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

I knew what you were reaching for the moment you interjected yourself, which is why I asked if you even knew the story you are trying to support.

 

WTC was encased in aluminum panels.

aluminum has a melting point of 1,221 F

that's a lot of aluminum.

 

Do you know of any documented eyewitness claims about molten aluminum? If not why do you suppose they all said molten steel as opposed to molten aluminum?

 

its fair to assume that since most folks didn't know how much aluminum went into the construction of WTC 1 and WTC 2, they simply assumed ANY metal they found must have been steel.

but now we know, there was a ton of aluminum in the WTC towers. I too didn't know the outside structure was encased in aluminum until, well, 10 minutes ago.

 

So by the above you're really saying NO, you don't know of any eyewitness claims about molten aluminum. Probably because there weren't any, at least none I ever heard about and neither did you. So the molten aluminum claim is just yours (and those who believe that's what it really was). But you weren't there and you are not in any position to contradict any eyewitness claims, never mind claims such as "the melting of girders" and "the ends of beams dripping". You're making ASSumptions out of thin air that you hope are correct but contradict ALL eyewitness claims of molten steel.

 

You still don't. It was just something that someone who has been wrong about many things posted on the internet.

Don't forget that the blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public.

 

You missed the point I was making. Which isn't uncommon with folks that hold strong to their misguided beliefs.

The point was to show your reaction to having your belief challenged. Which was fairly typical.

 

LOL

Pot meet kettle.

 

So you're saying you're not here to discuss the issues, you're here to observe posters' reactions to your posts (at least the ones who disagree with the official story and your personal beliefs). If I'm right then you're in the wrong section of the forum, this one is about Conspiracy Theories - 9/11, it has nothing to do with psychoanalyzing posters.
.

 

that is of course, a lie.

an easily debunked one

 

Post some examples. Thanks in advance. I know partials were given to Steven Jones years ago. What else you got?

 

they are there.


your claim, that they are not available for public view, was a lie and you knew it.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/WTC1_blueprints.php

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

 

I said they released partials to Jones some years ago.

And loling that you are now posting from ae911truth. There might be hope for you.

 

it proves your claim, that the WTC blueprints are hidden from public view, are crap.

baseless crap that you either didn't have the integrity to actually investigate, or intentionally lied trying to falsefy some sort of willfull obstruction by the WTC designers.

 

Question to any of you.

What temperature would you say would be needed to do this:

 

that was caused mostly by mass and gravity, not heat.

 

You have evidence of this? Ah, that's right, you are above posting evidence.

 

prove this was caused by heat alone.

 

Your statement is what I questioned. If you can back it up, fine, if not, same as usual.

 

you made a claim that heat alone caused the pancaking affect on those floors.

provide evidence.

 

Use the quote function please.

Reading comprehension fail. -1

 

who said this was caused by heat alone?

 

Reading comprehension fail. -2 (that was a question and the word "alone" was not there.)

 

who made the claim that this was caused by heat?

 

I don't think anyone has on this thread. That is why you are losing points for reading comprehension.