|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 27, 2013 10:54:28 GMT -5
"no disrespect to you"
Wrong, you're being intellectually dishonest and insulting to my intelligence. True body parts were found 2 blocks away and on the roof of adjacent buildings. That's clear evidence in itself that the building did not experience a natural gravitational collapse. Gravity works down, not sideways. In any building collapse, bodies would be crushed, not fragmented into small parts hurled at great distances.
Your reliance on government's fireproofing theory is incredibly obvious as it is sheer nonsense. You didn't come up with this, NIST did and has nothing that can support it other than an irrelevant shotgun experiment that doesn't even begin to support it. It also has nothing to do with the unnatural manner in which the building collapsed (disintegrated).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 28, 2013 2:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 28, 2013 9:52:33 GMT -5
"sprayfoam is extremely susceptible to mechanical damage as it can be brushed off by hand"So then why do you suppose NIST needed to use a shotgun experiment that has zero to do with reality to try to support the sprayfoam hypothesis? Where's the REAL evidence that the sprayfoam was completely dislodged? No one saw that, it's obviously a made up NIST theory. Almost everything NIST claimed is a theory, very little is based on actual EVIDENCE. "A shotgun blast is hardly a comparison to the estimated 30,000lbs of fuel the plane carried, which exploded in the building upon the aeroplane's impact."More garbage. You follow up that claim with a picture that shows you're lying or at best exaggerating. As any fool can see in the picture, a huge fireball, which was the exploding fuel, is seen OUTSIDE the building at the point of impact. So 30,000 lbs of fuel did not explode IN the building. Furthermore, even if ALL the insulation was stripped (which is impossible given that most of the building was unaffected), it would take hours of direct heating at temperatures that were never reached to even begin to weaken steel. Even NIST agrees those temperatures were never reached. How does it change the FACT that NIST invented many claims to try to support their theories? How does it change the FACT that NIST never explained the actually collapse of the twin towers and just said it was "inevitable"? How does it change the FACT that the NIST invented a column 79 theory and had to distort the blueprint and the numbers to try to make their theory work? How does it change the FACT that WTC7 collapsed in free fall for the first 100 feet and how does it explain the FACT that it could have never happened unless ALL the columns were taken out at the exact same time? And last but far from least, how do any of these theories explain how the twin towers disintegrated and WTC7 collapsed in the manner they did? Why do over 2,000 credentialed experts with many years of experience in all sorts of appropriate fields ALL agree that it's not possible that these buildings could have collapsed naturally and many explain in great detail why they believe it's impossible? aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/11050/meet-experts-40-interviewsWho the hell are you trying to fool with your rabid support for a story that makes no sense to anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence? When are you going to start questioning some of this absurd crap instead of being a lapdog for a bunch of politically motivated frauds? This s**t is what I mean when I say you insult my intelligence (if your agenda is to try to convince me). The title of this thread is insulting: "NIST = truth AE9/11truth = frauds" NIST has been proven to be liars and complete frauds in literally hundreds of ways. Any child can see just by their computer animation that it does not match any of the videos of the WTC7 collapse. And that's just one thing that a child can easily pick up, never mind an adult with a functioning brain. What is fraudulent about AE911? The FACT that they've shown NIST to be a complete fraud and that their goal is a REAL investigation? Why is the demand for a REAL investigation, supported by survivors and family members a fraud to you? If you look at their most recent campaign "Rethink 9/11", that's exactly what they're advertising, the need for a REAL investigation, using a FACT that government and the media has been trying to hide from the public for the last 12 years to wake these people up.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 28, 2013 15:22:48 GMT -5
I don't know why NIST used a shotgun. I'm not NIST. But I do know the terrorists used a 767, and the fuel explosions began inside the buildings which were impacted. AE9/11'truth' are dishonest because most if not all of their 'experts' are not qualified in structural fire engineering. Most of the 2000 pretend experts are not qualified metallurgists or civil engineers either, many are electrical engineers, software engineers and other irrelevants. You need to understand that the most qualified of engineers sometimes get their designs wrong, for examples NYPRO (Flixborough) 1974, Gallpoing Gertie (aka Tacoma Narrows Bridge) DH110 Farnborough 1952, DeHavilland 108 Swallow, DeHavilland Comet MK 1. Leslie Robertson's design was flawed and he accepts that his design was flawed. The kamikaze terrorist plane crashes exposed the design flaws. Inadequately protected steelwork fails in fire. Just like this steelwork failed in fire:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 28, 2013 16:46:49 GMT -5
"I don't know why NIST used a shotgun. I'm not NIST."
Of course you don't know because it makes zero sense. I just asked for you to speculate and you can't. What you should know and see is what's 100% obvious and what's been exposed beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt by sheer observation and common sense, not to mention by over 2,000 highly qualified experts that you, as a nobody, wants to call liars and frauds. That NIST, the body that you claim is truth, is actually a complete and utter fraud that should be investigated as these people request. In fact, this is the federal law that they have violated:
18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully –
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
"AE9/11'truth' are dishonest because most if not all of their 'experts' are not qualified in structural fire engineering. Most of the 2000 pretend experts are not qualified metallurgists or civil engineers either, many are electrical engineers, software engineers and other irrelevants."
This is pure garbage and not worthy of further discussion, not to mention it clearly exposes you as a blatant liar and a fraud. The total body and years of expertise represented by the members of AE911 is beyond question. Further, these people represent an incredibly varied type of expertise in a host of appropriate fields of relevant sciences, including those you want to claim they do not represent.
The discussion (if there ever was a real one) ends here because it's obvious I'm not dealing with someone who is genuine (which I have known pretty much from the beginning). Like I keep saying, we can't have an intellectual discussion because you are intellectually insulting and a total waste.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 29, 2013 3:46:53 GMT -5
NIST haven't violated any laws in their investigation of the structural fire engineering issues. There is no evidence of controlled demolitions, there is plenty of evidence of structural damage and fire and weakened steelwork giving way to load after bending. According to the independent MIT study the twin towers were hit by airliners flying at 429 mph and 537mph. The explosions are photographed coming from inside the buildings to outside doing immense damage and showering debris away from the building. The idea that something as fragile as spray foam would survive that when stronger drywall fireproofing didn't is intellectually dishonest. Steel buildings are very susceptible to fire, hence the need for fireproofing. Fireproofing was destroyed in the crashes as were the sprinkler systems. The outer columns WERE BOWED INWARDS before collapse. The remnants of trusses hanging down can be seen here: Evidently the spray foam failed to protect the trusses. There is also strong evidence that the drywall fireproofing failed to protect the core: As for the lack of qualifications in Gage's questionable gang, look at the people signing the petition: Example 1: CCOMPUTER SCIENTIST. THIS PERSON NOT A QUALIFIED ENGINEER. Hardly any person on this page has a civil engineering qualification of any sort: www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.htmlOne of them is a BIOMEDICAL ENGINEER: How the hell is this unqualified dimwit allowed to be part of a petition that supposedly represents a collection of Architects and Civil Engineers unless the organisation is fraudulent and just after as many names as it can get ? PLEASE GO THROUGH THE NAMES OF THOSE IN THE PETITIONElectrical Engineering and Biomedical engineering, i.e. NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH Structural Fire Engineering OR Civil Engineering and although there are civil engineers who have signed the petition, they are very much in the minority. The organisation is highly questionable they have no evidence of controlled demolitions. Note his straw man. The steelwork didn't have to melt. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 29, 2013 9:33:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 29, 2013 14:18:17 GMT -5
So he was eminently qualified in unrelated subjects. So what ? Not exactly Leslie Robertson was he ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_RobertsonNow consider this:- Why have airliners crash into the Twin Towers if they wouldn't do enough damage to bring them down ? If the plan was controlled demolition, why not just have the 1993 bombing as the cover for their destruction ? Now if you still want a conspiracy theory, you could suggest that in the aircraft which crashed, the autopilot systems had been converted to turn the planes into missiles and it's integration into the fly by wire systems on the planes took all control from the pilots. Problem with that is that passenger and crew phone calls, and ATC records do not support this idea either and also one of the planes crashed prematurely after a passenger revolt against the hijackers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 29, 2013 16:59:31 GMT -5
"So he was eminently qualified in unrelated subjects.
