9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

<Mod Edit>

<Mod Edit>

<Mod Edit>

Perhaps you should try asking a relevant question as opposed to a deliberately loaded one.

It doesn't, feel better now? It's just one of many thousands of 9/11 anomalies that has never been officially explained or even approached.

It is eyewitness testimony by many first responders, does it terrify you that much? But I don't believe any one of them said it was "evidence of controlled demolition", they were just visibly shocked at what they witnessed because I suppose it's not something they ever saw before in any building fire.

That may or may not be true but one eyewitness is quite sure, he claims to have seen "melting of girders". What do you suppose the girders were made of?

Maybe the guy is a terrifying "twoofer"? Nah, he also said:

"I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff"

http://smoking-guns.info/index.php/Abolhassan_Astaneh-Asl

What for? Just move on, it's not your concern. It's also not NIST's concern either because John Gross denied ever even hearing of any of the many eyewitness claims of molten steel. But NIST was tasked with investigating the collapse of the 3 towers and it's obvious they deliberately ignored many eyewitness claims.

No it's not, it's just one of your loaded questions. The question should be:

What caused the molten steel on 9/11? And a legitimate investigation would have included an interview with all the eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen molten steel and a forensic examination of the EVIDENCE to determine the cause, as required by NFPA 921 protocol that NIST is 100% familiar with.

No we do know, other than the usual deniers, it's virtually impossible for any intelligent logical person to claim "we don't know" when there are way too many credible eyewitness claims of molten steel.

That's not the point, the point is it has never been officially explained by any official source, ALL the claims were deliberately ignored. Molten steel has never been found under any building that suffered fires anytime in history before or after 9/11. According to eyewitnesses it was present under all 3 buildings.

Yeah, go back to ignoring the EVIDENCE and YOUR flawless "logic".

No it isn't, it's a loaded question. The BOP is on NIST, not your demons.

Anytime and always sonny. The reality is that there are many credible eyewitness claims of molten steel despite your (and NIST's) denials. But you are insignificant, NIST is significant however.

[video=youtube;nqJSDn5dgJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/video]

YOUR logic says (and you do claim to be a master of logic) that when there are multiple claims of molten steel by credible eyewitnesses, "we don't really know if there actually was molten steel".

Thanks for bringing up the subject anyway and an example of the mastery of YOUR logic.

 

Molten steel for 90 days CANNOT be the result of office fires on the 80th floor. It is impossible for office fires to cause molten steel for 3 months.

Therefore, if office fires cannot cause structural steel to melt and remain molten for 90 days, some other energy source is responsible for the damage observed.

 

We don't actually know that it was molten for 3 months. We only know from news claims that it was too hot to approach for about 3 months. But yes, office and/or jet fuel fires are not hot enough to melt steel for any amount of time.

Correct.

 

A point of clarification so as not to confuse. The question was:

and I answered:

Molten steel does not prove controlled demolition by itself. There are many other pieces of evidence including the discovery of molten steel under all 3 towers that when all are combined, lead to the conclusion that there there is a 99.99+% probability that all 3 collapses were the result of controlled demolitions. As for proof that any of these collapses were the natural result from the events of 9/11 (planes, damage, fire or any combination), it doesn't exist from any source for one building, much less for all 3 buildings. And since the fire induced collapse theories come from an official source (NIST), the BOP rests with the official source who were tasked with determining how and why the 3 buildings collapsed, not with concocting theories.

 

please source the determination of all three building having "molten steel" discovered under all three buildings ...

 

Why? Source it yourself: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl

You need help? Here's some:

What is relevant is that there were many CORROBORATING* eyewitness claims of molten steel, one very clear claim from a credible investigator, who was one of the first to investigate (maybe a twoofer, ya never know, those pesky creatures can be found everywhere). Anyway the guy even re-iterated and clarified his claim years later. If molten steel appeared under 1 building it would highly significant, if it was a pool of running molten steel it would be even more significant, if it appeared under more than one building that is not a plucking coincidence and certainly not fairy tale land, it's as real as it gets (except to NIST and deniers of course). So why are you asking that question as opposed to why the pluck there was molten steel found all over the plucking place? Oh that's right I answered that.

