The Physics of 911

I suggest your aspiring 'physicist' gets a list of every flammable substance in the building together with a temporal oxygen flow analysis.

Really? Source please. Anyhow, I read that the structural steel was weakened by the heat. It doesn't have to be anywhere near melted to liquid to lose much of its strength. Structural steel loses 75 percent of its strength at 21 C (70 F), when heated to 600 C (1100 F)

Why did you a misrepresent me by attributing a quote to me which I did not make?

He's made his claim. I believe he's waiting for you to refute it with a list of every flammable substance in the building that would account for the melting of girders.

We have no proof here that this even happened, and we know they didn't need to melt to account for the collapse.

Actually, my question to you was why you quoted me saying something that is not even in my post. So, what about that?

As far as your comment that there is no proof that there was melting of girders at the WTC, I do recall some professor of civil engineering who was one the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center saying that there was melting of girders at WTC.

I started this thread because Camlok was asking others to prove him wrong about melted steel, free fall of buildings, etc., but was off topic in the thread in which he was making the challenge. So far, Fresco has made a comment implying that there were substances in the buildings that would account for temperatures necessary to cause melting of girders.

So, Camlok, here is your thread. Do you have an answer for what Fresco implied?

Funny, I get thumbs down for asking you to explain why you attributed words to me that I never spoke. You must have some secret admirer here.

Thanks. I do hope this will be the gathering place for everything 9/11.

Glennn wrote: [Actually what happened is Glennn copied and pasted me. 'me' being camlok.]
"Molten steel was in abundance"

Centrox: Really? Source please.

==============

There are actually many sources. Let's start with two so as to not overwhelm.

1. FEMA
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

2. 9/11: NIST Engineer John Gross Denies WTC Molten Steel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZbUe_tQ0to

The video has numerous examples of people describing the molten metals.

What is especially interesting is his squirming and body language. His inner self is not at all comfortable with gross lies.

His pretense that he doesn't/didn't know of the USGS thermal images of ground zero is stunning. He is a NIST scientist charged with KNOWING.

Centrox: and we know they didn't need to melt to account for the collapse.
---------

Why do you say that?

Thanks very much, Glennn.

I did say much more than that, of course.

Glennn: Do you have an answer for what Fresco implied?
----------

Actually, I don't, the reason being I can't see how it is at all pertinent. I thought his funny face illustrated that. I guess illustrating how it is pertinent is up to Fresco.

centrox: We have no proof here that this [melting of girders] even happened,
========

Highly illustrative of just how effective the propaganda program surrounding the events of 9-11 was.

camlok, you sound like one of those conspiracy nuts. Are you going to disprove Einstein next? Or maybe you already did?

How does this even REMOTELY address if we should be working with or against President Trump? I wish we could just stay focused here.

LOL. I see what you did there.

On the molten metal issues, it was visibly pouring down the sides of the building in several commonly-used videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTYXEWSUjI

At the temperatures required for this to occur, the heat of the fire or source does not emit black smoke.

So did I.

How does an ad hominin attack serve your purpose here?

Yes. That's why I asked him to provide a list of every flammable substance in the building that would account for the melting of girders.

centrox: camlok, you sound like one of those conspiracy nuts.
----------

I hope you didn't take my comment as a slur against you personally, centrox. It wasn't intended that way at all. It was a comment on how things so important to the investigation had been/have been hidden from view.

Do you mean a conspiracy nut like the scientists at FEMA who described the eutectic steel recovered from WTC 1 or 2 and WTC7?

Or the architect who described the molten metals, concrete, ... all fused by the heat into the Meteorite?

Or the WTC site contractor who described "it was actually molten steel that was being dug up?

Or Rudy Guliani who described, "There were fires of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit below the ground."

Or Ken Holden, Director of New York Department of Design and Construction who said, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6?

These, and more are all in the video, centrox. How did you miss them?

I voted you up.