9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

None of those people or organisations actually mean anything.

AE911T's membership is not made up of 2,500 architects and engineers. In the early years of 9/11 truth before the reports were issued (app. pre-2008 ), many signed Gage's petition at meetings. Gage then transferred this list to represent membership. Not all signees were qualified in the field, and Gage clearly misrepresents the qualifications of his group. A skeptic known as Oystein has done extensive research into the AE911T membership and found it based on lies (see ISF for more information). This is real sceptical research (although Oystein will be libelled as an OCT hugger or some other nitwit epithet like 'shill', and his work will dismissed as such-this is a common 9/11 truth tactic-don't address the material, attack the messenger).

Pilots for Truth was formed by a drunken crop duster known as Rob Balsamo, and he made various claims about the aircraft that were quickly disproved by the USAF test pilot Kevin Beachy. All his material has been debunked by professionals, as has Gage's claims.

Other sites were formed before the release of the reports and they have had little traffic since, so clearly they are dead (Military Officers for 9/11 truth springs to mind-no activity).

For most professionals, the reports were enough and it is mainly the hardcore cranks that still push the truther cart, and many professionals have long since dismissed their claims as nonsense for they don't stand up to scrutiny for very long. One can give a truther all the evidence under the sun, but no-one can make them believe it, and their confirmation bias will always prevent rational thought on the subject. All one can do is avoid their childish tactics, and post the evidence against their outrageous claims (evidence they will undoubtedly ignore) for the reader.

Just take Bob's recent rant. He has thus far libelled the FDNY, FEMA, NIST and by association, all those who work in these institutions. He has claimed negligence and fraud, but he has failed to provide evidence of said claims other than by innuendo. Is that the kind of 'research' we are to take on board? Are we to give credence to such poorly thought out attacks? Are we to give credence to these attacks upon individuals who risked their lives on the day?

That is why physical evidence is paramount. Controlled demolition always leaves physical evidence and none was found. End of story. The idea is as insane as the individuals who promote it. Attacking the institutions involved in 9/11 won't make controlled demolition plausible. It is irrational as the notion's exponents.

 

Then what are you doing here continually posting excuses for the glaring inconsistencies in the official story? The fact that there was no mention on the collapse of building 7 in the original report is quite telling. Until enough people saw the collapse on YouTube those who were charged with investigating the biggest crime ever committed on US soil just ignored it. The evidence clearly shows that the investigation was a farce. The fact that there was no Senate or Congressional investigations launched immediately after the carnage on 9/11 is unbelievable. More money has been spent by the U.S. congress investigating the Benghazi affair than the 9/11 murders. The funny thing is that the same ********s who are calling for heads to roll over the 4 US embassy workers that were tragically killed in Libya are just fine with the fact that no one was fired or even censured over the biggest screw up in national security history in which 3000 Americans were slaughtered right here on US soil. The evidence points directly to the great likelihood that the criminals in the Bush/Cheney cabal knew exactly what was going to happen and let it go down so that they could crank up their cash machine over in the Middle East.

 

Minding my own business, you? Don't start that sh*t truther, ok? These 'glaring inconsistencies' only exist in the minds of those given to such paranoia. No one has been able to produce a shred of evidence that proves controlled demolition; space beams; dustification ; no-planes; nukes; flying orbs; arson; or any other BS floated by truther morons over the last fifteen years.

Which one? It was covered quite extensively in the NIST's report. Have you not read it? Do you actually know this subject?

WTF is that? That is quite untrue, and quite ridiculous as well.

Yes, that is a common meme, however, that is the reason we're here as 9/11 truth is unable to produce this evidence they claim they have. How about you give it a go? Hmmm? Or is the usual truther rhetoric the limit of your knowledge?

Why? The cause was obvious to all except the mentally challenged. I called it on AQ AND the collapses before any information was released. The history of the conflict between the US and AQ made such a call obvious. That is why the false flag story is so moronic. The US govt. already had a pretext for invading Afghanistan after the Cole attack, so to claim that the US needed to commit such an act to address AQ is ludicrous. Most truthers do not understand this history and have quite a superficial understanding of geopolitics-hence the infantile conclusions.

Take it up with your congressman, as I don't care. 9/11 truth can't produce the evidence for a prima facie case when the ball is in the truther court. Gage should amass this evidence every truther brays on about and get on with producing a case. You should be whinging to Gage about where all the donations go, not to me. Why do you not scrutinise your cult leaders for not coming up with the goods after all this time? After all, if his claim of evidence is correct, then he has no legal encumbrance.

