The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[daws101]

somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess,
right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."

 

[Mr. Jones]

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...

Not if your sources claim never to have said "molten steel" (Robertson) or were repeating what they heard others had said (Geyh) or had no way of knowing what the molten mats were (everyone else). In all, you and they have absolutely no proof that what they saw was molten steel. None.
Therefore it is not only unreasonable to assume it was steel and continue to post such nonsense, it is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst intentionally misleading.
Oh, yeah ... and have a nice day.

It'd be helpful if you followed Gamolons request to post links in this thread, showing us where you are getting your information.

It would have been a plus for NIST if they would have followed through on their mission statement, and conducted a thorough examination of ALL things, instead of ignoring a major phenomena like the molten steel reports that were so numerous.
Perhaps they could have very easily dismissed it as insignificant or even false by simply looking into it and explaining it.
After all, they did examine other things within the wreckage piles.

Just by the shear volume of reports, (and the steel) including eyewitnesses, it should have been investigated and not ignored, and again many people feel this was just one of among many flaws, in the NIST study.

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials? Or that say as you do, that the numerous people who reported it, and or saw it, are somehow lying, or are sorely mistaken?
Or how about any people at GZ that reported seeing any molten aluminum instead of steel?

I posted links to Robertson and one of him on video, where he says he was shown by a FDNY a "little river of steel flowing" after saying "once WE were down at the B1 level"
He clearly said he was there, and it was shown to him.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume it was steel that was being discussed instead of aluminum, and it is intellectually dishonest and misleading on your part to try and continue to pretend otherwise..
BTW...Where is your list that contains numerous eyewitnesses, reports, and confirmations to the contrary? That oppose these people?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6920386-post143.html

Not once have you posted about any of the witnesses in any of the reports anywhere mentioning molten aluminum, and certainly nothing at all from NIST, and you certainly have not provided anything in this thread that gives credence to your CT, or where in the NIST findings is there anything that substantiate and strengthen your views, which is what the thread is supposed to be about.
It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views, and so far you think that by NIST ignoring and NOT addressing the numerous accounts of this phenomena, somehow is beneficial..

Your OCT site "9/11Myths" doesn't help you much either...and says "it is obviously difficult to estimate how much molten aluminum was produced in either of the twin towers during 9/11."
""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"

which I think may be rather generous, but that comes out to only 22,046lbs.... which was mostly on the outside perimeter, and fell away from the centers and likely could not have ended up to 70 feet below the ground. Remembering where the planes impacted, not even they would be found at this low level, especially if you believe the towers actually "pancaked" to the ground LOL!

So you are trying to twist turn and squirm as hard as you can and speculate that this aluminum, was most likely what was reported in a molten state,within the wreckage, (though you have no reports of any melted aluminum in the piles that I have see in this thread) as opposed to the 200,000 tons of steel that comprised each tower...., with individual columns in the lower core section, parts of which weighed up to 56 tons.

Your assumptions are not very convincing. Too bad NIST can't be counted on to help you out.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.

I can tell you why we have opposing views without looking at the NIST report.

Go back to your first opening post. It is full of incorrect assumptions and claims. Let's start with this.

I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.

The paragraph above is full of garbage. It was not only "intense heat" that caused the collapse of the twin towers. It was a combination of the plane impact damage AND the resultant fires. You just don't get. The plane impacts weakened the structure and the fires finished them off.

Here is NIST's exlpanation:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

I will go no further until you correct your understanding of what actually happened and quit cherry picking bullshit as you see fit to support your bogus beliefs.

Whose cherry picking? NIST agreed the towers withstood the plane impacts, and that it was the fires that caused the collapses. Read and try to comprehend what you just posted.
Tell me..if the planes had empty fuel tanks, do you suppose they would have collapsed?
If the plane impacts were so detrimental why didn't they collapse immediately after impacts? Because according to NIST it was the
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns.

Now I have asked you numerous times to move onto the subject of any NIST testing regarding this, that solidifies your belief in them, but you seem to be avoiding doing so, why is this?
We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.

 

[Mr. Jones]

somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess,
right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."

Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..

 

[Mr. Jones]

We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??

Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots.

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????

Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not? Please link me to this knowledge, instead of just posting your speculation and opinion, after all it was you that requested links to any info in your first postings in this thread.

 

[SAYIT]

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...

Not if your sources claim never to have said "molten steel" (Robertson) or were repeating what they heard others had said (Geyh) or had no way of knowing what the molten mats were (everyone else). In all, you and they have absolutely no proof that what they saw was molten steel. None.
Therefore it is not only unreasonable to assume it was steel and continue to post such nonsense, it is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst intentionally misleading.
Oh, yeah ... and have a nice day.

It'd be helpful if you followed Gamolons request to post links in this thread, showing us where you are getting your information.

It would have been a plus for NIST if they would have followed through on their mission statement, and conducted a thorough examination of ALL things, instead of ignoring a major phenomena like the molten steel reports that were so numerous.
Perhaps they could have very easily dismissed it as insignificant or even false by simply looking into it and explaining it.
After all, they did examine other things within the wreckage piles.

Just by the shear volume of reports, (and the steel) including eyewitnesses, it should have been investigated and not ignored, and again many people feel this was just one of among many flaws, in the NIST study.

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials? Or that say as you do, that the numerous people who reported it, and or saw it, are somehow lying, or are sorely mistaken?
Or how about any people at GZ that reported seeing any molten aluminum instead of steel?

I posted links to Robertson and one of him on video, where he says he was shown by a FDNY a "little river of steel flowing" after saying "once WE were down at the B1 level"
He clearly said he was there, and it was shown to him.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume it was steel that was being discussed instead of aluminum, and it is intellectually dishonest and misleading on your part to try and continue to pretend otherwise..
BTW...Where is your list that contains numerous eyewitnesses, reports, and confirmations to the contrary? That oppose these people?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6920386-post143.html

Not once have you posted about any of the witnesses in any of the reports anywhere mentioning molten aluminum, and certainly nothing at all from NIST, and you certainly have not provided anything in this thread that gives credence to your CT, or where in the NIST findings is there anything that substantiate and strengthen your views, which is what the thread is supposed to be about.
It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views, and so far you think that by NIST ignoring and NOT addressing the numerous accounts of this phenomena, somehow is beneficial..

Your OCT site "9/11Myths" doesn't help you much either...and says "it is obviously difficult to estimate how much molten aluminum was produced in either of the twin towers during 9/11."
""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"

which I think may be rather generous, but that comes out to only 22,046lbs.... which was mostly on the outside perimeter, and fell away from the centers and likely could not have ended up to 70 feet below the ground. Remembering where the planes impacted, not even they would be found at this low level, especially if you believe the towers actually "pancaked" to the ground LOL!

So you are trying to twist turn and squirm as hard as you can and speculate that this aluminum, was most likely what was reported in a molten state,within the wreckage, (though you have no reports of any melted aluminum in the piles that I have see in this thread) as opposed to the 200,000 tons of steel that comprised each tower...., with individual columns in the lower core section, parts of which weighed up to 56 tons.

Your assumptions are not very convincing. Too bad NIST can't be counted on to help you out.

I offer no conspiracy theory, Princess, just rational conclusions based on available facts, rather than the speculation to which you so readily subscribe. And since you are aware that I used 9/11myths.com - as I credited their work - why are you now feigning ignorance of that?
As of this posting there has been found no evidence of molten steel or secret super explosives, accelerants or corrosives which could slice through steel, burn for weeks and leave no trace.
None.
What people said or thought they saw, or repeated what someone else said or thought they saw, is not proof of molten steel.
None of your sources tested the molten mats and as such you are forced to base your pre-conceived conclusions on that which does not exist. NIST was not charged with guessing what CTs you would produce nor were they asked to disprove them in advance.

