If I read this right, he's saying that the reports of molten steel at ground zero prove a conspiracy because there weren't any reports of molten steel from ground zero, and the fact that these reports were suppressed proves that reports of molten steel would prove a conspiracy because if molten steel were possible then it would be reported as part of the conspiracy. Therefore, the fact that there weren't any reports of molten steel demonstrates that the reports of molten steel that there actually were must prove a conspiracy, and all this only rests on the starting assumption that there must have been a conspiracy. Or something. My head's starting to hurt now.
It's an entertaining new spin on both the old truther arguments of circular reasoning and heads-I-win, tails-you-lose; he's not only claiming that he wins whether the coin falls heads or tails, he's also claiming that the coin came down both heads and tails, and his evidence for this is the assumption that he won the toss.
Dave