Molten metal under WTC rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel

October 24, 2010

By Craig McKee

When they can’t explain it, they do the next best thing.
They ignore it.
The U.S. government, the 9/11 Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA and the mainstream media all do the same thing.  When they can’t explain something that contradicts the official version of events on 9/11, they simply pretend the questions don’t exist.
Among the most crucial examples of this are the large pools of molten metal found under the rubble of the two twin towers of the World Trade Center and Building 7. The molten metal burned under the rubble for weeks, with the final fires not being extinguished until December of 2001, three months after the disaster.
The official story can’t explain this; it doesn’t even try. That’s because the molten metal points to a controlled demolition – explosive charges combined with a material that causes a chemical reaction creating extreme heat to cut through steel beams.

Molten steel pours from the 81st floor.

According to Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, who has questioned the science of the official story, the most likely material to have been used to melt through the beams is thermite.
Thermite devices could have been wrapped around the steel girders diagonally to cut through them. They could have contributed, along with the explosives, to bringing the structure down. When ignited, thermite can reach temperatures of 4,500F in less than two seconds.
One of the by-products of the use of thermite is molten steel. Another is aluminum oxide, which shows itself as a fine white smoke. What did we have in the wake of the towers’ collapse? Molten steel and fine white “smoke.” There was so much of this smoke that it could be seen from the International Space Station.
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stated in its report made it that most of the jet fuel from the planes would have burned up in the initial impact or in the first minutes after impact.
So what was all that smoke coming from the towers and later the wreckage of the towers? Smoke poured out of the rubble for weeks as emergency workers attempted to extinguish the molten metal fires underneath.
The melting point for steel is about 2,800F while the maximum temperature that jet fuel can burn at is about 1,800F. Experts like Jones have pointed out that the black smoke coming from the towers indicates that the fire was oxygen starved and therefore was burning at a much lower temperature even than 1,800F.
How do we know the molten metal didn’t come from some underground source? We know this because there are photographs that clearly show molten metal flowing from the 81st floor of the South Tower BEFORE collapse. Some have tried to explain this by saying that it is molten aluminum from the planes.
Aluminum may glow at a high enough temperature but it’s ridiculous to suggest that aluminum burned underground for three months. Molten metal was found under Building 7, which was not hit by a plane. Those of you who refuse to consider the “demolition” possibility might want to try and explain where this molten metal came from.
By the way, the existence of these “hot spots” under all three buildings was confirmed by aerial thermal images taken by NASA in the first two weeks after 9/11.
As for proving that the molten steel was actually there, photographs show it, and even then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani talked about it publicly. He talked about how the boots of emergency workers would melt after a few hours of clearing rubble.
Many other witnesses reported the presence of the molten pools under the building rubble. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of the World Trade Center, reported molten metal running under the buildings 21 days after 9/11.
Public health adviser Ron Burger likened the pools to a volcano. Other workers say it looked like a foundry or that the metal “looked like lava.” Witnesses say they saw molten steel “dripping from beams and walls” in the basement of the towers. New York firefighters referred to “rivers of molten metal” under the rubble.
The FEMA report also mentions sulphur residue on the steel beams of the towers after collapse. This also supports the controlled demolition theory because sulphur is used to lower the melting point of the steel. Sulphur combined with thermite creates thermate. This dramatically speeds up the melting of the steel.
If there’s a reasonable explanation for all of this, why haven’t we heard it? And if you’re wondering if the whole controlled demolition case might all rest on this, you can be assured it’s not.
It’s just the beginning.

Notice the beam that appears to have been cut diagonally.


