Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
These temperatures however contradict the official theory, since only substances on the order of thermate would have allowed the steel in question to react the way it did. This part of the FEMA report was entirely overlooked by NIST, basically because it doesn't fit their theory.
|
I thought you said there was no investigation?
Anyhow, there was multiple investigations with multiple official stories. Shouldn't come as a surprise at all being as they were independent of each other.
A report by FEMA was entirely overlookd by the NIST? I'm sure it was. I'm also sure it happened dozens of times. I'm sure thousands of reports were written by dozens of government agencies, and not every one was taken into consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The chain of custody had to be verified and re-verified. Regardless, how would an insurance office, a bank or a housewife all happen to have unignited thermate in their WTC dust?
|
What chain of custody? Dust was collected from around the city by uncertified and untrained cilvilians? That would hardly stand up in a court of law.
And it doesn't matter. We've already discussed at length how common thermite is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The iron was turned to vapor - liquefied droplets - then solidified. Vaporized doesn't mean "disappeared".
|
So your saying that iron from printer ink and OJ wasn't liquefied in the fireball?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
For all intents, the WTC were buildings, albeit large ones. They didn't stand outside the laws of physics and normal building construction.
|
They stand completely outside of normal building construction. I don't think any other skyscrapers have been build like the WTC towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
I don't speak from or for the "9/11 Truth Movement" and I don't know why you bring that up.
|
No, but your use their standard arguments and accept them as fact. The "Iron droplets" is the latest idea the 9/11 Truth Movement has come up with, and it's laughable. Are they really debating that the fire wasn't hot enough to liquefy microscopic particles of iron? The melting point of iron overall is one thing, but the melting point of a piece of iron that is 1/7th the width of a human hair is another thing - a lot less. And by the way, who in the world claims that liquefied droplets of iron happen at the WTC? Everything at the WTC originated from someplace else. How the fuck do we not know that a steel beam was created in the 1960s in New Jersey using thermite that created liquefied droplets of iron that wasn't shaken loose years later? How do we know that liquefied droplets of iron came from the towers themselves, and not another part of the WTC complex - such as the millions of gallons of fuel stored for back up power? Maybe they came from the acid explosions when back up batteries exploded?
Do you get my point? We don't know where "liquefied droplets of iron" came from, it shouldn't be that unusual, and it no matter what it's not proof of anything.