Humour Video : 9/11 conspiracy theories ridiculous. Al qaeda says.

I have. The issue is, did the steel melt or not? If it melted, the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports are incorrect. If it did not melt, then we can't explain Building 7 and have serious questions about WTC 1 & 2.

Because the investigation was stonewalled until the survivors families went to Washington to pressure the government to investigate, and explain how and why their loved ones died.

And because I generally distrust a government that operates in it's own interests, not in the interests of the citizenry.

And because the only people raising money for the First Responders that I have seen, are your so-called Troofers. While you and your pals sit around reading LGF and Hot Air, guys like We Are Change are out there trying to raise money to help out the real heroes of 9/11.

But really, the conspiracy angle isn't that big a deal with me. I'd just like complete and honest answers to the many outstanding issues. And I think a lot of the world, including many Americans are really beginning to wonder why these questions have not been satisfactorily asked or answered.

Let's be frank. If there were answers to these questions, the questions would stop. But it's not just angry young men on the internet. It's politicians, scientists, professors, professionals, laymen, entertainers etc. who are asking for answers.

I don't have an answer for that. Maybe after there is a transparent and complete investigation...

Actually, I will admit that I am no engineer or architect. I have however read the explanations of the NIST. And the challenges to the NIST are what concern me. Not EarlPearl or some arbitrary blogger's opinion on how things went down. I'm concerned with the government explanation and the issues with the "official record".

I think you are unfamiliar with the plane that went down in PA. Try again.

It was confirmed that the plane that is in question, did not come equipped with airphones. Also, the FBI (iirc, maybe it was CIA) confirmed that there was only one call on the cell, lasting less than a second. Certainly not long enough for a conversation of the detail entered into testimony.

What about flights 77, 93 and 175?

Actually, while you have been on hiatus, I have been mastering the Ad Hominem game. You're wasting your time, because I am willing to keep it on topic, and soak up the personal attacks you will try to undermine my position.

The bar has been raised, you'll have to bring more game.

 

Whose common sense?

What is insignificant? Is false testimony insignificant? is the CIA withholding interrogation tapes (under subpoena), then later destroying them, insignificant?

I'm just curious to know which of the questions I have posed, fall into your "shoe color" category of irrelevance. Care to point a couple out?

 

Lets look at this fact since you keep bringing up. What is the point?

He was never on the plane so he, at best, is testifying to what he understood or thought his wife was speaking to him on. He was not a percipient witness. But lets cut to the chase. It seems that he says he spoke to his wife. Some confusion would certainly be understandable as well.

You say, no seat-back phones, and no cell phone records. okay.

He says he spoke with his wife. Lets assume there are no seat phones. So that leave us with the cell call with no record.

Two things are possible. (1) They really did have a cell phone call and for whatever reason it is not showing on the bill. I am no expert but I assume it has happened before where calls are made that do not register. (2) He is making up a story about a call that never happened.

To believe (1) you have to accept the possibility that the cell phone records are not some infallible process and that the call could have taken place.

To believe (2) you would have to accept that he is actively and purposely lying about a phone call with his dead wife. He must be doing this for a purpose - Do you think he is a rogue liar or part of a conspiracy? What evidence to you have that support this notion or do you base it all on this lack of a seat back phone and cell record? Is your first assumption a grand conspiracy rather than some logic explanation? It seems so.

It makes no sense to bring it up unless it is material. Explain how you think this is material? Follow your own logic and ask where it is taking you?

It has no relevance unless it is part of some conspiracy - but you offer nothing to support that. Just questions which you offer as proof. Where is any proof of any conspiracy?

The fact that there is confusion and some uncertainty about what happened when terrorists flew 4 planes into buildings/field is understandable. You expect a perfect report of exactly what happened in a crazy and chaotic moment in time and then charge conspiracy when you don't get it.

 

Nice attempt at a dodge browntwn, but I wasn't asking for an explanation. People have researched this, given presentations including this, written books with this situation in it.

