9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SAYIT]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

 

[daws101]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

they believe a lack of evidence is evidence!

 

[SAYIT]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

they believe a lack of evidence is evidence!

That's pretty much their deal.

 

[Mr. Jones]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

And you assume since NIST ignored numerous reports, that hundreds of GZ people were wrong.
No one reported seeing "molten aluminum".
And besides it was reported in a molten state for weeks, in oxygen starved conditions.
The point is, that NIST ignored overwhelming reports of molten steel.
There was waay more steel involved in the towers then aluminum.
I presented the figures and calculations from your own site.
I presented where the aluminum was mostly placed in the towers.
In relation to where the reports and instances emanated from.
After they had time to analyze and test, the concluded that fires within the towers did not actually get hot enough to melt steel..and the new theory then was that the steel only weakened.
But the numerous reports of molten steel warranted further analysis by NIST.
They chose to ignore the numerous reports as though they did not even exist.
Strike one against NIST's credibility, honesty and integrity in many peoples minds.
Gee people don't agree with this result, who would have thought?

You can't honestly say that there was no evidence it didn't exist, because NIST ignored it and contradicted the numerous credible people including a WTC engineer.
It is not rational to conclude there was "no evidence" simply because NIST ignores something that contradicts hundreds of other witnesses.
NIST can not change the fact these reports and confirmations by so many at GZ occurred.
Neither can you by using flawed logic, or by magically making them disappear or wishing them away.
It happened, NIST ignored it, and some speculate it was because it would point towards another agent, or people, end of story period.

You need to use flawed logic, about highly improbable scenarios and speculation in order to keep your "official" conspiracy theory alive in your mind. You aren't willing to concede that this phenomena actually did occur, was widely reported, and confirmed by credible people, and that happened in a third building that was not hit by a ******* plane, therefore, one can not rationally use a Boeing plane as the little source of aluminum that might be where the molten steel was reported to have been seen.

If anyone is honestly trying to understand why there is opposition and distrust towards the NIST investigation and subsequent reports. then this is just one instance.
You can't use twisted logic, and the fact NIST ignored and contradicts so many reports of something, to justify declaring "there is no evidence" of it. If you do, then you are not being honest, and trying to deceive yourself and others, and display a poor sense of objectivity, and honesty.
Isn't there anything else that you can use that substantiates your views and adds any credence to your CT, then having to close your eyes and mind to the facts laid out regarding the molten steel?
You have to jump through hoops when trying to defend your loony CT.
Which includes assuming hundreds of people were lying, hallucinating.
Lying about how many reports there actually were,
Lying about what a chief original WTC engineer said he saw,
Assume that what little aluminum there was on the outside of the towers compared to the 200,000 tons of steel in each tower magically transported itself up to 70 feet deep into the centers of the towers.
You have to assume that somehow the little aluminum from the towers magically transported itself deep under the WTC 7, that had NO ALUMINUM OUTER CLADDING,
AND NO BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRLINER INSIDE OF IT.

You have to resort to insanity and bs , while I present facts...see how it works now??

 

[daws101]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

And you assume since NIST ignored numerous reports, that hundreds of GZ people were wrong.
No one reported seeing "molten aluminum".
And besides it was reported in a molten state for weeks, in oxygen starved conditions.
The point is, that NIST ignored overwhelming reports of molten steel.
There was waay more steel involved in the towers then aluminum.
I presented the figures and calculations from your own site.
I presented where the aluminum was mostly placed in the towers.
In relation to where the reports and instances emanated from.
After they had time to analyze and test, the concluded that fires within the towers did not actually get hot enough to melt steel..and the new theory then was that the steel only weakened.
But the numerous reports of molten steel warranted further analysis by NIST.
They chose to ignore the numerous reports as though they did not even exist.
Strike one against NIST's credibility, honesty and integrity in many peoples minds.
Gee people don't agree with this result, who would have thought?

You can't honestly say that there was no evidence it didn't exist, because NIST ignored it and contradicted the numerous credible people including a WTC engineer.
It is not rational to conclude there was "no evidence" simply because NIST ignores something that contradicts hundreds of other witnesses.
NIST can not change the fact these reports and confirmations by so many at GZ occurred.
Neither can you by using flawed logic, or by magically making them disappear or wishing them away.
It happened, NIST ignored it, and some speculate it was because it would point towards another agent, or people, end of story period.

You need to use flawed logic, about highly improbable scenarios and speculation in order to keep your "official" conspiracy theory alive in your mind. You aren't willing to concede that this phenomena actually did occur, was widely reported, and confirmed by credible people, and that happened in a third building that was not hit by a ******* plane, therefore, one can not rationally use a Boeing plane as the little source of aluminum that might be where the molten steel was reported to have been seen.

If anyone is honestly trying to understand why there is opposition and distrust towards the NIST investigation and subsequent reports. then this is just one instance.
You can't use twisted logic, and the fact NIST ignored and contradicts so many reports of something, to justify declaring "there is no evidence" of it. If you do, then you are not being honest, and trying to deceive yourself and others, and display a poor sense of objectivity, and honesty.
Isn't there anything else that you can use that substantiates your views and adds any credence to your CT, then having to close your eyes and mind to the facts laid out regarding the molten steel?
You have to jump through hoops when trying to defend your loony CT.
Which includes assuming hundreds of people were lying, hallucinating.
Lying about how many reports there actually were,
Lying about what a chief original WTC engineer said he saw,
Assume that what little aluminum there was on the outside of the towers compared to the 200,000 tons of steel in each tower magically transported itself up to 70 feet deep into the centers of the towers.
You have to assume that somehow the little aluminum from the towers magically transported itself deep under the WTC 7, that had NO ALUMINUM OUTER CLADDING,
AND NO BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRLINER INSIDE OF IT.

