3 ms·

The best part of this is that even if one believes jet fuel burning for many hours led to the collapse of at least one of the buildings (I don't buy this argume

The best part of this is that even if one believes jet fuel burning for many hours led to the collapse of at least one of the buildings (I don't buy this argument), in the basements of the collapsed towers where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen deprived environment, cannot be explained by combustion. On the other hand, thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered, and may ignite in any environment given sufficient initial heat. It burns well while wet, and cannot be easily extinguished with water—though enough water to remove sufficient heat may stop the reaction.

jl6 5y ago
Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspiracy machinery that controlled demolition implies. The jet fuel would have burned for ten minutes and then been exhausted. The consequent fire it started is what burned for hours.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  I don't know if ground zero at WTC7 burned for months, but ground zero below the twin towers definitely did. The claim being hours vs the claim being months is obviously significant.
  - rurban 5y ago
    It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      > It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense It really isn't clear what this means / You're saying this relates to a nuclear weapon somehow?
      - rurban 5y ago
        A simple nuclear destruction device, demanded by the city construction policies. As in Chicago with the Sears Tower. Architects could tell you lots of stuff

jl6 5y ago

Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspiracy machinery that controlled demolition implies. The jet fuel would have burned for ten minutes and then been exhausted. The consequent fire it started is what burned for hours.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
I don't know if ground zero at WTC7 burned for months, but ground zero below the twin towers definitely did. The claim being hours vs the claim being months is obviously significant.
- rurban 5y ago
  It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    > It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense It really isn't clear what this means / You're saying this relates to a nuclear weapon somehow?
    - rurban 5y ago
      A simple nuclear destruction device, demanded by the city construction policies. As in Chicago with the Sears Tower. Architects could tell you lots of stuff