Derail from PD: rehash on 911 conspiracy.

[empty]

My child? Wow!

New evidence is available now? Oh goody. Like what? That the building fell down twice the speed of free fall?

act like a child and ye shall be treated like a child. you obviously arent interested in having a real debate since you have to rely on strawman arguments; you may as well stop now

The thermite would stop working at some point. Once it cuts, it cuts. It doesn't have the ability to stay hot for weeks.

thermite and the steel it melted in an insulated envirnoment would stay hot for weeks, and even months as was the case as documented by many sources

Molten metal means nothing. Aluminum is a metal. Has a relatively low melting point. Molten steel would be interesting. No evidence of that. And this ignores the conspiracy problem of explaining why there was molten steel in the first place. What was keeping it molten, heck, what made it molten in the first place?

didnt i tell you to try harder?
here, this should help. How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero

Actually the fire engineers are upset because they feel the building wasn't fireproofed enough. If you actually read their objections in context, you'd know that.

Building fire expert and editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning wrote, “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation…I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence. To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance… The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/home/350-evidence-destroyed-is-justice-denied.html

The collapses of all three towers were different modes of failure, yet you claim that they were all staged.

different modes ov failure, whether true or not, does not mean they werent all staged

Are you claiming that all three building failed in the same manner? You'd have to be rather unschooled in physics and engineering to even think for a second that it'd be possible for WTC 7 to collapse in any method similar to a completely different design such as WTC 1 and 2.

you cant point to where i said all three modes were the same, i was merely qualifying my statement for universality
no the three modes were not all the same

The fact that WTC 1 and 2 failed differently implies that staging of the collapses would have been different. That would seem nonsensical for a conspiracy.

no it would make more sense for a conspiracy since they were attempting to make their destruction look natural. if they were identical, that would give it away

All of them? The guys that design all of these skyscrapers? All of them in on the conspiracy? Hundreds of thousands of them?

not all ov those who designed the towers agree it wasnt a demolition, such as richard humenn, who was the chief electrical designer
based on the current power structure ov the world, with rich 'elites' controlling mass media, you only need a few vetted yes men, some ov whom probably did help design the tower, and the rest are occupied with making ends meet or have no knowledge ov historical and current event examples ov false flags or other illegitimate uses ov power

That'd be none of them. There is not a single structural engineer among any of these Truther movements. Not one. That is pretty damning.

kamal obeid, s.e., structural engineer
steven dusterwald, p.e., structural engineer
casey phieffer s.e., structural engineer
david topete s.e., structural engineer
ronald brookman, s.e., structural engineer

There are no civil engineers that support the Truther movement. In fact, there are few people with science degrees that support it.

both ov these statements are entirely false

If they were, you'd have offered evidence to the contrary.

low hanging fruit is why

civil engineers
william rice p.e., civil engineer
ronald angle p.e., civil engineer
kevin connors p.e., civil engineer
rob belles m.s., civil engineer
nelson johnson m.a., civil engineer

science degrees
steven jones, ph.d physics
david chandler, m.s. math b.s. physics
robert podolsky m.s. physics
jeffery farrer ph.d m.s. physics
jason cheshire b.s. chem.e.

i could put more, but i dont want to waste too much ov my time on you

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't understand what the report was actually saying--it's got a bit of shock melting, it's not melted. You're looking at a piece of steel that was in the collapse, why is it being mangled a surprise?

youre really grasping at straws. intrgranular doesnt mean what youre trying to twist it into; it merely means between the individual grains ov metal
at no point does fema use the words shock or impact, but they do use the terms unusual high-temperatures

The point is if they specify "intragranular" melting that means that the rest of it didn't melt. That's something that happens from force, not temperature. I do agree they didn't say shock, I'm explaining how such melting happens.

did you even read the report? it being so mangled and corroded is a surprise; if you were being intellectually honest you would know that. fema has no explanation for the high temperatures which caused the corrosion and melting, nor do they for the presence ov sulfur---both ov which can be explained by thermate---which is also corroborated by the numerous other pieces ov evidence for thermitic material found

I'm saying "mangled" is no surprise. The corrosion is unusual but how many chemicals are in that building??? Sure, thermate contains sulfur--but so does an awful lot of other stuff.

