The 9/11 Discussion.

[Texan77]

The b52 bomber does not have a much in common with a modern jet. The jet just took off and what took down the building was the burning jet fuel not the jet. The fuel burned long enough to soften the steel. It was believe that the towers would not collapse and this risk was not fully understood before the crash. That is why there was no evacuation. There was so much more fuel on it than the b52 bomber. Secondly the problem you guy have with the is the way the building fell. The building had a taper built into it. When a number of floors failed it meant the structural supports in the building did not line up with the lower flows. The top of the building fit inside the lower part pushing the cement out wards. This cause the cement in the floors just below the falling building to be in tension where cement has almost no strength pushing debris outward instead of crushing it.

Guys these writers are making millions selling you books on conspiracies theories. If this happened in Russia no body would write about it because no body would buy the book. A good 9-11 conspiracy book should make the writer a millionaire several times over. Do not be convinced so easily.

[Contrarian]

The b52 bomber does not have a much in common with a modern jet. The jet just took off and what took down the building was the burning jet fuel not the jet. The fuel burned long enough to soften the steel. It was believe that the towers would not collapse and this risk was not fully understood before the crash. That is why there was no evacuation. There was so much more fuel on it than the b52 bomber. Secondly the problem you guy have with the is the way the building fell. The building had a taper built into it. When a number of floors failed it meant the structural supports in the building did not line up with the lower flows. The top of the building fit inside the lower part pushing the cement out wards. This cause the cement in the floors just below the falling building to be in tension where cement has almost no strength pushing debris outward instead of crushing it.

Guys these writers are making millions selling you books on conspiracies theories. If this happened in Russia no body would write about it because no body would buy the book. A good 9-11 conspiracy book should make the writer a millionaire several times over. Do not be convinced so easily.

Another guy who drank the Kool Aid.  Please tell us Tex boy how hot jet fuel burns?  Now tell us the temperature required to create molten steel?  Now offer a scientific rebuttal to the fact that all the forensic evidence shows high tech military grade thermitic material was found. One real scientist confirmed heat temperatures of over 5,000 degrees in some left over materials.

Q: How hot can fires from burning jet fuel get?
A: Never above 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q: How hot does steel have to get in order to melt?
A: Over 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q: How hot would the steel beams and girders in the three World Trade Center buildings have had to get in order to get the steel to boil and then evaporate holes in the metal on 9/11/2001?
A: Over 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit. 1

The only conspiracy theory is that which was offered by the government, and they've modified their theories but not proven any of them. The truth will come out but it doesn't help that there's a lot of uneducated people who believe the absurd theories proffered by the government.

1. http://duluthreader.com/articles/2018/08/30/14455_federal_grand_jury_petition_filed_for_new_9_11
                                             
                                                   

[Contrarian]

KEY EVIDENCE
Rapid onset of destruction,
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples


https://www.ae911truth.org/

Bump. Still waiting for Billy Bob to explain how temperatures reached over 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. 

[Contrarian]

Markje and a couple others have spoken about information which was once on the net being scrubbed and eliminated.

This prieview of Anatomy of a Great Deception part 2 talks about this.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/agd2-the-anatomy-of-a-great-deception-part-two#/

[Contrarian]

Anatomy of a Great Deception part one full film.
One hour and 34 minutes. Released in 2014.
Technical Consultant Richard Gage AIA.

[BillyB]

One real scientist confirmed heat temperatures of over 5,000 degrees in some left over materials.

Only one? I can find more people who were abducted by aliens or seen Bigfoot. The scientist only seen pools of molten steel and no other pools? There are many soft metals that go into a skyscraper. Aluminum and copper are a couple that have much lower melting temperatures.

Anatomy of a Great Deception part one full film.
One hour and 34 minutes. Released in 2014.

I'm not going to waste one hour and 34 minutes of my life watching that. There are much more important things to do like argue with people on the internet.

[Contrarian]

One real scientist confirmed heat temperatures of over 5,000 degrees in some left over materials.

Only one? I can find more people who were abducted by aliens or seen Bigfoot. The scientist only seen pools of molten steel and no other pools? There are many soft metals that go into a skyscraper. Aluminum and copper are a couple that have much lower melting temperatures.

Anatomy of a Great Deception part one full film.
One hour and 34 minutes. Released in 2014.

I'm not going to waste one hour and 34 minutes of my life watching that. There are much more important things to do like argue with people on the internet.

Very funny Billy. More than one scientist. Over 3,000 experts all together.