  1. Not saying that nano-thermite wasn’t used in this overly redundant and thorough destruction of the WTC towers.
    The three main areas where nano-thermite compounds cannot logically and reasonably explain what was observed are:
    – the under-rubble fire duration
    – the energy required for the totality of the destruction
    – EMP (explained below)
    1. the under-rubble fire duration
    “Large amounts of molten iron from thermite and nano-thermite reactions does not explain this”
    – heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
    – inability to quench ground zero heat with water
    – red hot/molten steel at ground zero
    – missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
    Thermite and nano-thermite reactions I believe fall significantly short of “six months” or even “six weeks” of intense heat at ground zero.
    Why? It has to do with the burn rate of these thermite compounds. They burn fast to achieve quickly the melting point of steel, and this is demonstrated in many YouTube videos that I’m sure you’ve seen. In order to achieve high temperatures over a very prolonged period of time, massive quantities of these thermite compounds would have to be present, above and way beyond what would be required for demolition. [You’d have to have like a thermite fuel tank and fuel pump/conveyor belt to constantly feed the thermite onto the iron to keep the reaction going that long.]
    Missing core columns cannot be explained with reasonable amounts of thermite compounds needed for demolition. If unreasonable, excessive, overkill amounts were employed, then yes, maybe it could melt them down or practically vaporize them.
    When you open the door to consider redundant milli-nukes, fizzled nukes, and fracticide nukes, it isn’t so illogical or unreasonable to recognize the above points as side-effects of unspent nuclear material fizzling intensely for weeks and months, like Chernobyl.
    2. the energy required for the totality of the destruction
    Whereas many anomalous features could be consistent with both nukes and chemical explosives, this is where we could apply the Occam Razor that you and I are hit with regularly.
    Assuming the destruction of the towers was the goal, it could be achieved without extreme pulverization of WTC concrete. In defending chemical explosives as the cause for this effect, the follow-up questions are what quantity of those chemical explosives would be required to achieve that effect — that massive energy sink — and why go to such overkill measures?
    I believe that the 1993 WTC (nuclear) bombing was an eye-opener for the perpetrators, because it showed how tough those core columns were. It would not have been a trivial matter to wire them with chemical explosives and thermite compounds.
    But 4 to 6 milli-nuclear devices per tower to destroy the core greatly simplifies the task, leaving thermite/incendiaries to “chunk out” the outer mesh structure after it has contained and shielded most of the internal nuclear reactions from both a dead-give-away electro magnetic pulse (EMP) and the prying eyes of media.
    The milli-nuclear devices achieve extreme pulverization of concrete and content not as a goal but as a side-effect, and does this Occam Razor much easier than the equivalent massive amounts of chemical/thermite incendiaries.
    3. EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
    Chemical/nano-thermite explosives/incendiaries cannot easily account for all exploding cars and partial burning, because a great many vehicles were not in the path of falling/ejected (burning) debris, were actually quite some distance away, and had no evidence of such debris on or around the vehicles, let alone damage from impact.
    EMP is an electrical magnetic pulse and is emitted line-of-sight from the nuclear explosion. When a nuclear explosion happens at altitude, the EMP can be a weapon (in addition to blast waves and heat) and can be very debilitating to unprotected electrical devices.
    If 9/11 were a nuclear event, the outer mesh steel structure together with building contents contained most of the EMP, except for window slits. Of the multiple milli-nuke devices, most EMP damage would most likely come from the top-most milli-nuke and could hit cars further away; milli-nukes placed lower in the structure would have a canapy of falling debris and other buildings to reduce EMP effects. Due to the milli-nuke design construction/goals, their yield, and placement inside the towers, the EMP would not be as monumentally destructive as 9/11 debunkers make it out to be. The EMP evidence we observed “slipped out.”
    Although thermal radiation, EMP, and ionizing radiation from a nuclear blast are all damage producing, at yields below about a megaton the blast and shock produced by a nuclear weapon are the predominant means of damaging a target.
    Think of the EMP as being the primary side of an electrical transformer and a metal car hood, door, steering wheel as the secondary side. The EMP induces extremely large currents in the metal it hits. The induced currents heat the metal to the point where it ignites paint or other touching/adjacent components; depending on the amount (related to how directly the EMP hit the target), intensity (related to distance), and duration (related to falling debris) of the line-of-sight exposure to the EMP, the affected metal itself can be melted.
    For cases of extremely anomalous burn patterns on vehicles that affect some areas and not logically others, the unaffected areas may not have been in line-of-sight (like in the shadow of other objects or not oriented properly). Plus, insultation and air gaps between different areas of the car (doors, hood) can electrically isolate the induced current from flowing throughout the vehicle.
    If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.
    A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles.
    In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4 in the first link. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metalic debris.

