Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts’ new science champion, who doesn’t bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about “retarded metallurgical things.” Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.
I was amazed at the cognitive dissidence this twerp displayed. Preparing a f^cking tooth pick (in comparison) in a purpose built oven and and and, but ill bet a stack of precious metal that there will be a shite load of lobotomized minions that will be saying yeh, see, this is an expert and he has just proven it, see!!!
Thanks Kevin…Has there ever been (that you know of) an official recognition of even the presence of the molten, subterranean steel?
they don’t have to hide it, now.
HR bill 5736 I believe. If the public knew that the media is not a counter balance to gov’t misdeeds; that the media is not a watchdog group loyally defending our most sacred ideologies, we would be half way be half way to our goal. Restoring America.
Fine article and I’ll comment on one specific part of it.
Quote: “This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America’s ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” when they want to convey that “Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC.” The second major problem is …”.
Good point and I think that the best approach is to say both. which is that jet fuel fire can’t melt steel and that there was a lot of melted steel at the WTC, something that’d require thermite in order to happen as quickly as it did and also something that neither jet fuel fire nor office fires could cause.
For the melted WTC steel, I think it’s of value to add the fact that the melting happened very quickly, for of course steel, iron and other metals are melted in foundries without the use of thermite. Of course no-one would even think of suggesting that the WTC steel was melted using a foundry, but it does no harm to say that the WTC steel that melted undeniably did so very quickly.
Thanks for your December post. I’ve been looking forward to it but I was beginning to think that you wouldn’t put one up.
For January 2016, how about posting and keeping on your homepage an index of your blog articles by topic. Now, without an index, to read what you’ve written, one has to click on each of the 53 months for which you have article archives. That puts me off and others may feel the same way. I’ll bet a a lot of what you’ve written has been forgotten because of your site doesn’t have a blog index.
Ed Perkins – A blog index by topic is a good idea. It’d be very useful for visitors and regular users of the blog. But, if Kevin manages this blog alone, then … time? He’s previously stated a year or so ago that his time is limited. When I post a comment, which I normally always do, even if it’s just to say, “Excellent article”, then I try to make sure to checkmark the notification boxes for when there’re replies to an article, plus when Kevin posts new articles. I also sometimes bookmark articles. And I also use Web searches of DigWithin.net, 911review.com, etc.
It possibly isn’t as good a a very specific set of indexes, by topic and sub-topic, but it’s worked out well enough. Kevin said his time is limited and that’s understandable, so ….
mikecorbeil – re an index for Dig Within.
I’m not going to do it and I suspect that you or others won’t either. But Kevin should.
Much as I enjoy his monthly columns, I’d gladly pass on one if he’d use his limited research and writing time to make his 50+ earlier columns much more easily accessible to you, I, and his other readers. Otherwise, I think that now they’re been all but forgotten on this site and will remain so.
It’s just pointless to argue against the demolition of 3 of the world’s tallest/strongest buildings. To do so reveals nothing but one’s ignorance of the facts/ That being the large body of of mutually supportive (concordant) evidence that makes any but the demolition hypothesis untenable.
Re. the ‘iron worker video (nonsense), I have to shake my head in disbelief. And look at the actual youtube page,,,at least when I saw it a day or two ago he thumbs-up showed one thing clearly (support for the vid) and the comments far more overwhelming showed disdain for the video, with many negative comments having dozens and hundreds of up votes. It makes one wonder how valid those ‘votes’ are. Truth is, a person need not even know all the other facts that support demolition. The videos alone prove they were blown up http://911speakout.org/?page_id=623.
and just a side note to anyone who may be looking into the subject, that despite the potential for complexity in this issue,,(one often see these walls of text loaded with obscure questions from apologists for the official lie while they ignore far more damning, simple and well-documented evidence,, like wtc7’s implosion), it’s a relatively short list of facts that prove the preplanted explosives hypothesis. If we stick to the facts/ We cannot go wrong/.
ajlucientes – In physical sciences, there’re guesses, hypotheses, theories and what’re called facts until conditions that make a present fact a fact change. Many people have called Washington’s story or version of 9/11 “the greatest conspiracy theory of all” about 9/11, but it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis and clearly isn’t even a guess. It’s bs.
Guess is less than hypothesis, which is less than theory, which, in turn, is less than fact, for there remain uncertainties with guesses, hypotheses as well as theories. Facts can be factual today, but if conditions that the facts depend on, speaking of physics, f.e., change, then the facts about this will possibly also need to be changed. But, one thing that we can be certain about is that Washington hasn’t even been guessing, for its version of 9/11 clearly is bs; it’s clearly intended for deception and, I guess we could say, psychological manipulation. But, then, we can also realise that Washington et al have been “correctly” guessing that they can keep plenty of Americans fooled. That, I guess, Washington et al would be right about, for there’re still plenty of people who support Washington’s version of this historical series of attacks.
So Washington got at least one guess “correctly”. It can’t fool everyone at any time and can’t keep even more people fooled forever, but it sure does seem that it can keep some fooled followers for an awfully long time.
Call it “fuzzy logic”, say.
It is truly incredible how anyone can believe the official narrative that jet fuel fires brought down, not one, but two steel framed high rise buildings on the same day within such a short time of each other and at (virtually) free-fall speed, especially buildings specifically designed to withstand the impact of planes. It is literally impossible for the events to have occurred as stated in the official narrative and yet still we have people who believe it to be so.
1. The speed the towers fell at, i.e. freefall.
2. The type of debris left behind, i.e dust.
3. The relatively small debris field.
Certainly, anyone who cannot answer satisfactorily the questions of why the towers fell as they did (freefall, own footprint) and why the masonry rubble was the way it was (microscopic dust, not rubble) immediately raises doubts as to the credibility of their answers.
John Roberts, the towers didn’t fall at freefall speed; close to it, enough, but not quite freefall. The top stories of WTC 7 have been proven to have come down at what can literally be called freefall speed, but from what I’ve otherwise read about WTC 1 and 2, not quite freefall speed. If this is incorrect, then correction will be graciously accepted and appreciated as long as the correction is backed up with linked sources.
In all other respects, your comment is good, imo, based on what I’ve gathered over many years from 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net, AE911Truth.org and Kevin Ryan. AE911Truth means plenty of experts, architects, structural engineers, physicists, and possibly others. These have been my sources of information for many years and there’s no doubt for me that you’re at least essentially right.
It’s just the “freefall” part of your comment that I wonder about. F.e., David Chandler, a physics professor, analysed the destructions of WTC 1, 2 and 7, and for 7, it’s something like the top 29 stories or floors that came down at what can be truthfully considered freefall or approximately freefall speed, but not the lower part of the building. But for WTC 1 and 2, I’m not sure. If recalling correctly, then one or more of the sources referred to above says 1 and 2 came down in around 15 seconds, and given the heights of those towers, maybe it works out to be approximately freefall speed; but, I don’t recall having read that.
I’m wholly open to correction, and if I’m mistaken, then correction, which means clarification, will be most appreciable.
Hope life and loss is minimal but will be interesting to see what melted and what did not.
Gage meets Chomsky. How will history judge Chomsky?
History doesn’t judge anything. It’s just text or video. But, I know what you mean. Noam Chomsky unfortunately, for himself anyway, is screwed up about 9/11. His friend Howard Zinn seemed to wake up to the fact that Washington is full of … bs or crap about 9/11 and I found it odd that Chomsky didn’t give his friend better consideration. After all, even if Zinn wasn’t fully right, he was certainly right at least in terms of putting Washington into question. That a so-called intellectual of the renown Chomsky has would completely ridicule this is … like, what? Okay, say a person believes Washington. Sure, okay. But, if the person wants to be generally credible and respected, then whatever he or she decides needs to be critically objective. Chomsky definitely lacks objectivity when it comes to 9/11.
It’s a topic he apparently fears to properly consider or address.
Chomsky’s views on how ‘science’ should be practiced in the 21st Century are archaic. He is out of touch with what is taught to kids in high school for they are taught principles in physics and chemistry that are no longer up for debate. He believes that people who understand high school physics and chemistry (and there are plenty) need to have a PhD in these subjects and have presented papers at symposiums and the like before they can talk knowledgeably about them. Presumably he believes the same thing about himself and so he will not engage that part of his thinking when it comes to considering the physics of 9/11.
a chimpanzee was found to be very intelligent and was dubbed Nim Chimsky in some American paper. as time goes by more and more intelligence about 9-11 will be released or some perp will confess on his or her deathbed. I think that Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan organised the destruction of the WTC for an excuse to wipe out Iraq for Bush`s Military/Industrial/Wall st. complex.