And you can look at molten metal and automatically figure out what metal it is??

if you know what you are looking for, yes

If you have a spectroscope.

What part of the word "daylight" did you not understand? Your picture is indoors!

in daylight ambiance, but heres another put the issue to rest

Look at the very top of the picture, mostly on the right. A patch of sky and it's not burned off the film. That spells heavy overcast.

steven jones paper proving molten iron

This guy has no credibility.

ov course to you the person who has actually done experiments and published the results has less credibility than a website full ov "i assume" statements and has done no experiments
nist even asserted the reason the 'molten aluminum' is orange and not silver is because it was mixed with office materials, so your assertion that it is simply molten aluminum shows your ignorance. nist has no credibility on this issue, they merely asserted it was molten aluminum, while jones actually did the experiment and published his findings proving its not molten aluminum

He's failed to recognize obvious crap.

And what I pointed out is that aluminum oxide is orange at temperatures it would be liquid. Aluminum oxides rapidly in air, the only reason we can even make things out of aluminum is that unlike rust (iron oxide) the oxide layer protects what's underneath and stops the reaction. (If you have something that keeps this protective layer from forming the air will eat the whole object. One of the things you aren't allowed to take an airplane is because of this.)

ive torn that website a new asshole more than a few times and im perfectly happy to do so again for you loren
again, that website merely asserts and assumes and has done no experiments to prove their theories, but steven jones did. even giving nist the benefit ov the doubt in saying the molten aluminum is orange because ov organics, the metal still does not appear orange, nor does it oxidize in the atmosphere

Look again. That text is actually a quote from a metallurgist.

But why should we figure this wasn't done by a welding torch in the hands of an ironworker building the building?

they were from different locations
see what i mean about you not doing any research?

And I'm going to believe some bible-thumper about the pieces not being that way originally??

Pinpoints as in timestamps.

you have to give me something to pinpoint to based on the general headings

You're the one making claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

thermite and the steel it melted in an insulated envirnoment would stay hot for weeks, and even months as was the case as documented by many sources

1) The energy of any charge that might have been used is miniscule compared to the energy of the collapse itself. Residual heat is from the collapse.

2) NASA might be able to build a container that could hold molten metal for weeks. It's not just going to happen in the collapse, though. I have dealt with molten metal before--and never have I not been able to handle it bare-handed in 15 minutes. Of course the bigger the chunk of metal the slower it will cool but when it's that hot it cools very fast unless it's in an extremely good insulator. Even those extremely good insulators on the outside of the shuttle that were often demoed by heating one with a torch and then picking it up can only protect the shuttle for a little while. Once the shuttle landed it had to be cooled with major air conditioners or all the electronics would fry.

didnt i tell you to try harder?
here, this should help. How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero

Which says nothing about how to debunk thermite. Science 101--theories must be falsifiable.

Actually the fire engineers are upset because they feel the building wasn't fireproofed enough. If you actually read their objections in context, you'd know that.

Building fire expert and editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning wrote, “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation…I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence. To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance… The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/home/350-evidence-destroyed-is-justice-denied.html

Can you show:

1) That this guy isn't a truther.

2) That he actually said what is attributed to him. I've caught made-up quotes on a truther site before.

 

[empty]

At best this means the carrier you added is more energetic than the thermite itself. The problem with this is that the combustion products are gaseous and carry the heat away. The thing with thermite is that the combustion products don't just carry the heat off. Thus even if it has more energy it won't be as hot.

[citation needed]
but irrelevant, as its more than hot enough to melt steel, as documented in South Tower Smoking Guns, South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up), Rockets at the World Trade Center, High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11, and this interview with Niels Harrit at 3:36-4:33, and this harrit presentation at 45:40-51:40

2) And how in the world do you detect residue of it? Within 10' of me I can find every component of thermite in quantities vastly above what a lab can detect. Saying they detected thermite residue is like saying they found traces of water in a garden.

what is this, elementary school? Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
thermite also produces specific byproducts such as iron microspheres ov particular properties

And what's so unique about the byproducts?

