NIST claims that WTC 1&2 collapsed due to jet fueled fires (just normal offices fires for WTC7) which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron, but also claim that if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses. The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it.

Physical Evidence

• Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study
• Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

Steel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

• Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.

• In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature

• In 2005, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published a report entitled “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” which was intended to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Among the components, it reported, were “metal or metal oxides” (which could not be distinguished by the USGS’s methods). “The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust,” the report said, “are Fe-rich [iron-rich] and Zn-rich [zinc-rich] particles

• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

• Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers

  The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF

• Sources related to exceptionally high temperatures, and/or to persistent heat at Ground Zero

• FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.

Testimonial Evidence

Testimony from Firefighters:

• New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.
• Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
• New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

Testimony from Other Professionals:

• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
• Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”
• In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
• Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.”
• Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides . . . ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”
• Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.”
• OSHA respond to the underground fires and potential steam explosions
  

Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments.

Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:

• Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
• Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
• Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains

Videos

WTC2 South Tower, Molten Metal pouring out the North-East Corner

Pouring molten aluminum into a pool

Molten aluminum into cold water

Evidence of fused molten metal and concrete of extreme heat.

The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact.

When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible

Nice work

NIST admits the falling debris did not initiate the collapse of WTC 7. NIST also admits that they have "no evidence" to support the theory that the falling debris caused the fire.

NIST's statements are unproven theories.

Fires couldn't be fought because the water mains were wrecked...

NIST specifically mentions that there have been high rise fires without the aid of sprinklers. And no global collapses.

Proximate cause was found to be long-span horizontal beams on some upper floors that were very vulnerable to heat expansion,

NIST never proved this theory. They released a computer model as "proof" and withheld the data from anyone asking to test it. Also, NIST's peers stated that the information they did release about the creation of the model was "unrealistic." Stating that NIST didn't heat slabs when they should have. This caused tension in the slab. NIST then completely removed slabs from the model once they reached a certain tension. This caused a lack of lateral support for the beams. Causing them to buckle. NIST then completely removed beams from the model once they buckled.

NIST also ignore that the building would act like a giant heat sink, they do not factor this into any model. Absolutely ridiculous

"Unrealistic."

"Regarding the large-scale finite element analysis using ANSYS, it appears that the failure criteria for the slab may underestimate the true performance and be responsible for initiating the failure (although failure limits used for the studs are not clear in the report) Concrete strain limits of 0.15% in tension or 0.4% in compression are applied at the slab mid-depth, after which the slab element is completely removed from the grid. For slab elements near beams, this removes the lateral support to the beam. When the beam subsequently buckles, it is also removed from the analysis. Failure then progresses. This is quite unrealistic."

This is evidenced by the fact the four simulations that NIST performed with their "global LS-DYNA model" (WTC7) None of the computer animations look anything like the actual observed collapse, the models and alleged simulations are not based in reality

Take a look

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I asked this same question on /r/911truth 2 days ago.

Yup, OP just c&ped your question and my answer. I don't mind though, /u/Greg_Roberts_0985 has this covered, it seems :)

Hola, you invited me to yours, i welcome you to the basic pasta making subreddit

Ayyy, me gusta! Delicious indeed, thanks :)

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

There was no thermite, nano- or otherwise, in the WTC dust. Analysis report from an actual forensic scientist - unlike Niels & Harrit

Also, the WTC was full of metals with melting points way below the reported temperatures of the underground fires.

judy wood has the only reasonable explanation, and given how hard some people work to bury the idea it is probably true.

energy weapon, was dreamed up in 'real genius' movie is now reality

Judy Wood? Stale backpack nukes make more sense.

But progressive collapse due to fires acting on structural damage and dislodged fireproofing makes even more sense.

Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers

I stand corrected! I didn't know progressive collapse was a well-defined technical term. It only occurred in WTC7 according to your source:

The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.

Also this is what caused WTC1 and 2 to collapse according to the same source:

[..] the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

... Causing them to collapse as if nothing below was impeding their fall.

If that was the case the collapses wouldn't have taken 15 to 20 seconds in the case of WTC 1 and 2 with the collapse front lagging behind the falling debris, and the WTC7 penthouse wouldn't have collapsed 5 seconds before the rest of the building.

