@ zog:
Du hast vergessen zu belegen, dass der angeblich geschmolzene Stahl, für den es immer noch keine Belege gibt, während des Zusammenbruchs und als Ursache desselben entstanden ist und nciht etwa erst später durch den Hochofen-Trümmerberg oder die Sauerstoff-Oxidations-Schneidbrenner, die während der Aufräumarbeiten benutzt worden sind.
Die ZEIT wann wo wie etwas entstanden ist lässt du immer außer Acht.Irrtum.
Ich verweise an dieser Stelle auf:
[/i]
In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.[9] After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:
“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.” [my emphasis] [10]
The NIST never clarifies what the “certain circumstances” might be that produced molten steel after the collapse. Its statement about “long exposure to combustion” is absurd on its face, given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage remotely capable of melting steel. In fact, the NIST’s above statement is an affront to our intelligence, since the hot spots identified by the US Geological Survey immediately after 9/11 and the molten pools were surely one and the same.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt steel in the basement of both towers. But such a deduction is too simple, evidently, or too provocative for the NIST, which made a decision not to go there.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm (Archiv-Version vom 05.07.2008)[/i]
Und:
Very high temperatures occurred in the burning floors of the buildings prior to collapse and during the first few days of active surface fires, as shown by the melting of metals.
Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse
Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001
Thomas A. Cahill.
