Motlen metal pouring from the sides of the towers 7 minutes to collapse

What 'temperatures'?

 

How about hot 'nuff to create those iron micro-spheres (?)

 

you mean the paint chips?

 

NO, not even close, do you know about the iron micro spheres found in the ground zero dust?

 

It was kaolin chips.

And oxyacetylene cutting with torches causes the same 'microspheres',

 

There were dust samples taken before any clean up
operations started, so that bit is a total non-starter.

 

Source this claim, please.

 

which is exactly how thermate cutter charges work, exactly. no loud boomers just fizzle and down it comes

 

OK, tell us how much would be required to bring down a building like WTC? How come no demolition companies use it to bring down buildings?

BWT, this is the picture that truthers use to say thermite was used stating it was taken right after the buildings fell because of the fireman in the picture. Problem there is firemen were present also during cleanup.



Problem is, it was taken during cleanup.

[video=youtube_share;LJyBuANVkQ4]http://youtu.be/LJyBuANVkQ4[/video]

 

This is what I mean by 9/11/2001 being the most
poorly documented disaster since the invention of
photography. Where are the pix taken immediately
post "collapse", there aren't any because nobody
was allowed to photograph the rubble at the time.

 

Source this claim, please.

 

You mean like this? You do realize that it was very dangerous don't you and that safety was more of a concern than documenting facts for conspiracy theory nut cases?

 

Those pix you posted, is there any documentation
as to who shot the pix, and when & where?
this is the essence of documentary photography
knowing when & where each pix was taken so as
to be able to piece together the story.

 

You know what I find amazing genericBob?

The fact that you wine and complain at every turn about the authenticity and validity when evidence is provided that supports gravity driven collapses caused by impact from jets and/or fire. This questioning of validity seems to be your main reason for not agreeing with a gravity driven collapse and why you have a problem believing anything that supports it.

My question to you is if you have problems with anyone verifying the validity of evidence provided in support of a gravity driven collapse, then why do you believe everything fed to you regarding it being a conspiracy? That it was explosives/thermite? You believe everything hook, line, and sinker when it goes against the "official story". You challenge nothing from the truther side.

Why is this? If you are so adamant that it was a poorly documented event and that none of us has any real proof, why do you not question the validity of truther evidence with the same venom you do in regards to the "official story" evidence?

 

You mean like your unsubstantiated claim that people were not allowed to take pictures?

 

I would think, that people who are interested
in promoting the official story would be more
than happy to provide all the available data
to anyone who asked so as to prove the official
story and dispel all these nasty rumors of controlled
demolition ( etc..... )

I will tell you why you may see an apparent bias
against the official story on my part and that is
the controlled demolition pov is consistent with
laws of physics, logic & reason and is the best
fit when it comes to matching up the available evidence
to the events of 9/11/2001.

You may not like it, and lots of people insist on
a multitude of excuses for why it couldn't possibly
be the case, but the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
had to have had help from some additional source
of energy to do what they did on 9/11/2001.
Be that help in the form of C4, Thermite, atomic bombs
or whatever..... it had help.

 

Been provided time and again. Ridiculous conjecture is not serious or logical. Gravity.

 

It is?

You keep parroting this stuff and when asked tough questions, you just ignore them.

Example. I have asked you many times to explain why the data points in the graph of the WTC7 collapse fall above and below the line line or curve (depending on which graph you look at). The free fall acceleration claim is an AVERAGE of those points, not a constant acceleration. That's like you driving a car at 50 mph for 30 minutes and then accelerating to 100 mph for 30 minutes, then slowing down to 50 mph for 30 minutes, etc. Then after four hours telling you your speed was a CONSTANT 75 mph for 4 hours.

So explain how explosives, which were set off according to you "simultaneously" for 8 floors, could have caused those types of data point to be recorded.

Also, explain why there is a brief period of time when the roofline starts to drop of no free fall. How did this happen? The explosives went off SIMULTANEOUSLY right? That creates ZERO RESISTANCE right? How did this happen then?

 

so in other words, you have no data
on the pix you posted ...... therefore
they are not Documentary pix, just
some random images not admissible as evidence.

 

LOL, in other words, you can't back up anything you said but can only deflect.

 

No reply genericBob?

 

The subject of thermite has been explained in the official report? Where specifically?

 

No, it has only been explained in truther conspiracies, where it belongs.

 

Temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

 

there were NO temperatures that high

You understand why they wear protective fire suits in steel mills?