"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:ithqg.164947$F_3.72138@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Justin Case wrote:

"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:X5Ypg.33382$VE1.19406@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Justin Case wrote:
[...]

Most debunkers will deny any claims of molten steel at the WTC, but

there

is an abundance
of video evidence and eye witness accounts that say otherwise.

I'd like to see the video evidence for molten steel; not merely
stuff glowing at temperatures ordinary room fires can reach.

     http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

There are the expected conflicting witness accounts. How anyone
identified what he saw as molten steel hasn't been explained.
The actual steel was often mangled, but had not been melted,
when engineers investigated the collapse.

6 weeks after 911

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_q

uality.wmv

No molten steel there. "Red hot" is well below the temperature
of molten steel. Which side are you trying to support?

Maybe you missed the part about this being '6 weeks' after 911 ?

Notice metal pouring out the side ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+

9%2F11

I see the burning stuff. No evidence of molten steel.

That would be that bright yellow river flowing down the side.
Open your eyes.

There is a
compelling amount of
evidence that proves that 'thermite' charges were used.

Lets see a peer reviewed paper that analyzed this evidence.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 >>

That's not the normal usage of "peer reviewed". The normal usage
implies that the peers accepted the work, unlike the case here,
and that the author and his peers are expert in the field, unlike
here.

Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University.

His field is nuclear fusion. Pretty sure the WTC collapse was
not a nuclear phenomenon.

How is a professor of physics not qualified ?

The NIST panel, on the other hand, was actually qualified.

Qualified for a whitewash.

I say that would qualify him, so far none of his peers can refute his

claims

with any evidence.

Your lay judgment of the refutations is irrelevant.

Not to me.

Many do agree with him that an unpartial investigation
of 911 is needed.He invites anyone to provide evidence to counter his
claims,
maybe you should try if you feel up to the challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_Collapse_Hypothesis

Some of Jones' collegues disagree with his beliefs regarding the

collapse of

the towers. The BYU physics department has issued a statement: "The
university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center
buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and

practitioners,

including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's

department

and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and
hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would
ensure rigorous technical peer review." The Fulton College of

Engineering

and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering
faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not

support

the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [5]

In April 2006, BYU removed those statements from their website

Did they issue a retraction? A clarification? Where is it?

Do your own research. It is plain to see you are in complete denial.

 > following a

letter saying that Jones' paper was, indeed, peer reviewed. The letter,
written by linguistics professor Richard McGinn

Linguistics? The peers are supposed to be from the relevant field.

There you go taking things out of context, McGinn letter was to force a
retraction.
It was not part of Jones' paper.

to Alan Parkinson, Dean of
the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, also says that McGinn

is

entitled to file an ethics complaint with the American Society of Civil
Engineers against Parkinson for continuing to run those statements. [6]

Colleges of physics and engineering on one side, and a linguistics
professor on the other. Tough call?

Nothing to call. Your strawman is burning, got to find those marshmallows.

What about those 'squibs' going off up the side of WTC7 just before it came
down,
or just before they 'pulled' it ?