Molten steel proves the government's/media's story is invalid.

I agree. However, that doesn't change any of the facts. There were multiple corroborating eyewitness claims of molten steel, including one to have claimed that he saw the melting of girders (which are obviously made of steel) and that NIST failed to perform any forensic analysis of the evidence and that John Gross denied ever hearing about these eyewitness claims. These are the irrefutable facts, again, whether they're scientifically valid or not does not change any of these facts. Because NIST failed to do its job, we can't and are not in a position to scientifically and definitively verify these multiple claims. Having said that, the odds favor that they are accurate because of some of the claims as to what these eyewitnesses saw were melting (e.g. girders, ends of beam dripping). It's obvious by your post(s) that you would like to dismiss/marginalize these eyewitness claims but they are not just going to disappear and they still require a thorough forensic examination.

 

So no-one has demonstrated the truther premise yet? I didn't think so. However, until that is done this canard is worthless.

 

there was no need to perform any analysis on the "molten" material in the WTC GZ mound, as only Truthers cared about its metallic consistency.

 

Why do you keep pushing this line knowing full well that the NIST had no access to primary source material?

To those lurking, Bob has used this ploy for years and he deliberately tries to paint the NIST as mendacious with this accusation. However, he KNOWS that the NIST had no access to the physical evidence and they had to rely on the material supplied by the FEMA report.

This is clearly a dishonest tactic, and it is deployed to suggest by innuendo that the NIST was involved in a cover up. Now 9/11 truth has to resort to this dishonourable tactic because it cannot present a prima facie case to discount the findings of the report. So to stay relevant, it has to attack the organs that provided the reports.

This slur tends to view the NIST as some form of hive animal, and deliberately ignores the independent companies involved in the process. The gross over simplification aids the plausibility of their weak case, but it is clearly incorrect.

Be careful of all claims directed toward the NIST by 9/11 truth as they are all empty libel of no substance.

- - - Updated - - -

And they don't have a valid reason to consider this important.

 

There's nothing "stupid" about the facts. There is nothing in the NIST reports that indicates they conducted any forensic analysis on the evidence.

NIST's claims that they didn't have any evidence to work with is a bald faced lie. There is a photo of John Gross, NIST's lead engineer, standing on a pile of steel, actually handling one girder that is corroded.



(can someone please explain how I can post a photo in this forum that doesn't end up as a thumbnail? Thanks)

The evidence speaks for itself. I have asked you more than once to explain in technical detail, if you can, what it is you disagree with, why and how. So far, all you do is post unsupported opinions, usually filled with name calling and ridicule.

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

 

And none of that blather addressed the material as posited by the sites. More libels by innuendo, but no facts.

Furthermore, you have not even been able to demonstrate the premise behind the molten steel canard yet.

 

there was no reason to test the material.

 

Yes I understand. In your world, there is never any "need" to investigate anything you don't want investigated because it was OBVIOUS to you. But in the real world, EVERYTHING is investigated in accordance with universally accepted standard investigative protocols.

 

Which I've explained repeatedly.

That was taken much earlier than the production of the report. You know that the material was removed well before the NIST report was instigated

I have posted my evidence repeatedly and you've ignored it. I now have no time for your sh*t and I will just expose your lies. Anything you have to say is of no consequence whatsoever and will undoubtedly be a lie as my experience confirms.

Your post had nothing to do with my point which was:

"Bob is deliberately trying to paint the NIST as mendacious by intentionally misrepresenting the timeline in order to create by innuendo, a mistrust of the NIST report by implying a cover up. 9/11 truth use this dishonourable technique as they cannot disprove the NIST report, therefore they have to resort to dishonesty to present their case."

I expose your lies by innuendo and you try to change the subject. Priceless!

- - - Updated - - -

Why is molten steel important? You don't even know why you push this line of stupidity, as you cannot demonstrate the truther premise.

 

I read many of the articles in several self admitted, obviously biased and anonymous "debunking" sites. If you want to use these sites to support your arguments, that's your option, I'm not interested.

I don't need to "demonstrate" anything to you nor do I want to. It doesn't change the facts. The eyewitness claims are what they are and they are quite specific. You weren't there, they were. You can't make these claims disappear nor can you make the fact that there was no forensic investigation of the evidence ever conducted by any official entity disappear either.

 

More blather.

Ok, so you're determined not to learn, and you don't know why you push the molten steel canard. Ok, good to know.

Oh, and as usual, you ignored the important part:

"Bob is deliberately trying to paint the NIST as mendacious by intentionally misrepresenting the timeline in order to create by innuendo, a mistrust of the NIST report by implying a cover up. 9/11 truth use this dishonourable technique as they cannot disprove the NIST report, therefore they have to resort to dishonesty to present their case."

 

Your explanations are usually worthless. NIST's explanations for their deliberate failure, which don't exist, is the only thing that matters.

You understand deliberate destruction of evidence is a crime, right? Being an apologist for NIST does nothing for me and does nothing to excuse NIST for their deliberate failures.

The kind buried in name calling and personal attacks? YOUR evidence is irrelevant. The actual evidence is what's important.

[the usual silliness not worth addressing]

Because it's unprecedented and requires confirmation and forensic analysis to potentially determine its cause. Once determined (if determined), it can lead to further investigation depending on what is discovered.

[more silliness not worth addressing]

- - - Updated - - -

That's what it is alright. If there was anything of value that I could find, I would address it.

 

Can the op tell me what metals and materials are used in the construction of an airframe?

 

Trolling, lies, misrepresentations, false accusations and childish behaviour noted.

 

The most common metals used in aircraft construction are aluminum, magnesium, titanium, steel, and their alloys.

Check it out: http://bfy.tw/6C5g

Now, can the you tell me what metals and materials are used in the construction of a steel framed skyscraper?

HINT:

 

Thank you. Aluminum structural steel copper brass wood fabrics steel piping and tubing ect.


Ever heard of a class D fire?

 

Sure I have.

 

And how hot does magnesium burn?

 

I don't think you get it.
Class D fires involve tiny metal specks and large pieces pose no risk. The heat is too easily dispersed and are almost impossible to even ignite.

 

Yeah. Not so much. Take the old M998 HMMWV which had magnesium runflats. Why did they swap over to rubber runflats? Because they caught fire. Why is it sop to dump a burning helo into the ocean on every sea going vessel? Cause they're full of magnesium. And burn pretty readily. Especially in a prolonged fire. You would say that the fires that burned in the towers were pretty lengthy wouldn't you? Plenty of time for the all that magnesium to reach its kindling temprature.

 

HINT: The building was clad entirely in aluminium.

 

What are you trying to say? Does it have anything to do with the governments story? Are you simply bored?

This is not made of freaking magnesium...



It is made of steel, about 98% iron.

Look at it right now. Look at it again to make sure. Do you honestly believe that YOU COULD FLY A PLANE INTO THAT AND HAVE IT COLLAPSE INTO ITS BASEMENT?

And then it would form pools of molten steel, that the ends of the beams would be dripping, that witnesses would speak of liquefied steel flowing like lava?

 

aluminum, steel, copper, and a few others.

must have been a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of copper inside a building that big, at 1,300 feet.

- - - Updated - - -

what does the appearance have to do with it?

it was mostly a hollow building. a tube within a tube.

and it came tumbling down.

 

Introduce magnesium via the airplane. Magnesium burns at what? Seven thousand degrees ferinheight. Its kindling temperature (temp at which it catches fire) is around 1200 F.

Get it yet?

 

Plus with the openings and airflow and chimney like construction it would have acted like a forge.