    1. Thanks very much for your intelligent and thorough examination of this issue. The whole nuke thing is something I’ve been looking at more closely in the last few days, so your timing is great for me. I will definitely follow up. You’re right that using thermite to cut the beams doesn’t explain the molten metal that burned under the rubble for months. It comes closer than jet fuel and burning computers, but perhaps not close enough. And the car damage has always been a question screaming for attention. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had media who would honestly examine these issues? But you’ve energized me to look at this more closely.
      I had to laugh at your reference to Occam’s Razor because I’ve been hit with that several times. Have planned a blog post just on that for some time. People seem to think that the simplest theory is usually the right one even when there is deliberate deception going on. Unclear on the concept. Looking forward to more comments from you.

  2. Dear Mr. McKee,
    Thank you for your kind words. Kudos, however, go to you for your impressive, well-written, young blog. I admire its sharp 9/11 focus.
    My blog? It wanders a bit, because its purpose is to document my words on whatever topic I feel compelled to get on my soapbox about and possibly posted in someone’s discussion, like AlterNet. I’ve learned to not rely on the databases of others to preserve my words.
    My words to you were actually re-cycled from a discussion started on AlterNet but now in e-mail that I’m having with LeftWright from 9/11 Blogger. He and another 9/11T’ers were doing a valiant job of presenting the 9/11 case against several OGCT’ists. I jumped into the discussion in their support, and then in a logical and rational fashion pushed us down the twin rabbit holes of 9/11 CGI and 9/11 nukes.
    LeftWright is considering my words and the case I make, but had his hands full these last couple of weeks with issues on 9/11 Blogger. Another 9/11 website is accusing them of being gatekeepers for the 9/11 Truth Movement for the discussions it doesn’t allow. Although the issue is over CIT and their Pentagon fly-over theory (that I’m on the fence on), I was told when I tried to join (and was never given access) that “no planes, mini-nukes, and DEW” were discussion topics that “did not go over very well,” the very things (minus DEW) that my blog goes into.
    Well, you know the craftiness of those whose profession is disinformation. I believe that the dust-up over CIT isn’t really limited to “no commercial plane at the Pentagon.” When you examine the postings of those who are against CIT (and with CIT compounding their woes [on purpose?] with poor online behavior), the actions and sweeping statements have the fallout of keeping out of their forum “no commercial planes at the WTC” (e.g., September Clues) and mini-nukes. Supposedly those were discussed to death, conclusions reached (along the lines “bat-shit crazy”), and aren’t permitted any more because they tend to inspire much bad online behavior. Like I said, crafty, but also ironically consistent and thereby expose the nugget of truth from the original disinfo accusation of 9/11 Blogger being a gatekeeper.

    1. Thanks to you as well. I had a friend tell me about three weeks ago that my blog might have been relevant five years ago but now I should work on more current issues. I wondered for a bit about this but then concluded that until the truth about 9/11 has come out, it can’t be irrelevant. And the fact that the number of people coming to the blog has been increasing sharply in recent days tells me to keep going. I will certainly read yours, and if you have any suggestions about ways to get more visibility, I’d love to hear about them.
      Your timing about things you mention is uncanny. I just applied to get on 9/11 Blogger a few days ago. I got the same “no TV fakery” opinions welcome. I wrote back that I’ll follow the rules but I’m not sure I agree with censoring that way. I haven’t been accepted either. To me, the question of the reliability of the TV images is central to the whole subject, as is the question of what method was used to bring the towers down.
      Thanks again for the encouragement, and I’ll certainly be reading your stuff.

      1. Dear Mr. McKee,
        Karl Rove said: [W]e create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
        With these words, I can understand the sentiment that relegates 9/11 reality to be many realities ago and not as pressing as the harsh realities foisted on the world this very moment.
        However, I, too, think that 9/11 remains relevant, because when we start thinking about the rebellious solution, we need to know how deep to purge in our formation of government, courts, and agencies anew. The 9/11 Litmus Test will be re-framed, and those in leadership who kept the fiction alive to cover its true enemies (e.g., al-CIA-duh, private contractors ala Xe, big banks, corporate elite) will be displaced.
        People need to understand the scope of the betrayal in order to implement appropriate measures that solve the problem.
        I wouldn’t mind if the lower 48 of the USA were broken into 4 or 5 regions/countries, thereby obsoleting the USA federal government, the federal reserve, the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, their drug wars, their oil wars, and many stupid laws while giving local, state, and region/country governments more power to govern effectively to better meet the needs of its citizens.
        Such a division is vastly different from the Civil War, and as proved by many Eastern Block countries, doesn’t have to be violent. I fear that the corruption in the present system of elections and politics makes anything short of new boundaries & new government impossible for new, rational, and applicable legislation and policies.