Neither you nor I are expert enough to explain how the call happened. However, with the absence of seatback phones and cell phone records, the testimony that the call was placed by seatback phone is incorrect.

Either the call was made and we're not sure how, or the call was not made at all.

Now if the call was not made (if in fact it can be proven that no such call was made by ruling out any technological ability to do so), then isn't this false testimony about the hijackers, the flight path etc?

Seems pretty relevant to me. In fact, finding out if the Commission reported on false evidence or there was perjury seems like a big deal to me.

How about you?

 

I think your distrust leads to paranoia. You should probably seek counseling for that.

Nope quite familiar. There was wreckage, parts, people and I believe the flight recorder as well. Do you not believe a plane hit, since you are debating the parts? If you believe in no plane, where is the plane? any proof of its continued existence?

So you aren't an engineer but are qualified to grasp the complaints and find some legitimacy. Leaps of faith are wonderful, arent they?

As long as you are willing to gloss over a major point and problem with the theory. Hey. Who am I to argue? I think you should invest a little time in the problem of Bush's Admin having been involved singularly; and the greater problem of having 2 different admin's involved together.

So its also plausible that the government made AIDS to kill off the black community, isn't it? And that it makes crack to enslave minorities. Those are both plausible concepts, are they not?

And this also suggests that you agree with a multi-administration conspiracy. Which brings into loads of other problems.

No. You are simply quoting their talking points without question for kicks. I know how it goes. And when presented with opportunities to dissuade those beliefs, you choose not to. But you don't think it's a big deal. Of course not.

Building 7 had about 25% of its face ripped off by debris from WTc 1 or 2 (I forget). It's unique construction - over an electricial station I believe - meant it had fewer supporting columns. The loss of that face made the collapse inevitable. In fact, if you watched the coverage, it was predicted to fall for a long time before it actually did.

Then again, if you believe that WTC 7 didn't fall because of debris, you must believe in demolition, which leads to the question of theme. Why ram planes into every building, except wtc7 and cause suspicion? It'd be easier to hijack another plane and ram it into wtc7 than to blow it up. Tons easier and it'd make more sense. Surely the black helicopter people would've realized that.

What serious questions? Steel looses 50% of its structural integrity at the temperatures reached inside the towers. If you believe that the towers were meant to withstand that, and also withstand the impact of a plane at full speed, then you really are sadly misinformed.

 

Thanks for the free advice!

You're making some leaps here. I don't believe there was enough evidence of a plane crash, nor did the reporters on site. I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me?

I think I can read and corroborate evidence as presented to me, within reason. I don't think there is anyone on this forum (present company included) who can devise an engineering explanation from scratch.

"the theory"? What theory? I think there is a conspiracy of silence and incompetence for sure. I don't have a theory about who did it and why. If I was planning it, I wouldn't involve Bush because he's an idiot.

I haven't looked into these, do you have links where I can find more info?

Last time I checked, the government wasn't only the executive branch. But anyways, I don't have "the theory", I only have questions. When we get the answers, we can start sharpening up or eliminating different theories.

I don't think the "conspiracy angle" as you put it, is a big deal. The rest of the quote from you seems to be assumption and projection on your part.

These are interesting points. I've seen video and pictures of Building 7 after WTC 1 & 2 had already fallen. It was mostly intact.

As far as suspicion, you're not suspicious at all. You and people with your uncomfortable disposition towards investigation seem to be working very hard to discredit and avoid suspicion. Looks like a 3rd plane may not have been needed.

The buildings were designed to take a plane impact according to the original engineer.

However, the entire building was not "aflame" and some form of pancake collapse or tipping would have been reasonable. Instead, the buildings disintegrated into it's own footprint at near free fall speed.

Again, if the steel didn't melt, then the eye witness reports and photos must be wrong. If the steel did melt, then the NIST report must be wrong.

I think we should investigate this further, don't you?

 

Yeah. Only they had another plane flew overheard to confirm a crash. Come on. At least try and believe your own stories. That white plane I believe, that the truthers believe was a black helicopter or whatever.

