The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Montrovant]

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel. Red hot metal =/= molten. 1500 degrees =/= molten steel. Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel. Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it. I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it. I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel. I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled. I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).

There may have been molten steel. I'm not dismissing the possibility. What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.

 

[Mr. Jones]

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel. Red hot metal =/= molten. 1500 degrees =/= molten steel. Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel. Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it. I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it. I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel. I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled. I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).

There may have been molten steel. I'm not dismissing the possibility. What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.

I don't know what else can be said, linked to and seen, and heard about this.
I think if NIST had done due diligence your questions might have answered, and this is my point. Because they ignored this, we have to base our conclusions on the numerous eyewitnesses accounts like Robertson, consider how much aluminum was present in the towers compared to how much steel there was,
where the melted steel was seen in these cases they were seen and reported in the centers at the sub basement levels, and this would preclude aluminum as the aluminum was present in quantities on the outside as cladding, and the aluminum bodies of the planes were 70-8-90 stories high.
You can answer "how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?" by using rational logic using the above facts, and the credibility of the people, and also that not one of them said they saw molting aluminum running like little rivers.
Plus you have the exact same thing at Building 7...Use your head. It's only logical that it was steel that was reported and seen. There is no mention of aluminum. Aluminum is silver. The WTC towers were made of 200,000 tons of steel. The outsides were forcibly ejected. How could the planes magically transport themselves into the sub basements?

We don't know the answers that you seek because NIST chose to pretend this phenomena didn't even exist. Does this mean all the numerous r sightings and reports were a figment of the imaginations of these credible people? Fuck, I highly doubt it.

Why do you feel you have to defend this when so much is against it being aluminum?
I'm not going to rehash all that I posted at length about it, including all the links, and videos, data including figures and calculations. You'll have to re read what was posted and or take a time out and establish more of an objective and rational thought process to continue, as I detect that you are not able to accept the facts regarding this and how NIST as the main investigative agency completely blew it in handling it.

You can not honestly conclude it was some kind of a mirage, simply because NIST acts like it was. Were there numerous reports of melted molten steel, hell ya there was.
What did NIST do about this? Absolutely nothing. To continue to deny this or try to irrationally explain it away is just plain insane, and a huge denial. I thought we were discussing facts? Or is NIST the unquestionable authority and has the market cornered on facts? Despite them having to contradict hundreds of people?
This is one of the main problems about the NIST report. I'm showing where along the way, we who oppose them because and don't trust them, do so with verifiable proof of WHY.

 

[SAYIT]

9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube

Did he test the molten mats or even take its temp?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Notice around the 4:52 mark or so, the "squibs" are forming in a straight tight line on one side of the building...If these are supposed to be the truss angle clips or parts there of, why aren't they where coming from where ALL the truss angle clips are throughout each floor?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yli-if4F0DY]2012 New WTC Demolition Flashes and Loud Explosions (Analysis) - YouTube[/ame]


These sure don't look like "pancaking" floors to me at all.
How can anyone say these are the floors of the towers, when these explosions are taking place BEFORE the collapse fronts have a chance to influence the floors directly below the fronts???
Someone try to explain this or point out where in the NIST report I can find ANY info on this....

 

[SAYIT]

9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube


Funny no mention of any aluminum in the basement levels, but Leslie Robertson mentioned he saw steel "running like little rivers" at the B1 level. All these numerous sightings and reports by so many people yet NIST decides to ignore this. Why would that be?
You can't answer this with any amount of reasonable logic. It's no wonder that people distrust the NIST.
Now you know. What else did NIST ignore, that you have to jump through hoops in trying to justify in order to keep your 9-11 official conspiracy myth going?
NIST and John Gross are simply fucking lying, plain and simple. Office fires do not reach the temp level required to melt steel, and not one of you people have even come close to making a rational argument it might have been aluminum, and the reasoning that you clowns are trying to use is pathetic and laughable. WTC 7 had no mass quantity of aluminum.
There was waay more steel within the towers then aluminum.
The molten steel wreckage was reported centered in the sub basements of all 3 buildings.
These are facts that can not be rationally explained away, and should not have been ignored, and lied about.
How fucking more obvious does this have to be, or must you have to try to continue to explain this away so nothing deviates away from the planes, jetfuel, and Alqaeda narrative?
This is no longer up for debate. I will not discuss this part of your CT anymore.