        1. Yes, to separate 9/11 from other major issues is to lose track of how that event has shaped what followed. If we don’t understand how 9/11 happened, how will we recognize it when it happens again? It says a lot about our culture that something so huge can be considered old news, especially when the truth has been hidden from people. We need to keep digging until a critical mass is reached and people demand further investigation. This won’t be easy, but it’s worth doing.

  3. When 911 first happened a pro-Bush anti-conspiracy theorist friend of mine mentioned that she had heard the WTC was built with demolitions installed. Considering the source I disregarded her information. Recently I watched a video that said at the time, the only way to get the permits to build such tall buildings were if they had a demolition plan. Three structures in the U.S. have this the towers, and the Sears Tower. Remember they evacuated the Sears tower but not the empire state building that day. The demolitions installed according to the videos I viewed from this demolition plan involved underground nukes. Most of the truth sites seem to ignore this theory and I can’t understand why. 10 years later many have died of cancers suggesting just that. It totally explains the long burning fire in the pile and the fact that the media dubbed the location “Ground Zero” which prior to the 911 was defined as the point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point detonation of an atomic or thermal nuclear bomb.
    I considered the official story for about 1 day, but I never believed it. I’ve watched all the videos and I find that that the towers were brought down by the demolitions pre-installed in them is very feasible. I can’t understand why this theory is seemingly ignored by the truth movement!

    1. You make some really interesting points. I had never considered the idea of explosive being installed at the time of construction, and I’m not sure if I buy it but I’ll look at any evidence about this. The idea of nuclear devices being used interests me very much, however. I agree that it would explain a lot, including the molten metal, the cancers, and the melted cars up to half a mile away.
      And you’re right about the Truth movement not wanting to consider nukes. There has been a regular discussion on the topic on this blog, particularly in the comments of elOnce, who has done a lot of research on the topic. Thanks for a great comment.

    2. Dear Ms. Gina,
      As of this point in time, I am totally convinced that milli-nukes were used on 9/11 precisely for the reasons you gave. I am on the fence (but teetering) with regards to explosives built in. Demolition plans in order to get building permits? I could buy that. But, demolition implementation at the time of construction? I’m not there yet and am not writing to start a debate either.
      You wanted to know why the 9/11 truth sites seem to ignore milli-nukes. Can you say “infiltration”? Nukes are why the OGCT gained cheerleaders after-the-fact, because the fall-out (metaphorically speaking) of the public’s revelation of this fact can, would, and should necessitate major house-cleaning in govt, its agencies, and media and complete re-structuring from the ground up of the same, which is our right and duty as given to us by the founding-fathers.
      But back to the “infiltration” comment. The vast majority of us are not nuclear physicists. Those that are “know what side their bread is buttered on,” meaning that the universities get most of their research grants from the govt and things nuclear are usually run one way or another by the govt.
      In the 9/11 TM, one person — a nuclear physicist — more than any other is responsible for leading us away from 9/11 being a nuclear event: Dr. Steven Jones. His reports that say a nuclear 9/11 was unlikely were based on govt reports regarding measured radiation levels at Ground Zero. Three things immediately stand out. (1) Dr. Jones laments himself about how the govt has been less than forthright in their reports and releasing data in other areas, so why should the reports he relies on for his no-nuke conclusion be any different? Garbage-in, garbage-out. (2) Too much emphasis on certain levels of radiation and/or particular kinds of radiation [or the lack thereof] is a red-herring, because radiation is one of the design factors that can be tweaked [although increasing/decreasing other factors like blast yield, heat wave, and EMP.] (3) One criticism I’ve read is that those reports deep in the math re-define “trace levels” to be 55 times greater than before so that conclusions can say they were “near trace levels”… Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.
      9/11 being a nuclear event does not live or die with govt reports on radiation. It is obvious the more the video & pictorial evidence is studied.
      Dr. Jones can’t leave a vacuum. He did discover nano-thermite (NT) in the dust, which is certainly a damning piece of evidence against the govt, because what cave-dwelling terrorist even knows about NT, let alone has enough quantity to achieve demolition in secure buildings? To his credit, he only says that NT has the ability to melt steel and reach high temperatures. True. He leaves it up to the minions in the 9/11 TM to rest on Dr. Jones’ PhD in Nuclear Physics to extrapolate that fact (erroneously) into concluding that NT was responsible for the under-rubble fires. If you do the math calculations on the rapid burn rate of NT, which Dr. Jones has not published to my knowledge (for obvious reasons), you’d discover that in order to achieve the duration of those under-rubble fires, you’d need a massive quantity of NT and some way to feed it in order to sustain such fires for months. Only after reading the above should you consider that this same Dr. Jones on behalf of the govt poured cold water on cold fusion (the prospect of energy from nothing) in the 1980s, and cold fusion is now making a come-back, kind of debunking his debunking.
      NT is the stop-gap. Gotta hold that line no matter what. A nuclear revelation would mean justified revolution and redefining our form of govt.