In the case of WTC7, the exterior frame accelerated at close to free fall only for 2.5 seconds because the interior had already collapsed; when the exterior met the interior it slowed down.

WTC7 was 175m high and free-fall time from that height is 4.22 seconds; 2.5 seconds is only 60% of that.

Feel free to keep thinking that if it helps you to sleep more patriotically at night.

Feel free to keep thinking that if it helps you to sleep more patriotically at night.

I do, indeed, sleep much better since I stopped believing in truther nonsense. Also, not a US citizen.

You can be a patriot without being a citizen. :)

judy wood

Hhaahahhahahhaa

Very well known bullshit

Sure was.
nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips.

Similar to this.

1996! Nanoengineered explosives

Matches up.

Red Gray Chips and NanoThermite ignition residue

Sure was.[1] nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips.

If they were nanothermite, they would have, by definition of thermite, contained elemental, that is non chemically bound aluminum.

But the Niels & Harrit document doesn't demonstrate that. Nothing in their paper indicates that the aluminum in the scans isn't simply chemically bound aluminum silicate.

In fact, it is most likely kaolinite, a common paint ingredient, which has a characteristic hexagonal pellet shape, as can be seen in the scans.

More to the point, James Millette's, the author of the report I linked to, and who is an actual forensic scientist, examined the WTC dust following the selection instructions given in the Niels-Harrit document that you just cited, and could find no trace of elemental aluminum.

There was just no thermite.

But you know all this since people have already pointed this to you multiple times.

TL;DR. Truthers made nanothermite claim, got paper published in shitty open access journal god knows how, leading to two editors of that journal resigning; years later forensic scientist checked these claims and found them to be false.

nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips.

The operative word being "multilayered". Millette was looking at primer paint.

Any guesses what nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips were doing in the dust?

"Steel primer paints must be resistant to fire and withstand temperatures well over 700 C, so we know that the diversionary claims about primer paint are not true...Millette’s samples “ashed” at or below 400 C and therefore are not only not red/gray chips (which ignite at 430 C and form spheres identical to those from thermitic reactions) but are also not primer paint from the WTC. But he pretty much admits that." - Kevin Ryan

For the info. and clarification I thank you.

Anytime. I think Faithers are mostly the ones claiming primer paint.

More useful info:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/index.htm

According to Dr. Jones: "The paint and the red/gray chips have a distinctly different appearance (see for example recent photos by Jon Cole which confirm this fact) and different behaviors in the MEK solvent." He states that "the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming." Jones emphasizes that all the tested paint chips, including the primer chips, "become very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK," concluding that "[t]here can be no mistaking the distinction, despite what the JREF'ers say."

and

• According to Millette, his chips are primer paint from the WTC, but he has not matched them to any primer paint that was specified for the Towers. NIST studied the Tnemec primer-paint that coated the steel frames of the Twin Towers, but Harrit rules Tnemec out in a paper dedicated to this issue in particular. Harrit notes that Tnemec displays "strong signals" for zinc, chromium and magnesium, while their red/gray chips lack signals from those elements "in intensities significantly above the baseline noise." Coincidentally, Millette agrees in his preliminary report and also eliminates Tnemec as the source for the chips because, "..none of the 177 different [Tnemec]coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study." Harrit adds that another reason to rule out Tnemec is the fact that it does not ignite given the same temperature as their chips: "Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 C."

etc

• Mark Basile´s ignition experiments reveal why Millette avoids the ignition test: If Millette is investigating the same chips as Harrit and Basile, the ignition result would reveal the molten iron spheres and most likely Millette´s inability to explain them without confirming the "active thermitic material" hypothesis. And if Millette is in fact studying the wrong chips as we suspect, the ignition test would also reveal that fact by exposing the inactive chips, and invalidate Millette´s paper. Another way of spotting Millette´s transparent failure to address Harrit´s challenge for a "prosaic substance," is realizing that if paint could actually replicate the active chip ignition results, Millette could refute Harrit´s paper with a simple demonstration of some known type of paint igniting with a flash and leaving molten iron spheres. As one commenter on a forum asked, "Do you think Millette et al. can swing a few bucks for an oxyacetylene torch, a graphite block, and a pair of tweezers?" Similarly, John-Michael stated on May 3rd 2011, "Of course 'debunkers' could easily prove the paper wrong, in part, by simply getting an oxy-acetylene torch and burning up some primer paints." They have not carried out any such experiments, but Mark Basile has tested three samples of confirmed paints, including a sample of WTC primer-paint: Basile heated all samples beyond the ignition point of the active red/gray chips, but none of them even ignited - so obviously the paint chips are hardly capable of leaving molten metal spheres of any kind, see video below.

