Hot enough to melt/weaken steel yet reality shows a different picture. http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/7402/15-most-mysterious-things-ever-photographed850386066-nov-22-2014-1-600x500.jpg

First, the steel was not mild steel. It was high temperature resistant alloy.

Next, structural support beams were coated in fire resistant ablative mineral .

The steel was designed with to be fire resistant to deformation.

Next, all office furniture had to be fire resistant.

Now, explain to me how fire went all the way down the passenger elevators to the main floor. Especially how the fire got past the built in barriers between floors. Also the passenger elevators are not continuous from the crash site to the floor. Your turn.

I can explain it all with this, look up "war by deception" by Ryan Dawson on YouTube! all your questions will be answered there.

There was liquid steel found in the the collapsed structure. What could have possibly happened to cause the steel to melt and stay molten?

Yes, there were literally running pools of steel after they collapsed. Under the buildings temperatures were still reading upwards of 1300 degrees F. No simple office fire did that. They also found nano thermite in the rubble rofl.

They were that high of tempts for WEEKS dude, weeks. Not just the day after.

Forget for a second trying to use these analogies to describe this situation. Think about facts we know:

1) before 2001, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. On 9/11 that happened 3 times in one day.

2) jet fuel is kerosene, it simply cannot burn something quickly enough to turn it into molten steel at the rate required to amke buildings collapse like that.

3) go watch any video of the collapse and you'll notice something important. Most of the smoke from the fires they claim did this were dark black. Why? Because oxygen poor environments burn dark black. Oxygen Rich fires the smoke is white (as would be needed for such a fuel to burn hot enough).

If you have experience with metal as you say, you should at least agree that whether or not kerosene can melt steel, the "simple office fires from furniture" which brought building 7 down at free fall speed (later admitted by NIST) could not have possibly brought it down

2) in this case that actually doesn't work out, you would need bellows like forced airflow to feed enough oxygen to those fires.

that possibility is debunked by the black smoke billowing out of the building, which actually tells you a lot of the fuel was not even burning completely which means it was oxygen starved.

the problem with that molten metal is how cooling works, sure debris insulated it and kept it hot for a long time after, but it still needed to be hot enough in the first place for the steel to go fully molten (or hotter) jet fuel simply can not explain that at all.

Don't forget the fact molten steel was present literally WEEKS after and the remaining debris was still smoking MONTHS after the fact. See : Into December 2011.

short answer thermite, long answer something that burned a hell of a lot hotter than jetfuel possibly could.

I have no doubt that high fire could "weaken" the beams. But I would imagine after breaking off it would tilt itself over from the part which was cut from the base. The top portion of the tower met no resistance of 100 floors or so beneath it.

Honestly, we would never build another skyscrapper again if fires alone would make it crush all matter under it into dust.

I have no doubt that high fire could "weaken" the beams. But I would imagine after breaking off it would tilt itself over from the part which was cut from the base. The top portion of the tower met no resistance of 100 floors or so beneath it.

Honestly, we would never build another skyscrapper again if fires alone would make it crush all matter under it into dust.

That's no conspiracy, friend. That's life.

yeah but if it were the case no insurance company would ever insure one again.

you can even see yourself the explosions cascade down the corner of the tower very clearly on video. have a look

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

I see is a combination of weight and air pressure t

you don't observe that at all. you are making a conclusion based on conjecture. there's no experiment to even compare it to, nobody has ever seen what you are describing.

besides, there's no pile driver. anyone can clearly see it being pulverized in videos.

what you observe is the upper portion being turned to tiny pieces and dust, while explosions literally cascade down the building. it's as plain as day, maybe you should watch it again.

Somebody suggested this video and I couldn't stop watching it. It explains in detail. September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor

If you want to look into anything in my response, it’s easy to find.

Here’s the issue with the official report;

-there was extensive fireproofing. the amount of force needed to sheer off enough of the fireproofing did not physically exist given the variables at play. It was impossible.

-all of the core columns had to fail simultaneously.

-tremendous fuckery with NISTs model. They didn’t unrealistic, impossible things that they knew weren’t possible to make their model “work”

-seriously, the NIST report is critical

https://web.utk.edu/~prack/MSE%20300/FeC.pdf

that should help if you want to understand the whole picture and why the whole jet fuel can't melt steel beams thing.

jet fuel is basically kerosene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Differences_between_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1

the big facts here are the open air burn of kerosene in a 100% ideal situation ie 100% effeciency (aka a never going to happen outside of a controlled lab experiment)

steel takes a ton of energy to melt, and is also pretty damn good at shedding that heat by transfering it along the surface (layman: think how fast aluminum foil heats up and cools down)

i mean there are situation where the jet fuel (forgetting the extremely limited amount of fuel on site at the time) such as liquid oxygen, high pressure air flows, hell even explaining the thermite by saying the terrorists got it on to the planes at the airports.

now as for the office refuse, a regular office fire never gets anywhere remotely close to the high temps to melt steel, let alone steel with fire proofing sprayed on to it.

so the physics of this explanation fall apart pretty god damn fast.

your campfire analogy as a ton of problems of scale. first i would love to see anything short of a burning man scale bonfire emit enough heat to melt a steel beam half the size of what is in most structures, localized heat is one thing but remember steel spreads heat very quickly (think the handle of a cast iron pan)

second an open air fire, not fed with bellows is never going to get hot enough to melt regular steel much less, stuff that is covered in fire proof insulation.

IF, and its a big if, any extremely localized spot in the towers was actually able to reach a temperature hot enough to melt the steel we would see partial failures, slumping floors etc in very very localized areas.

the fact that entire floors failed at once, and then in cascade is just absolutely absurd as it means the entirety of each of those floors were uniformly at or near the melting points of structural steel, for them to be uniformly heated that way (ie the core of the building was just as hot as the outside) is completely impossible.