But I will show you where else NIST was forced to stray from honest investigative policy, namely the reports of numerous secondary explosions
and devices.

That isn't Robertson but rather Gage quoting from the Williams article which misquoted Robertson who, like everyone who claims to have seen molten steel, did no tests on the molten mats. Case still closed.

 

[Mr. Jones]

9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube


Funny no mention of any aluminum in the basement levels, but Leslie Robertson mentioned he saw steel "running like little rivers" at the B1 level. All these numerous sightings and reports by so many people yet NIST decides to ignore this. Why would that be?
You can't answer this with any amount of reasonable logic. It's no wonder that people distrust the NIST.
Now you know. What else did NIST ignore, that you have to jump through hoops in trying to justify in order to keep your 9-11 official conspiracy myth going?
NIST and John Gross are simply fucking lying, plain and simple. Office fires do not reach the temp level required to melt steel, and not one of you people have even come close to making a rational argument it might have been aluminum, and the reasoning that you clowns are trying to use is pathetic and laughable. WTC 7 had no mass quantity of aluminum.
There was waay more steel within the towers then aluminum.
The molten steel wreckage was reported centered in the sub basements of all 3 buildings.
These are facts that can not be rationally explained away, and should not have been ignored, and lied about.
How fucking more obvious does this have to be, or must you have to try to continue to explain this away so nothing deviates away from the planes, jetfuel, and Alqaeda narrative?
This is no longer up for debate. I will not discuss this part of your CT anymore.

But I will show you where else NIST was forced to stray from honest investigative policy, namely the reports of numerous secondary explosions
and devices.

That isn't Robertson but rather Gage quoting from the Williams article which misquoted Robertson who, like everyone who claims to have seen molten steel, did no tests on the molten mats. Case still closed.

I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...

 

[SAYIT]

9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube


Funny no mention of any aluminum in the basement levels, but Leslie Robertson mentioned he saw steel "running like little rivers" at the B1 level. All these numerous sightings and reports by so many people yet NIST decides to ignore this. Why would that be?
You can't answer this with any amount of reasonable logic. It's no wonder that people distrust the NIST.
Now you know. What else did NIST ignore, that you have to jump through hoops in trying to justify in order to keep your 9-11 official conspiracy myth going?
NIST and John Gross are simply fucking lying, plain and simple. Office fires do not reach the temp level required to melt steel, and not one of you people have even come close to making a rational argument it might have been aluminum, and the reasoning that you clowns are trying to use is pathetic and laughable. WTC 7 had no mass quantity of aluminum.
There was waay more steel within the towers then aluminum.
The molten steel wreckage was reported centered in the sub basements of all 3 buildings.
These are facts that can not be rationally explained away, and should not have been ignored, and lied about.
How fucking more obvious does this have to be, or must you have to try to continue to explain this away so nothing deviates away from the planes, jetfuel, and Alqaeda narrative?
This is no longer up for debate. I will not discuss this part of your CT anymore.

But I will show you where else NIST was forced to stray from honest investigative policy, namely the reports of numerous secondary explosions
and devices.

That isn't Robertson but rather Gage quoting from the Williams article which misquoted Robertson who, like everyone who claims to have seen molten steel, did no tests on the molten mats. Case still closed.

I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

 

[eots]

That isn't Robertson but rather Gage quoting from the Williams article which misquoted Robertson who, like everyone who claims to have seen molten steel, did no tests on the molten mats. Case still closed.

I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story

 

[SAYIT]

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel. Red hot metal =/= molten. 1500 degrees =/= molten steel. Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel. Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it. I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it. I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel. I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled. I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).

There may have been molten steel. I'm not dismissing the possibility. What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.

I don't know what else can be said, linked to and seen, and heard about this.
I think if NIST had done due diligence your questions might have answered, and this is my point.

No it's not. If that was your point you would not leap to the assumption that the molten mat was steel. You would stop at complaining about NIST's failure to test for melted steel. Instead you assume that since it was not tested it had to be steel.
Again ... no one tested the mats either when molten or cooled and no one really knows what those mats were.

 

[SAYIT]

I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story

So what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?

 

[Montrovant]

I get that you think the NIST investigators should have looked into the reports of molten metals. I can understand that.