Yeah true, all the subjects you believe are unrelated. That's just about every critical issue.
So what ?"
So nothing, experts don't concern you. You decided you're the only expert and everyone else is unrelated, a fraud, a liar, a conspiracy theorist, etc., more than 2,000 of them. And anyone can tell how much of an expert on experts you are by your next question.
"Not exactly Leslie Robertson was he ?"
A master of the obvious. Your intellect is incredibly impressive.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 29, 2013 17:21:29 GMT -5
Experts concern me, pretend experts don't.
Leslie Robertson is an expert, he designed the structure of the WTC's. I'll take his opinions over ae9/11'truth's any day.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 29, 2013 18:49:29 GMT -5
"Experts concern me, pretend experts don't."
That makes sense Mr. Master of the Obvious, pretend experts such as yourself should not concern you.
"Leslie Robertson is an expert, he designed the structure of the WTC's. I'll take his opinions over ae9/11'truth's any day."
Oh here I thought you've spent an enormous amount of posts denying the molten steel. I guess you won't anymore since you'll take Leslie Robertson's opinions any day (see about 0:50). Maybe he's a "troofer", you never know. You can't trust anyone these days.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 29, 2013 18:52:50 GMT -5
"Experts concern me, pretend experts don't."That makes sense Mr. Master of the Obvious, pretend experts such as yourself should not concern you. "Leslie Robertson is an expert, he designed the structure of the WTC's. I'll take his opinions over ae9/11'truth's any day."Oh here I thought you've spent an enormous amount of posts denying the molten steel. I guess you won't anymore since you'll take Leslie Robertson's opinions any day (see about 0:50). Maybe he's a "troofer", you never know. You can't trust anyone these days. But certainly you can take anyone's opinions, including experts over other experts any day. But then again, who cares what opinions you want to take? It has nothing to do with anything, especially not 9/11. You're nobody so it means absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 4:03:50 GMT -5
Bob, 1) Explosives don't cause perimeter columns to bow inwardly and break.
2) The fires in the debris carried on burning until 2002.
3) The fires in the debris were not hot enough to melt steel. But steel wasn't the only metal that was in the debris, the fires WERE hot enough to melt aluminium and copper in the debris.
4) Explosives do not melt steel or aluminium or copper so why are you getting in a huff about molten metal ?
5) Structural damage and fire were extensive and as I have provided evidence of, the trusses were damaged, the impacts blew away fireproofing and burning fuel spread fire over a wide area across the impact floors.
6) The convex side of a bowed column that is meant to be straight is in tension as that side has to stretch to become curved whilst the concave side of a bowed column is under compression. When a column that is mean to be straight is bowed, the convex side is at increased risk of tearing, then top and bottom of the column will rapidly meet as the compressive force acting from above pushes down on the failed member, as demonstrated by the columns of the east face of WTC2 in the below video:
No demolitions charges can be heard.
7) Bodies, bits of bodies and bits of aeroplane were witnessed by firefighters two blocks away from the twin towers as they headed there to attempt to fight the fires. The force it takes to propel people from inside an office through the windows and out to two blocks away from the building is substantial, the same force hit the fireproofing. The spray foam did not survive. Trusses sagged, they were connected to the perimeter columns which were bowing inwardly.
