911 why debunkers cant face the facts

I contend that the three major debunking sources NIST, popular mechanics and History Channel used cunning 'debunking' tactics of not fairly addressing the evidence proposed by Architect and engineers for 911 truth and other truther scientists. Rather they manipulated the argument without facing the evidence provided. Melted Steel PM next addresses physics professor Dr. Steven Jones" findings regarding molten metal in the debris at Ground Zero, and how this is evidence of melted steel and/or iron. PM"s counter to this claim is the assertion that the fires in the debris piles cooked the steel and other metals to the point where they melted. They quote Jon Magnusson as saying: When we"re talking about the debris pile and the insulating effect, the fires down there are completely different than the factors [affecting the steel] in the building. (pg. 41) However, the idea that the molten metal could have somehow formed in the debris afterwards is actually addressed in Jones" paper: Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.11 PM provides no technical analysis in their book to show that the fires could have become hot enough to melt steel in the debris piles. The temperatures that existed in the debris piles were vastly hotter than what any sort of natural fire could have produced. In fact, the temperatures were evidently high enough: " To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel [1,000 "C (1,832 "F)] " To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) [1,450 "C (2,652 "F)] " To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) [1,565 "C (2,849 "F)] " To vaporize lead [1,740 "C (3,164 "F)] " To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) [2,623 "C (4,753 "F)] " To vaporize aluminosilicates [2,760 "C (5,000 "F)]12 " To melt concrete [1,760 "C (3,200 "F] The conditions at Ground Zero simply could not have produced these types of temperatures.13 However, the extreme heat in the piles is indeed consistent with thermitic reactions.14 In PM"s next attempt to undermine the case for molten metal in the debris, they cite the analysis of Alan Pense, a professor of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University. They quote him saying: The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing" or show materials that appear to be other than steel. One of these photos appears to me to be mostly of glass with unmelted steel rods in it. Glass melts at much lower temperatures than steel. (pg. 41) First off, it is not clear from this statement which photograph Alan Pense is referring to. However, he is likely referring to the popular "crane shot." Regardless of whether the obvious molten material shown above is molten steel, iron, or even glass, its color indicates temperatures exceeding 2,300"F. The jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers never reached such temperatures. Second, we have already seen that there were metals that were either melted or evaporated at temperatures well above the melting point of steel and iron. Third, even if the crane photo did show molten glass, it would still need to have been heated to extremely high temperatures, since glass does not begin to give off any visible light until it approaches temperatures of 2240 "F.15 PM next takes issue with Steven Jones" claim that the molten metal can be accounted for by incendiaries that could have been used to destroy the buildings. They counter this claim by quoting Controlled Demolition, Inc. president Mark Loizeaux as saying the explosives used in demolitions do not produce molten metal, noting that the heat from the explosives would not last long. While this may be true for conventional explosives, the use of thermate and nanothermite based devices could certainly account for the molten metal. Molten iron is the main byproduct of a thermite reaction, and the reaction can produce extreme heat that lasts longer than conventional explosives. Nanothermite is a very high tech variation of thermite, and could account for all of these phenomena.16 In fact, both the USGS and RJ Lee, an environmental consulting firm, found ubiquitous previously molten iron microspheres in all of the WTC dust samples. These also can only be the result of temperatures reaching 2,800"F. Up to 6% of some of the dust samples recovered in the nearby skyscraper, the Deutsche Bank building, are composed of these iron spheres " most of which are only the size of the diameter of a human hair. It is quite evident that PM has failed to explain away the extreme heat and molten metal that clearly existed at Ground Zero. They have also failed to show the temperatures inside the buildings were sufficient to cause collapse. The next section of PM"s book deals with another subject not previously dealt with in the 2006 edition: the nanothermite discovered in dust samples from the World Trade Center. PM"s stated objective of the updated book is to debunk "the most common speculation about free-fall times, "nanothermite," and other aspects of the Twin Towers" collapses"," (pg. xxii). However, PM"s section regarding nanothermite utterly fails to do this " not because it presents weak scientific arguments, but because it provides virtually no scientific arguments at all. Molten Metal Flowing from the South Tower PM"s only scientific criticism of claims made by individuals in the 9/11 Truth movement in regards to thermite applies to the spout of molten metal seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower, which some have cited as evidence of a thermite-based demolition for the Towers. In spite of photographs and numerous eyewitness accounts of molten steel/iron and concrete, PM chooses to address only this one example. PM"s explanation for this is simply that the material is molten aluminum, a claim echoed by other defenders of the official narrative. It is also a claim that has been thoroughly refuted. PM cites NIST as saying that the material may have been molten aluminum, but individuals such as Dr. Steven Jones have demonstrated " by experiment " that, in daylight conditions, molten aluminum appears silvery and does not glow brightly like the metal seen coming from the South Tower.[i] Some still may argue that the material was molten aluminum and that it was heated to high enough temperatures to get it to glow that brightly. Below is a chart showing temperature-dependent colors of metals. At about 980"C (1800"F), most metals begin to glow "light orange." PM asserts throughout the book that this is how hot the fires could have been in the Towers. However, we previously noted that NIST has no evidence that the fires did reach these temperatures in the buildings. However, even if we accept that the fires did reach those temperature levels, the material still could not have been aluminum because of how long it was heated. As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill: The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower"s 82nd floor could have been aluminum" is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.[ii] Perhaps the most important reason why the material could not have been molten aluminum is that the material actually became white hot. Regardless of what kind of material was glowing, nobody has explained what would have heated it to over 2000"F to get it to glow that brightly. In addition, there is simply little chance the material could have been molten aluminum, based on the fact that the material glowed for as