  4. All very interesting to a non-scientist who became suspicious of all official accounts when I saw explosions many floors below the impact zone and molten metal dripping down the side of one of the buildings soon after the airplane’s impact many floors higher. There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was a horrific inside job. However, you theorists who are discussing the technical aspects of the numerous and officially ignored anomalies and clues to this disaster have got to dumb down the science and explain the acronyms in your discussions so we non-white-coaters can follow your reasoning.

  5. Kerosene is not a single chemical, it is a family of chemicals. The same way Gasoline is (Petrol for cars, AvGas for piston-driven aircraft).
    The Kerosene in your garden shed is quite a weak grade of it (though I’d be willing to bet enough of it burning in a drum would produce extreme heat).
    The Kerosene used in Jet Liners is ‘Jet-A1’, and it is a much higher grade and burns VERY hot – about 2000 degrees Celsius on average in the open air. Jet-A1 fuel fires are very difficult to extinguish and require special foams.
    The Kerosene used in missiles and orbital rockets is an even higher grade and even more dangerous.
    Bulk reply:
    The factual data is surprisingly hard to find, but it’s there. You really cannot trust anything you read in a forum or on wikipedia, it needs to come from a reputable source-
    Jet-A1 aviation fuel, a *type* of Kerosene (Kerosene, or Kerosine, is a family, not a single chemical), burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.
    Carbon steel will liquefy and flow at approximately 1400 degrees Celsius, and will be severely weakened well below that temperature.
    I think a lot of the misconception comes from (possibly uneducated) american readers seeing ‘2000 degrees’ and mistakenly thinking this means ‘2000 F’ – about 1000 C – whereas of course it actually means ‘2000 degrees C’.
    Jet-A1/JP8 (same thing) properties:
    Shell Aviation if you want to ask them in person:
    767’s carry 90,000 litres of Jet-A1:
    Carbon steel:

  6. Jojaje Vovave,
    Sorry but you are wrong; Kerosene is Kerosene.
    It is the additives/refinements that make Jet Fuel out of Kerosene. Jet fuel is actually refined kerosene. It doesn’t truly burn hot or it would melt an engine. In an open fire, it will burn at about 500-700 degrees *F.
    Since the melting point of iron is 1537*C or 2,798.6*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires.
    Melting point of Stainless Steel is 1510*C — 2750*F
    Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, the temperatures at which jet fuel burns would range between 800 degrees Fahrenheit to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, and the higher temperature would involve forced oxygen ‘foundry-like’ conditions.
    Furthermore even NIST admitted that the vast majority of the jet fuel blew out of the building on impact and burnt out within seconds.