I wonder, though, is it possible that they DID look into it and decided there wasn't enough evidence to go into depth about it? The fact that it isn't an issue in the final report doesn't mean there wasn't any discussion about it amongst at least some of the investigators. Perhaps, after hearing the accounts, after being at GZ, they decided for whatever reason that there was no molten steel, or that the conditions in the debris were so different from those in the towers before collapse that it must have happened afterwards?

I don't know what was or was not looked at in detail or by whom. I suppose that might be seen as a failure, at least of transparency, in the investigation.

As far as the possibility of aluminum, and needing to be objective to see that it isn't possible....now we're getting into silliness. I can just as easily tell you that I think your need to see a conspiracy behind the events forces you to dismiss aluminum as a possibility where the reports of molten metals are concerned.

If we are discussing facts, the fact is that you have provided ZERO evidence that anyone confirmed either the existence of molten metals, or that any molten metals seen were steel. That the reports you have provided of molten steel were accurate is speculation.

If the point of this thread is to see where the other side is coming from, we're doing that fairly well I think. The fact that we continue to disagree about the conclusions drawn or even the data involved should come as no surprise. It's inevitable, given the differences in our opinions of what happened and why on 9/11.

 

[SAYIT]

I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story

I would congratulate you for being the first CT here to admit the molten steel issue is unverified but your assumption that our gov't "just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story" is outrageous enough for me to withhold the kudos. Sorry.

 

[Mr. Jones]

How can NIST, or any of you OCT say that the trusses indeed were the fail point that led to global collapses when NIST testing showed, that in reference to the truss fire testing
"All 4 test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"-NIST page 142-143

This is longer then either of the buildings stood.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in ANY given location on Sept. 11." -NIST page 143

There were many numerous reports of huge explosions, some from the base of the towers.
But I thought they collapsed because of fires? Why are there so many reports of "huge explosions"? Explosions make sense when you watch any video of the actual "collapses"..you can see forcible ejections of material, even BEFORE any floors start to "pancake" onto one another...
Perhaps whatever caused the "molten steel" was a result of these explosions?? How the fuck can aluminum outer cladding make its way into the centers of these buildings and be imbedded some 70 feet below the surface...in the sub basements?

What did NIST have to say in regards to all of this? Did they pretend this was insignificant as well?
How can anyone look at the "collapses" and not notice the huge chunks of the towers being forcibly ejected AWAY...?
Heavy white smoke coming from the lower parts of the towers, even before any parts of them hit the ground?
"Loud rumbles being heard preceding the actual collapses..."
"Explosions...."
"Floor by floor...it started popping out"

One of the more idiotic claims is that no det cord was found...Actually not much was found...it was mostly pulverized..all the non steel was pulverized...
It almost seems that what we were being told was an explanation, of buildings being imploded, without actually coming out and saying that they were actually imploded!
NIST has tasked with explaining and describing a building implosion, and trying to pin it on planes fuel, and fires!

Almost all of the recognizable contents were pulverized....Now how can a gravity ONLY collapse, induced by time consuming "weakening" of steel floor trusses produce all the energy that pulverized so much of the contents? And ejected so many tons of steel material? And reduced human bodies to little teeny slivers that were found hundreds of feet away?

For one the lead investigators to deny the existence of molten steel, and then to say he NEVER even heard of such a claim... and contradict hundreds of GZ people.. I mean how much more obvious does a fucking cover up have to be to you people?

 

[Mr. Jones]

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel. Red hot metal =/= molten. 1500 degrees =/= molten steel. Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel. Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it. I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it. I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel. I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled. I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).

There may have been molten steel. I'm not dismissing the possibility. What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.

I don't know what else can be said, linked to and seen, and heard about this.
I think if NIST had done due diligence your questions might have answered, and this is my point.

No it's not. If that was your point you would not leap to the assumption that the molten mat was steel. You would stop at complaining about NIST's failure to test for melted steel. Instead you assume that since it was not tested it had to be steel.
Again ... no one tested the mats either when molten or cooled and no one really knows what those mats were.

Again so because NIST neglected to conduct a proper investigation, and no one took it upon themselves, like the GZ workers to do a forensic analysis..in your idiotic mind that is full of denial and full of shit...the melted steel just did not even exist....You display the worse reasoning skills and severe form of denial so you can keep living with your CT, that I have ever run across..