* cor·rob·o·rate
k&#601;&#712;räb&#601;&#716;r&#257;t/
verb
gerund or present participle: corroborating

confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).

 

Please at least try to answer the question.

 

So you can't answer the question either? Sorry your response was fallacious and based upon incredulity and you created a false dichotomy. Consider convection as stated in my post before you try again.

I'm asking someone one to demonstrate how molten steel proves the use of explosives. This requires one to prove the premise, not just repeat it as you just did. I already know the premise and I know it's fallacious, but thanks for trying.

 

Correct! Thanks for contributing.

How so? That is another premise that lacks a solid foundation, as the discovery under all three is hardly surprising if the accepted version is correct (convection), and given the size of the pile (there weren't three separate piles). You are just paraphrasing the premise without actually demonstrating it-this is not meant to be an ad hom, but an observation. The premise is repeated as 'given' when it is not actually the case, for instance, given how long this state is said to have existed, how can the convection effect in the pile NOT produce the same result as claimed? After all, the cause of the molten metal (whether it was steel or not is arbitrary at this point) has been attributed to the convection effect by scientists. Why can't this premise be demonstrated by those who repeat it as evidence for another claim that also has problems in logic (cf. the premise behind CD)

I hope you can see this problem with the premise I am to accept on faith. It is a reasonable question in light of the extreme nature of the claims being attributed to this phenomenon. Even with the 'so-called' other evidence you mentioned earlier, it doesn't prove a damn thing if the premise is flawed.

What those who believe this is evidence need to prove is, how explosives/therm*te caused the molten metal, and not the convection effect as posited. When the causation is resolved, then it becomes a piece of evidence in the overall presentation. Before that is done, it is merely a Red Herring in the CD argument, for without an accurate determination of the causality, the accepted version provided by the scientists will stand. I hope that makes it clear for all.

This is how those who oppose the accepted version should conduct the public debate, unlike A. Jones-that style doesn't get anyone, anywhere. If individuals wish to challenge the accepted version, their case needs to be watertight. Molten metal hasn't got the legs to stand at this point in time, and the challengers need to work on proving the premise they accept as a given, for their opponents won't, and it will fail as evidence for a new investigation, which is the point after all.

 

Thank you <Mod Edit>

Is that your opinion or do you have an official report that:

1. Shows the many eyewitness claims of molten steel were officially investigated.
2. The results of that official investigation that conclude the reason for the molten steel was "convection".

In any case, it's about time you acknowledged the molten steel claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by that but the many molten steel claims by eyewitnesses are what they are, it is not my job or within my expertise to interpret the claims (I only have opinions, just like you), much less investigate them. That job belonged to NIST and we know from John Gross' admission captured on video that he denied ever hearing about these claims, much less investigated them. So as far as I can tell, the theory that convection was the cause is strictly yours based on an opinion and nothing more.

No it isn't, in one case it's quite clearly stated by a person in a position to know. There's nothing "arbitrary" about it and it was clarified years later.

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." - Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

Girders are made of steel last I checked.

And there are many corroborating eyewitness claims about seeing molten steel, even one by Leslie Robertson whom I'm sure you know who he is.

There's no supporting link for the above however, it doesn't exist in any official report that I'm aware of in any form, not even an acknowledgment of the discovery. None of these alleged "scientists" who made that claim had access to the EVIDENCE to forensically examine the steel to determine it was "convection" or something else. So if some did make that claim, it is sheer speculative opinion, not FACT.

No one expects anyone to accept anything on faith, especially not the official narrative on 9/11 and (besides the thousands of other problem associated by the pretend investigation and the official reports), there is no mention anywhere about the numerous independent corroborating eyewitness claims of molten steel.

There is nothing "extreme" about questioning why this phenomenon was ignored by those tasked with investigating the collapse of the 3 towers (namely NIST).