 

[daws101]

Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...

Not if your sources claim never to have said "molten steel" (Robertson) or were repeating what they heard others had said (Geyh) or had no way of knowing what the molten mats were (everyone else). In all, you and they have absolutely no proof that what they saw was molten steel. None.
Therefore it is not only unreasonable to assume it was steel and continue to post such nonsense, it is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst intentionally misleading.
Oh, yeah ... and have a nice day.

It'd be helpful if you followed Gamolons request to post links in this thread, showing us where you are getting your information.

It would have been a plus for NIST if they would have followed through on their mission statement, and conducted a thorough examination of ALL things, instead of ignoring a major phenomena like the molten steel reports that were so numerous.
Perhaps they could have very easily dismissed it as insignificant or even false by simply looking into it and explaining it.
After all, they did examine other things within the wreckage piles.

Just by the shear volume of reports, (and the steel) including eyewitnesses, it should have been investigated and not ignored, and again many people feel this was just one of among many flaws, in the NIST study.

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials? Or that say as you do, that the numerous people who reported it, and or saw it, are somehow lying, or are sorely mistaken?
Or how about any people at GZ that reported seeing any molten aluminum instead of steel?

I posted links to Robertson and one of him on video, where he says he was shown by a FDNY a "little river of steel flowing" after saying "once WE were down at the B1 level"
He clearly said he was there, and it was shown to him.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume it was steel that was being discussed instead of aluminum, and it is intellectually dishonest and misleading on your part to try and continue to pretend otherwise..
BTW...Where is your list that contains numerous eyewitnesses, reports, and confirmations to the contrary? That oppose these people?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6920386-post143.html

Not once have you posted about any of the witnesses in any of the reports anywhere mentioning molten aluminum, and certainly nothing at all from NIST, and you certainly have not provided anything in this thread that gives credence to your CT, or where in the NIST findings is there anything that substantiate and strengthen your views, which is what the thread is supposed to be about.
It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views, and so far you think that by NIST ignoring and NOT addressing the numerous accounts of this phenomena, somehow is beneficial..

Your OCT site "9/11Myths" doesn't help you much either...and says "it is obviously difficult to estimate how much molten aluminum was produced in either of the twin towers during 9/11."
""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"

which I think may be rather generous, but that comes out to only 22,046lbs.... which was mostly on the outside perimeter, and fell away from the centers and likely could not have ended up to 70 feet below the ground. Remembering where the planes impacted, not even they would be found at this low level, especially if you believe the towers actually "pancaked" to the ground LOL!

So you are trying to twist turn and squirm as hard as you can and speculate that this aluminum, was most likely what was reported in a molten state,within the wreckage, (though you have no reports of any melted aluminum in the piles that I have see in this thread) as opposed to the 200,000 tons of steel that comprised each tower...., with individual columns in the lower core section, parts of which weighed up to 56 tons.

Your assumptions are not very convincing. Too bad NIST can't be counted on to help you out.

1.sister jones is lying about NIST's mission statement (it has already been presented) but for the sake of fact here it is again: 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act mandated NIST to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 and the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. The "World Trade Center Collapse Investigation", directed by lead investigator Shyam Sunder,[12] covered three aspects, including a technical building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause of the collapses of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. NIST also established a research and development program to provide the technical basis for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices, and a dissemination and technical assistance program to engage leaders of the construction and building community in implementing proposed changes to practices, standards, and codes. NIST also is providing practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters. The investigation portion of the response plan was completed with the release of the final report on 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008. The final report on the WTC Towers – including 30 recommendations for improving building and occupant safety – was released on October 26, 2005.[13]
nowhere does it say ALL.
2. "It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views," -sister jones.

the previous statement is a false declarative..
sister jones has no corroborating evidence of any kind to substantiate : Definition of SUBSTANTIATE
1
: to give substance or form to : embody
2
: to establish by proof or competent evidence

or verify his claims
3. the only poster twisting and squirming is you and your desperate attempt to hold on to your delusion.

by the way why didn't sister post the actual nist report ?

