The Commission report is a non-technical report. That it is even referenced in this discussion tells us a great deal about your position, and your scientific illiteracy. The NIST report (and various other peer reviewed reports on this subject) are technical reports that are relevant, but you have yet to address even one of them.
Not only that, but the Commission report is here:
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
Do a search for "Melt" or "molten" or "steel" and see if it claims what you claim it does.
Here is the NIST report:
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-la...ist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
I have already stated that the jet fuel didn't bring the towers down, and your latest reference agrees with me.
However, your source contradicts the photo I have put up of a steel framed building that collapsed due to a conventional fire. Care to explain this? Fire can, and does bring down steel buildings.
Also, it makes the same strawman argument that you have made, that I have already addressed: The steel did not melt, no-one has claimed it melted other than a few journalists. All that had to happen was the steel to be sufficiently weakened for the structure to fail. And the structural deformation confirms this - something you cannot explain.
You want to talk about what they say on Firehouse? No problem:
http://www.firehouse.com/news/10545303/wtc-this-is-their-story-part-i
http://www.firehouse.com/news/10544377/wtc-this-is-their-story-part-ii
None of them have this opinion, so again, your reference is nonsense. I have heard fire fighters from the day being taken out of context (imagine how they feel about that BTW), but none support what you are saying.
Also, here is a presentation showing elemental analysis of the impacts. Very interesting:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/wtc/WTC_Symp_ARA_2.pdf
And just so we are clear on the jet fuel, I'll quote NIST directly:
"The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel."
https://www.nist.gov/el/key-finding...-building-and-fire-safety-investigation-world
Last edited:
I've spent hours over the years reading very persuasive arguments from both camps and eventually decided it was just too big a thing to be a set up. A lot of the evidence for a "conspiracy" is really compelling and some technically sound I think. My gut feeling is it was the way the inquests decided though. Doesn't mean I'm right. Just my opinion.