Do you even know what the combustion products of thermite are?

they dont occur in normal office fires, nor can you find them 'around your garden'
but once again youre missing the point. they also found unreacted thermitic material, so its not even a question ov just byproducts

That's a 15 minute video. Where should I be looking?

thermite cutting a vertical column at 9:22

You're still assuming that's steel instead of aluminum.

ive already answered this

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

act like a child and ye shall be treated like a child.

Interesting. You think being skeptical is being childish.

you obviously arent interested in having a real debate since you have to rely on strawman arguments; you may as well stop now

I'm actually tired of these threads. People like you keep trying to trot out the same debunked garbage.

The thermite would stop working at some point. Once it cuts, it cuts. It doesn't have the ability to stay hot for weeks.

thermite and the steel it melted in an insulated envirnoment would stay hot for weeks, and even months as was the case as documented by many sources

There is a difference between "hot" and "molten".

Molten metal means nothing. Aluminum is a metal. Has a relatively low melting point. Molten steel would be interesting. No evidence of that. And this ignores the conspiracy problem of explaining why there was molten steel in the first place. What was keeping it molten, heck, what made it molten in the first place?

didnt i tell you to try harder?
here, this should help. How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero

They found iron spheres... where a steel building collapsed? That is the evidence for thermite?

Actually the fire engineers are upset because they feel the building wasn't fireproofed enough. If you actually read their objections in context, you'd know that.

Building fire expert and editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning wrote, “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation…I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence. To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance… The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/home/350-evidence-destroyed-is-justice-denied.html

Your quote does not conflict with my statement that the organization felt the towers weren't properly fire proofed.

The collapses of all three towers were different modes of failure, yet you claim that they were all staged.

different modes ov failure, whether true or not, does not mean they werent all staged

Are you claiming that all three building failed in the same manner? You'd have to be rather unschooled in physics and engineering to even think for a second that it'd be possible for WTC 7 to collapse in any method similar to a completely different design such as WTC 1 and 2.

you cant point to where i said all three modes were the same, i was merely qualifying my statement for universality

It was your passive-aggressive response where you said "whether true or not".

no the three modes were not all the same

There you go. So we have three controlled demolitions that used three different modes of failure. Kudos to the conspirators for pulling that off!

The fact that WTC 1 and 2 failed differently implies that staging of the collapses would have been different. That would seem nonsensical for a conspiracy.

no it would make more sense for a conspiracy since they were attempting to make their destruction look natural. if they were identical, that would give it away

2004: See! They all failed the same way, that means it is a conspiracy!
2014: See! Because they all failed in different ways, that means it is a conspiracy!

All of them? The guys that design all of these skyscrapers? All of them in on the conspiracy? Hundreds of thousands of them?

not all ov those who designed the towers agree it wasnt a demolition, such as richard humenn, who was the chief electrical designer

Alright, so virtually all of the structural engineers don't agree.

That'd be none of them. There is not a single structural engineer among any of these Truther movements. Not one. That is pretty damning.

kamal obeid, s.e., structural engineer
steven dusterwald, p.e., structural engineer
casey phieffer s.e., structural engineer
david topete s.e., structural engineer
ronald brookman, s.e., structural engineer

There are no civil engineers that support the Truther movement. In fact, there are few people with science degrees that support it.

both ov these statements are entirely false

If they were, you'd have offered evidence to the contrary.

low hanging fruit is why

civil engineers
william rice p.e., civil engineer
ronald angle p.e., civil engineer
kevin connors p.e., civil engineer
rob belles m.s., civil engineer
nelson johnson m.a., civil engineer

science degrees
steven jones, ph.d physics
david chandler, m.s. math b.s. physics
robert podolsky m.s. physics
jeffery farrer ph.d m.s. physics
jason cheshire b.s. chem.e.