 

[daws101]

Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.

I can tell you why we have opposing views without looking at the NIST report.

Go back to your first opening post. It is full of incorrect assumptions and claims. Let's start with this.


The paragraph above is full of garbage. It was not only "intense heat" that caused the collapse of the twin towers. It was a combination of the plane impact damage AND the resultant fires. You just don't get. The plane impacts weakened the structure and the fires finished them off.

Here is NIST's exlpanation:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

I will go no further until you correct your understanding of what actually happened and quit cherry picking bullshit as you see fit to support your bogus beliefs.

Whose cherry picking? NIST agreed the towers withstood the plane impacts, and that it was the fires that caused the collapses. Read and try to comprehend what you just posted.
Tell me..if the planes had empty fuel tanks, do you suppose they would have collapsed?
If the plane impacts were so detrimental why didn't they collapse immediately after impacts? Because according to NIST it was the
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns.

Now I have asked you numerous times to move onto the subject of any NIST testing regarding this, that solidifies your belief in them, but you seem to be avoiding doing so, why is this?
We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.

please show what mathematical formula you used to come up with this figure :22,046 lbs you believe was all the aluminum that melted for this figure: on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels
or are you just pulling random numbers out of you ass?

 

[daws101]

somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess,
right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."

Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..

you still don't get it! you are the one who claims they're wrong, so it's on you to prove it, you've presented nothing in the way of hard evidence.. just specious critiques by people laboring under the same false premise as you.

 

[SAYIT]

somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess,
right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."

Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..

you still don't get it! you are the one who claims they're wrong, so it's on you to prove it, you've presented nothing in the way of hard evidence.. just specious critiques by people laboring under the same false premise as you.

Not to mention those with a vested interest or agenda.

 

[daws101]

Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..

you still don't get it! you are the one who claims they're wrong, so it's on you to prove it, you've presented nothing in the way of hard evidence.. just specious critiques by people laboring under the same false premise as you.

Not to mention those with a vested interest or agenda.

absofuckinglutly correct.

 

[Gamolon]

Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.

I can tell you why we have opposing views without looking at the NIST report.

Go back to your first opening post. It is full of incorrect assumptions and claims. Let's start with this.


The paragraph above is full of garbage. It was not only "intense heat" that caused the collapse of the twin towers. It was a combination of the plane impact damage AND the resultant fires. You just don't get. The plane impacts weakened the structure and the fires finished them off.

Here is NIST's exlpanation:

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

I will go no further until you correct your understanding of what actually happened and quit cherry picking bullshit as you see fit to support your bogus beliefs.

Whose cherry picking? NIST agreed the towers withstood the plane impacts, and that it was the fires that caused the collapses.

You must be blind or deliberately trying to troll here. Here is the synopsis of NIST's finding from their own webpage:

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Do you see how they say the towers COLLAPSED from the combination of the damage caused by the plane impact AND the fires? I even highlighted/enlarged the "and" between the two reasons. Yes thay resisted the impact. But the impact weakened the structure as a whole. Now apply the fire to the already weakened structure, something they didn't do calculations or testing for (as admitted by Leslie Robertson). The towers collapsed due to both.

Any further claims that it was "just fire" is a lie and you are just trolling.

Read and try to comprehend what you just posted.

I did. Read my statement above.

Tell me..if the planes had empty fuel tanks, do you suppose they would have collapsed?
If the plane impacts were so detrimental why didn't they collapse immediately after impacts? Because according to NIST it was the
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or did you purposely leave out the AND right in front of the (2)?! It's not "the impacts OR the fire. It was the combination of both.

Now I have asked you numerous times to move onto the subject of any NIST testing regarding this, that solidifies your belief in them, but you seem to be avoiding doing so, why is this?