Care to tell our audience how hot NIST says the fires burned Billy? NIST (the people you claim are real working experts) stated in their report that the fires only burned at 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

They cannot now contradict themselves, go back in time and claim otherwise.

In fact molten steel requires temperatures of about 2,800 degrees. For steel to evaporate it’s going to be over 5,200 degrees.

Now tell the audience how many seconds it takes a building to topple over and fall due to one beam failing? Again that’s the official NIST version for building 7 which wasn’t struck by an airplane.

You claim the other two, the twin towers, collapsed due to the fires. Impossible, it’s never happened.

Now tell our audience for how many days the fires from molten steel burned, under the rubble, even though they were underwater after firefighters attempted to douse them.

You won’t do the hard investigative work because you’re lazy and too proud to admit you’re wrong.

Here’s a fire that burned for 17 hours in a skyscraper but the building was still standing.

Fire cannot take down a skyscraper but nanothermites a high tech explosive does.


https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/741


This high rise burned for 29 hours but did not collapse.


https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

[rosco]

Confederate, here’s a question for you? I was watching something the other day 911 related and there’s footage of Putin saying that he made contact with Bush, to warn him that something very very big was about to happen.

If it was an inside job, do you think Putin was in on it? It just seems odd to me given that this intelligence was based on al-Qaeda surveillance.

[Contrarian]

Confederate, here’s a question for you? I was watching something the other day 911 related and there’s footage of Putin saying that he made contact with Bush, to warn him that something very very big was about to happen.

If it was an inside job, do you think Putin was in on it? It just seems odd to me given that this intelligence was based on al-Qaeda surveillance.

Al Queda surveillance? 

AQ is a boogeyman developed by the CIA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881/amp

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

[rosco]

Confederate, here’s a question for you? I was watching something the other day 911 related and there’s footage of Putin saying that he made contact with Bush, to warn him that something very very big was about to happen.

If it was an inside job, do you think Putin was in on it? It just seems odd to me given that this intelligence was based on al-Qaeda surveillance.

Al Queda surveillance? 

AQ is a boogeyman developed by the CIA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881/amp

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

But back to Putin and his comments on TV? Was he in on it too?

This is more of a genuine question btw. Home grown false flag events to take a country to war and mobilise the defence industry, I totally get it. The 'enemy' of the US going out their way to share chatter because of the fear of large scale loss of life.....odd and not fitting in with the conspiracy narrative in my opinion.

I agree a lot doesn't weigh up but this got me thinking.

[rosco]

Putin on that phone call to Bush. Watch from 1.35.

[Contrarian]

Confederate, here’s a question for you? I was watching something the other day 911 related and there’s footage of Putin saying that he made contact with Bush, to warn him that something very very big was about to happen.

If it was an inside job, do you think Putin was in on it? It just seems odd to me given that this intelligence was based on al-Qaeda surveillance.

Al Queda surveillance? 

AQ is a boogeyman developed by the CIA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881/amp

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

But back to Putin and his comments on TV? Was he in on it too?

This is more of a genuine question btw. Home grown false flag events to take a country to war and mobilise the defence industry, I totally get it. The 'enemy' of the US going out their way to share chatter because of the fear of large scale loss of life.....odd and not fitting in with the conspiracy narrative in my opinion.

I agree a lot doesn't weigh up but this got me thinking.

Your question is nonsensical to me and this is just a distraction away from the scientific and physical evidence. Go back and really study it if you’re genuinely interested.

The Russian Federation also attempted to warn the USA about the Tsarnov brothers. Using your logic above was Russia also “in” on their conspiracy to commit the Boston bombings?

I watched what appears to be a BBC production involving Putin calling Bush Jr. What I see is that Putin was acting and he wanted to appear that he was being helpful to TPTB in the West.

Just a charade on all parts but especially the BBC. Don’t worry yourself with conjecture and suppositions. If you’re serious you’ll do the study of all the physical evidence versus the official story. You’ll study the key figures, follow the destruction of evidence and follow the money.

[rosco]

Confederate, here’s a question for you? I was watching something the other day 911 related and there’s footage of Putin saying that he made contact with Bush, to warn him that something very very big was about to happen.

If it was an inside job, do you think Putin was in on it? It just seems odd to me given that this intelligence was based on al-Qaeda surveillance.

Al Queda surveillance? 

AQ is a boogeyman developed by the CIA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881/amp

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

But back to Putin and his comments on TV? Was he in on it too?

This is more of a genuine question btw. Home grown false flag events to take a country to war and mobilise the defence industry, I totally get it. The 'enemy' of the US going out their way to share chatter because of the fear of large scale loss of life.....odd and not fitting in with the conspiracy narrative in my opinion.

