Given that you’re not going to respond, I’m not going to bother spending any more time on this comment. You’ll take this as proof positive you’ve won, but rest assured, you have not.

Anyway, that’s it from me. Although I will check on your response to the above. Your site is too limited without a forum.

Finally, I just read the comments in your “Hello Truthers” entry. Some very fine points made that you were having all sorts of trouble dodging.

Wake up Matthew and get your head out of the sand.

“I just read that section from Appendix C, which gives a fairly dense explanation of why they think the low temperature fire had that effect; can you tell me, on scientific grounds, why that explanation is wrong?”

D+ for comprehension

Did you not read their conclusion where they admit there is no clear explanation?

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. ”

No way, another “very unusual event” on 9/11.

All contestable; I mean, the squibs are the result of the wave of pressure preceding the collapse, for one thing. The buckling of the building as it fell sent out girders, et cetera. None of this debunks the official story. I know you want it to, but just asserting that it does doesn’t mean its true.

As has been pointed out before, finding iron rich microspheres is perfectly explicable without having needed a controlled demolition; they only become important if the thermite thesis is proven, which, at this stage, it has not.

So just to repeat the challenge that was caught up in the larger post….

Please one of you explain:

How the molten steel documented by FEMA was melted, when office fires are not capable of reaching anywhere near the necessary temperature.

To be honest this Noble guy’s arguments are as weak as his CV would suggest.

What does he say about the molten steel documented at Ground Zero? Nothing.

He’s actually a distinguished Sydney barrister.

Well Edward – some of the sources are pretty airtight.

The iron rich microspheres in the WTC dust were found by Professor Jones and 2 other independent studies – R.G. Lee company, and U.S. Geological Survey.

Molten steel at Ground Zero, more specifically under building 7 was documented by FEMA itself in Appendix C of their report. They conducted a metallurgical examination. What do you know:

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”"

You can’t hide from facts like these. If any of you can debunk this piece of evidence please let me know.

Then of course there are numerous videos showing
- Building 7’s straight down collapse at free fall speed.
- Lateral high speed ejections of steel girders from WTC 1 & 2
- Squibs popping out up to 60 metres below the collapse canopy.
- etc

The evidence is truly overwhelming.

Who are the much larger group that disagree?

NIST doesn’t count as they are part of the cover-up.