Me, I know he's bullshotting.

A false generalisation. You obviously observe differing administrations as some form of 'hive animal'.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it a thousand times, yet I find it funny that no-one can ever produce this 'evidence'. As usual, all I read is vacuous libel and your post was no exception to the truther rule. All rant and rhetoric with no teeth.

 

No need to get nasty champ. I just wondered why a guy who thinks that anyone who is of the opinion that we were obviously deceived by our governmental officials on 9/11/01 is a "truther moron" would spend so much time interacting with us. I always wonder about that. I know that I wouldn't waste ten seconds arguing with anyone that I thought was a crazy moron.

I watched the attacks on TV live and watched the towers tumble to the ground that day. I am quite aware of how law enforcement reacts to major crimes and I see major inconsistencies in the strange reaction and inaction, to this, the biggest crime in US history. If you can't see that, then you are not well versed on how law enforcement works and how evidence is treated in major cases. The Bush/Cheney administration had to be dragged into starting an investigation by families of those who were murdered and did not even commence until years after the incident. Then he appointed a known liar and crook Henry Kissinger to lead the investigation until he was laughed out of the position by the families of those who were murdered. Why would Dick Cheney call up Senator Leahy who was about to launch a Senate investigation immediately into how these attacks occurred and tell him to cease and desist? The whole reaction to this horrible mass murder stinks to high heaven in my opinion. Frankly, I don't care what you or anybody thinks about the conclusions I have drawn from my observations. But again, there is no need to get snotty about it. Cheers

The fact that you react angrily at me for voicing my opinion seems strange to me also. "Don't start that (*)(*)(*)(*) truther". What's up with that sport? LOL. If it makes you so angry and hateful to read opinions of those that disagree with you, then why do you spend so much time engaging them?

I have read and researched a great deal regarding the attacks from all sides of the issue and I am convinced that we were fed a line of crap right from the start, and we have not been given the whole truth. That's my take. Now years later, we have a formers US Senator who is confirming my suspicions. I also noticed that you brought up a bunch of silly things that I have never claimed happened such as no planes, space beams etc. That seems very slippery if you ask me.

 

All this is just a giant 'argument from incredulity', and doesn't contain anything of use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob, please don't answer the following, as I wish to see if I get an honest response from someone. It's a simple enough question and I don't want the usual obfuscation and evasions as a response.

9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives produce this effect given that explosive force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition'. As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question.

 

I think 'truth' is the key word. The world is full of morons and morons cause damage, and conspiracy theorists are no exception, and I'm not getting nasty, I simply do not respond congenially to an opening sentence that questions my motive-it is immaterial and just leads down the old 'shill' road, and I think this forum has had enough of that stupidity lately. It is not constructive and it is used as a technique to evade questions (read this very thread for multiple examples).

I think the initial reaction from the emergency services was concerned with the rescue operation, and the fact that the cause was obvious negated the need for urgency in investigating the attack.

I'm well aware of emergency services response procedure. I just don't respond with confirmation bias.

Rant noted. You hate the guys, I get it. I completely understand the foundation of the 9/11 truth belief system.

The usual truther response is to go on the attack and make it personal. Your opening response did exactly that. I'm not angry, so there is nothing up with that, truther. Do not project your techniques and failings onto me. Thank you for proving my point however, as your post was all anti-government rant and ad hom.

Cool. I've read much from both sides since Loose Change was released, and I've come to the conclusion that 9/11 truth has no case, and it is confirmed by the fact that they can't produce a case.

I'll wait until the pages are released before I jump to conclusions. Have you signed the WH petition?

I don't care what you claim, these are examples of the retarded notions I've dealt with over the last nine years, however, you are free to jump to whatever conclusion you like. I view them all equally as asinine from controlled demolition to Judy Woods' 'dustification'. They all fail upon the application of logic, and lack physical evidence (see post #903).


- - - Updated - - -

Reposted so it doesn't get buried.

 

That's his MO, if you're going to try to discuss 9/11 with this person, you can expect it with nearly every post.