I agree a lot doesn't weigh up but this got me thinking.

Your question is nonsensical to me and this is just a distraction away from the scientific and physical evidence. Go back and really study it if you’re genuinely interested.

The Russian Federation also attempted to warn the USA about the Tsarnov brothers. Using your logic above was Russia also “in” on their conspiracy to commit the Boston bombings?

I watched what appears to be a BBC production involving Putin calling Bush Jr. What I see is that Putin was acting and he wanted to appear that he was being helpful to TPTB in the West.

Just a charade on all parts but especially the BBC. Don’t worry yourself with conjecture and suppositions. If you’re serious you’ll do the study of all the physical evidence versus the official story. You’ll study the key figures, follow the destruction of evidence and follow the money.

So in answer to my question, Putin didn't actually call Bush and it was both a lie and a nice guy act for the BBC?

Focus on this section first without throwing in separate bombings, melting steel beams and mythical planes hitting the Pentagon. It's my opinion that Putin received intelligence that indicates an attack from outside. Maybe your government also saw it coming and let it happen but I find that Putin interview inconvenient for people with your opinions.

[Contrarian]

Rosco I did not say Putin didn’t call Bush Jr. I said he may have done it to improve his image with the West. Follow your own weird logic, why did Russia warn the American FBI about the Tsarnov brothers?

More importantly if that was a BBC production it’s clearly meant to distract you which it has.

Bush Jr. outed CIA spy Valerie Plame because her facts did not support his administrations claim of WMD in the rush to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

If you’re genuinely interested in looking at the events and evidence of 9/11 then watch just the first 20 minutes of Anatomy of a Great Deception part one.

Anatomy as in they really dissect the actual events and physical evidence and compare the physical evidence and basic laws of physics versus the official government narrative.

[rosco]

Rosco I did not say Putin didn’t call Bush Jr. I said he may have done it to improve his image with the West. Follow your own weird logic, why did Russia warn the American FBI about the Tsarnov brothers?

More importantly if that was a BBC production it’s clearly meant to distract you which it has.

Bush Jr. outed CIA spy Valerie Plame because her facts did not support his administrations claim of WMD in the rush to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

If you’re genuinely interested in looking at the events and evidence of 9/11 then watch just the first 20 minutes of Anatomy of a Great Deception part one.

Anatomy as in they really dissect the actual events and physical evidence and compare the physical evidence and basic laws of physics versus the official government narrative.

It's not that I'm interested or disinterested, I just can't be bothered wasting lots of time going through it because I don't hold that strong an opinion and have very little interest in 911. I've had years of on off discussions and reading blogs about it and it just isn't that much fun. It might have been if I was a yank.

My main point here is that its a big thing for an fellow 'enemy' superpower to do the right thing and share intelligence with its rival. Why Putin did it we can all hazard a guess but it does indicate foreign activity and not simply an inside job. How you chose to melt it down depends on how extreme or strong your views are. After all, when someone believes so strongly in something, they have an answer for everything.

Just look at Moby and Brexit.

[Contrarian]

So there it is, like others you cannot be bothered but you do have a bit of an opinion.

I pointed out to you that it is in fact the CIA which nurtured and breast fed Al Queda and it seems to have gone right over your head.

The information which Putin believes he is telling Bush Jr. could have already been disseminated by the CIA as disinformation to the Northern Alliance Afghanistan fighter and leader who Putin liked and as planned Putin thinks he’s got some precious information and he repeats it back to Bush Jr, it’s truly comical.

Either way Putin is a minor bit player in 9/11 he is neither beneficial or detrimental to any of the real facts. You mentioned the possibility of a foreign government being involved but you’re going in the wrong direction. 

[rosco]

Nothing went over my head and there's a difference between being bothered and being obsessed. I said I couldn't be bothered wasting lots of time, I have better things to do than obsess over documentaries and conspiracy theories.....on a subject which I have little interest.

That said I know enough about it having had it chucked in my face for the last 17 years, to hold an opinion and the Putin point seems to have you a little rattled. How little or large the significance of Putin in the whole 911 thing isn't really my main point but maybe that's gone over your head?

I found it interesting enough to ask you about it, you bit back and overreacted.

[Contrarian]

Nothing went over my head and there's a difference between being bothered and being obsessed. I said I couldn't be bothered wasting lots of time, I have better things to do than obsess over documentaries and conspiracy theories.....on a subject which I have little interest.