There you go! It only took a decade, but now there are less than a dozen professional structural engineers on board.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[citation needed]
but irrelevant,

Thermite isn't that energetic a reaction. It's just that most reactions at that energy level have gaseous products that quickly leave the scene. The end result of the thermite reaction is still only a liquid at the temperatures it reaches, the heat doesn't get carried off.

as its more than hot enough to melt steel, as documented in South Tower Smoking Guns,

1) What he claims is the top 30 floors falling separately isn't. The top floors tip as the supports failed on one side but there's no way it can hold together in this position (unlike what he claims, it's not in free fall or anything even remotely like it--this happens before total failure of the building) and it crumbles. There's no 30 story block tumbling off the tower to show up in the video.

2) He's assuming the rapidly-falling pieces are falling faster than free-fall. He's giving no evidence beyond the fact that they're outpacing the cloud--but since when does a dust cloud move at anything like freefall speed?? You would expect large objects to fall faster than dust--the fact that they are seen doing so is simply evidence of air resistance, not evidence of a conspiracy.

3) It's hard to pick out exactly what's happening with his supposed rocket-propelled object but it's quite reasonable that it changed course due to a collision with a piece of debris that started later but lower.

South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up), Rockets at the World Trade Center, High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11,

This guy has already proven he doesn't know what he's talking about, I'll skip the rest of his stuff.

and this interview with Niels Harrit at 3:36-4:33,

Thermite is not an explosive. No scientist would ever call it one.

and this harrit presentation at 45:40-51:40

I got the slider a little bit wrong and found some interesting things here.

1) He's citing videos of the first idiot you linked.

2) I see the name of the second idiot you linked on the screen.

3) He described nanothermite as what the shuttle boosters are made of. Both contain aluminum and liberate a lot of energy but that's the limit of the similarity. If he doesn't even know what thermite is how is he qualified to discuss it?

And what's so unique about the byproducts?

Do you even know what the combustion products of thermite are?

they dont occur in normal office fires, nor can you find them 'around your garden'
but once again youre missing the point. they also found unreacted thermitic material, so its not even a question ov just byproducts

In other words you don't know. Chemistry 101:

Thermite is normally a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, although the term is also used more broadly to describe similar reactions involving a metal oxide and another metal to which the oxygen will bind more strongly. The reaction products are iron and aluminum oxide.

As for finding them around my garden--I have a wheelbarrow that got rained on during a garden project and developed a bit of rust. Rust is simply iron oxide--there's one of your ingredients. The wheelbarrow itself must therefore have been made of iron in some form--one of the reaction products. The wheelbarrow is currently sitting in the garage, almost directly underneath me.

I'm writing this on a computer with an aluminum case. There's your other ingredient. As I have said earlier aluminum rapidly oxidizes, there's your other reaction product.

Thus I have found both ingredients and both reaction products within 10' of where I am.

That's a 15 minute video. Where should I be looking?

thermite cutting a vertical column at 9:22

You're still assuming that's steel instead of aluminum.

ive already answered this

And what's in those cutters? If you want to see what thermite actually looks like they used a fair amount in one Mythbusters episode. It doesn't throw sparks everywhere like whatever he was using.

 

[empty]

The point is if they specify "intragranular" melting that means that the rest of it didn't melt. That's something that happens from force, not temperature. I do agree they didn't say shock, I'm explaining how such melting happens.

your explanation is wrong. if some jackoff [edit] on an internet forum has it all figured out, then why cant people who are actually qualified, and not 'truthers', figure it out? intergranular just does not mean what you want it to. it means 'between individual grains' causing total melting. the fact that the entire beam didnt melt is irrelevant since charges are only placed at certain points to cause failure ov support

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

and heres the definition ov eutectic, just for you

An eutectic system (US dict: yü-'tek-tik)[1] from the Greek "ευ" (eu = easy) and "Τήξις" (tecsis = melting) describes a homogeneous solid mix of atomic and/or chemical species, to form a joint super-lattice, by striking a unique atomic percentage ratio between the components — as each pure component has its own distinct bulk lattice arrangement. It is only in this atomic/molecular ratio that the eutectic system melts as a whole, at a specific temperature (the Eutectic Temperature or ET) the super-lattice releasing at once all its components into a liquid mixture. ET is the lowest possible melting temperature over all of the mixing ratios for the involved component species.

