JFK Assassination Forum

Hey hold on cowboy, aren't you jumping the gun and coming to an unprovable self serving conclusion?

• You haven't provided any visual proof of liquefied steel girders?
• You haven't even proven that any potential molten metal was from the steel girders?
• There is a massive photo record of the steel girders of the WTC towers, yet there is no proof of any being even partially liquefied?
• You haven't indicated where the extra energy to keep molten steel girders flowing for weeks came from?
• As 9/11 truthers constantly and rightfully remind us that jet fuel or office fires isn't enough to melt steel, sure it will weaken but not melt, but when it comes to weeks of liquified steel caused by some impossible energy source you guys have no problem making unscientific accusations! You truthers are unbelievable and the worst types of hypocrites!
• Thermite burns and consumes it's total volume withing minutes, so that isn't going to keep molten steel flowing weeks after the event.
• a possibility is there was over 45 tonnes of aluminium contained in each plane and the melting point of aluminium is low enough to be in a liquid state in the intense conditions of the rubble. Also worth considering is that a small amount of the plane passed through the building and counting what was ejected at least 40 tonnes must have remained, and also of importance is that the plane wasn't pure aluminium but an alloy which would slightly impact the melting point.



Out of the tons and tons and tons of recovered steel girders, there is no reported evidence or visual indication of any signs of partial melting.







JohnM

Good presentation JohnM. No sign that I can see of liquified pools of steel which cooled and thus should have remained in their remolded state after cooling. All I see is a lot indications of steel girders and steel truss deformations that indicate the steel members  may have lost 50% of their original load bearing strength which is entirely possible if the temperatures had reached 1000 degrees Fahrenheit ( according to Bing AI) .

So the ? Is if  lots of the members simultaneously start to lose up to 50% of their original load bearing capacity in the volume of the building where the plane filled with 23k gallons of jet fuel (HUGE BOMB) exploded , could that part of the structure  collapse so suddenly and symmetrically that the upper undamaged portion of the building would collapse straight down?

If it can, then how probable that the subsequent impact of the total mass of the upper 1/4th of building dropping at the rate of gravitational acceleration would cause the crushing failure of the inner core incrementally floor by floor and peel away the outer perimeter skin without much resistance?

It’s up to Dr. N to counter JohnM. argument by posting some photos of some steel elements which after collecting on the ground , cooled and remained in a remolded form indicative of having been previously in a liquified state.

Also what measurement analysis of the building collapse proves beyond reasonable doubt that the buildings fell uniformly at the rate of free fall? JohnM posted sources seem to indicate that  the rate of descent was slightly less than free fall (gravitational ) acceleration.

If what Pena said is true, wouldn't that mean Shaw lied the Garrison trial regarding knowing Ferrie?

What if he did?

Even if what Pena said is true, it is not evidence that either was involved in the assassination. Not at all. It's a big SO WHAT.

If what Pena said is true, wouldn't that mean Shaw lied the Garrison trial regarding knowing Ferrie?

Pay careful attention, Anti-Truthers.   Listen and learn.

This will be my final post here.

The mainstream U.S. media and internet have been inundated with pseudo-scientific falsehoods about 9/11 for 25 years.

Here's the incontrovertible evidence of liquefied steel at Ground Zero.   

The Twin Towers were not demolished by Magic Jet Fuel. 

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to liquefy steel.

Nor could it explosively pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, furniture, and human bodies into pyroclastic ash flows.

Biggest discovery of 2026 so far?

Gerry, no, it's isn't. Like Fred said earlier, the HSCA found that Pena was not a reliable witness. See page 193 of the HSCA final report. Why are you opting not to believe them?