Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
Notice to 9-ll truthers. Don't align your selves with stupidity in attempts to attribute blame to the federal government. If you do, when the time comes that you actually have something intelligent to say, you will be dismissed.
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened. There simply wasn't enough heat there to melt steel beams or columns.
“An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used...a non- detonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim. This claim is actually a loose connection of unrelated individual assertions, therefore we must address them as such. 1. The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know, and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure. 2. Photographs that we have examined purporting to show demolition equipment extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires - while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel. 3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi ty to prevent harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities. 4. The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by Steven Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with Professor Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams apparently tested positive for “trace amounts of thermite”, which led Jones to conclude that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in WTC 1, 2 and 7. Professor Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal. And a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams. Could they have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site? Could they have been exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, or in storage, or during the transfer processes from Ground Zero to the memorial sites? We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued
