Grand Jury will look at evidence of explosives used to take down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11

[Fatal_Bert]

Make it three, after all I am DinkyDau!

So you also believe there was molten steel at ground zero? You guys do realize that makes you a crazy conspiracy theorist right? You guys do realize that's counter to the official government story right?

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page here

 

[Ken Ford]

I don't have any theory. But there is no science that supports molten steel beams at ground zero without some kind of accelerant besides jet fuel and the buildings themselves.

I've never seen a scientist or engineer argue that molten steel could be caused by jet fuel and office materials burning. That is widely accepted by both sides. Where the argument is, is was there molten steel.

Biker gave you one out thousands that said exactly what said, I just tried to put it in simpler terms.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Biker gave you one out thousands that said exactly what said, I just tried to put it in simpler terms.

Try again, popular mechanics to my knowledge, and nothing in that article, explains how the fires could have been hot enough to turn the beams to molten steel. They deny there was molten steel.

Please point me in the direction one of these "thousands" that explains jet fuel melting steel. None exist that I know of. Usually the argument is that the steel didn't melt but bent and lost it's structural integrity. That I can agree with.

 

[Ken Ford]

Try again, popular mechanics to my knowledge, and nothing in that article, explains how the fires could have been hot enough to turn the beams to molten steel. They deny there was molten steel.

Please point me in the direction one of these "thousands" that explains jet fuel melting steel. None exist that I know of. Usually the argument is that the steel didn't melt but bent and lost it's structural integrity. That I can agree with.

If you won’t read the one, what’s the point?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

If you won’t read the one, what’s the point?

Dude, I did read it. I also read their original article in 2005, I used that article as evidence that everything was on the up and up. I use to point people to that article over a decade ago and tell them they were crazy if they think foul play was involved. And in trying to convince myself Everything was on the up and up I kept running into more questions and 0 answers.

And like I keep repeating, your theory is the first I've come across. That there was molten steel, and it was caused by jet fuel and building materials. No one has ever presented that argument before. You might be crazier than me

 

[Fatal_Bert]

From the popular mechanics aricle.

"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat."

Guess you didn't read it huh?

 

[jeep78]

It doesn't have to turn to liquid to fail, once heated to the plastic stage, it has lost strength needed to support the structure.

Wood does not have the heat energy that hydrocarbons have, yet that is exactly what was used to bend steel 150 years ago.

 

[jeep78]

From the popular mechanics aricle.

"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F,

It will burn A LOT hotter than that.

 

[BIKER13]

Picture of molten steel?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

It will burn A LOT hotter than that.

Maybe? I don't know. But according to the article and the official NIST findings the fires only reached about 1832°F

And I agree with your above post that the steel didn't have to melt for the building to collapse no argument there. The question is was there molten steel as some evidence suggest? And if so what exactly caused it?