That said I know enough about it having had it chucked in my face for the last 17 years, to hold an opinion and the Putin point seems to have you a little rattled. How little or large the significance of Putin in the whole 911 thing isn't really my main point but maybe that's gone over your head?

I found it interesting enough to ask you about it, you bit back and overreacted.

I’m not at all rattled by Putin as I just stated directly above he’s a minor bit player in 9/11 and his words do not add or detract. He’s been in “the game” for decades, he knows who really did it and how but there would be no benefit for him or Russia to reveal anything substantive at this point in time, in fact it would be the opposite.

BTW when we started this exchange it were after 7 pm your time, now it’s 9:30 pm have you been throwing back some pints or Scotch with your mates? 

[rosco]

Nothing went over my head and there's a difference between being bothered and being obsessed. I said I couldn't be bothered wasting lots of time, I have better things to do than obsess over documentaries and conspiracy theories.....on a subject which I have little interest.

That said I know enough about it having had it chucked in my face for the last 17 years, to hold an opinion and the Putin point seems to have you a little rattled. How little or large the significance of Putin in the whole 911 thing isn't really my main point but maybe that's gone over your head?

I found it interesting enough to ask you about it, you bit back and overreacted.

I’m not at all rattled by Putin as I just stated directly above he’s a minor bit player in 9/11 and his words do not add or detract. He’s been in “the game” for decades, he knows who really did it and how but there would be no benefit for him or Russia to reveal anything substantive at this point in time, in fact it would be the opposite.

BTW when we started this exchange it were after 7 pm your time, now it’s 9:30 pm have you been throwing back some pints or Scotch with your mates? 

It doesn’t take long to look and post buddy.

We’ve actually had a wee celebratory meal at home, wife got her citizenship today 

[Wiz]

sorry mistake.... pls delete. thnks

[Texan77]

If you knew anything about buildings, material and physics you would know how complicated this problem is. There are very many kinds of steels and they are melt at different temperatures. The steel does not have to melt. It is like working with a horse shoe. You heat the steel to a temperature far less than melting and it gets soft so it can be bent. In fact the steel start getting a lot softer before it even start to turn red at only a few hundred degrees.  Each building is constructed differently. This fire was much hotter than many fires because of the jet fuel. 1800 degrees is way more than enough to make most steels unable to support the building. There was a lot of concrete in this building. This made the top floors heavy. Another building may not have as much concrete and the steel maybe able to support the weight.  Maybe the fire was not as hot. How many floor were on top of the fire and how tall was the total building. All of this matters. It was most likely built completely differently and could stand different stresses.  Most likely the fire was not as how because it did not contain a large amount of jet fuel.

What happened here is constantly being studied to better understand the construction mistakes to let to this collapse.

You can believe what ever you want. It is very unlikely that any body knew in advance just what floors of the twin towers were going to get hit by the planes to damage the building to collapse right there including the terrorist pilot of the Jet.

[AvHdB]

If you knew anything about buildings, material and physics you would know how complicated this problem is. There are very many kinds of steels and they are melt at different temperatures. The steel does not have to melt. It is like working with a horse shoe. You heat the steel to a temperature far less than melting and it gets soft so it can be bent. In fact the steel start getting a lot softer before it even start to turn red at only a few hundred degrees.  Each building is constructed differently. This fire was much hotter than many fires because of the jet fuel. 1800 degrees is way more than enough to make most steels unable to support the building. There was a lot of concrete in this building. This made the top floors heavy. Another building may not have as much concrete and the steel maybe able to support the weight.  Maybe the fire was not as hot. How many floor were on top of the fire and how tall was the total building. All of this matters. It was most likely built completely differently and could stand different stresses.  Most likely the fire was not as how because it did not contain a large amount of jet fuel.

What happened here is constantly being studied to better understand the construction mistakes to let to this collapse.

You can believe what ever you want. It is very unlikely that any body knew in advance just what floors of the twin towers were going to get hit by the planes to damage the building to collapse right there including the terrorist pilot of the Jet.

While I am reluctant to go to Confederatespiracies own thread.

It is worth noting he understand little of forges and blast furnaces.

Anyways proceed with pleasure if it helps some ego's.

Now if he went to the aircraft that 'landed' in Pennsylvania I would consider carefully.