sorry loren, the high temperatures and the sulfur caused the melting, not any shock; admit youre wrong

I'm saying "mangled" is no surprise. The corrosion is unusual but how many chemicals are in that building??? Sure, thermate contains sulfur--but so does an awful lot of other stuff.

mangled and corroded are part ov the same set ov terms as fema uses them. which, as they admit, are 'highly unusal events' caused by high temperatures not seen in 'normal office fires' along with an unknown source ov sulfur. many other source may contain sulfur, but not when causing a eutectic reaction on steel in an office fire
when you combine the two facts ov an usual unknown source ov sulfur and unusual high temperatures hot enough to melt steel with the classic controlled demolition style fall ov wtc7 (with its 2.25 second freefall as per nist) and even other factors such as nist falsifying data such as: saying the girders were not bolted in properly, etc. one can easily reason it was a controlled demolition, unless youre loren pechtel, obviously

If you have a spectroscope.

if you have basic reasoning skills you mean

Look at the very top of the picture, mostly on the right. A patch of sky and it's not burned off the film. That spells heavy overcast.

then look at any ov the examples in the video The Great Thermate Debate; all clear sunny blues skies

And what I pointed out is that aluminum oxide is orange at temperatures it would be liquid. Aluminum oxides rapidly in air, the only reason we can even make things out of aluminum is that unlike rust (iron oxide) the oxide layer protects what's underneath and stops the reaction. (If you have something that keeps this protective layer from forming the air will eat the whole object. One of the things you aren't allowed to take an airplane is because of this.)

it obviously doesnt oxidize as rapidly as youre suggesting it does, because molten aluminum, even when mixed with organics, is silver when poured; as the experiments have shown, and as is visible in any photograph ov molten aluminum

Look again. That text is actually a quote from a metallurgist.

going with an appeal to authority are we?
he is making the same claims as nist, and the experiments prove them both wrong

And I'm going to believe some bible-thumper about the pieces not being that way originally??

you already believe many other bible-thumpers ov different forms...
if you look at the pieces, you can see it is not the way any building is even welded together
and he is relating a story as it happened; why would a bible-thumper lie about this story if it was nothing significant and could easily be proven wrong? he is obviously speaking to one ov your coveted 'credible "news" outlets' so are you saying they arent doing their jobs by vetting properly, coincidentally on an issue that proves the official conspiracy theory wrong?

You're the one making claims.

youre the one not looking at them

 

[empty]

1) The energy of any charge that might have been used is miniscule compared to the energy of the collapse itself.

not sure what your point is, the energy ov the charges is what caused the collapse, but, (see next)

Residual heat is from the collapse.

wrong, normal office fires do not melt steel, and did not on 9/11; this has been accepted by all parties for years now
but molten steel and iron will stay molten for months, as documented, since they were insulated

2) NASA might be able to build a container that could hold molten metal for weeks. It's not just going to happen in the collapse, though. I have dealt with molten metal before--and never have I not been able to handle it bare-handed in 15 minutes. Of course the bigger the chunk of metal the slower it will cool but when it's that hot it cools very fast unless it's in an extremely good insulator. Even those extremely good insulators on the outside of the shuttle that were often demoed by heating one with a torch and then picking it up can only protect the shuttle for a little while. Once the shuttle landed it had to be cooled with major air conditioners or all the electronics would fry.

this is all irrelevant. there was documented by many sources, including nasa, ov temperatures high enough to melt steel and the molten steel itself. this is not something you can talk your way around

didnt i tell you to try harder?
here, this should help. How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero

Which says nothing about how to debunk thermite. Science 101--theories must be falsifiable.

the joke went way over your head obviously
trying to falsify that the buildings were taken down by explosives is like trying to falsify gravity on earth

Can you show:

1) That this guy isn't a truther.

