As a physics major, I take a scientific approach, not a faith-based approach. The problem, of course, is that I have to approach the problem based on “evidence” from secondary sources.
But consider this “fact sheet” from the National Institute of Standards:
“7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
“However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.”
Is it not obvious from this source (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) that (1) the existence of molten steel is not disputed and (2) no attempt whatsover is offered to explain how it got there, and indeed, NIST agrees that it didn’t come from the fires? The physics professor who publicly offered a plausible hypothesis for this (thermite) was then forced out of BYU.
There are many other anomalies. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown publicly blurted out that he was advised not to fly that day; enterprising SF Chronicle reporters attempted to track down the source of the warning and got nowhere. On Youtube, one can hear Guiliani saying, on 9/11/01, that he received a warning that the Twin Towers were going to come down before they did; it is a VCR recording of him speaking, over the phone, to Peter Jennings (if I recall correctly). There seems to be no dispute that workers attempting to remove gold below the site found that someone else had gotten there first, perhaps abandoning the effort before completion, yet the site was very highly guarded. On Youtube, you can see several people who purport to be workers at WTC testifying to explosions in the basement before the Towers came down.
There are many, many anomalies that any competent investigation would address, yet none do. If one bothers to take the considerable amount of time it takes to learn the details, the overall impression becomes more and more disturbing. It is only the ignorant that regard the 9/11 Commission report as providing any degree of closure on the subject.
Of course, there are many “truthers” who are credulous idiots, and their idiotic theories tend to cast discredit upon those who raise legitimate questions.
One does not have to be a Left-wing Bush-hating fanatic to raise these questions. It is possible that a good President, upon discovering that criminal elements associated with intelligence agencies knew in advance about a terrorist plan to strike the Towers and profited by it would decide that it was better to punish the perpetrators privately. I would disagree with that determination, and see no evidence that any such punishments occurred, but my approach is merely to note the anomalies, and believe further investigation is warranted.
For your reading pleasure. I hope this clears up some questions for you. The answers to all your questions about 9/11 are out there, you just need to research them.
RE: Molten Steel
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
RE: Thermite
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
RE: Stephen Jones
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
If you have time to watch the video here it will give you some information surrounding some of the myths of 9/11.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
And their forum site is packed with lots of myth debunking truth and if you don’t see the answer to your question you can just ask and someone will direct you to it I’m sure.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showforum=1
A physics major eh?
Do you have any sort of background or (even a basic understanding for that matter) in structural engineering? Based on what you said it is clear that you don’t.
You mentioned something about molten steel. Was it structural steel or was it from from non-structural steel such as filing cabinets, chairs, and cubicle frames? There are a lot of items found in offices that are made from steel or steel alloys.
You know there is a reason why firefighters have the following saying: “No Trust in Truss”. What they refer to is the truss frame construction similar to that found in the WTC.
I don’t even have a degree in engineering but I know enough to understand that there is no way those towers could have remained standing for the following reasons:
1.) Damage to the outer and inner support structure of the impact floors resulting in greater loads transferred to intact support structure.
2.) Uncontrolled fires causing a weakening of remaining support structure to include the critical attachment points for the truss/slab floor structure. The steel may have been rated to 2000 degrees for six hours but that was with adequate and intact fire proofing.
3.) Failure of the above mentioned truss/slab attachments causing collapse of one or more sections of a floor onto the one below it which in turn has to support a greater weight than it was designed to do.
4.) Second tower hit, first to collapse was due to all of the above as well as a much lower impact point resulting in a much greater load placed upon the remaining support structure in the impact area.
5.) The impacts severed the water mains and (where installed) sprinkler systems. Even if every floor had a working sprinkler systen such a system was designed to combat localized fires (few hundred square feet) on a given floor and not an entire 40,000 square foot floor. Sprinklers would have been ineffectual against the fires due to the aviation fuel.