You're the only one attempting to deny the account without any actual evidence to support you. And you admit your inability to do anything but vomit out other peoples' opinions.

Such as the truthers. Works for me. But if you have any actual evidence of complicity with "other agencies" - please do keep us up to date!

No it wasn't. You are only looking at pictures you want to look at.

They were designed to take an impact from a smaller plane; going at landing speeds (slower than crusing speed) such as the one that hit the empire state building a few years earlier. If you don't grasp the major differences here, I'm sorry. Also fuel was not taken into account, a fact admitted to by the people who designed the building.

It didn't have to be. No free fall speed. It didn't disintegrate.

What one person calls melted steel another might not. Get it? Perceptions and reality.

Nope, but your style of investigation is vomiting out the opinions of others. Narcissistic pleas for attention. But if you care to actually investigate start with the site I posted earlier.

Now..let's try an important point again:

So its also plausible that the government made AIDS to kill off the black community, isn't it? And that it makes crack to enslave minorities. Those are both plausible concepts, are they not?

 

Uhm, no like if you see the photos and video from the site, there is clearly not even enough debris to make up a car, let alone a plane. There was one decent scar on the ground, but it was relatively small compared to a commercial airplane.

So you are a metallurgist? A Physicist? I wasn't aware you are an expert at engineering. How come you make such crappy websites then?

I assume then you have seen all of the photos? The ones I am referring to, and the ones you are implying I am not looking at?

I'm not so sure on this. I'm busy right now, but we can revisit it later.

If it didn't free fall, what was stopping it? Are you saying it pancaked, floor by floor?

Or Jedi mind tricks! These are not the melted pools of steel you are looking for!

You must be kidding us.

That sounds like an Ad Hominem. Is it an Ad Hominem? I hope not. It's way too early for you to resort to name calling. I haven't even totally owned you yet.

Again, I am unfamiliar with these topics. Could you provide some background so I can analyze it further?

 

Yeah it was only the width of the fuselage. And the beginnings of wing imprints on each side. Engines, small parts of the body. A flight recorder. Etc etc etc. Clearly no plane here.

Poor Guerilla. Acting out now You are the one attempting to doubt evidence put forth through investigation and backed up by evidence. And you lack either evidence or the experience to doubt. Your anger is misplaced.

If you claim to not have seen pictures of wtc7 with much of its body ripped off one side, then you haven't seen any decent photos. And if you have seen that and wonder "hey, why'd that building fall" then you are just being willfully ignorant.

I'll expect you wont' revisit this.

Free fall fallacy. Google it.

Snark is noted. And I'll take that as inability to see things rationally. That's fine.

Displacing your anger again? It's been a short easy trip for me this time.

I figured you'd be open to the concept.

Just give it up Guerilla. You don't know enough to defend yourself here.

 

How did you see all of this?

LOL. You admit you were "acting out" before. lmao

Anger? lmao, this is fun for me. You keep giving me opportunities to make my case!

Right, so you haven't seen photos (as per the top of this post). You're smarter than the average neocon lorien, I can't believe you are being this intentionally obtuse. I mean, surely these unanswered questions must make you wonder what was really going on with the investigation...

Ok, FINE! I will revisit it now!

Source

---

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

---

Seattle Times: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Excerpt

I have a lot more if you need it but please address these first.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth dispute this. Do you have an official rebuttal to their positions?

Well, if you think that explaining inconsistencies between neutral expert reports AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE with the engineering report filed much later and the forensic evidence destroyed, is a perceptive issue...

I mean, that's got to be the silliest explanation ever. What people saw and photographed has been misperceived. Nice try though.

You can't get me angry. Not that you are trying, right? *winks*

With so many false perceptions, what's one more hunh?

I'm not defending myself. I'm not on trial. Facts and evidence are. I'm asking questions about 9/11.

Maybe that is why you're not making any headway. Try staying on topic. You might get some results that way.