etc

Oystein and Kminek propose that the chips are most likely LaClede primer paint, which is an aromatic epoxy resin with an amine curing agent according to Kminek. But Zugam points out that unfortunately for them, Millette compares his chips to an epoxy spectrum that does not represent an aromatic epoxy. In response, Zugam complains that "Milette should have chosen FTIR for [the] primer paints in question." He goes on to say that Millette´s revised report "should include FTIR for LaClede since that is the only paint option left, even though his paper so far kind of rules it out..." Zugam then points out that a good report should also demonstrate and compare the spectra for known sol-gel super-thermites that have an organic matrix: Since energetic nano-composites are available fully organic and in hybrid metallic variations with a substantial organic matrix, no competent researcher could evaluate the FTIR data without noting those hybrid forms of superthermite. Millette´s data are ultimately flawed due to the poor match to a spectrum that does not represent the correct epoxy-paint, and the lack of data to represent the hybrid varieties of superthermite - so this portion of Millette´s paper is inconclusive, at best. And as we have noted, Millette´s preliminary report is perhaps invalid and irrelevant because the data may not represent the correct red/gray chips:

Edit: More

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

Commenting on Millette's report, [which BTW has not been peer-reviewed and published] One of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:

The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy

I learned stuff. Thanks.

The operative word being "multilayered". Millette was looking at primer paint.

I'm glad to hear that you agree that it was some kind of paint. Millette used the exact magnetic selection procedure that Niels & Harrit used and the samples he got have EDS spectra that match the ones in their OpenChem garbage paper, so they are talking about the same thing.

So it's paint. Great we're done here.

Any guesses what nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips were doing in the dust?

Oh it's just nanoengineered now?

Where's the evidence they're nanoengineered?

They're not. And they're not thermite, nor energetic, nor explosives. It's not because something has nanoscale structure that it's engineered. Are kaolinite pellets evidence of nanoengineering?

Maybe you should clear things up and show where the paper discusses that Millette studied a multilayered dust sample.

Any guesses what nanoengineered multilayered red gray chips were doing in the dust?

You don't have a guess?

You don't have a guess?

What would I guess when you have no evidence they are anything other than kaolinite and iron oxide pigment?

You already said Millette was looking at primer paint. Therefore Niels & Harrit were also looking at primer paint. I'm not sure it's primer paint, but it ain't thermite, nor is it "nano-engineered".

It's just random rubble. When you look at things using an electron microscope you are going to see fascinating things.

[deleted]

Show me where Jenkins specifically accuses Millette.

Had you really looked into this, you would have seen that Jenkins actually relies on work performed by Millette and 18 of his colleagues to support her lawsuit against the USGS.

An EPA-funded research team [...] found pH levels as high as 11.5 for one WTC dust sample collected outdoors on 9/16/01 or 9/17/01; (reference 52)

Are all the other 18 coauthors frauds, too? Why single out Millette?

Here you go for more info.

The truth is that truthers are fabricating an ad hominem attack against Millette out of thin air because they don't have any leg left to stand on.

The nanothermite fairy tale is completely debunked.

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One - Tenants

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Three - Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup

WTC Towers 3,4,5 and 6

WTC 3, a 22-storey building directly below the towers was split in half by the debris but did not collapse

WTC 4, a 9-storey building was almost completely destroyed but the structure remained standing

WTC 5 was 9-storey, suffered from a severe fire and damage caused by debris but did not collapse

WTC 6, 8-storey building, suffered massive damages and fires but did not collapse.

Wikipedia documents the official explanation about heat & thermite.

NIST released its final report on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008. Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The investigation could not include physical evidence as the materials from the building lacked characteristics allowing them to be positively identified and were therefore disposed of prior to the initiation of the investigation. The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water...

NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather that nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

(I would like to note my acknowledgement of an existing, official explanation about heat & thermite does not arbitrarily mean I agree with it).

That doesn't seem to answer the question asked.

9/11 -> What are the official/mainstream explanations for the insane heat at ground zero, and the THERMITE RESIDUE?

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

Marvin Bush 9/11 Security and the Planting of Explosives

We now know beyond any doubt that the three WTC towers were part of a controlled demolition, this inevitably leads us to the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its internal framework, how could this have been done?

Stratesec (formerly known as Securacom and Burns and Roe Securacom) was a security company founded in 1987 and based out of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. The company went public on October 2, 1997 on the American Stock Exchange[2] and was delisted in 2002.

A company named Stratesec had an ongoing contractor to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down" according to CEO Barry McDaniel. The company, formerly named Securacom, acquired an $8.3 million World Trade Center contract in October 1996, according to SEC filings. The company also provided security for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines between 1995 and 2001. Two of the commandeered flights on September 11th were United Airlines', and one took off from Dulles

Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.

He took this position the day after Bush took office in 2001, Marvin P. Bush was handed a $50 million plus contract to handle security of the Twin Towers and Dulles Airport. He had absolutely no background to indicate he could handle such a contract, or the job it entailed, but this is how all the Bushes got rich, with government contracts given to them by other Bush family members.

"from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."

In the verified list of architects and engineers, there are over 240 Professional Engineers, 160 Civil Engineers, 70 PhDs, 17 MIT graduates, 16 Harvard graduates, and 5 Yale graduates.
http://www.academia.edu/7368233/Who_are_the_2000_Architects_and_Engineers_for_9_11_Truth

TIL 55 architects on the board of directors for AIA (American Institute of Architects), the nation’s largest association of architects are AE911Truth petition signers

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, so why was there molten metal at the WTC collapse sites?

NIST claims that WTC 1&2 collapsed due to jet fueled fires (just normal offices fires for WTC7) which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron, but also claim that if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses. The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it.

Physical Evidence

• Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study
• Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

Steel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

• Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.

• In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature

• In 2005, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published a report entitled “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” which was intended to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Among the components, it reported, were “metal or metal oxides” (which could not be distinguished by the USGS’s methods). “The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust,” the report said, “are Fe-rich [iron-rich] and Zn-rich [zinc-rich] particles

• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

• Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers

  The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF

• Sources related to exceptionally high temperatures, and/or to persistent heat at Ground Zero

• FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.

Testimonial Evidence

Testimony from Firefighters:

• New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.
• Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
• New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

Testimony from Other Professionals:

• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
• Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”
• In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
• Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.”
• Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides . . . ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”
• Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.”
• OSHA respond to the underground fires and potential steam explosions
  

Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments.

Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:

• Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
• Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
• Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains

Videos

WTC2 South Tower, Molten Metal pouring out the North-East Corner

Pouring molten aluminum into a pool

Molten aluminum into cold water

Evidence of fused molten metal and concrete of extreme heat.

The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact.

When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible

Bombs and Explosions documented on 9/11

Hundreds of Firefighters and witness testimony to bombs and explosions ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report.

The Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses and 118 Firefighter witnesses to explosions. From video footage it’s clear to see ‘squibs’ and waves of explosions ripping down the side of the Towers. Many Firefighters witnessed

Explosions in the lobby and sub levels ‘Oral Histories’.

NIST failed to follow NFPA 921 guidelines for fire and explosion investigations.

Firefighter Quotes, small selection

“There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed likeit was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” -Firefighter Richard Banaciski Ladder 22

---

“We were there, I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” ~ Battalion Chief Kenahan of the Safety Battalion of the Fire Department of the City of New York.

“The collapse hadn’t begun, but it was not a fire anymore up there. It was like — it was like that — like smoke explosion on atremendous scale going on up there.” – Brian Becker — Firefighter(F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]

---

“We were standing underneath and Captain Stone wasspeaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the northtower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.”- Greg Brady — E.M.T.(E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]

---

“Then the building popped lower than the fire level… Iwas going oh, my God, there is secondary device because the way the buildingpopped I thought it was an explosion.” — Firefighter Timothy Burke, p. 8

---

“But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is asecondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was anexplosion.”- Timothy Burke — Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]

---

“You see three explosions and then the whole thingcoming down.”- Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]

---

“As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, itjust gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the planehit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” — Firefighter Edward Cachia, p. 5 Engine 53

---

“One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.” – Louie Cacchoili, 51, firefighter assigned toEngine 47 in Harlem.

