you thing folks would not have noticed.
Same thing with Thermite.
Getting the thing to go in a controlled demo would require too many people to see what was going on and not notice or talk. Or for that matter, ask questions. Like why is all this laundry line running everywhere, and it is in the way, so I will just cut it so it won't bother me kind of problems.
Dynamite just won't work as an argument, nor will det cord, nor will thermite.
Continuous cooking, thermal failure and expansion and compression do work as explanations very well. The explanation that requires less goofy things to happen is the more accurate explanation, as is the explanation that takes into account the principles of engineering, heat transfer, and strength of materials.
I have to admit this is the first time I have noticed the argument that there were streams of molten metals. But there are several metals that melt at temperatures substantially below that that of the fires, and steel will fail at those temperature as well, especially under continuos application.