 

I'll keep it simple:

Pretty pictures! You can find exactly what I'm talking about. Just spend a little bit of time and don't immediately go googling "how do I prove that a plane didn't crash in shanksville" - I know that's how this works. So don't bore me. If your next post does not contain a picture of the fuselage dent in the ground and two partial wing imprints or a link to that and a link to the engine and plane parts that were found, don't expect much from me. That's your task. Follow through.

You have a case? I'm stunned. I thought you were just asking questions, not on trial here. Which is it?

More pictures! Wtc 7! Look at the damage. And consider the special construction of wtc7. Is it a wonder it fell, really? Think about it.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

More pictures! And math. Don't get confused.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Compare with this page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

That actually has the collapse starting after it really began. WTC's interior collapsed before the front end caved in, so when these guys claim the collapse "began" it was already in process. The interior's collapse just isn't evident from this fine fine vantage point.

Here is a link to the WTC7 collapse report (PDF) give it a perusal and let me know if you need further help here.

But lap it up, Guerilla. You are doing yeoman's work here for the conspiracy you aren't very interested in.

Yep. I know about this. This guy's belief is, of course, not based in anything but his opinion. No simulations were run (or were capable of being run). It does not account for the speed of that "pencil" hitting the netting. The fuel in the "pencil" or damage to the interior structure after the pencil went through the building. Here is the comprehensive simulation of what happened after the plane impacted with the tower:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

Beliefs are not reality, Guerilla. Accept it. It's actually stunning that you doubt this. Cheney isn't running up the stairs and planting termite in the towers on 9/10.

Which you don't have, you are simply engaging in negative proof here. You just have questions that are easily answered with a little research. But you are stuck in a cycle of trying to prove your point, so you ignore anything that is contradictory and are stuck with vague innuendo, beliefs, etc.

And it's becoming more clear that this is just a narcissistic exercise. Which is cool. But boring.

 

There was no wreckage found at the site that was larger than 2 feet according to the local law enforcement,

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

I think you are confusing images from different crashes like the one in Ukraine when you were posting about engines and whatnot.

My case is that we need a new investigation. Thanks for asking!

*stuff removed for post brevity*

I will look through the links and stuff you provided. I do have reservations about your debunking website, because the author doesn't take credit, and the domain registration is private. Its information presented in a vacuum,. and for the most part, conjecture without source or corroboration.

But bear in mind, the case for WTC7 hasn't even been confirmed by the NIST so it's basically, "he said, she said", which builds my case for a new investigation. Particularly if both sides disagree with the NIST reports.

Not yeomen's work. I just like to research before I post. I take making these claims that there are unanswered questions pretty seriously.

Do you know who "this guy" is? You claim it is based only on his opinion. HE WAS THE WTC CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. That's an expert opinion!

Also, why are you not responding to the 1993 article that the towers where built to withstand airplane crashes WITH FUEL? That's from one of the building's architects.

I'd appreciate if you could debunk that please. I'm presenting WTC experts. You're presenting ghostwritten debunk sites.

Re: the simulation. This expert (I will cite later in this post), was paid by the NSF to do a study. You can see from his website that he is an expert in forensic analysis and not a computer science department testing it's modeling software. His job was to not only simulate, but to check architectural standards, investigate fire etc. A complete workup, unlike the simulation you cite, which only modeled plane impacts.

Again, I'm better versed in this stuff than you. Simple google searches are not going to help you construct meaningful arguments when it's unlikely you have the time to read and understand what you are posting in rebuttal to me.

This sort of attack is unnecessary lorien. We're trying to have an honest discussion here about issues and facts. Presenting evidence and backing up claims or theories. The personal stuff should be left alone.

Actually, I have posted proof that there was molten metal from numerous recorded accounts.

The problem is, the NIST report and 9/11 Commission claims there was no molten metal. How can so many independent, non-partisan experts see molten metal (not to mention the photographs) and that is omitted from (and contradictory to) the official engineering explanation?

I actually have the recent interview text from the Berkley engineer who did the early simulations, and believed the buildings collapsed from the fires. After doing his investigation, and researching the ACSE reports, he has concluded that there was gross negligence in the investigation.

