taxen skrev:
Är det inte dubbelmoral att först prata om öppna sinnen för att senare kalla någon troll eftersom han inte tror samma sak som du?

As Lisa Giuliani put it:

The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by:

- Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
- Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
- and the American Free Press newspaper
....
So we have three sources? Maybe not. Let's go back to a more complete telling of the story.
...
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.
....
Okay, so we have two sources here, Tully and Loizeaux, who were then reported in the third (American Free Press). Or do we? Note that Tully is the one claiming he saw the steel, and the article then says he called Loizeaux. So it Loizeaux simply repeating what he's heard from Tully? That would make sense, and it appears to be confirmed by this claimed email from Loizeaux:
...
Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with.
....
If accurate, the source has now moved from Loizeaux back to contractors, but there’s no information here on how the substance was identified as “molten steel”, or who might have performed the analysis to figure it out.
...
There’s another complication in terms of the WTC debris temperatures, according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.
...
Other accounts suggest the temperatures needn’t have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.
...
"In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

Now maybe it’s just us, but we have some problems with that.

First, there’s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.

Second, whatever’s glowing red here clearly isn’t isn’t “molten” in the sense of “melted”.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don’t know what that is.

Third, there seems an odd lack of conduction amongst the materials being picked up. We can see that the excavator has picked up a considerable amount of nearby material that presumably was very close to the same heat source, and it looks like glowing metal, but it’s completely black. There’s no orange -- bright red -- dull red transition across the materials, it’s just a straight orange to black. Steel isn’t a good conductor of heat, it’s true, but is that enough to explain the photo?

And fourth, we know there were underground fires at the site for some time. How hot could they get? Depends on the materials and the supply of oxygen, but in some cases the temperatures can be surprisingly high:

...

To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. Not least the idea that explosives are responsible. How much thermite would you need to burn for weeks, for instance? As the conspirators would presumably only want enough to burn for, let's be generous, 30 minutes, wouldn't extending this to a week mean using 168 times as much? If you want to believe that then fair enough, but it makes no sense to us.