    1. The world is full of morons, all the thumbs up this arrogant idiot got proves that much.
      How much longer you think the world’s got when the morons outnumber intelligent people by 3,000 to 1?
      Not long! “Ye reap what ye sow”…

        1. Thanks for the link Sock…
          Nothing is going to change the fact that the vast majority of Amerikans are simply fucking morons.
          Plus the fact that this asshole was promoted widely by the mainstream press. Another darling of the insidious Public Relations Regime.
          WERPH AUCHT

    2. Such a dumb a video.
      a) He introduces a torque on the bar. There was no torque introduced on the WTC beams. He needs to measure compressive force for this demonstration to have any merit.
      b) He is using a bar. A beam with a square cross-section would be able to resist lateral forces much, much more that a thin solid bar.
      c) By his own admission, he used steel that was ~300°F hotter than the temperature in which jet-fuel burns.
      d) He fails to take into consideration the higher thermal conductivity of a 1,300 foot steel beam compared to a 3 foot steel rod.

  7. Even if the official story was true, most of the jet fuel would have burned up within the first few minutes of impact. All four sides and all 4 facades had to be weakened at the same time for the symmetrical collapse to occur. That’s absurdly impossible.
    But if by some miracle it did, which it didn’t, it still wouldn’t cause the 70 something untouched floors below to collapse into pulverized dust in 10 seconds. That’s fucking retarded.
    Even if 2 or 3 sides burned, which is still impossible, the top would lean then fall over, not pancake. A symmetrical collapse caused by fire is as stupid as the morons who believe it.
    But for the sake of argument, let’s just say that dumb shit was true.
    Building 7 symmetrically collapsed. It wasn’t hit by plane. It had no jet fuel fires. Super stupids say it was hit with rubble. Really? It was hit with rubble that didn’t cause major damage on impact? The building waited like words in a Chinese kung fu flick, then collapsed?
    Ok. Let’s give the idiots that too. Only 2 questions now. The only 2 questions that matter but no one ever tries to explain.
    1. How did the 2 planes with jet fuel, melt thousands of cars within a 10 block radius?
    2. Why did the site burn for over 3 months?
    Jet fuel doesn’t do that. It can’t do that! It wouldn’t do that and it didn’t do that! So what did?
    The pentagon was hit by a plane (but it wasn’t). It had jet fuel, right?. It didn’t turn into pulverized dust! Cars weren’t melted! It didn’t burn for months!

    1. Nobody even tries anymore to explain the über-retarded official theory (UROT). The best that they can do now is to instill doubt by using mini-nuke¹ and DEW² innuendo. The history books that include the ÜROT will continue to create a schism in the minds of aspiring physicists and chemists for decades to come, similar to the lone-gunman theory (LGT) of the JFK assassination. The LGT apologists explain away the obvious physics of the fatal shot by postulating a “jet effect” or a “neuromuscular contraction”. This is similar to NIST’s pathetic progressive collapse theory in the way that it bends the laws of nature to suit a political agenda. I knew that JFK was shot from the front ever since I saw the Zapruder film in High School, and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. ¹ see James Fetzer ² See Judy Wood ² See Roger Gloux

