NIST have mentioned molten metal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o nist mentions molten steel........ www.911summary.com

briliant! a link to you tube and a conspiracy site! I guess in your mind that is a slam dunk argument?

Brilliant! a great reminder of why I try to stay away. I would say the two links are fairly high on the basket ball analogy list, yes. You say that nist mentions about molten steel and, from the position you have taken on the debate clearly implies that nist have adequately addressed the issue? Well the video shows otherwise doesn't it? For clarity, the video is of a man called John Gross from the Nist - this is him... John L. Gross -Position -Leader Structural Systems and Design Group Structures Division Task Structural Fire Response and Collapse Education Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering, B.S., 1969; M.E., 1970; Ph.D., 1980 He apparently doesn't know about the molten steel.... The other web link is to show that the 'truth movement' are still gaining in numbers and strength. 911 summary website - a referenced list of the 9/11 Commissioners, Congress, Intelligence agents, Scientists, Structural Engineers and Architects etc who are all seriously questioning what happened on September 11th 2001.

I must be missing you point? You have a video of a bloke who doesnt know about molten steel - so what? That is a stretch to NIST not addressing it becausing they have. As for your expanding list of "truthers" I note with satisfaction that there are a tiny number of structural engineers on the list.

My point is that the 'bloke' is one of the thirteen 'experts' appointed to head up investigation the collapses!

Stupidly I went ahead and looked at that video. For anyone else who might be tempted, it is heavily cut, with propaganda inserted to cover, in order to suit the purposes of the "truthers".

Is there any precedent of molten steel in controled demolition or collapse from fire?

Thank you, Mr Codd; precedent in almost all respects is absent here. Perhaps this is why so many people have a difficulty in accepting what to most Engineers is within the bounds of normality, and prefer fantasy. The particular set of circumstances is unique, and therefore outside anyone's experience. To answer your first question I have spoken to Mr Robertson who comes over as disarmingly honest and charming, and extremely courteous. I can't remember what he said to me about the molten metal issue but as I recall he wasn't too certain what it was he had seen. Certainly the energy conversion from potential energy to kinetic energy was phenominally fast (the output of several power stations in fact), and most of the energy released would have been in the form of heat. Since this couldn't dissipate in time the buried debris would have trapped a good proportion. Also, combustion in a sealed pit suggests to most of us that the heat would have been fed for a fairly long time. Whether or not the metal was steel has not been proved, though many claims have been made. There were many metals in the cocktail so perhaps there was some molten metal. It didn't look like steel to me, more like aluminium; I made an aluminium casting once. And as I recall that all the window frames were aluminium, were they not? After the extended debate already held in this Forum I believe that it is safe to say that only two members of IStructE have put their names to the opinion that there is anything of sinister import in such reports.