You have to resort to insanity and bs , while I present facts...see how it works now??

all ways have ...the eyewitness reports cannot be validated..
nist did not ignore anything they tested only what they were tasked to test meaning that your accusations of collusion have no basis in fact, no matter how hard you *****...

 

[Mr. Jones]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

they believe a lack of evidence is evidence!

That's pretty much their deal.

Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you ***** believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 ***** have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..

 

[Mr. Jones]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sx4XJfGR0]9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

they believe a lack of evidence is evidence!

That's pretty much their deal.

Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you ***** believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 ***** have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..

there is nothing to explain we can no more assume it was aluminum then you can assume it was all steel
all that's really known is there were pools of molten materials ,the most likely explanations remains that the molten substance was a mixture of materials.
you have no evidence otherwise.

 

[Mr. Jones]

That's pretty much their deal.

Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you ***** believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 ***** have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..

there is nothing to explain we can no more assume it was aluminum then you can assume it was all steel
all that's really known is there were pools of molten materials ,the most likely explanations remains that the molten substance was a mixture of materials.
you have no evidence otherwise.

There is more overwhelming evidence that it was steel, then aluminum that has been presented,hands down.Case closed.
You ignoring all that has been presented is your solution to keep your CT going, but it is a joke when watching you try to do so.

You can't conduct a proper investigation and claim you have a valid and plausible theory by dismissing over whelming evidence and reports and keeping them out of the equation, that point to other possible explanations. It is dishonest, at best and criminal at worst.

I suppose all the reports of explosions are attributable to exploding aerosol cans too...

 

[SAYIT]

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?

And you assume since NIST ignored numerous reports, that hundreds of GZ people were wrong.
No one reported seeing "molten aluminum".
And besides it was reported in a molten state for weeks, in oxygen starved conditions.
The point is, that NIST ignored overwhelming reports of molten steel.
There was waay more steel involved in the towers then aluminum.

You have to resort to insanity and bs , while I present facts...see how it works now??

None of your "hundreds of GZ people", many of whom were simply repeating what they heard others say, had any way of knowing what the molten mats were as no one tested them or even took their temp.
The fact that there was still molten mats weeks later does not mitigate in favor of molten steel but rather in favor of something which melts at a much lower temp. No known substance could have both melted steel on 9/11 and continued to maintain that temp for weeks after and no evidence of some secret super stuff was found.
Finally, the predominance of steel vs. aluminum does not mean that any of the steel melted. There was plenty of aluminum both in the building structure and the furnishings to create streams and puddles of molten metal.
You're gonna need either proof of molten steel (unsubstantiated opinions are not proof) or that secret super stuff which could both melt the steel and keep it at melting temp for weeks to move your CT beyond the silly conjecture and speculation stage. If you find that missing link I will join you in contacting our elected officials to demand further investigation. See how that works?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

 

[eots]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

 

[LA RAM FAN]

6 farts in a row from the agent trolls sense my last post. and another again from agent say it.

 

[SAYIT]

Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you ***** believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 ***** have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..

there is nothing to explain we can no more assume it was aluminum then you can assume it was all steel
all that's really known is there were pools of molten materials ,the most likely explanations remains that the molten substance was a mixture of materials.
you have no evidence otherwise.

There is more overwhelming evidence that it was steel, then aluminum that has been presented,hands down.Case closed.
You ignoring all that has been presented is your solution to keep your CT going, but it is a joke when watching you try to do so.

You can't conduct a proper investigation and claim you have a valid and plausible theory by dismissing over whelming evidence and reports and keeping them out of the equation, that point to other possible explanations. It is dishonest, at best and criminal at worst.

I suppose all the reports of explosions are attributable to exploding aerosol cans too...

There is absolutely no proof it was steel. Just unsubstantiated observations of some molten metal and plenty of second hand comments. No one tested the molten mats or even took its temp. I too would like to know what that stuff was but assuming it was steel without proof is just silly speculation. Case closed.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

still ANOTHER fart from you sock puppet stalker.

 

[SAYIT]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

Oops. You forgot to address Sarge's question (bold, above). An oversight perhaps?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

You want a ******* picture dipshit?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

Oops. You forgot to address Sarge's question (bold, above). An oversight perhaps?

That's just it, if there is anyway to do this it has nothing to do with their theories. The only way I know of to keep steel molten is to keep it hot enough to remain molten and there is no demolition system that would do that....

 

[SAYIT]

still ANOTHER fart from you sock puppet stalker.

You're like a 12 year old ... all farts and shit. No wonder your 6700 posts since 2008 have garnered an unbelievably low 298 thanks. No one respects you or what you have to say, not even those who promote the same silliness you do. You are the quintessential village idiot, Princess, and no one wants their name attached to anything you say. No one.

 

[Montrovant]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

Maybe not a lot of them, but....

Glass 'Miranda' Computer Desk | Overstock.com

There are chairs made with aluminum as well.

I have no clue if there was any used in the WTC offices.