hot enough

They, the alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that the jet fuel would be able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize steel. Those same alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that some of jet fuel from WTC1 would be able to survive the explosions within WTC1, then burn for an hour and a half then fly over to WTC7, where it was then able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize WTC7 steel.

Luckily, I am fluent in Turkish. Such a study has been done, Altai. But first, we have to realize that NIST never did any such study. NIST stopped at "initiation of collapse", threw up their hands, and said, "Then a miracle occurred? They didn't do this for WTC7 and the three building collapses had many similarities. [For anyone who doesn't know this, google, "and then a miracle occurs cartoon", click on images and you will understand the ludicrousness of NIST's stopping at initiation of collapse] Why would the scientists from the richest country on the planet do that, when they brought up a TWA jet crash from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, spent all the time needed to put the parts back together to determine the real cause of the crash? The study done about WTC1 shows that, following the laws of physics, the tower's collapse, had it actually been a gravity collapse, would have self arrested within two floors.

How much fuel were they carrying, Wilber? How much fuel exploded and burned in the first, shall we call them gigantic or just big fireballs? How did the alleged hijackers use the jet fuel to melt metals that needed 2800F, 4700F, 5000+f temperatures when the only temperatures that US official government conspiracy scientists said the fires reached was about 1,400F? How long did the fires burn within the twin towers compared to fires in other comparable buildings that burned, some totally engulfed in in intense flames for 15 to 23 hours and they never collapsed?

Your intuition, like that of every other human, save for those who will not see, who refuse to see, is dead on correct, Altai. Could you tell the study you found and give a link? Perhaps we can help.

These are all well and good discussions to have, Impact. But I think it would be most advantageous and helpful to focus on the stunning anomalies. How did the alleged hijackers melt those metals that had, at a minimum, melting points 1,000F above the temperatures that can be reached by the only fuel they brought, jet fuel? We all know the alleged hijackers did not melt those metals. We all know that there was superthermite/nanothermite at WTC that easily explains how these metals became molten. Why are we do backflips to avoid discussing it?

Okay, we'll agree to agree that you can't discuss the blacksmith's arguments and why they do or do not support any given theory. The reason is on page one. The presence of all the molten metals means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. There were many scientific arguments presented defended that central premise. You have not addressed a one. Until you are ready to do so, I won't waste any more time with you.

Well, then, it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to pull out your, I assume, voluminous scientific arguments that will address the issues I have raised, that only impact and Altai will discuss. Shall we begin with the blacksmith's arguments? Or one from the archives?

But you were unable to address them in the slightest fashion. The Windsor Tower was not "steel beam construction".

Not that I am trying to stifle discussion in any way, shape or form on this particular issue. If anyone wants to understand why they are not good comparisons, read the article and ask questions. Unless this is deemedto be off the topic at hand

I think that we can both agree that the Windsor Tower is not an apt comparison to use for the twin towers or WTC7. I think we can agree that those who pretend to know something about these issues should discuss them openly and honestly, putting their "expertise"out there so folks can develop a sense of trust in any given commenter's posts. I also withheld an excellent discussion from you and others in order to make my point that the original poster should have discussedmore thoroughly, so everyone could come away fully informed, not misled, about the issues, having a better foundation for rational discussion. Again, please accept my apologies for this also. The Windsor Building Fire Huge Fire in Steel-Reinforced Concrete Building Causes Partial Collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

I apologise, unreservedly, impact. My comments, brief, terse, not at all forthcoming, unscientific, crass, personally insulting, ... were meant only as a indicator of what the vast majority of comments have been on this topic since the outset. I do NOT include you in that group.

You are correct about the differing heights. You are not correct about "The outer steel columns however did collapse." Or about,"The big lesson learned here is that concrete columns have better fire resistance than steel ones."

I hope this is not going to shock anyone too badly, but the Windsor Tower, the one in Madrid, the one in the picture, is still standing. It has not collapsed.

That is obviously a tremendously wide topic that isn't about the much narrower, for good reasons, discussion on the science surrounding the events of 9-11. That is obviously a tremendously wide topic that deserves its own thread.

The forum rules seem to be specifically intended to guide all posters towards using efficient speech, not too much wordiness, but certainly enough to not only make one's point but to also prove one's point. I have to say that yours doesn't seem to meet forum guidelines. There is no discussion from you on why "the OP was poorly focused". That will require some discussion of science.

And first generation Chinese immigrants do not need to learn English. Their children will, as all children do. You don't even NEED to learn French if you move into a totally French community, and from the sounds of it, you wouldn't, yet here you are maligning others, telling us of their cultural insensitivity for the same thing you self describe above..

All the discussions on this thread have not addressed any of the issues raised, in a manner that reflects the stated aim found in the guidelines of this website. Calling individuals names that are well known pejoratives breaks the forums first rule. ============================== Guidelines Be Polite and Respect Others Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (website links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument. All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

Please explain the differences and similarities between WTCs 1 & 2 and the Windsor Tower.

So the Huffington Post falls for the same nonsense as the Boston Globe and the ..., I forget which other newspaper. Please, can someone tell me why people who are supposedly rational would believe a blacksmith over a PhD structural engineer, 2,500 architects and engineers, ... ? Could someone tell me why people can post a link but they can't discuss the largest, smallest or even mid-size details of what he said and what his arguments have to do with the three towers that were blown up on 9-11.

Watch the whole video, steel frame buildings totally engulfed in flames, for long hours; never before or since 9-11 has there been a collapse but three happened in NYC on one day. Absolutely preposterous! Watch specifically from 2:40 on where Scott Grainger, a Fire Protection engineer, will explain to you why your repeat of a myth from Popular Mechanics or some other non-expert is false. Fires Consume WTC 7-Size Skyscrapers, Buildings Do Not Collapse - 9/11/01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu6nADydep4

That is not the point. Molten steel 2,800F, molten Mo 4,700F, vaporized steel 5000+F, molten iron 2750F, were all present at WTC. There is no legitimate, legal reason for them to be there given the available fuels described by the US government official conspiracy theory cannot account for that. Molten steel means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers. Molten molybdenum means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers. Vaporized steel means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers. The molten steel flowing out of WTC2 minutes before its collapse means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers. WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

Betsy, please go back to the first post and read what I wrote. I didn't say anything remotely close to what you have here suggested. It is there, stated on at least three different occasions.

I, hot enough, wrote: " A few examples; NIST lied about molten metals; they lied about explosions; they lied, and still lie about molten aluminum. [it's on their website FAQs." =================== Since some want to know of NIST's lies. 1. Shyam Sunder: "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in Building 7." He/NIST was asked by independent scientists if NIST had looked. They hadn't, though that is required by NFPA Standards. Many independent scientists were able to find, very easily, the signatures for thermite explosives in WTC dust, unreacted particles of nanothermite, as was the RJ Lee Group, a engineering forensic firm hired by Deutsche Bank. 2. John Gross (NIST) Telling Lies About Molten Steel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2oG5QeK0Q Watch his demeanor, the snide jokes he makes, his nervous motions, his squirming. Google "John Gross touching the end of a molten steel beam". Click on IMAGES, the first picture is Mr Gross, touching the end of a molten steel beam. There are also pictures of the Meteorite, and other agglomerations of fused metal and concrete. 3. NIST lied about WTC7 free fall, first denying it then admitting that free fall had taken place. Shyam Sunder No Free Fall Watch and listen to Mr Sunder's stumbling, incoherent response to the question of free fall. More on this after we all discuss it.

Go back and read the initial post on this thread. It can be found on page 1.

Do you really not understand what "alleged hijackers" means?