What it does show is that it is one piece of evidence, among many others that show that at best, the so-called investigation was flawed/incompetent and that at worst, it was fraudulent. And as a result, we never had a legitimate investigation into the collapse of the 3 buildings and we still have few real answers almost 15 years later.

No official report has made any claims about "convection". The BOP for the molten steel eyewitness claims rests with NIST, no one else. NIST is the party that had the responsibility, has ALL the evidence and refuses to part with a good deal of it. No one can investigate anything without ALL the evidence (which is not available anyway) and it is not the domain of anyone other than qualified officials to investigate any aspect of 9/11. All others can do is hold officials' feet to the fire as to the results of their investigation, perhaps investigate on their own with limited evidence publicly available and speculate about alternative theories. Some of these others are experts in a position to know,

9/11 is not a debate contest, it is an extremely serious topic that requires discussion, lots of it. And that's all I want to do in this forum, discuss, not debate. You want to debate and that's ok but I'm not interested in debate, I'm interested in information and discussion.

Their case is that there are thousands of questions/omissions/failures/inconsistencies/obvious coverups (or an extreme lack of data due to dubious overclassification)/etc. It is a watertight case that causes many to challenge the "accepted" version. The term is unqualified, accepted by whom (other than the US government and the majority of the MSM)? It's irrelevant anyway unless it's accepted by everyone and we know that's not the case.

That is correct for YOU, however it is incorrect for those who question its presence as corroborated by many who were there on and after 9/11. It is a highly significant anomaly.

If you mean for the purposes of a debate, perhaps. For many others (including myself), and especially for the 9/11 families, it is not a debate contest.

IMO, nothing will cause a legitimate official investigation into 9/11. I will never use the term "new" investigation because there was never one in the first place. The eyewitness claims for molten steel has never been mentioned in any official report, never mind investigated. And that is THE point, nothing more, nothing less.

 

<Rule 3> Bob, can you tell the difference between molten steel and an amalgamation of materials (soft metals such as copper and aluminum, glass etc) ? ... why would any investigative body jump through hoops examining every possibility when it is quite obvious what happened ...

there is zero hard evidence of controlled demo ... can explain how the collapses started at the impact points and how any explosives could have survived that without initiating? ...

<Rule 3>

 

<Reply to Deleted>

Non experts at what exactly? An eyewitness claims he saw the melting of girders, what does he need to be an expert at exactly? What does expertise have to do with eyewitness claims? In a typical court trial, eyewitnesses are asked to relate in detail what they witnessed, do they all need to be experts otherwise their claims are ignored/dismissed? What is your point if any?

Non sequitur. I am not an expert nor an eyewitness. The question aimed at ME has zero to do with the many eyewitness claims. It is a deliberate distraction from the discussion. I am not the subject of this discussion and have nothing to do with 9/11 or any investigation into it.

This question is as ridiculous as it gets. Why do an investigation at all if it's "quite obvious what happened"? Why did Congress fund investigations into 9/11 if it's "quite obvious what happened"? How can anyone make a claim that it's "quite obvious what happened" without investigating what happened? What is "quite obvious what happened" specifically? Qualified investigators are REQUIRED to jump through hoops and examine every possibility as dictated by investigative standards or else they are incompetent or committing fraud.

The question for YOU is why are you so casually dismissing/defending investigators who failed to do their job? Your question is based on an ignorant claim that "it is quite obvious what happened" despite that there was no legitimate investigation as to what happened and that may be true for YOU but it isn't true at all for those who have looked at and understand the REAL FACTS (as listed to some degree below).

That's just YOUR opinion based on absolutely nothing relevant. YOU are not an eyewitness, a qualified expert, a qualified investigator or anyone in a position to know and you certainly have NO access to ALL the data. The current question at hand is whether molten steel is proof of a controlled demolition, not whether there's any evidence of a CD or not.

Nope, I'm in the exact same position as you as stated just above and it still has nothing to do with the current molten steel discussion.

