I replied (archived and archived):

Jim replied:

if it is a photoshopped image, show us a different image of the south side of World Trade building seven.

Here is an ABC news video of the south side of WTC7 after the adjoining WTC twin tower has already collapsed. Clearly if watched in entirety and not cherry-picking frames, it can be seen that most of the smoke is coming from the adjacent debris pile from the collapsed twin tower. Similarly in another video from ground level looking up, it can be seen that the very white smoke is mostly coming from the said debris pile. You may prefer yet another video which shows more damage and fires to the south side of WTC7. Nevertheless those aren’t sufficient to explain the nearly symmetrical collapse. As Yara has explained many times, the key feature of WTC7’s collapse is that it is non-localized which is the signature of controlled demolition. And the NIST model has been refuted with physics and structural engineering.

I replied (archived and archived):

Jim wrote:

when any idiot can see it falling sideways onto the square between it and World Trade Center building six.

I have yet to see you or anyone produce a video clearly validating that claim. Every video I have seen shows it falling more or less symmetrically into its footprint. There is some initial asymmetry such as seen at the roof line because the core structural beams were cut first before the rest of he building collapsed. This is all a pattern of controlled demolition. Yara has explained this many times, but you censor his posts.

You are telling us that World Trade Center building seven was not on fire, when the south side was obviously on fire.

I have never claimed that WTC7 was not on fire. Quote me! The point is that the localized fires and localized damage was insufficient to cause the nearly symmetrical, non-localized collapse which is actually observed and is the signature of controlled demotions.

I replied (archived and archived):

Jim wrote:

Your video agrees with my still image.

Only if you cherry pick a frame of the video and refuse to acknowledge that clearly most of the smoke is billowing up from the debris pile.

There is a bit less smoke in your video

Not just less. The frames where it looks to be less is because there’s an angle where you can distinguish better which smoke is coming from the debris pile and which coming out of windows of the WTC7. The latter is producing only a fraction of the smoke.

If the smoke is coming from the debris pile, where is the smoke at the top coming from?

Did you not see the word ‘most’ in what I wrote? [Only] some small fraction of the smoke appears to be coming out of a fraction of the windows of the WTC7.

The collapse was not non localized. Penthouse fell down first, […]

A building which entirely collapses nearly into its own footprint is non-localized collapse. You have yet to cite for us a video which clearly shows WTC7 toppling and toppled to one side onto the ground far beyond its footprint. I have never seen such a video, so I think you’ll never be able clearly demonstrate your hallucinations about what you imagine you see. Whereas, you can easily find many videos which show WTC7 collapsing in what looks to be more or [less] straight down onto its footprint.

I replied (archived and archived):

Jim wrote:

Hot jet fuel mixed with odds and ends should burn like gasoline mixed with odds and ends.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the video of molten steel pouring out is just minutes before collapse (collapse can be seen on one of the videos after the molten steel pouring out) and thus nearly an hour after airplane impact. NIST even stated that the jet fuel would have burned off within the first few minutes after airplane impact. So that can’t possibly be jet fuel pouring out.

I replied (archived and archived):

Jim replied:

I replied:

Jim wrote:

Molten steel will not do permanent damage to your eyes (though the Mythbuster narrator says it will) but it will dazzle you, cause a temporary blind spot – it is uncomfortable. Had there been molten steel pouring out of the towers, no one would have had any doubt whatsoever that it was molten steel. Everyone would have noticed, everyone would have known.

That’s yet another disinformation strawman from you. You have no prior art which you can cite that documents what people see and sense when viewing molten steel that occupies a tiny portion of their field-of-view from greater than 1000 ft distance away. That’s not comparable to the experience of viewing it up close in a steel mill. Numerous experts have stated there was molten steel there.

every photo and video that you or I presented showed the molten steel blindingly bright and overwhelming mere sunlight […] Molten steel is spectacularly and overwhelmingly bright, saturating the camera

Except every photo or video taken from a far distance, of which so far only the WTC video has been presented because we never had the opportunity to see molten steel from a great distance in normal life.

I replied (archived and archived):

Jim wrote:

You surround some small blurry photos showing not-X, with a mighty wall of text explaining why not-X is actually evidence of X.

And your assertion is true because everything Jim says is true?

All you have is your lies and rhetorical disinformation campaign. Any reader with a brainstem and some decent understanding of physics and engineering has lost all respect for you and is not coming back.

You can only fool the idiots Jim. The idiots are fodder and collateral damage. We don’t need them, in order to defeat you.

And you are no friend of Trump. You are his enemy in sheepskin.

You work for the side that you claim to be against. Typical disinformation agent tactics.

I replied (archived and archived):

Oliver Cromwell replied:

I wrote:

All the deleted posts are archived on archive.is/.org

We are all rushing to look them up…

Why would I care what idiots — who by their lack of due diligence will fall into the woodchipper and self-immolate — do or don’t do?

We’re doxxing Jim and his regulars as disinformation agents, so that those who have a brainstem can be aware of not falling for it.

Here’s some detailed refutation of the NIST claims about the WTC7 collapse. The aforementioned Plaza fire is mentioned as well.

Brian M. Hunt wrote:

Molten Iron and Steel: Physical Evidence

Credible reports indicating the presence of molten iron come from FEMA, a multinational engineering firm, numerous reputable engineers and professors who examined the physical evidence, and peer-reviewed journal articles.

There are numerous other credible sources, extensively documented in Griffin's book, starting at page 36.

In its report on WTC7 in May 2002, FEMA documents in Appendix C steel that has been melted and partially evaporated. That report states:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.

The report “WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology” prepared by multinational engineering firm RJ Lee Group for Deutsch Bank states:

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).

The presence of iron microparticles are a byproduct indicate the presence of molten iron. No other explanation has been brought forward for their presence (that I am aware of).

Molten Iron and Steel: Witnesses

There are numerous credible eyewitness accounts of molten iron or steel. These include video of what appears to be molten metal dripping from the side of the WTC, as viewed in the linked YouTube video.

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh, UC Berkley Professor of Structural Engineering and, according to Wikipedia, one of the leading structural engineers to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, said "I saw melting girders at World Trade Center".

Leslie Robertson, WTC Structural Engineer stated, "they pulled out the big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel, flowing ..."

Captain Philip Ruvolo, NYPD stated in front of others who were in agreement "You'd get down below, and you'd see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channel-ways. Like you were in a foundry. Like lava".

Ken Holden, director of NY Dept. of Design and Construction on C-SPAN 2, states "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of a wall".

Here is a photo of molten metal, from WABC-TV. The liquid flowing out of the buildings is identified by Gery Warner, PE and former engineer at Alcan Aluminum as molten iron.

The NY Times: A Search for Clues in Towers' Collapse
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON, Published: February 2, 2002:

Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations.

Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.

Another contemporaneous NY Times article in 2001 cites Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. The article states:

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures