The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[SAYIT]

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???

That is your self-serving opinion, Princess, but you still have only speculation and no proof which supports it. None of your eye witnesses can honestly say they know what those molten mats were. None.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

I know of none but isn't it incumbent on you to find out? After all, your CT is based on the melted steel theory and you have proof of neither melted steel nor any substance which can melt it and keep it in its molten state for weeks.
Come back when you have something that makes sense, Princess.

 

[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.

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?

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

These GZ people saw the fucking steel..melting or in a molten state...Maybe a dipshit like you might not be able to tell the difference between a piece of steel channel and a piece of silverish aluminum, It's not like they were looking only at some liquid pools, but many said they saw it dripping from the STEEL. Go watch the Robertson video you conveniently
don't bring up anymore...
They didn't see molten aluminum because of the reasons I already explained.
Mass quantity of steel over aluminum and the placement of it.
As well as the melted steel being reported in the centers of the buildings
70 feet below in the sub basements.
And NO ONE said they saw pieces of aluminum channel melted and dripping.

You want to try and twist us a tale of how the aluminum cladding or the Boeing bodies
transported themselves down there? Give it a try...

 

[Mr. Jones]

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???

That is your self-serving opinion, Princess, but you still have only speculation and no proof which supports it. None of your eye witnesses can honestly say they know what those molten mats were. None.

Hundreds of credible witnesses, many in relevant fields who would know the difference..
All the info regarding aluminum in the towers..quantity vs steel..where it was placed on the towers.....where the Boeings were in the towers....and finally where the sightings were reported....in the centers of ALL 3 BUILDINGS some 70 feet below fucking ground level...If you can't honestly understand all the things going against your molten aluminum assumptions...then you're just being willfully ignorant for the sake of keeping your OCT
alive in your feeble little troll head of yours...
You lose loser...

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?

I know of none but isn't it incumbent on you to find out? After all, your CT is based on the melted steel theory and you have proof of neither melted steel nor any substance which can melt it and keep it in its molten state for weeks.
Come back when you have something that makes sense, Princess.

No asshole it is NOT incumbent on ME to find out. My task in this thread is to point out where I have a problem with the NIST report, and for others to try to show me that I am wrong for doubting NIST..It is incumbent for you to show me how the NIST is accurate, and that I am wrong, and you have and continue to fail miserably at your task..

The reality is that is was incumbent on NIST to investigate the entire spectrum of the evidence using whatever reports and witnesses were available, and you know this. And find out why and how 3 buildings collapsed because of 2 planes, and how and why they all collapsed.
It was not up to anyone else but NIST.
But, nothing that anyone can say...no figures, calculations, no amount of witnesses, and no amount of any information or facts, reason or rationale will ever change the way you view things. It is you who struggles to provide any hint that NIST report is credible, and you who struggles to provide any logical answers that counters what I have presented that I am against regarding NIST..
Aluminum...GZ workers..hundreds of credible GZ personnel not knowing the difference?
Molten steel being seen and reported in sub basements 70 feet below the earth, but somehow according to your stupidity, it would somehow be more rational to assume it was the Boeing plane bodies that were inside the towers some 80 to 90 stories in the fucking air??
Or that it is somehow more rational to assume the thinner aluminum cladding covers that were on the outsides of the towers and that can be seen being forcibly ejected away from the buildings with great energy, were what all the GZ people and Leslie Robertson said he saw???
You also want us to believe your reasoning, that what they really really saw was melting aluminum in the centers of all 3 wreckage piles..that was buried in the sub basements...70 feet below the surface, despite each tower having 200,000 TONS of steel
compared to, and according to your "debunking" site that you claim is a good source of information ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...
22,046lbs...of aluminum in each tower compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower?
The towers had most of its aluminum on the outside, and the Boeing plane bodies were hundred of feet in the air...So how can you even begin to honestly or rationally conclude
that this aluminum in such low quantities compared to the steel contents, could possibly makes its way under the ground, and say that it was most likely melting aluminum??
This is just one example of the insane logic and nonsense you have yo use in order to defend YOUR OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY!!

This is precisely because anything that points towards another possibility is strictly out of bounds for people like you. You are only here in a capacity to spread ridicule, and disinformation, and you will stoop to the lowest levels humanly possible to try to do it, and maintain and perpetuate the lies. It's humorous watching you
being stripped of any honesty, credibility and integrity in your attempts...It's only a message board and no one knows you right? Fuck all those attributes, your task is continue to breath life into a lie. When facts, figures, calculations hundreds of witnesses are against you, you stoop to attacking and try to lay the blame on the blameless, and when
that doesn't go well, you trot out the race card, and your favorite...the CT label..Do you seriously think that
no one can see right through your BS and tactics? Seriously? You are a joke and you strategy is dependant on
easily observed trolling tactics that look like they came right out of a handbook, or some pre shift meetings..LOL!

NIST was, as a government agency assigned the task to investigate the collapses of the buildings, but instead given what can be read, was really charged with an "official scientific" coverup, and after observing how they conducted their investigation that is exactly what they seemed to have produced.

Maybe you purposefully keep yourself from processing many of these things, or maybe you are one of the many stooges that are placed on forums and comment sections to discourage honest discussion, by using ridicule, false unprovable assumptions and the like.
Whether this is the case concerning you and others or not, it makes no great difference just reading the looney assumptions that you post, and watching you tie yourself up in knots, all the while ignoring the obvious contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, in order for you to try and rationalize the absurd..is comical. You are a dishonest individual
and you have no integrity, but those attributes don't matter to you. America doesn't matter to you, and we can all be damn sure facing the facts about 9-11 is not even on the table when it comes to your task.

Yep...No level is too low for you to stoop to, including laying the blame on GZ workers in a lowdown attempt to cover for NIST, and to keep your OCT intact and in place in your mind and in the minds of others..It is also obvious that you have an immature capacity to reason and rationalize and you have a child's view in regards to America, its politics and policies and history.

It's ironic you keep mentioning "my CT" when you adhere to one that does not make sense, and must use dishonest tactics and out right lies to keep it afloat in weak scared minds. When this is pointed out, you resort to more of the same obfuscation tactics blaming those who are not deserving of it,and you like to throw in the race/religion card
too when your BS is exposed. You do these tactics in order to avoid continuing talk
about what you simply have no defense for or rational answer to.

Anyone who calls the views of others a "CT" while wrapping himself in one, and who justifies adhering to it because it is an "official version" that is full of easily verifiable and discernible holes, is in a state of great denial or has chosen the task of assisting in the spread of propaganda, and disinformation, and using ridicule and the "CT" label, and the race card to foment ridicule and squelch discussion and prevent awareness of topics that can show others just how bad they have been mislead and lied to.

I have already shown in this thread, where you have lied, and where you used an obscure "debunking" website whose figures and calculations and statements were against the possibility of hundreds of reports and eyewitnesses who supposedly couldn't tell the difference between steel channel and much thinner aluminum pieces of wreckage.

You came on here spewing BS about Leslie Robertson an original WTC engineer, and you claimed he never mentioned seeing melted steel, and I posted a video that shows you were dead wrong. So you stooped even lower and tried to resort to blaming the GZ workers themselves for not "testing" what they saw and reported.....

You have run out of options, so you attack the well meaning innocent GZ workers before you will ever admit that NIST neglected to do its job properly, and in similar fashion to what NIST did, you go to every possible asinine scenario including ignoring facts, and witnesses that could force you to rationalize honestly. You have no regard for your own credibility or integrity and honesty has no known definition in your mind..

Like Eots has said, the NIST report is a joke. It's full of glaring out right lies and very unlikely assumptions that are based on neglecting and dismissing anything that has a better possibility of showing the attacks were facilitated by something, and someone else.

 

[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?

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.

Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?

How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.

The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.

Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!

I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!

NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.

Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?

How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.

The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.

Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!

I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!

NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!

I find many of your arguments irrational. I have found much of your posted information questionable, sometimes irrelevant, and occasionally contradictory. This has been pointed out numerous times. You think it should be completely clear to anyone that what you have concluded is true. I disagree, and have explained why. You continue to harp on 'hiding behind' the NIST report, despite the fact that multiple posters have said they accept the possibility that the NIST report is flawed while not completely dismissing the idea that the planes and fires were responsible for the collapse of the towers.

If you want to move on to another point, that's fine. However, you seem to be taking this too personally and getting angrier about it than you should if you want to continue a polite argument about the subject.

 

[eots]

The NIST report is beyond flawed it was an intentional cover - up of the facts

 

[eots]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[SAYIT]

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.

These GZ people saw the fucking steel..melting or in a molten state...Maybe a dipshit like you might not be able to tell the difference between a piece of steel channel and a piece of silverish aluminum, It's not like they were looking only at some liquid pools, but many said they saw it dripping from the STEEL. Go watch the Robertson video you conveniently
don't bring up anymore...
They didn't see molten aluminum because of the reasons I already explained.
Mass quantity of steel over aluminum and the placement of it.
As well as the melted steel being reported in the centers of the buildings
70 feet below in the sub basements.
And NO ONE said they saw pieces of aluminum channel melted and dripping.

You want to try and twist us a tale of how the aluminum cladding or the Boeing bodies
transported themselves down there? Give it a try...

You conveniently ignore the tons of aluminum and other materials in the Towers which were present and when melted and mixed with aluminum could appear orange. No one who claims to have seen molten metal can say with any degree of certainty what that molten material was, especially you.

 

[SAYIT]

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???

That is your self-serving opinion, Princess, but you still have only speculation and no proof which supports it. None of your eye witnesses can honestly say they know what those molten mats were. None.

Hundreds of credible witnesses, many in relevant fields who would know the difference..
All the info regarding aluminum in the towers..quantity vs steel..where it was placed on the towers.....where the Boeings were in the towers....and finally where the sightings were reported....in the centers of ALL 3 BUILDINGS some 70 feet below fucking ground level...If you can't honestly understand all the things going against your molten aluminum assumptions...then you're just being willfully ignorant for the sake of keeping your OCT
alive in your feeble little troll head of yours...
You lose loser...

Your entire premise is based on a lie, Princess, yet you repeat it like it's your job. Is it your job?

 

[SAYIT]

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

I know of none but isn't it incumbent on you to find out? After all, your CT is based on the melted steel theory and you have proof of neither melted steel nor any substance which can melt it and keep it in its molten state for weeks.
Come back when you have something that makes sense, Princess.

No asshole it is NOT incumbent on ME to find out. My task in this thread is to point out where I have a problem with the NIST report, and for others to try to show me that I am wrong for doubting NIST..It is incumbent for you to show me how the NIST is accurate, and that I am wrong, and you have and continue to fail miserably at your task.

You base your CT on a false premise; that molten materials at GZ were steel yet you can't explain what substance could have melted that steel on 9/11 and continued to do so weeks later. Like the NIST I find no reason to investigate your concerns absent either proof of molten steel or a substance which could do what you claim. Sorry, Princess, but your CT is still just speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS.

 

[lynn63]

What I finding interesting about the whole incident was the quick response of the military that were able to quickly deploy so many military personal to every business to control the people that lived there. My friend was there when the towers collapsed and she said it was so well organized that it looked they had been prepared for this event.

Prior to 911 there were many arrests with people getting caught with anthrax in their possession. The media never put two and two together and never mentioned this in the media.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.

Nor has anyone here made the case it was NOT molten gold or bronze or cheese-whiz. The only one here pretending to KNOW what that molten material was is - drum roll, please - you.
No one can say with any degree of certainty what that stuff was and neither can you but you desperately pretend to and I believe I now understand why.
Your CT is your life's work, what you believe to be your claim to fame. You have invested much time and effort in erecting your CT and the molten steel is at the core of it. Admitting that no one, including you knows what the molten mats were destroys your CT, something you just can't face.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.

Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?

How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.

The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.

Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!

I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!

NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!

I find many of your arguments irrational.