---

“… you just heard explosions coming from building two,the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about tenexplosions.”- Craig Carlsen — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]

It happened. It was inside.

[deleted]

Just wondering, if metal beams can weaken and bend from fire but not melt... coukd it have been a combination of that weakening that causes a pancake effect?

These are pancakes.

Only the floors around the plane impact zone were heated at all, there was preciously little [pdf] jet fuel. Even if this had led to the initiation of the collapse - the top falling on the rest of the tower (something even NISTs computer simulations only managed to do after a lot of undisclosed "tweaking" of parameters) - the force would have been damped by the whole structure, as usual in most collision scenarios known to the sciences of mankind.

Like this, this, this or this.

Move along. Nothing to see "here". lol

What's the conspiracy explanation?

Because there's no way thermite can explain it.

My personal assumption is that the pile of debris, with oxygen fed in through subway system, created a furnace. But then the extent and composition of molten metal in the debris is very unclear anyway.

This tallies very closely with my own views.

Thermite wouldn't be capable of burning for days and weeks afterwards, so can't really explain the duration of the heat.

This tallies very closely with my own views.

I am glad you disagree with the US government conspiracy theory in regard 9/11, you are now a truther.

extent and composition of molten metal...

World Trade Center Molten Steel Hotspots Thermal Progression on 911

What's the conspiracy explanation?

We'd have to answer the first question anyway to find out if the conspiracy theory was right.

We don't even know when it started.

*It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. * FEMA

No doubt some strange shit stilll needs explaining.
WTC "Molten Steel Beams " Kathy Dawkins, NYC Department of Sanitation

We're still waiting for the report.

FEMA

A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

extent and composition of molten metal...

World Trade Center Molten Steel Hotspots Thermal Progression on 911

That show extent of 'hotspots' which isn't really in doubt - there was undeniably fires in the debris pile for quite some time.

What's the conspiracy explanation?

We'd have to answer the first question anyway to find out if the conspiracy theory was right.

We don't even know when it started.

The point being, I see the "molten metal" issue brought up frequently as some sort of point against the official version yet it's no more consistent with any conspiracy theory (other than Judy Woods' perhaps) than it is with the official version.

Neither thermite nor conventional explosives would explain molten metal days or weeks later better than the official version of events.

The point being, I see the "molten metal" issue brought up...

Steel.

Box Beams dripping.

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.
JamesM.Williams, SEAU President

"A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle,"

New York Times

it's no more consistent with any conspiracy theory

The post reflects that.

Neither thermite nor conventional explosives would explain molten metal days or weeks later better than the official version of events.

The offical version has an answer for molten steel?

We're not talking about some exotic weapon.

1993 Patent - Energetic composites

"This invention relates to the fields of chemical reaction kinetics and energetic materials." ...thin layers of substances, reactions: rapidly, slowly, heat but not gasses, buffer prevents the reactions from taking place, ...desired time, ...designed to suit the application

1996 United States Patent - Nanoengineered explosives

I've never seen that clip about the molten box columns. Great find!

Thanks!

That he believes jet fuel melted a box beam deserves a story by Graham McQueen. Why was it assumed?

Wasn't the burning materials nearby the box beam explanatory enough as to why the beam was melting??

If his sample was analyzed it would probably show this.

Abundant potassium, manganese, and flourine in samples of previously molten metal from the WTC site -- elements not abundant in structural steel but constituents of polytetrafluoroethylene and potassium permanganate, accelerants used in aluminothermics Source

That he believes jet fuel melted a box beam deserves a story by Graham McQueen. Why was it assumed?

Which is why /u/thinkmorebetterer keeps referring to it as "metal" rather than the "box column" mentioned in the video. Box column = steel. Simple stuff. Unless your biased with "preconceived ideas" in his response to me.

It's the dude in the video who believes jet fuel burned that steel. I wonder if more rescue workers believe this tall tale?