  8. Travis — “Nobody even tries anymore to explain the über-retarded official theory (UROT).”
    Love that acronym, “UROT.” My only quibble would be to suggest “Ü-ROT” as capturing more of the “flavor,” so to speak, of this particular tendril of the disinfo pod-person invasion.
    “The best that they can do now is to instill doubt by using mini-nuke¹ and DEW² innuendo.”
    Ya really think that’s the best they’ve got? If so, they need to put Cass Sunstein on the case. (End snark)
    More seriously, I’ve not yet read enough on this site to have a sense whether detailed comments on the “mini-nuke” /DEW speculations (“hypotheses” is much too generous a term IMO) is warranted or worth my or anybody else’s time. It’s probably enough here to say that neither approach passes the “scratch-and-sniff” test in terms of incorporating what’s known about the way things behave (i.e. “physics”) and what actually happened (as attested by photographic and eye-witness evidence, supplemented by detailed, rational analysis).
    iz1 — “Only 2 questions now. The only 2 questions that matter but no one ever tries to explain.
    1. How did the 2 planes with jet fuel, melt thousands of cars within a 10 block radius?
    2. Why did the site burn for over 3 months? ”
    I wouldn’t agree that these are the “only two questions that matter,” but I do agree that they are important and that they have not, to the best of my knowledge, been comprehensively addressed. Indulge me while I chip a little at this block:
    First, “… 2 planes with jet fuel …” obviously did NOT “… melt thousands of cars within a 10 block radius.”
    The pictures I’ve seen certainly show strong evidence of a lot of heating — widespread but very non-uniform heating. My current best guess, based on some of the many photos and video sequences out there, is that the “pyroclastic flows” from the tower collapses (especially WTC 1 & 2) were the primary agents involved, supplemented in some cases by incandescent “shrapnel” — such as the molten iron we’ve all seen pouring out of the towers — ejected from the exploding (yes, “exploding”) buildings.
    The non-uniformity of the heating is an important clue for me because, as a former volunteer fire-fighter and a long-time resident of the “urban-wildland interface” I’ve seen some exceedingly “freaky” improbable behavior in fires, especially those driven by high winds. As an example, a few years ago we experienced a wildfire, driven by gusty, near-hurricane-force winds, with flame-fronts as much as a hundred feet high. In one place, it came through a meadow so fast, it left some of the grass unburnt! How was this possible? Damfino, but I saw the results myself — no hearsay for me. In the same area, one can to this day see evergreen trees where the top was burnt out completely while leaving the lower branches green, and vice-versa; in a couple of cases it was one SIDE of the tree gone, the other OK. Go figure.
    So, what’s the relevance? Just this; pyroclastic flows are by their nature quite turbulent. In the case of volcanoes and those demolished buildings they are/were also quite (but unevenly) hot. Given the superabundance of energy available in the WTC destructions, and the testimony of some of the survivors as to the heat they experienced, it seems reasonable to suppose that for short periods in some places those clouds were hot enough for long enough to ignite combustibles in the area. But not necessarily ALL combustibles (like that meadow grass I mentioned). Localized turbulence, confined and arguably concentrated by building fronts, may plausibly have resulted in “puffs” strong enough even to move vehicles or hurl fairly massive items into them, possibly accompanied by near-incandescent temperatures.
    In short, I’m suggesting that until the possibilities I’ve gestured to here have been shown not to cover the observations, or to be contrary to them, it’s inappropriate to invoke exotic technologies the operation of which involves processes lying outside the currently known laws of physics, or at least the currently known reach of technology.
    Second, “Why did the site burn for over 3 months?” This, for me, is much the more challenging question. Inquirers have noted, correctly, that the fires persisted despite the occurrence of rain and the more or less continuous application of water, supplemented by fire-suppression additives. That persistence, by itself, would constitute no great mystery once we grant the presence of thermitic (not necessarily “nano-thermite”) materials in the debris because such materials do not need access to atmospheric oxygen — they embody their own oxygen supply and will burn quite happily underwater or in a sealed container. And their reactions are strongly exothermic, that is they not only produce a lot of heat per unit of reacting mass, but they do so at very high temperatures — hot enough to melt iron and steel as well as some of the so-called refractory metals.
    So it’s not the existence of those fires deep under all that debris that’s puzzling. Rather, as your question correctly implies, it’s the DURATION issue. It clearly took quite a bit of energy to maintain multi-ton masses of metal at incandescent temperatures for periods of weeks to months. This remains true even if we grant the possibility that not all of this material was at these temperatures for the whole time. That is, if we assume that the thermitic reactions were progressive rather than simultaneous. Either way, it means a LOT of thermitic material was required. Precisely how much is dependent upon the actual energy balances prevailing at the times and places involved. Put another way, we’d need to know how much water was being boiled away, how much material of what kinds was being heated to what temperatures, etc. etc.
    This of course begs the question, “If it was thermitics, why were they present in such abundance, clearly greatly in excess of that required merely to accomplish the buildings’ demolition?” (Please note here that I specifically set aside the “nukes” speculation, for fundamental technical reasons beyond the reach of this post, but which I’ll be glad to present separately if anybody is interested.)
    Here I’m going to indulge in some out-and-out speculation of my own: That there was something, a very large something, deep in the “bathtub” that our dear perps really, really, really didn’t want found; something difficult enough and important enough to eradicate that it was worth the effort and attendant risk to destroy. Perhaps it was as simple as concealing the demolition work that had to be done at the base of those 47 core columns to get them to fail simultaneously with the destruction, far above, of the hat trusses atop the two towers.
    Perhaps it was something quite, quite different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *