Justin Case wrote:

"Bryan Olson" wrote:

Justin Case wrote:

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 ?

The way you presented it, I assumed you were suggesting it had
something to do with the topic at issue.

I have no idea what theory you think it supports. Explosives
and thermite burn out quickly. The longer underground fires
had to be fueled by many tons of building contents.

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.

That would be you pretending to know what you don't, again.
That's how we get these wrong reports: people see one thing and
say they saw another.

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 ?

His fields, nuclear fusion and solar energy, have essentially
nothing to so with it.

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

Qualified for a whitewash.

That's just another proclamation by the incompetent. I was
talking about reality: the NIST team was just the kind of
qualified experts we would want for this investigation.

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

Do your own research.

We've been there; done that. You keep turning out not to know
what you are talking about.

It is plain to see you are in complete denial.

In other words no, there was no retraction.


[...]

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

That's you pretending to know what you don't, again. Real
engineers see a progressive failure. And "squibs", up *one*
corner of a building is not how controlled demolition does
it.