All most people need is to be told a story is true in order to believe it. Sad, really.

If thermite were present and responsible for the collapse it would long since have cooled. No thermite reaction is going to continue for three weeks. Thermite is a rapid reaction that ceases immediately once the fuel is exhausted, the slag cools and hardens.

For the patent you cite to be relevant you'd have to be proposing that these explosives were applied, were rapid enough to create the collapse sequence that some claim is impossible by gravity alone, yet were either slow enough to still be reacting three weeks later, or had for some reason been intended to stay stable for some number of days or weeks after the collapse (and survived the collapse to do so).

What explains the molten metal is exceptionally high temperatures within the debris pile. I can see no reason that those temperatures couldn't be achieved with fire, and I can see now way to explain how thermite or some similar substance could, were the fires unable to, be generating that heat days and weeks after the collapse.

If thermite were present and responsible for the collapse it would long since have cooled. No thermite reaction is going to continue for three weeks. Thermite is a rapid reaction that ceases immediately once the fuel is exhausted, the slag cools and hardens.

But fire without the presence of thermite can? This argument has never made any sense. Fire can only burn for long, extended periods of time....hot enough to melt "box columns" without the presence of thermite. But with thermite...nah.

Also, fire / jet fuel cannot and does not account for the extreme VOC spikes measured by the EPA and Ground Zero.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

But fire without the presence of thermite can? This argument has never made any sense. Fire can only burn for long, extended periods of time....hot enough to melt "box columns" without the presence of thermite. But with thermite...nah.

Thermite is a relatively fast combustion material, it completely consumes it's fuel in a short time and the reaction ceases.

I don't see how you can have it both ways - if thermite were used to demolish the towers it apparently had to be powerful and exact enough to destroy dozens (or hundreds, depending on who's claim you're looking at) of columns with very precise timing. Yet somehow it's still expected to be reacting and causing molten metal weeks later?

What I'm saying is that I can't see how the molten metal claim, when we are talking about things that happened within the debris pile days and weeks later, are supportive of the thermite claims.

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire..."

So now we're claiming that massive deposits of thermite were spontaneously combusting within the debris pile one, two and five months later?

It's clear that Jones, Ryan and Gourley have preconceived ideas about what took place at the WTC, and I think this paper is a result of that. I can't possibly concede that their explanation is the most likely. It's literally positing that large amounts of their supposed nanothermite were reacting an exceptionally long time after the collapse.

They say that these measurements are entirely uncharacteristic of typical structure files, which is true, but there was nothing typical about 9/11. No other structure fire has involved the contents of two 110-story office buildings burning a huge debris pile for months.

The readings they cite are also not typical of the result of buildings that have been demolished by thermite, because there is no history of that. They discount one theory based on not-entirely-relevant history in favour of another theory based on no history whatsoever.

Thermite is a relatively fast combustion material, it completely consumes it's fuel in a short time and the reaction ceases.

Claiming all of thermite burned at the exact same time is a ridiculous assumption based on no data. The unignited chips that were discovered work against your theory. Again, if fire can do it, so can fire combined with "the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chem- ical suppressants."

Claiming otherwise makes no sense and actually works against the official story.

Yet somehow it's still expected to be reacting and causing molten metal weeks later?

Yes. And your speculation does nothing to refute this.

What I'm saying is that I can't see how the molten metal claim,

Molten steel. Box columns = steel. I believe /u/WTCMolybdenum4753 already corrected you on that. Which further disproves the fire/jet fuel theory. As they cannot cause the box columns to melt.

So now we're claiming that massive deposits of thermite were spontaneously combusting within the debris pile one, two and five months later?

Yep. If fire can, so can fire combined with "the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chem- ical suppressants." And your speculation doesn't refute this.

It's clear that Jones, Ryan and Gourley have preconceived ideas about what took place at the WTC, and I think this paper is a result of that.

Incorrect. The paper passed peer review and is published. It isn't just the opinion of the authors. The same cannot be said of your rebuttal. Which appears to be based solely on preconceived ideas/speculation.

I can't possibly concede that their explanation is the most likely. It's literally positing that large amounts of their supposed nanothermite were reacting an exceptionally long time after the collapse.