 

[Mr. Jones]

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story

I would congratulate you for being the first CT here to admit the molten steel issue is unverified but your assumption that our gov't "just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story" is outrageous enough for me to withhold the kudos. Sorry.

NIST did ignore this you fucking idiot, how much more obvious does this have to be in order for it to sink in?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I get that you think the NIST investigators should have looked into the reports of molten metals. I can understand that.

I wonder, though, is it possible that they DID look into it and decided there wasn't enough evidence to go into depth about it? The fact that it isn't an issue in the final report doesn't mean there wasn't any discussion about it amongst at least some of the investigators. Perhaps, after hearing the accounts, after being at GZ, they decided for whatever reason that there was no molten steel, or that the conditions in the debris were so different from those in the towers before collapse that it must have happened afterwards?

I don't know what was or was not looked at in detail or by whom. I suppose that might be seen as a failure, at least of transparency, in the investigation.

As far as the possibility of aluminum, and needing to be objective to see that it isn't possible....now we're getting into silliness. I can just as easily tell you that I think your need to see a conspiracy behind the events forces you to dismiss aluminum as a possibility where the reports of molten metals are concerned.

If we are discussing facts, the fact is that you have provided ZERO evidence that anyone confirmed either the existence of molten metals, or that any molten metals seen were steel. That the reports you have provided of molten steel were accurate is speculation.

If the point of this thread is to see where the other side is coming from, we're doing that fairly well I think. The fact that we continue to disagree about the conclusions drawn or even the data involved should come as no surprise. It's inevitable, given the differences in our opinions of what happened and why on 9/11.

Again you are failing to come to grips that there can be no denying what was seen at GZ.
And you just assume that because NIST decides to ignore and outright lie, when John Gross said he never heard of this, that this somehow cancels out all the numerous witnesses. This is a straight up denial on their part and you justify it for the same reasons that NIST did, probably.
How the fuck you can say there is ZERO evidence of this is insane and you are justifying your outrageous claim because you are hiding behind what NIST said.
If , like I said you continue to deny this, you have a serious case of denial going on.

What a crock of shit....Your reasoning is that because NIST denied it it must be OK for you as well....Fuck the information that has been posted right?

 

[Mr. Jones]

9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube

Did he test the molten mats or even take its temp?

Why? Was he responsible for doing so? You people have the worst case of denial I've ever run across. At least others I've engage on this topic will admit to seeing the point, but they don't just ignore pages of points, people, videos, and witnesses. LOL...

 

[Mr. Jones]

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel. Red hot metal =/= molten. 1500 degrees =/= molten steel. Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel. Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it. I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it. I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel. I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled. I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).

There may have been molten steel. I'm not dismissing the possibility. What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.

I don't know what else can be said, linked to and seen, and heard about this.
I think if NIST had done due diligence your questions might have answered, and this is my point.

No it's not. If that was your point you would not leap to the assumption that the molten mat was steel. You would stop at complaining about NIST's failure to test for melted steel. Instead you assume that since it was not tested it had to be steel.
Again ... no one tested the mats either when molten or cooled and no one really knows what those mats were.

Given all the abundance of information about this subject, it is a clear and reasonable assumption to conclude, unless you need to deny all the information posted about it, which is exactly what you are trying to do, and are in a frantic tail chase that includes blaming FDNY and GZ workers for not testing the molten steel! Wow man what an asshole you are!
I mean is this the best you people can come up with....page after page of circular denial??

You all just gave up on trying to come up with failed assumptions, an start to blame everyone else except NIST!! What a hoot! Deny deny deny....distract and deny some more...is that what your assignment is???

 

[Mr. Jones]

Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.

exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story

So what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?

Well now that's the mystery isn't it? Do you have any suggestions?

 

[SAYIT]

9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube

Did he test the molten mats or even take its temp?

Why? Was he responsible for doing so? You people have the worst case of denial I've ever run across. At least others I've engage on this topic will admit to seeing the point, but they don't just ignore pages of points, people, videos, and witnesses. LOL...

If he is claiming the molten mats were steel he should be responsible enough to actually know that for a fact rather than just speculate and the obvious place to begin would have been to determine the temp of the molten mats. None of your eye witnesses actually knows what the mats were. None. It's all just speculation.