Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[What_the]

Forgive the typo

[Passion4Truth]

I don't recall seeing any molten aluminum in any video, or reading about it, but I did see the molten steel running down the side of one of the twin towers in some videos.

[What_the]

I don't recall seeing any molten aluminum in any video, or reading about it, but I did see the molten steel running down the side of one of the twin towers in some videos.

Perhaps what you think was molten steel, was in fact molten aluminum; an aircraft's worth.
I'm not saying anything other than perhaps there's another explsntion for "explosions" and a reason the towers came down the way they did.
Seems to me, and others, that 25 tons or so of aircraft haven't been taken into account. And the chemistry.

[Passion4Truth]

Actually, what I saw WAS molten steel. The two can not be confused. When aluminum is heated to the melting point, it will look very similar to mercury, unlike steel, which will glow reddish orange no matter the different properties it may contain.

[What_the]

I'm no blacksmith, just a handy man. Am i incorrect in understanding that aluminum has a melting point above steel?

[What_the]

I dont mean to be a dick, mercurie's melting point is well below zero. It's in thermometers.

[Passion4Truth]

Steel needs more than twice the temp to melt than aluminum. In fact, the temperature to melt steel is so hot, it is very puzzling to see molten steel running down the side of a burning building.

A quick google search shows steel melts at 1371 Celsius and aluminum at 659 Celsius
http://www.onlinemetals.com/meltpt.cfm

[Passion4Truth]

I dont mean to be a dick, mercurie's melting point is well below zero. It's in thermometers.

Aluminum, in it's melted state, looks like mercury, unlike steel which will glow a reddish orange.

[What_the]

Steel needs more than twice the temp to melt than aluminum. In fact, the temperature to melt steel is so hot, it is very puzzling to see molten steel running down the side of a burning building.

A quick google search shows steel melts at 1371 Celsius and aluminum at 659 Celsius
http://www.onlinemetals.com/meltpt.cfm

Look at your numbers

[Passion4Truth]

Steel needs more than twice the temp to melt than aluminum. In fact, the temperature to melt steel is so hot, it is very puzzling to see molten steel running down the side of a burning building.

A quick google search shows steel melts at 1371 Celsius and aluminum at 659 Celsius
http://www.onlinemetals.com/meltpt.cfm

Look at your numbers

You're not making much sense. Are ya tippin a few back?

[maryjane48]

there was no molten aluminum what the . not sure where you getting it from . in the 9/11 thread i will prove it to you .

[What_the]

Yes, I was. 1300 degrees steel - 659 aluminium

I.wasnt.that tippy

[Ranger66]

"well for one they were found on top other buildings and in the many videos you can see it being ejected 500 plus feet sideways "

I await your proof as this means nothing.

[maryjane48]

melting point of structural steel is at the low end 2500 f . jet fuel temp is well below that .

[maryjane48]

you dont have eyes ? you know how far wtc 7 was from wtc1 and 2 .



During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 - 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet. Their motion can be examined as for projectiles.

Projectile motion consists of a vertical and a horizontal component of velocity.

If a beam were ejected from the 95th floor of WTC1, the height at ejection is 95/110 x 1365 = 1179 feet.

The time to hit the ground is given by distance = ½ x g x (time)² where g= 32.2 ft/sec² is the acceleration due to gravity.

1179 = ½ x 32.2 x (time)²

(time)² = 1179 x 2/32.2 = 73.23

time = 8.56 seconds.

The horizontal distance traveled is given by distance = velocity x time.

520 = velocity x 8.56

velocity = 60.75 feet/sec = velocity of ejection = 41 miles per hour minimum.

This is a minimum velocity – air resistance will cause the horizontal velocity to decrease. Beams ejected at lower floors from WTC1, or beams that hit other buildings higher up than ground level, have less time to fall, and must therefore travel faster to reach a horizontal distance of 520 feet.

How does expelled air propel these beams with such force? In the official story of 9/11, the only other force available is that of gravity acting vertically downward. A theory that buckling steel columns were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos. Extensive debris fields with ejected steel columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet. A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward. Only explosive force can explain the debris fields.

The official account of 9/11 dismisses this indisputable evidence by entirely ignoring it. The controlled demolition theory, on the other hand, readily explains this evidence. In a controlled demolition of a building, charges are placed so as to break the structure into pieces of manageable size for easy removal by truck. Thus, the steel columns were broken and ejected by explosive force. This evidence alone is quite enough to disprove the official account of 9/11.


lets see you debunk that with peer reviewed facts .