he was writing in his capacity as editor-in-chief ov fire engineering
being a 'truther', (if he is one, i dont know) would not invalidate his statement nor the fact that evidence was destroyed; which has been documented by even your 'credible "news" sources'

2) That he actually said what is attributed to him. I've caught made-up quotes on a truther site before.

it comes from the article "$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION" in the january 2002 edition ov fire engineering

 

[Loren Pechtel]

your explanation is wrong. if some jackoff Edit on an internet forum has it all figured out, then why cant people who are actually qualified, and not 'truthers', figure it out? intergranular just does not mean what you want it to. it means 'between individual grains' causing total melting. the fact that the entire beam didnt melt is irrelevant since charges are only placed at certain points to cause failure ov support

Just because people don't reach the same conclusions you do doesn't mean they can't figure it out.

I'm saying "mangled" is no surprise. The corrosion is unusual but how many chemicals are in that building??? Sure, thermate contains sulfur--but so does an awful lot of other stuff.

BTW: It occurred to me a source of sulfur in the WTC. It's another thing you were questioning yet once again I have it right nearby. While the use of battery backup systems on home computers is uncommon they are quite common on more important machines. As I am a programmer I do have battery backups for the important systems. And what's the standard battery in such systems? Gelled lead acid batteries--and the acid of a lead-acid battery is sulfuric acid. H₂SO₄.

If you have a spectroscope.

if you have basic reasoning skills you mean

And so NASA went to the expense of mounting a powerful laser on Curiosity in order to figure out what elements are present when basic reasoning would do it???

Look at the very top of the picture, mostly on the right. A patch of sky and it's not burned off the film. That spells heavy overcast.

then look at any ov the examples in the video The Great Thermate Debate; all clear sunny blues skies

You seem to have forgotten the subject here--I was pointing out that at the light levels involved you will see the color of the material, not any glowing. Just because the stuff that spilled out is a color that is commonly associated with being very hot doesn't mean that we are actually seeing the radiated heat.

Ever solder copper pipe? It gets plenty hot enough to melt aluminum, yet I've never seen the slightest glow under the light levels I've worked at. You see color changes but that has nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with oxidation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

not sure what your point is, the energy ov the charges is what caused the collapse, but, (see next)

Residual heat is from the collapse.

wrong, normal office fires do not melt steel, and did not on 9/11; this has been accepted by all parties for years now
but molten steel and iron will stay molten for months, as documented, since they were insulated

Assertions were made by truthers that there was molten steel. That's not the same thing as proving there was molten steel. You're arguing like a creationist. I remember one such example that was around for a while--a digging machine holding up a piece of molten steel. By lifting the top of it. How they managed to pick up a liquid by lifting the top of it was never explained. Nor how the machine was able to do it without being disabled by the heat.

the joke went way over your head obviously
trying to falsify that the buildings were taken down by explosives is like trying to falsify gravity on earth

You apparently don't understand what "falsifiable" means.

What test can we apply, what result indicates you're wrong. (For example, with gravity find an object that has mass but doesn't fall down when placed in a vacuum on Earth.)

Can you show:

1) That this guy isn't a truther.

he was writing in his capacity as editor-in-chief ov fire engineering
being a 'truther', (if he is one, i dont know) would not invalidate his statement nor the fact that evidence was destroyed; which has been documented by even your 'credible "news" sources'

I've seen too many outright lies by truthers.

2) That he actually said what is attributed to him. I've caught made-up quotes on a truther site before.

it comes from the article "$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION" in the january 2002 edition ov fire engineering

In other words, a truther.

 

[thief of fire]

If there was molten steel, what does that indicate?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If there was molten steel, what does that indicate?

It would indicate the presence of consistently very high heat. Steel has to be cooking to just glow, forget about becoming molten. And the collapse would have occurred well before any metal became molten!

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence there was any "molten steel" at the WTC site. Honestly, even if thermite was used, I don't see how steel could have remained molten after the collapse. The amount of energy required would be substantial to do so.

 

[Godless Raven]

Why...hello empty...