I refuse to move on because you don't understand what happened. How is this good for the debate? You made statements like the one above that are 100% false. I even provided the quote from NIST themselves that says it was the combination of the fire and impact damage, but you completely ignore that. Why move on when you base you arguments on false evidence?

We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.

Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that it was molten steel. I don't give a shit how many supposed "experts" you think you have. You can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum by sight alone. That is the crux of your whole argument and what you are basing temperatures on. You have no verifiable tests as to how how hot the the temperatures were inside the debris pile. That is a fact.

1. I have shown you proof as to why they fireproof structural steel. Especially in restrained structures.
2. I have provided proof that molten steel can look like molten aluminum.
3. You don't understand conduction.
4. You want to compare the process of how a fire can draw oxygen to itself to how water and pyrocool seep downward due to gravity.
5. You want to claim that the twin towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds which is easily refuted with videos.
6. you want to claim that there was no resistance in the twin towers yet I can see perimeter panels falling AHEAD of the collapse front of the building proper.

Yet you want to move past all this to see why we have different views?

It's right there in front of you. You have different views because your base evidence is totally incorrect.

 

[Gamolon]

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials?

Why did some of your "experts" say molten metal and not identify it as molten steel? Did they not know what they were looking at?

 

[Gamolon]

Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not?

Read what you posted again. I highlighted the important part in red. The air was DRAWN to the fire. The air did not flow down to it due to gravity. Do you get it yet. The liquid was not drawn to the fire.

The debris pile was not a solid mass. It was porous. The fires sucked air through the porous cavities of the debris pile.

This is simple stuff Mr. Jones. No wonder we have different views.

 

[SAYIT]

Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not?

Read what you posted again. I highlighted the important part in red. The air was DRAWN to the fire. The air did not flow down to it due to gravity. Do you get it yet. The liquid was not drawn to the fire.

The debris pile was not a solid mass. It was porous. The fires sucked air through the porous cavities of the debris pile.

This is simple stuff Mr. Jones. No wonder we have different views.

Blinded by his unshakable beliefs he will not put 2 and 2 together and even if you continue to beat it into him he will refuse to accept it. Jones is neither stupid nor ignorant ... just totally committed to his agenda to the exclusion of logic, truth and facts.

 

[Gamolon]

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials?

Why, if you're so cocksure about there being molten steel, do you keep using the term "molten metal/s"?

That means there was possibly other metals. Hence, some of your "expert" witnesses saying "molten metal" and not "molten steel".

I guarantee you that if I had these witnesses on the stand, I would easily show their visual testimony as being incorrect because they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two photos I keep posting.

That's a fact.

That blows your whole "melted steel" temperatures out of the water which is why you cling to it like a truther life preserver.

 

[SAYIT]

We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.

Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that it was molten steel. I don't give a shit how many supposed "experts" you think you have. You can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum by sight alone. That is the crux of your whole argument and what you are basing temperatures on. You have no verifiable tests as to how how hot the the temperatures were inside the debris pile. That is a fact.

1. I have shown you proof as to why they fireproof structural steel. Especially in restrained structures.
2. I have provided proof that molten steel can look like molten aluminum.
3. You don't understand conduction
4. You want to compare the process of how a fire can draw oxygen to itself to how water and pyrocool seep downward due to gravity.
5. You want to claim that the twin towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds which is easily refuted with videos.
6. you want to claim that there was no resistance in the twin towers yet I can see perimeter panels falling AHEAD of the collapse front of the building proper.

Yet you want to move past all this to see why we have different views?

It's right their in front of you. You have different views because your base evidence is totally incorrect.

Like many here you have repeatedly and factually (and remarkably patiently) refuted the underlying "facts" the CT - in this case Mr. Jones - uses to support his particular CT.
As I do not believe Jones is either stupid or ignorant there are only two explanations for his staunch refusal to abandon or at least modify his CT ... either coercion or willful obstinance.
The only question left is why Jones acts in such an irrational way which only Jones or his shrink can answer.

