Why was there molten steel at ground Zero?

Question

People say that the jet fuel was hot enough to buckle the steel (not actually melt it) which caused the WTC 1 2 to collapse. I believe the towers were brought down by explosives because why else would there be molten steel at ground zero when jet fuel does not burn hot enough to create molten steel?

Both towers fell the exact same speed and the exact same way dispite the fact one tower was hit higher up than the other and created a completely different entrance from the other. How is that possible without controlled demoiltion? WTC 7 was obviously controlled demolition because IT collapsed from the ground floor first despite the fact the fires were on the floors above it. We were then told that WTC 7 WAS infact brought down by controlled demolition for safety reasons even though it had been burning for only a few hours. Most demolitions take up to 3 weeks preporation, so how can this building take just hours to prepare? I'm not saying WTC 7 collapsed from fire, i'm saying, WTC 7 collapsed from controleld demoliton that had been planted in the buildings weeks before 9/11

These 3 towers remain the only steel towers in history to collapse from burning fires (the fact that WTC 7 wasnt even hit by a plane yet collapsed amazes me when most people are saying that it was NOT controlled demolition).

Answer 1

Bringing up conspiracy therories does not enhance your standing in this forum.

Answer 2

Exactly, but I don't think they'll ever admit it.

Answer 3

your a despicable person. you are the lowest of the low.

ok for one, where the h**l did you hear that there was molten steel at ground 0. secondly, obviously they fell straight down and fast. how the h**l else is a building that got hit by a jet going to fall? thirdly. TOWER 7 WAS NEXT TO THE LARGEST BUILDING IN THE WORLD WHICH COLLAPSED! how the h**l do you not expect falling debris to weaken it.

and fourth, your a horrible person. people like you make me sick. why dont you go beat up an old lady and steal a homeless mans cans you sick piece of ****. rot in h**l.

Answer 4

As a member of the Fire Dept who KNEW members down at the WTC....NO there was no molten steel....NONE..OK?

Answer 5

The fires in the WTC were not hot enough to buckle the steel, but certainly hot enough to weaken it.  Add to that the extreme damage caused by the airplane impacts and the massive amount of weight being supported by fatally damaged structure and you have more than enough to bring down the buildings.

The towers fell in the same way because they were so massive.  To quote an engineering study: "A 500,000 ton building has so much inertia that it can only fall one way - straight down."

WTC 7 had large tanks of diesel fuel (used for generator-powered backup of phone systems) that caught fire and was allowed to burn uncontrolled for hours upon hours.  Firemen and policemen saw the building elements sagging and leaning long before it collapsed.  

All 3 buildings were had large fuel loads (jet fuel in WTC 1&2, diesel in WTC 7) and all had damage from the plane impacts (WTC 7 was damaged when the north tower collapsed).  If, on that day, we had fire without impact, or impact without fire, those buildings would still be standing today.      

Answer 6

First of all I'm going to guess that you are not an engineer, because if you had ever taken a static structure class before you might understand how a structure as large as the WTC would collapse.

It is true that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel however you have to consider that the jet fuel was contained within the building which effectively acted like an furnace that held the heat in. Plus there were other things burning inside the building like paper, carpet, furniture, ceiling tiles, etc.  All of which will increase the temperature of the steel.  Also if you have ever bent a metal object like a screwdriver (bend some metal a few times very quickly and you will notice that it gets very hot) you will see that that also increases the temperature.  With all of these factors it is extremely probable that some of the steel would melt.

Had you taken statics or a physics class it would be apparent to you that the buildings would fall at the same speed.  If you remember an experiment that Galileo did, regardless of the weight of an object they will fall at the same speed.  Because of the incredible momentum of the falling building the floors below would not slow the decent by any noticeable amount.

Also, it does not matter where the buildings were hit because they are still going to fall the same way.  Again momentum and inertia make sure of this.

Another thing, demolition experts usually have years and years of experience.  You give them the blueprints to a building and they now how they are going to blow it up within the first half an hour of looking at the drawings.  When time is of the essence in an emergency such as 911 it is very easy to set up and demolish a building within a few hours.

It is true that these are the first buildings to ever collapse from a fire, however they are also the first towers that have had a 747 crash right into the side of them.  Also there have never been buildings that have been doused in jet fuel and then burned.

Also we are talking about the American Government they have more resources than you could ever believe. I'm sure if they wanted to blow up the WTC they would be able to fool a bunch of pseudo-scientists like yourself.  

Do yourself a favor and shut up, especially when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Answer 7

You're an idiot.

Answer 8

There wasn't molten steel, there was WEAKENED steel.

There is no conspiracy theory, and your thinking harms all those who lost loved ones, and only strengthens the terrorists who hate us enough to kill us.

You don't need "molten" steel to bring down a building, you only need a weakened structure.  Heat and impact WILL weaken joints.

Answer 9

And your point is? Keep your conspiracy to yourself.