What do you find that is irrational? Try to specifically mention my aluminum in the towers calculations, because it seems that you are having difficulty understanding
How much aluminum was in/on the towers compared to how much steel there was..
Where it was placed in/on the towers.
Where the molten steel was seen in relation to where the aluminum was placed in/on the towers.
And finally WHO was responsible to follow up on the sightings and investigate.

I have found much of your posted information questionable,

Such as?

sometimes irrelevant,

Numerous sightings and reports of melted steel, and subsequent ignoring and dismissal of them by the investigative agency is irrelevant?

and occasionally contradictory.

Do tell, the only thing I find that is contradictory is that it contradicts NIST mission statement.

This has been pointed out numerous times. You think it should be completely clear to anyone that what you have concluded is true. I disagree,

What should be clear, is that the argument I presented for it being melted steel is much stronger then you and the others argument against it..
What should also be clear is that the possibility of all the GZ personnel seeing melted aluminum is almost nil.
Especially when honestly considering the facts that have been posted regarding any aluminum in/on the towers and the Boeing plane remnants, where it seen, AND when you honestly consider that WTC 7 experienced the same thing and you can't include any aluminum into the equation.

and have explained why. You continue to harp on 'hiding behind' the NIST report, despite the fact that multiple posters have said they accept the possibility that the NIST report is flawed while not completely dismissing the idea that the planes and fires were responsible for the collapse of the towers.

No one has explained or presented a viable argument for melted steel reports actually being aluminum. And no one has even attempted to argue the points I made regarding quantity, placement, witnesses, and WTC 7.

If you want to move on to another point, that's fine. However, you seem to be taking this too personally and getting angrier about it than you should if you want to continue a polite argument about the subject.

I'm not trying to get nasty with you personally, my frustration is more towards those who try to lay blame on GZ workers and personnel etc, and want to continue to feign some sort of victory points when they haven't even come close to presenting a viable argument for melted steel reports actually being aluminum. And no one has even attempted to argue the points I made regarding quantity, placement, witnesses, and WTC 7.

Based on what has been presented, and short of anyone providing any stronger contradictory points and facts against the melted steel sightings,, it must be concluded that it was highly more probable that what they saw, described, reported, confirmed by experts, and a WTC engineer, was molten steel.

There is simply too much against your aluminum guesses.

 

[daws101]

EXPLOSIONS-

There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
The WTC was bombed in 1993 afterall, and so many people on 9-11 reported this.
Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.
NIST, has never identified an energy source in the WTC capable of producing such massive explosions.
We can see on videos explosions taking place throughout the towers, some many stories below the collapse fronts. I even found one video that shows a person being blown out of a window...
We can also see that much of the towers were pulverized by some energy source that remains unidentified. If this were a collapse with floors pancaking down on top of each other, we should expect to see some floors remaining relatively intact, in the middle of the "pancaked" floors primarily.

Each floor of the 110 story WTC towers, one acre in size, consisted of a 4-inch thick slabs of concrete on a deck of 22 gauge steel. During the collapse some force pulverized nearly all of this concrete into dust.

The concrete wasn't pulverized as the 1 acre floors hit the ground, but instead, they seemingly were pulverized in midair as the buildings explosively disintegrated.
One towers top section even tilted, but mysteriously instead of toppling over, it disintegrated and there were forcible ejections of massive tons of building materials.
Concrete wasn't the only thing to be disintegrated as many of the furnishings, like desks, chairs, storage cabinets, and people were blown to bits. Some bone fragments were found way across the street on the Deutsch Bank building.
Less than 300 corpses were recovered in the wreckage.
Workers found more than 700 slivers of bone, on the roof and within the that structure.

These towers did not seem to pancake floor by floor, and provide any resistance, instead they looked to just be exploding one by one in rapid succession. The towers fell straight down as if there was no resistance whatsoever., as we can see plumes of ejected materials exploding out of the buildings with great force, and again some of these plumes were 10-20- stories BELOW the collapse fronts. This would rule out them being "air" caused by the "pancaking" floors.

So I challenge any of you OC theorists, to explain this and point out what the NIST report has to say regarding these other anomalies...

Could gravity turn massive slabs of concrete, thousands of tons of material, into fine dust, in midair?