 

[Gamolon]

We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.

Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that it was molten steel. I don't give a shit how many supposed "experts" you think you have. You can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum by sight alone. That is the crux of your whole argument and what you are basing temperatures on. You have no verifiable tests as to how how hot the the temperatures were inside the debris pile. That is a fact.

1. I have shown you proof as to why they fireproof structural steel. Especially in restrained structures.
2. I have provided proof that molten steel can look like molten aluminum.
3. You don't understand conduction
4. You want to compare the process of how a fire can draw oxygen to itself to how water and pyrocool seep downward due to gravity.
5. You want to claim that the twin towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds which is easily refuted with videos.
6. you want to claim that there was no resistance in the twin towers yet I can see perimeter panels falling AHEAD of the collapse front of the building proper.

Yet you want to move past all this to see why we have different views?

It's right their in front of you. You have different views because your base evidence is totally incorrect.

Like many here you have repeatedly and factually (and remarkably patiently) refuted the underlying "facts" the CT - in this case Mr. Jones - uses to support his particular CT.
As I do not believe Jones is either stupid or ignorant there are only two explanations for his staunch refusal to abandon or at least modify his CT ... either coercion or willful obstinance.
The only question left is why Jones acts in such an irrational way which only Jones or his shrink can answer.

If Mr. Jones and others start to correct all the little incorrect beliefs from the start, it gets rid of the end conclusion.

 

[SAYIT]

Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that it was molten steel. I don't give a shit how many supposed "experts" you think you have. You can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum by sight alone. That is the crux of your whole argument and what you are basing temperatures on. You have no verifiable tests as to how how hot the the temperatures were inside the debris pile. That is a fact.

1. I have shown you proof as to why they fireproof structural steel. Especially in restrained structures.
2. I have provided proof that molten steel can look like molten aluminum.
3. You don't understand conduction
4. You want to compare the process of how a fire can draw oxygen to itself to how water and pyrocool seep downward due to gravity.
5. You want to claim that the twin towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds which is easily refuted with videos.
6. you want to claim that there was no resistance in the twin towers yet I can see perimeter panels falling AHEAD of the collapse front of the building proper.

Yet you want to move past all this to see why we have different views?

It's right their in front of you. You have different views because your base evidence is totally incorrect.

Like many here you have repeatedly and factually (and remarkably patiently) refuted the underlying "facts" the CT - in this case Mr. Jones - uses to support his particular CT.
As I do not believe Jones is either stupid or ignorant there are only two explanations for his staunch refusal to abandon or at least modify his CT ... either coercion or willful obstinance.
The only question left is why Jones acts in such an irrational way which only Jones or his shrink can answer.

If Mr. Jones and others start to correct all the little incorrect beliefs from the start, it gets rid of the end conclusion.

Which is, after all, where his CT begins ... his conclusions. Jones has admitted he believes the Jooos did it and everything he accepts as fact must conform to that belief regardless of its veracity.

 

[Gamolon]

Like many here you have repeatedly and factually (and remarkably patiently) refuted the underlying "facts" the CT - in this case Mr. Jones - uses to support his particular CT.
As I do not believe Jones is either stupid or ignorant there are only two explanations for his staunch refusal to abandon or at least modify his CT ... either coercion or willful obstinance.
The only question left is why Jones acts in such an irrational way which only Jones or his shrink can answer.

If Mr. Jones and others start to correct all the little incorrect beliefs from the start, it gets rid of the end conclusion.

Which is, after all, where his CT begins ... his conclusions. Jones has admitted he believes the Jooos did it and everything he accepts as fact must conform to that belief regardless of its veracity.

So the discussion stops here because Mr. Jones will not change incorrect statements made in the first post so there is no point in going forward.

It is quite clear to me why we and Mr. Jones have differing views (see above sentence).