There's no question about it, all real experts agree including Leslie Robertson (the man who with John Skilling, designed the towers structure to withstand a low speed airliner crash), that the structural damage and fire exceeded the design limits the towers had been designed to be able to take. Structural damage and fire caused the bowing of columns and the failure of those columns lead to progressive collapse of the twin towers. There is photographic evidence of this. There is video evidence of this.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 7:02:03 GMT -5
So then which is it. Do you agree, as Leslie Robertson claimed in the video, that there were rivers of molten steel under the 3 towers after 9/11 or not? It sounds like you don't. So if you don't, then you're lying, you don't accept Leslie Robertson's opinion. In fact, you accept no one's opinion that contradicts your beliefs, expert or not.
As to John Skilling:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there." - John Skilling
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." - John Skilling
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 7:17:31 GMT -5
So metallurgical analysis was done on these 'rivers' to check what sort of metal they were ?
Your alleged quotes of John Skilling, where did they originate ? Is this more run of the mill fabricated truther bs or do you have an authentic source ? Do you have an undoctored video to verify what he's saying there ? I ask because Leslie Robertson says a slow speed impact was the only consideration.
What Robertson says makes a lot more sense. Given the nearby airport one would naturally have to take into account the possibility of an accidental collision from an airliner in circuit in fog flying on instruments. But airliners do not fly in circuit at 600mph. They fly circuits at between 135-145mph depending on loading and wind conditions, safely above the stall speed, but descending for landing. Typical airliner tyres blow at about 206mph. Flight at high speeds mean the undercarriage can't even be deployed without breaking it, so I think someone's been lying to you with the suggestion that John Skilling said they were designed to withstand 707's crashing into them at 600mph.
Clearly the towers initially withstood the kinetic energy and mechanical damage imparted by the hijacked jets, reducing the overall death toll, but the fire weakened the remaining structure which photographs prove bent under load and gave way.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 7:30:41 GMT -5
"So metallurgical analysis was done on these 'rivers' to check what sort of metal they were ?"
When caught lying, change the subject. Did Leslie Robertson do a "metallurgical analysis" on the rivers of steel he claimed were found? You said you would accept his opinions. So now you don't? You seem to be in denial of your own words.
"Do you have an undoctored video to verify what he's saying there ?"
Of course, how silly of me, the video where Robertson mouthed the words "river of steel" was "doctored". You are such an incredibly poor fake. Who do you think you're fooling?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 7:44:28 GMT -5
1) Can you back up your allegations with genuine sources please ? 2) What do alleged rivers of molten steel have to do with explosives ? 3) What about the bowing columns ? 4) What about the fact that the collapses of the twin towers began at the impact floors ? 5) Even Danny Jowenko did not believe that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. 6) When you're caught lying you change the subject. We were talking about structural failures and now your carping on about molten metal in the debris which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED. 7) If you're trying to revive the thermite theories, all thermite reactions burn rapidly and go out rapidly. Watch Braniac's video of Thermite vs Peugeot 205, while you're at it, pay attention to how brightly it burns and how messily it reacts:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 7:49:40 GMT -5
Give it up. You were caught lying. The video I posted IS a genuine source. It's Leslie Robertson's own words: "RIVER OF STEEL". You said you accept his opinions, now you reject it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 8:02:59 GMT -5
I wasn't caught lying. I haven't watched the video you posted and have no idea whether it's genuine or not (you claimed a doctored video of WTC7 which purported to be evidence of explosives was genuine) I'll watch it later and decide for myself. This PC I write to you from now doesn't have speakers on it so I cannot listen, I'm at work.
How do rivers of steel have anything to do with the bowing columns observed on camera failing and giving way to load ? Is that question too complicated for you ?
Grow a spine and answer my questions.