[Contrarian]

If you knew anything about buildings, material and physics you would know how complicated this problem is. There are very many kinds of steels and they are melt at different temperatures. The steel does not have to melt. It is like working with a horse shoe. You heat the steel to a temperature far less than melting and it gets soft so it can be bent. In fact the steel start getting a lot softer before it even start to turn red at only a few hundred degrees.  Each building is constructed differently. This fire was much hotter than many fires because of the jet fuel. 1800 degrees is way more than enough to make most steels unable to support the building. There was a lot of concrete in this building. This made the top floors heavy. Another building may not have as much concrete and the steel maybe able to support the weight.  Maybe the fire was not as hot. How many floor were on top of the fire and how tall was the total building. All of this matters. It was most likely built completely differently and could stand different stresses.  Most likely the fire was not as how because it did not contain a large amount of jet fuel.

What happened here is constantly being studied to better understand the construction mistakes to let to this collapse.

You can believe what ever you want. It is very unlikely that any body knew in advance just what floors of the twin towers were going to get hit by the planes to damage the building to collapse right there including the terrorist pilot of the Jet.

While I am reluctant to go to Confederatespiracies own thread.

It is worth noting he understand little of forges and blast furnaces.

Anyways proceed with pleasure if it helps some ego's.

Now if he went to the aircraft that 'landed' in Pennsylvania I would consider carefully.

I realize you’re both incredibly obtuse and that you have done zero reading of the official NIST report therefore I’m going to do some charity work today and enlighten you.

A) NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in their report to the 9/11 Commission stated that the fires did not burn hotter than 1832 degrees Fahrenheit. They claimed that WTC Bldg. 7 collapsed due to a collumn failure. Were this true Building 7 would have toppled over and it would have taken a minimum of 90 seconds. Why 90 seconds you ask? It’s the minimum amount of time for a building to topple or collapse. A building with structural failure with each floor coming down and hitting the floor beneath it will get resistance at each floor which would slow down the destruction of the building.

A building which has been wired for high-tech explosives can come down in 6 to 10 seconds.

Observe a side by side comparison of Building 7 and an acknowledged controlled demolition:

B) The official story is 1832 degrees Fahrenheit which NIST cannot amend. All 3 Buildings had evidence of temperatures of approximately 5,200 degrees. Those temperatures are not achievable without the use of high tech explosives.

C) NIST claims the Twin Towers came down due to fires burning. In the history of steel skyscrapers there has never been one which collapsed due to fires.

A building in Venezuela burned for 17 hours but did not collapse. A building burned in Chechnya for 29 hours but did not collapse.

If a building was capable of collapsing due to fire it would take a minimum of 90 seconds due to the resistance of each floor beneath it.

Only carefully planned and prepared high tech explosives can cause a building to pancake at free fall speed of 6 to 10 seconds because all the floors beneath are being pulverized into gigantic toxic dust clouds.

[BillyB]

Very funny Billy. More than one scientist. Over 3,000 experts all together.

I read your website that over 3000 people signed on to. Many are Muslims and many are living out of the USA. There is no verification process to learn if those people signing onto that conspiracy website are even scientists.

Care to tell our audience how hot NIST says the fires burned Billy? NIST (the people you claim are real working experts) stated in their report that the fires only burned at 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

I can believe the reported 1832 degrees F is the max temperature of the burning buildings and I can also believe molten pools of metal was witnessed at the scene but you are assuming those melted pools of metal are steel which would need higher temperatures to melt. There are many softer metals that go into the making of buildings that melt at much lower temperatures. Brass, aluminum and zinc are some metals that go into a building and can melt below 1832 degrees

[Contrarian]

Very funny Billy. More than one scientist. Over 3,000 experts all together.

I read your website that over 3000 people signed on to. Many are Muslims and many are living out of the USA. There is no verification process to learn if those people signing onto that truth website are even scientists.

FTFY

Arabs and Muslims living outside of the USA should join the truth movement after all they were framed in one of the greatest crimes in human history. You being such a stellar researcher no doubt will write to the lead Architect Richard Gage AIA to check on all their credentials. NOT.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mercury.postlight.com/amp%3furl=https://www.ae911truth.org/news/397-why-have-nearly-3-000-architects-and-engineers-signed-our-petition

Care to tell our audience how hot NIST says the fires burned Billy? NIST (the people you claim are real working experts) stated in their report that the fires only burned at 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

I can believe the reported 1832 degrees F is the max temperature of the burning buildings and I can also believe molten pools of metal was witnessed at the scene but you are assuming those melted pools of metal are steel which would need higher temperatures to melt. There are many softer metals that go into the making of buildings that melt at much lower temperatures. Brass, aluminum and zinc are some metals that go into a building and can melt below 1832 degrees

It was molten steel. You’re too lazy to know that it continued to burn for 102 days after multiple attempts by the New York Fire Department to put it out and that it burned that long even though it was underwater.