Again, this is a professional forensic examiner, who is non-partisan. Would you like this information so you can research it further?

You may be bored because I can provide confirmed evidence from hundreds of sources to back up my concerns. You on the other hand are heavily relying on one "debunk" website.

At the end of the day, I can't lose the argument, because as long as there is one significant ommission or error, then I believe the call for a new independent investigationis legitimate. You've put the unfortunate pressure on yourself of defending the status quo. Which means you have to debunk all of my concerns, completely.

And that is simply not possible.

Hence why you continue making arguments against me, or using one questionable position of mine, to undermine all of them.

I'm very pleased you will be carrying on the discussion. Together we'll construct a very solid case for a new investigation.

 

That story was done on 9/11. The investigation didn't stop then, Guerilla. The blackbox wasn't found for a few days. Engine pieces were found miles away. So were other plane parts.

But thanks for showing that you aren't interested in finding anything contradictory. I specifically asked for 2 pictures. But, as expected, "you" and "your questions" came first in the typical narcissistic style.

By not following through on that simple task, you've made my point for me. Thanks!

No. He was not. He was 49 when he died on 9/11. He would have been 19 or 20 when the towers were being built. He actually started work at the towers in 1993.

So he wasn't a construction manager of the towers. He supervising renovations and repairs after the 1993 attack. Criminies, man. Don't get your "research" from truther sites. If anything, he took a little too much pride in the towers and spoke glowingly of them, but he was clearly not the "construction manager"

Attack must be defined as exposing you to a little reality. I'll accept that

What facts? You are engaged in negative proof and willfull omission of anything contrary to your beliefs.

As I said, negative proof. and Narcissism. Wonderfully summed up right here in one statement.

 

Source?

I'm not in the business of supplying proof for your debunk claims. I'm supplying questions you can't answer. If you have photos, post them. My refusal to do so is in no way validation of your claims.

No, it is personalizing posts, and attacking me, rather than the argument.

It's a form of anti-intellectualism. Ad Hominem attacks and discrediting the opponent, instead of refuting him.

Likely because I have presented so much documented and expert opinion, you simply cannot manufacture or Google responses fast or accurately enough.

The facts like the article from the building's designer claiming that they were ready for a plane attack, fully loaded with fuel.

I asked for proof of your statement that they did not plan for the fuel. My article from 1993 refutes your position.

You also seem to be avoiding responding the numerous claims of molten steel from people working on site during the cleanup.

It seems I have presented a lot more proof than you have thus far. Of course, my proof is consistent, in that it challenges the official story, and contributes towards the call for a new investigation.

Your proof on the other hand, is similar to the stunt Will.Spencer pulled with the Popular Mechanics debunking. You only attack the claims which the 9/11 Scholars, Engineers and Architects are willing to concede are false, and not any of the claims that they believe are substantial.

Already told you fellas multiple times, governments, people and politicians around the world are waking up and realizing that the Commission didn't do it's job, and there are literally hundreds of unanswered questions about the attacks.

The new investigation is coming. When? I don't know. But I have no doubt that it is inevitable with the swing in public opinion.

Only one substantive question has to be valid to qualify a new investigation. Luckily, there are hundreds.

 

I dunno why you bother to continue this. Your previous claims keep falling away. I like how you won't even admit your obvious, willful error on the "WTC Construction Manager" - which is funny. Tell me, where did you get that little tidbit and what research did you do to verify his background? You said you like to research before you post. Show me that research, would ya?

Actually they are. I've already linked to them several times and you've ignored them.

Here's another slideshow. (Will Guerilla look at it -this time- ?)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-flight93-pg,0,2993172.photogallery?index=1

Oh I dunno. That they produced the flight recorder at the Moussai trial?

Here's more! It's -amazing- at in all of your extensive, exhaustive research you didn't come across any of this. Stunning.