2) What do alleged rivers of molten steel have to do with explosives ? 3) What about the bowing columns ? 4) What about the fact that the collapses of the twin towers began at the impact floors ? 5) Even Danny Jowenko did not believe that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
6) No demolitions charges could have survived the impacts of the aeroplanes and the fuel explosions. No tell tale sounds from demolitions charges are audible on raw footage of the collapses. The twin towers collapsed from the impact floors down. Photographic evidence proves the perimeter columns were bowing inwardly. How can the twin tower collapses have been anything other than structural failure induced gravity fed collapses given all the fire and structural damage ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 13:46:50 GMT -5
"I haven't watched the video you posted and have no idea whether it's genuine or not"
It's ok, don't bother. I'm not interested in your bulls**t anyway. Who and what you want to believe and which part you want to believe on Monday but contradict on Tuesday is irrelevant and worthless. I just easily exposed yet another lie from you. They are endless.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 1, 2013 5:42:37 GMT -5
Stop trying to change the subject we were talking about bowing column, sagging trusses and the fires. I mentioned Robertson because he explained how the damage done was far beyond anything the buildings had been designed to cope with. I provided photographic evidence of structural damage bowed columns and intense fire. I caught you in a lie and you changed the subject.
Now answer the above questions about the structural damage the fire and the planes Mr Moderator.
You lied about Norman Mineta and falsely claimed that NORAD were ordered to stand down, you lied about the Pentagon hole, you lied about thermitic material, you lied about the level of damage and the scale of the fires in WTC7, you lied about demolitions charges and posted a doctored video of WTC7. When will you stop lying and face facts ?
What do alleged rivers of molten metal have to do with explosives ? How can the twin tower collapses have been anything other than structural failure induced gravity fed collapses given all the fire and structural damage ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 1, 2013 8:12:03 GMT -5
"Stop trying to change the subject"
The subject of this thread is "NIST = truth AE9/11'truth' = frauds". You made that up and you've strayed quite a bit from the subject. Try to follow along if you can.
"What do alleged rivers of molten metal have to do with explosives ?"
Robertson, the guy whose opinion you said you accept clearly said "river of steel", not rivers of molten metal. He said a bunch of other things in the video as well. What does your nose have to do with with your ass? What is the point of your straw man question? The molten steel was found under all 3 towers and was too hot to approach for over a month. There is quite a bit of eyewitness testimony about that, including that of Leslie Robertson.
"How can the twin tower collapses have been anything other than structural failure induced gravity fed collapses given all the fire and structural damage ?"
How it could have been is what a real investigation might reveal. That it wasn't a natural collapse is irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 2, 2013 2:17:33 GMT -5
Robertson said firefighters lifted some concrete and showed him "a little river of steel flowing" he doesn't mention any metallurgical analysis of that metal. He also said the debris pile was on fire for months, the video cuts away from him after that, presumably to prevent his explanation of what was happening. Now what do little rivers of molten metal have to do with explosives ? Explosives blast so rapidly and fast that steel remains cold to the touch when sheared in this manner. Any molten metal in the debris pile is evidence only of FIRE in the debris pile. The fires in the debris pile burned into 2002 the jet fuel burned up in minutes but wood, plastics, carpets and furnishings took longer to burn. Crucially the materials burn hot enough to melt metals like aluminium and hot enough to make it glow and flow. Thermographs of the debris fires do not indicate temperatures associated with thermite reactions. This claw is made of steel: Note that IT is not molten. One possible source of heat was this: Hydrogen is flammable and generates a lot of heat. Water was sprayed onto the debris pile, water onto hot steel heats up the water and generates steam, water also rusts steel corroding it. Also, note that the girder sticking up near the claw looks like a core column it's remaining bolt point downwards. This is evidence that bolts were stripped and bent during collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 2, 2013 8:04:26 GMT -5
Robertson said firefighters lifted some concrete and showed him "a little river of steel flowing"
Yes he certainly said that and you said you accept Roberston's opinions, so why are you now questioning him and posting your own opinions? You can't have it both ways. Either you accept his opinions or you don't. There's no in between. And by questioning what he said, it's obvious you lied and you really don't accept his opinions as valid.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 3, 2013 5:56:57 GMT -5
I'm not questioning Robertson's testimony, I'm questioning the misrepresentations and fabrications of conspiracy theorists. He didn't say there was a metallurgical analysis taken on the molten material. Robertson doesn't say this had anything to do with the actual collapse.