What you literally can't do is account for the VOCs using the official story combustion. As the PM had already died off. And what does that suggest?

"These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

They say that these measurements are entirely uncharacteristic of typical structure files, which is true, but there was nothing typical about 9/11. No other structure fire has involved the contents of two 110-story office buildings burning a huge debris pile for months.

100% irrelevant due to the fact that the PM had already died off. And what does that suggest?

"These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

It's clear that Jones, Ryan and Gourley have preconceived ideas about what took place at the WTC, and I think this paper is a result of that.

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

Marie Paule Pileni

Former Editor in Chief

Open Chemical Physics Journal

(Pileni resigned from the journal when she discovered the Jones/Harrit thermite paper was published without her even reading it. )

Let's find out if you are simply uneducated on this matter (you didn't read the paper) or you are purposely being deceptive. A short quiz:

1. What is the name of the paper, journal and publisher of the link/quote I provided?

2. What is the name of the paper, journal and publisher pertaining to your response? (You already listed the journal)

Let's see if you can answer these 2 questions completely without trying to wriggle out of it

1. "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"

But I'm not talking about the Ryan (et al) paper. I'm talking about the other paper you like to cite every chance you get: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

The editor of that journal said she didn't review it before it was published. This supports /u/thinkmorebetterer 's implication that there were pre-conceived ideas about what took place on 9/11 and adds to it, suggesting that there was a political viewpoint behind its publication.

What kind of a scientific journal publishes a paper without being reviewed by the Editor in Chief? How can this possibly be considered "peer reviewed?"

But going back to the Ryan paper for a second, Here's what the EPA had to say about the spike in VOC's from their published paper that Ryan uses to argue:

In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenyl propane [1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is found in significant concentrations. This species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polyvinyl chloride materials, which are believed to be in abundance at the WTC site.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=62021#top

Here's a later peer-reviewed and published paper that also explains the spike in VOCs:

In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.

"Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Other Semivolatile Organic Compounds Collected in New York City in Response to the Events of 9/11"

So you blatantly topic shifted. And you continue to do so for the first half of this comment. Why?

And you still fail to account for the VOC spikes as the PM had already died off.

EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

No PM = VOCs aren't from the official story combustion. Sorry. Why'd you even bother responding if you were planning on topic shifting/not addressing the paper?

PS: it really helps if you actually read the paper/my quote. The quote is in reference to benzene/polystyrene. Not the 1,3. Try again. Also, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons paper is directly linked, and refuted in the paper I provided.

What a worthless comment you provided. Congrats.

Although you did answer my original question. You were trying to be deceptive by topic shifting and you didn't read the paper. It's worse than I thought.

So you blatantly topic shifted. And you continue to do so for the first half of this comment. Why?

As I said, it supports the comment made by /u/thinkmorebetterer. Its not a topic shift. It is further evidence. Sorry.

It doesn't. Blatant topic shift. Way to continue to ignore the paper. Nice non-reply

Not a topic shift. I am supporting the comment.

Way to deflect the argument.

The argument is about a different paper. In a different journal. With a different publisher. Topic shift confirmed. A paper you just failed at refuting. Which is why you're still trying to talk about the other one, rather than the one in question. You going to refute it? Or continue stalling?

My personal assumption is that the pile of debris, with oxygen fed in through subway system, created a furnace. But then the extent and composition of molten metal in the debris is very unclear anyway.

I am glad you disagree with the US government conspiracy theory in regard 9/11, you are now a truther.

I'm not sure the "US government conspiracy theory" addresses the issue specifically.

So, what you are saying is that you know better than the US government.

Got it, i have forwarded your enlightened post to my congressman.

Oh, you're hours of fun, aren't you?

Yes.

The destruction of the Twin Towers was very well executed. The truthers should focus on the smoking guns that are the Tower 7, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania crash.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Yup, OP just c&ped your question and my answer. I don't mind though, /u/Greg_Roberts_0985 has this covered, it seems :)

Yes.

That he believes jet fuel melted a box beam deserves a story by Graham McQueen. Why was it assumed?

Which is why /u/thinkmorebetterer keeps referring to it as "metal" rather than the "box column" mentioned in the video. Box column = steel. Simple stuff. Unless your biased with "preconceived ideas" in his response to me.