The presence of molten metal weeks later is not relevant to the collapse INITIATION as proposed by NIST. NIST self admits they did not go into detail wrt the collapse itself, as it was irrelevant (one the initiation occured the collapse was inevitible). You can argue their conclusions all you want, but according to what they set out to investigate, the molten metal irrelevant.
The presence of molten metal was prior to collapse of the south tower. NIST’s argument that it was irrelevant does not address the
counter arguments presented. it was relevant because it was an effect of the wtc event, and its presence affects the truth or falsity of the official collapse hypothesis.
To address NIST’s argument specifically they claim it was irrelevant because once collapse initiation occured the collapse was inevitable. This
claim has never been proven
empirically. Personally i find the notion of 12 stories crushing over 90 intact floors below absurd. No-one has been able to provide me
just one example when roughly 1/10th of any rectangular object when dropped will crush the remainder of the object. A recent paper in the journal of 911 studies proves that there was
no jolt between the falling upper block against the lower intact structure. If a jolt had of occured this would have been detected by a deceleration. But no deceleration was observed.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf
So NIST’s argument that the presence of molten metal is irrelevant rests on a
disproven assumption.
http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/Aboutthecodes.asp?DocNum=921&cookie_test=1 you will have to pay to read it.
While I have no problem with a forensic analysis of the meteorite (so long as my conditions were met), I am arguing the reasons (likely) why NIST did not analyze it. If the composition or state of that "meteorite" would have no relevance on how and why the collapse initiated, then they had no reason within their mandate to analyze it. Now you can argue the inadequacy of their mandate if you like, but it is what it is.
Again, the meteorite was an effect of the wtc event and its presence affects the truth or falsity of the official collapse hypothesis. For example, if it was exposed to extreme temperatures during collapse then NIST cannot account for such temperatures within a gravity collapse.
As stated above, the claim that global collapse was inevitable is a
disproven assumption. But if you can demonstrate empirically how roughly 1/10th of any rectangular structure can crush the rest then be my guest.
Because NIST did not follow the NFPA recommendations despite the indications of the presence of exotic accelerants they must
justify this exclusion. To claim that they never tested for exotic accelerants because there was no evidence for exotic accelerants is circular reasoning and denies the already existing evidence indicating their presence.
To argue that they did not test for exotic accelrants because there is no evidence they were involved in collapse initiation avoids
the obvious possibility that they were involved post-collapse initiation when the rest of the intact building was completely demolished.
Standard investigation? Forensic or non-forensic or both? Scientific or non-scientific or both? Got a reference (still haven't seen this yet) where you are getting this from? While you are at it, got a reference for what is considered the standard fire safety definition of an "exotic accelerant" is?
This is from the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. 19.2.4 - “Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.”
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=6
The first sentence, please prove this. I beg to differ. The pressure exerted through such a long, gravity driven collapse, and subsequent "landing" on the ground, would have produced enormous amounts of pressure and friction, thus generating enormous heat. Can you prove through scientific calculation that insufficient heat would have been generated this way?
Why do I have to prove
your hypothesis? You are making the claim that friction can generate sufficient temperature to liquify steel, the burden of proof is on you. I claim that exotic accelerants can generate sufficient temperature to melt steel, this claim is universally accepted.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
this paper argues against the possibility of a gravity collapse producing enough heat to melt steel.
now its your turn. Provide a paper arguing how friction or pressure can generate enough temperature to melt steel. I’ll be waiting...
peace
Therefore, it is for you to convince ME of the soundness of said extraordinary claim.
) have understood and used what he is talking about for hundreds of years. Search "Saugus Iron Works" you'll see how with wood fires and a "flux" (that's a clue for you) they were able to start the "iron age" in the "new world".
)