<Reply to Deleted> The REAL FACTS include that there is no mention of the many CORROBORATING eyewitness claims of molten steel in any official report, much less an investigation for it. The REAL FACTS include that there was NO investigation conducted into the possibility of arson for WTC7 or CD (as admitted to by the investigators) or any of the molten steel eyewitness claims (also admitted to by the investigators), among many other gross failures, for all 3 buildings and as required by standard investigation protocol published by the investigators themselves. The REAL FACTS include that a fire investigation expert laid out very clearly and in exact detail some of the gross failures of the investigators to conduct a legitimate investigation in accordance with their own standard protocol. NFPA 921 was published by NIST and is a standard fire investigation protocol that NIST expects ALL fire investigators to comply with (except themselves obviously).

[video=youtube;uor8NhUr_90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90[/video]

<Rule 3/Reply to Deleted>

 

Google the scenario focussing on underground fires. You'll understand the effect when you give it a little study. Please try to answer the question and NOT try to change the subject.

There is no scientific reason to do so. Please apply the same standards of evidence you impose on me to yourself.

None of that is relevant. I'll explain it. Those who use molten 'steel' as evidence of the deployment of explosives are unable to prove their premise (that is, therm*te or explosives created the molten steel). That premise is flawed until it can be demonstrated. No-one has bothered to demonstrate this point and it is to be accepted without question. That's poor methodology and reasoning.

Yes, it IS arbitrary because he was not in a position to make that call. It could have just as easily been another material running off the beam. To accept your premise without evidence would be tenuous at best. This is mere hearsay and it would be treated as such in an initial hearing.

Again, none of that matters. See above. The individuals did not possess the expertise nor the equipment to make that call. And that will be the first objection in an enquiry. Their testimony will be dismissed as hearsay.

Again, your claims are exempt from the same level of standards you apply to me. Is not molten steel = CD speculative opinion? Please try to answer the question and do NOT change the subject.

Yes there is, I'm being asked to accept the existence of molten steel, AND the 'fact' that it denotes CD all on faith. The questions need to be answered if the hypothesis is to be given any credence.

Controlled demolition is an 'extreme' hypothesis on the fringe. It is definitely 'out there' in the rational stakes. It is not something the average individual will accept without high standards of evidence. What's the old saying? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"-and there is none more extraordinary than CD.

If the premise I'm to accept can't be demonstrated it shows absolutely nothing, and it will be dismissed as such in an enquiry. Please maintain the level of standards you expect from me for yourself.

None of that matters to my point. I asked how does molten steel = CD (not so prosaically of course). Those who challenge the accepted narrative need to prove their contention before they offer it up as evidence. It is not evidence if you can't demonstrate it.

It requires proof, not discussion, and you misunderstood my point. It's about the presentation of evidence thus far, as presented by those who challenge the accepted version-it's sub standard. The challengers need to raise their standards in the public arena so true debate can take place and you get the investigation you ask for. It's called persuasive writing and lobbying.

Basically, if the challengers wish to get public opinion on board, they will need to raise their standards.

Why won't you engage that which contradicts your stories? That makes you appear to have an agenda. It's also a part of the 'discussion' process. What do you really want? Just a mutual back slapping session with others who wish to hate on the government without question or discussion? If so, say so, and I'll leave you to it.

But they need to demonstrate that their case is sound or no-one will take any notice. If you evade simple questions and the burden of proof, why should anyone listen to you? A. Jones style 'discussions' have no merit or place in the public arena, and they will not get the new investigation everyone wants.

No, it is correct from a logical point of view. Logic isn't some arbitrary concept. If you can't prove your premise why should anyone listen to you? There is no science or physical evidence to back up the claim, and that obstacle will always be there.

No, I mean for the presentation of a prima facie case for a new investigation to the greater public.

I'm sorry, but that stance has no merit in the real world, and it will only convince others predisposed to irrationally hating on the government, not anyone who matters.

Ok, my point here is that, no-one of intelligence will take the challenger's hypotheses seriously until the challengers can raise their standards of evidence, and the hypotheses themselves. This may, or may not apply to you, but that is irrelevant, as I'm talking universally, not personally. It applies in having the alternative hypotheses universally accepted by the greater public, which should be the challenger's aim.