Exactly, there is no purpose other than to troll/distract every discussion about 9/11. You're trying to discuss 9/11 with someone who for one believes that a full investigation of a building that allegedly collapsed strictly from fire (for the first time in history) should not include an arson investigation because the investigators concluded it wasn't a CD or arson BEFORE they investigated for either and therefore concluded it did not require an investigation for either. They just ASSumed without any supporting evidence that it had to be debris that started the fire on 10 floors at the same time even though two buildings exactly on either side were pelted with the same debris but did not suffer any fires and no one noticed any fires until much later. This is the same entity that helped create and publish the NFPA protocol standards used by all fire investigators that require an arson investigation (including the use accelerants) specifically in a terrorist attack scenario. What he's trying to dish out is that in an investigation of 9/11, no less, investigators tasked with how and why WTC7 collapsed should eliminate the MOST LIKELY causes (those which are most common in any given building fire and collapse and especially in a terrorist attack) BEFORE investigating and proceed only with one specific but LEAST LIKELY cause.

So if you have any contradictions or questions, you will be called all sorts of names and ridiculed by this anonymous troll who claims to know it all and marginalizes thousands of experts in many different disciplines who are on public record voicing their opinions.

 

This certainly appears to be the case, thanks.

 

I wonder if the police did an investigation of possible explosives in the Paul Walker crash ...

standard protocol right? ...

we all know that (well at least most of us) that two fuel laden airliners crashed into 2 of the biggest buildings on the earth and were extremely damaged and the structures failed ...

you all can take over with the CD bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ...

 

Did that happen on 9/11 too?

A police investigation protocol? You have a link to it by any chance? If it's in there and they failed to do that then they are derelict of duty. So anyway, did that happen on 9/11? I didn't think so, you are a master of the irrelevant, aren't you?

Really?

Ok thanks for your permission, now that was quite an informative post, appreciate the help. Where would I be without you? Thanks again.

 

Now let's hope someone can actually focus on the subject for a change. Again, because it was buried under the usual truther trolling:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob, please don't answer the following, as I wish to see if I get an honest response from someone. It's a simple enough question and I don't want the usual obfuscation and evasions as a response.

9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives produce this effect given that explosive force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition'. As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question.

 

*crickets* ... just like the last time you asked this ... and this is a simple one considering all the other impossibilities that any of the buildings were controlled demolitions ... unless it was mini nukes that somehow dissipates radiation immediately ...

I'm just a mechanical engineer, not a nuclear physicist ...

 

I know When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the truther dogma, they cannot produce the goods.

 

There would have been no molten steel if thermite hadn't been used and the fact that there was thermite proves that it was prepared ahead of time.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/5360964

Evidently a combination of thermite and explosives were used to bring down the towers.


If you look at all of the evidence together, it's clear that the buildings clearly fell because of controlled demolition.

9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
(2:40:21 time mark)


Your questions simplifies the issue. You're trying to mislead the viewers who haven't looked at the evidence.

 

Check this out at the 1:02:49 time mark.

The Anatomy of a Great Deception: Global Master Edition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awaMO5L488g

 

Ok let me try this and I will keep it to the topic of discussion and keep it civil. I doubt you can do the same but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try for one last time to discuss it with you and see if you can be adult about this. 9/11 is not about you or me, it's about everything related to 9/11 so please try to leave the personal crap out of it and I will do the same. The same goes for group-think classifications (i.e. "truthers", "shills", etc.), leave that crap out of it too. I speak only for myself, as always but as appropriate, I will include relevant expert opinion since I do not claim to be an expert in all issues and based on your posts, I certainly know you're not either. And regardless that you often pretend to speak for a group, you speak only for yourself. If you can't stick to these points, any civil discussion with you is impossible, at least for me.

I will begin a new thread relevant to the topic of NIST's "investigation" into the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. The initial discussion will concentrate on WTC7 (which should take up many posts by itself) and then move on to the twin towers. I will take parts of your post in context (omitting all the insults) so as to keep it relevant. If you choose to deviate from the discussion and inject insults and/or group classifications, the thread will not be wasted but the discussion with YOU and I ends and the thread will continue with YOU ignored.

I'm going to include one additional caveat that you often stray from to try to support your claims:

The burden of proof (BOP) for ALL claims rests with the claimant. At all times, the BOP for ALL claims made by officials and official reports rests with those officials and those contributing to official reports. This is settled and indisputable. If you can't accept that settled credo, no intelligent discussion with you is possible.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

(to be sure Wiki is not the ultimate source but in this case, the above is correct)

Fair enough?

Have patience, I am working on the thread and will post it when ready.