Robertson doesn't say that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions does he ?
He doesn't say that it was an inside job.
He doesn't say that wtc7 was a controlled demolition.
You may wish there to have been Americans behind it, but there weren't. Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath escaped from above the impact zone of WTC2, their testimonies prove that fireproofing had been destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 3, 2013 6:58:52 GMT -5
It's a new day and a new but usual, tired old bulls**t story from the Shred.
"I'm not questioning Robertson's testimony"
"He didn't say there was a metallurgical analysis taken on the molten material."
First you say you're not questioning him, then in the very next sentence you are.
"He didn't say, he doesn't say, he doesn't say, etc."
No one is talking about what wasn't said, this discussion is about what was said. Changing the subject to what your opinion is about "misrepresentations and fabrications of conspiracy theorists" does not change what Leslie Robertson said in the video and what you said in your post. It has zero to do with it.
Again fake one, you said you accept Leslie Robertson's opinions and Leslie Robertson clearly said he saw "a little river of steel flowing". He didn't start with "I think" (which would have indicated he wasn't sure) and he didn't say "molten material", he clearly said STEEL. It's Leslie Robertson's eyewitness testimony and it matches all the other eyewitness testimony on video about the melted steel flowing under all 3 buildings after 9/11 that you have frantically denied many times in the past.
In the scheme of things, it means very little other than to prove yet again and quite often what a desperate fake you are, a really poor one at that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 3, 2013 10:32:20 GMT -5
The subject is a terrorist attack in which four airliners were hijacked and deliberately crashed, two of which were crashed into the twin towers at speeds greater than it's designers ever designed the buildings to resist, carrying massive fuel loads, destroying fireproofing and sprinklers, setting fire to the contents and weakening the steel which bowed and gave way under load initiating horrifying top down collapses. You're the one who keeps changing the subject. P.s. logically if the temperatures in the debris pile were hot enough to melt steel any aluminium and other metals with a lower melting point than steel would also have melted (and could easily have been mistaken for molten steel). BUT if the temperatures had only been hot enough to melt metals with a lower melting point than steel, other metals could still have been mistaken for molten steel: Molten Aluminium:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 3, 2013 12:58:02 GMT -5
"You're the one who keeps changing the subject."
Sure fake one, you wouldn't want to approach the fact that I caught you in an obvious contradiction. Like I said, your bulls**t is not important to me, it has nothing to do with 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 3, 2013 19:06:57 GMT -5
The subject is a terrorist attack which involved the hijacking of planes and you've tried changing the subject again, fraud.
Two fuel laden airliners crashed into the twin towers at speeds beyond that which the towers were designed for (as Leslie Robertson has testified to), fire proofing and sprinkler systems were destroyed as survivors including Brian Clark have testified to. There's photographic evidence showing trusses hanging down and columns bowing inwardly. The collapses occurred during live tv broadcasts and no characteristic demolitions blasts can be heard on any genuine footage of those collapses.
There is only one explanation that ticks all the boxes and that is that terrorists hijacked and crashed the planes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 3, 2013 20:31:55 GMT -5
So then you agree that all the eyewitnesses, including Leslie Robertson, claim they saw rivers of MOLTEN STEEL (it's all on video so what they testified is 100% irrefutable) and since you said you accept Leslie Robertson's opinion, you also agree with him. So how and why do you suppose there were rivers of molten steel under all 3 towers? Not that I'm really interested in your opinion about that but you have to admit, that is yet another incredibly strange event, don't you think? Maybe the "terrorists" dumped rivers of molten steel under the 3 towers? Nah, that can't be it, not from from the planes anyway.
|
|