As I've stated all along, the truth movement need a PR office in order to sort out the claims, and rationalise the conglomeration of conflicting hypotheses. They also need to rethink the way they present the material in order to gain greater acceptance.

All that aside, my original question still stands unanswered.

 

I was there on 9/11/01 and am suffering from many disorders secondary to contaminants I was exposed to, lost many dear friends too, FDNY's chaplain.

So exuse me, if you were not there, and you are relying on Googled reports and tin hat conspiracy theorists,
that were not present either, on 9/11/01.

Read the Official reports.

 

So the fires didn't spread after the collapse and take up most of the pile as the NASA images would suggest. The 80th floor fire stayed on the 80th floor after the collapse?

See underground fires for illumination.

 

You are to be honoured for your efforts and I salute you, Sir. The sole reason I'm opposed to the claims of 9/11 truth is that they fallaciously implicate the first responders, and emergency services in this wildly Byzantine plot without evidence. Coming from a family with generations in the fire services, this really gets my hackles up.

As an aside, I asked my father (SO for 25 years, thrice decorated) regarding the claim that the FDNY failed to carry out an arson investigation. He replied that, 'the investigation was over the moment the first plane hit the building. That was the cause of the arson and AQ committed it-anything else is stupid.'

As you can imagine, my Dad hates 9/11 truth with a passion.

 

As an eye witness, lots of stuff people are inventing never happened at Ground zero of the WTC.....

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you....

 

It's the least anyone could do. So many brave responders died that day, and all efforts should be acknowledged for the courage required to work in such a environment, and the endurance which saved so many lives trapped beneath the rubble.

You're a better man than I ever will be.

 

but (*)(*)(*)(*) was melted. even fema noted it. would be incredulously delusional not to recognize the fact.

 

You are conflating the pieces that exhibit the eutectic reaction with the reports of molten steel. They are quite different. The eutectic reaction gave the steel a viscosity similar to curing toffee, not a molten state. The eutectic reaction is connected to the collapse, not the long term exposure to the fires in the pile.

'Molten' in this sense means 'flowing' or 'dripping'.

Anyway, how does molten steel in the pile prove the deployment of explosives? This is the question I've been asking, and I've accepted 'molten steel' hypothetically as a reality in the scenario in order to understand the relationship.

So far it appears that the only reason it is posited as evidence is incredulity. That is, what caused the molten state if it wasn't explosives? I'm asking for the premise to be confirmed, that is, that this molten state could possibly be achieved via the convection process given the length of time and the heat signatures as provided by NASA, so why did 9/11 truth jump to the conclusion of explosives without considering more plausible alternatives?

Why do challengers of the accepted version present this premise without confirmation? It is to be taken as given, and that is not science. It also exposes duplicity in the standards of evidence as they apply to the accepted version. 9/11 truth aren't willing to apply the same high standards to their own presentations, as they expect from the government and faculties.

 

eye witness right. we get them all the time. right along with the 3 dollar bills

 

so you agree!!!!!!!!!!!, never thought Id see that day.

You ok? agreeing with truthers it was molten? Thats gotta be seriously painful for you. Sure you dont want to retract that somehow?

 

Can't you read? The eutectic reaction is not a molten state. God, your comprehension is appalling! Read, AND comprehend before you post please. Perhaps it would be best if you revise a few pages before you parachute in, so you can get up to speed on the topic.

What a weird response.

 

Just don't. You have no idea whether he is lying, and it would serve you better just to keep quiet. You are making an onager of yourself.

 

its your lack of understanding thats the problem.

the eutectic reaction is what is seen on the material that is left after erosion occurs from hotter material ran down the channel. LOL

Keep up the good work though.

Now if you know what you were looking at youd immediately see the overflow on the metal I posted. The post with all the pics you ignored.

You can see the solidified runoff (the 'previously' molten stuff) that caused the eutectic reaction DUH!!!


well posers most likely cant but everyone else can!