 

No because it could have been produced via convection. 9/11 truth refuses to entertain the obvious, and that was a feeble article that did not address my points.

There is absolutely no evidence for such an assumption, and that is all it is, an assumption. Why is it you never support your claims with anything other than prosaic videos made by amateurs?

If you look at all the evidence, it's clear that 9/11 truth don't understand it.

Bullsh*t. My question is a simple exercise in logic and you failed dismally.

My question remains unaddressed.

 

Again:


9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives or therm*te produce this effect given that force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition'. As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question.

 

Ad hom noted.

It's about time you dropped that stupidity.

Well, if you will actually address the evidence for a change so be it. If you play your usual mendacious games, you will be back on ignore.

So, basically that absolves you from doing anything and places all the work in my lap, because when you make a claim and are called on it, you place it back in the government's lap and the debate stalls (you do this every time). That tactic is just childish and it indicates you have a poor understanding of the burden of proof, as pointed out repeatedly. With you employing that escape clause, I don't see how adult debate can ensue.

If you honour your obligation to the burden of proof instead of evading it as usual, there will be no problem, but if you play that game again you can FO. I always support my claims because I have a strong academic background, and I'm fully aware of the debate process. It is 9/11 truth that evades all responsibility with false interpretations of academic procedure.

I won't engage your games any longer, and I have nothing but contempt for your posting style. If you can keep it civil, factual and you actually recognise your obligations to the debate it may happen, but I won't hold my breath.

I'm actually thinking of opening a thread to expose all the failures in logic in 9/11 truth thinking regarding the collapses. If you wish to join in with factual material without turning it into one of your slanging matches, you will be quite welcome.

 

I'm in ...

 

You can "note" anything you like, it is what it is.

I can, the question is can you? You already failed when you posted this:

The discussion is based on this premise as well:

That's exactly what I'm going to address and have always addressed despite your innuendo but it's impossible to do so without including personal opinion as well.

Try to be honest if you can and not be hypocritical about "mendacious games", you've never put me on ignore and you know it. You've responded to my posts many times after claiming to have put me on ignore. Regardless, if you actually ever do, I will have gained something and lost nothing so suit yourself.

The BOP is a universally accepted standard, it is not your BOP nor mine when it comes to the 9/11 official story as already stated, it is up to the official storytellers. If you can't abide by it then no legitimate adult discussion can take place with you. So the decision is up to you. If you can't do it, then it will end with you, period, end of discussion.

I don't have any "obligation to the BOP" and neither do you. A discussion of this type is not about a BOP, it's about a serious discussion of 9/11 as officially claimed.

Good for you but it's irrelevant to me.

A non-sequitur as already explained.

Ditto for you. I'm not doing this for you, I'm doing this for the sake of those who might be interested.

My obligations are as stated, period, hold your breath or not.

Sorry I don't take part in discussions regarding invented group-think entities and ASSumptions, that's within your topic of interest not mine. I'm strictly interested in legitimate adult discussions about 9/11.

- - - Updated - - -

Same rules apply to you.

 

I will add to the above the following. I fully intend to post links, videos, whatever relevant credible sources necessary to support my claims/opinions as appropriate and when possible. I expect the same from you. And I fully understand it's not always possible.

 

Again, because it was intentionally buried with truther drek:

9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives, or therm*te produce this effect given that force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition' (Scott, your sources did NOT address this problem [see comprehension]). As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question.

 

I see that you can't stop the personal attacks nor can you stick to any topic without resorting to silliness. I tried to see if you can post on an adult level but it's obvious I'm dealing with a childish mind and discussing 9/11 with you is not possible. And I only meant the exercise to be a discussion, I never used the term "debate", that was your assumption. So never mind, I will start a new thread anyway and I will only pick out selected responses as I see fit, the rest of your trash will not be responded to.

Oh and BTW, computer systems analysis, design and programming, something I made a successful career of for the last 45+ years uses extremely precise logic. A common term used in the business is GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out), it's your MO. No one can survive in that business if one is not highly skilled in the daily use of logic. You would fail miserably, you can't even abide by the universally accepted BOP standard or understand its application. Go back to your "truther"/"twoofer" nonsense, flailing at your preconceived demons seems to be the only thing you're capable of.

 

<Mod Edit>

9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives, or therm*te produce this effect given that force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition' (Scott, your sources did NOT address this problem [see comprehension]). As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question.

Anyone have the guts to discuss reality?