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

I'm not avoiding, it's stupid Guerilla. People at the scene were in no position to say definitively if it was molten steel or not. It could have been a variety of metals or whatever. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, yet you rely on them exclusively without any question. This is another example of your negative proof.

You have? What proof? You've done nothing. Your "passenger list" was debunked. Your "WTC Construction manager" wasn't. "Molten Steel" - eyewitness accounts are unreliable. You're negative proof is laughable, really.

 

Sorry for backing it up some, but seriously look at this statement or watch the youtube section and stop and think for a moment if you know anything about physics....

If he really understood engineering (which entails physics) then he would not have made this statement. Does anyone else see what is completely wrong within this quote?

 

I assume you will credit the building's architect as understanding physics.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

 

You are saying that multiple non-partisan EXPERT accounts are not definitive, and the photos are perceptual issue, but you want to use a debunking website with an unknown ghostwriter...

Besides, you're not disputing that there was molten metal. But the Commission and the NIST did not investigate any of these claims of molten metal, hence the need for a new investigation. How can they possibly come to a conclusion that the metal didn't melt, unless they are willing to investigate the photographs and eyewitness accounts of molten metal?

Remember, I'm not trying to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. I am trying to make the case, that the investigation was incomplete. So the question, isn't can you explain answers to my questions, by using ghost written blogs. The the question is, why did the 9/11 commission and NIST not produce these questions and answer them adequately, or in many cases, at all?

Actually, you produced one passenger list for 4 flights. You still need to produce passenger lists for the remaining 3 flights.

I don't understand how you have determined that the "molten steel" accounts are unreliable. Have you found something to dispute that they might be reliable?

Here is a list of the various accounts, including the testimony at the 9/11 commission Hearing

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal#a091201moltenmetal

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero



A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11.[Source: Frank Silecchia]

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:

• Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
• William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
• Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 pdf file]
• Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
• Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 pdf file]
• Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [US News and World Report, 9/12/2002]
• According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
• New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
• As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]
• Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 pdf file] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).

 

Negative Proof. Again. *Yawn* But here we go again. For some reason. Guerilla flails about, quoting things that he surely doesn't understand.

And the list of concessions continues. No more dispute about PA, I assume? Good, we can move on. Stuck on debunking the iron age are we?

So I have to do the work for you now? What a lazy little narcissist you are. If you are truly interested in answering your own questions, you should really get working on finding the other ones, shouldn't you?

This is a mixture of poor eyewitness testimony and negative proof. You also type metal, but assume they are referring to steel - because it fits your supposition. Let's see what the experts say.

Let's go to the tape!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

See again. You are relying on eyewitness testimony from people who are in no position to make such assessments. Why are you ignoring this important point?

And yet you wonder why the steel structure collapsed. At 1300 degrees, steel loses about 1/2 of its strength. It's a boggling concept, really.

Stop quoting truther sites. It really does nothing to help your cause. It just makes you look dumber than you already do. Every point you've brought up has been taken apart. Why are you continuing? Do you need to get the last word in or something? Just stop. Show some respect for yourself.

 

You are using Ad Hominem. You are personally attacking me again, which means I am winning because you see the only way to win the argument is to chase me off or discredit me. You can't address the information I have posted directly.

As far as a truther site, it is all sourced. Are you disputing the sources? Why does it matter that it is a truther site if the information is accurate?

Again, that an attempt at Ad Hominem.

Did you debunk the architect of the building, as quoted to you? I recall you saying that the fuel was not taken into account, yet in the Seattle Time interview from 1993, he claims it was.

Also, you haven't been able to explain the phone call.

But that's not relevant. Again, you can't answer these adequately enough to put off a new investigation. No amount of googling debunk websites will adequately answer the questions which are legitimate, because the debunking websites avoid dealing with awkward questions that are unanswered or have fallacious answers.

I find your begging for mercy very sweet.

But honestly, I would be happy to continue discussing 9/11 truth with you. We've barely scratched the surface because for the most part, I've let you lead the discussion.

Would you like me to take over with some more questions now?

You could show some respect to the First Responders by making a donation here.