2012 New WTC Demolition Flashes and Loud Explosions (Analysis) - YouTube

"Squibs"



Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".



They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.

So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?

It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...


Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm


BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.

Another point is the amount of these so called squibs. Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I won’t even bother with these. These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use. Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same. Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses. I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn't know what to make of it. But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition. In all the controlled demolitions I've seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors. Even some small buildings have many charges. Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors? And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor? When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse. And even if it did, the message is sent. The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it. It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors.

The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings. The explosive force of one of these...



...hitting the elevator, then lower floors would be tremendous. Hitting an elevator below would only add to the weight and explosive effect. It would send debris away from the impact point with great force. It's not unreasonable to suspect these heavy objects obliterated the fireproofed gypsum on the way down. Couple that with the over pressure of the collapse and you have a good candidate for what we see. Is that the only thing it could be? Not at all. I, like the conspiracy theorists, don't have an inventory of every window that was broken and every piece of equipment which could have created the effect.
So, we are left with jets of debris which do not act like explosives, on not enough floors to have caused the collapse. We also have some likely explanations which do not involve explosives.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Squibs

 

[Mr. Jones]

I know of none but isn't it incumbent on you to find out? After all, your CT is based on the melted steel theory and you have proof of neither melted steel nor any substance which can melt it and keep it in its molten state for weeks.
Come back when you have something that makes sense, Princess.

No asshole it is NOT incumbent on ME to find out. My task in this thread is to point out where I have a problem with the NIST report, and for others to try to show me that I am wrong for doubting NIST..It is incumbent for you to show me how the NIST is accurate, and that I am wrong, and you have and continue to fail miserably at your task.

You base your CT on a false premise; that molten materials at GZ were steel yet you can't explain what substance could have melted that steel on 9/11 and continued to do so weeks later. Like the NIST I find no reason to investigate your concerns absent either proof of molten steel or a substance which could do what you claim. Sorry, Princess, but your CT is still just speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS.

You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
Again you try to deviate from the entire point of this part of the discussion, which is to understand why there is objection to the credibility of the NIST investigation and its reports. You simply must continue to ignore the weakness of your argument and case, and continue to say "there is no proof" while ignoring the facts that the only reason you feel that you can even say that, is the fact that NIST provided an out for themselves and anyone who takes the same stance as you do, by NOT CONDUCTING A THOROUGH AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AND IGNORING THIS OBVIOUS TO HUNDREDS MOLTEN STEEL PHENOMENA!!
Your CT precisely has to rely on "speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS" along with shit investigative tactics, including ignoring of this issue, so the OCT myth that only planes flown by inexperienced Islamic jihadists, and fires, and gravity can be said to be the sole cause of the WTC buildings demise..

You lose again.

 

[Mr. Jones]

What I finding interesting about the whole incident was the quick response of the military that were able to quickly deploy so many military personal to every business to control the people that lived there. My friend was there when the towers collapsed and she said it was so well organized that it looked they had been prepared for this event.

Prior to 911 there were many arrests with people getting caught with anthrax in their possession. The media never put two and two together and never mentioned this in the media.

Well, FEMA was on site in NYC the day before the attacks....

 

[daws101]

I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion. I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ. I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning. Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement? That the events need to be questioned? I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate. I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten. I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses. I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit. I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do. Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff. That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel. In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence. If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation. I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'. I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions. You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties. We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion. I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention. I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling. You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.

Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.

Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?

How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.

The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.

Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!

I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!

NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!

I find many of your arguments irrational. I have found much of your posted information questionable, sometimes irrelevant, and occasionally contradictory. This has been pointed out numerous times. You think it should be completely clear to anyone that what you have concluded is true. I disagree, and have explained why. You continue to harp on 'hiding behind' the NIST report, despite the fact that multiple posters have said they accept the possibility that the NIST report is flawed while not completely dismissing the idea that the planes and fires were responsible for the collapse of the towers.

If you want to move on to another point, that's fine. However, you seem to be taking this too personally and getting angrier about it than you should if you want to continue a polite argument about the subject.

bump