I am still not inclined to discuss all specific arguments, there is enough stuff circulating to counter the CT arguments. Take for instance the BBC documentary "the conspiracy files 911 ten years on"
.
Having said that, the "molten steel"video does illustrate what i am trying to say. For instance:
At 10", a pic of some glowing material is shown. We do not know, from this vid, what the material is, nor is it melted. mean while the interviewer is admitting he did not himself witness any molten steel.
At 1'01", there are two firemen testifying to having seen "molten steel running down the channel rails". To me, it is almost certain they are sincere, but what is their expertise to decide it was molten steel? Their experience as firemen does probably not cover it. I am also no expert also, but i do know copper, and even aluminium glow when molten and hot enough.
Maybe even zinc, steel cable ducts are often galvanized with the stuff.
Point is, i don't know, i doubt the firemen know, but most importantly, i highly doubt the people who use this testimony have looked at all these other possibilities.
At 1'21", the blob-o-mass appears, "this is fused element" is said by one of two unidentified men, Do you know what that means? They talk about "steel, molten steel and concrete, and all of these things together all fused by the heat in to one single element", while the other "expert" talks about "Almost like a chunk of lava from Kilauea or Iceland"
Do these things sound to you as experts describing something in the jargon of their field? Because to me they sound as my kids enthusiastically describing something very cool, but totally new to them.
And what do you think for yourself if you look at the blob? why is it supposed to be molten steel if the not-molten steel appears to be sticking out? could it be some other metal(s) fused together with concrete and non-molten steel?
Have Thompson and Thompson done anything to find out?,
At 1'40" another "expert" is called in to give his opinion about a bent I-beam. He finds it "hard to believe it has bent because the size of it". My guess would be that increase in size is no objection for an object to bend, if we also increase the force to the necessary amount. I would be very much surprised if this guy is capable of calculating, right there on the spot, the force of a whole sky scraper falling down on this beam, abeam that is according to him iron, not steel .
The other guy talks about what "typically" happens, How the hell is he to know what typically happens to a beam that size, and that extreme circumstances. How many times has he encountered that?
At 2'18", up to 3'52", we see a series of people expressing their amazement about the residue heat in the days or even weeks after the disaster.
This is truly amazing looked at it from our every day intuition, but this is not illogical, the larger a mass is, the longer it stays hot, and that increase is not linear, the volume increases by the third power, while the surface only increases by the second power.
And even that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the hypothesis is that the buildings were brought down by thermite or explosions, the extra heat from those would be very high locally, but the total amount of heat would not be increased very much, i would guess.
I think an overall temperature that is higher then the conspiracy theorists want to admit, would explain the high residual temperature actually better. Of course that is my non-expert opinion, maybe some of the engineers or architects can calculate that, do you know if one of them did?
At 4'00" The cross, the melodramatic music, the statements "melted together with the intense heat, the two beams never part of the same structure, heat literally melted them together".
Pity it is probably not true, the cross is a almost certainly a crossbeam, look up some pics of it and check wikipedia. and what is the need of bringing religion into all of this?
At 5'30" thermal images are shown, they do not mean anything without the color to temperature ratio visible, this scale is adjustable in to better suit the temperature range you want to observe.
This video actually underscores what i wanted to say about unwarranted claims of expertise, it is full of that.
There is also a lot of judging by the standards of our normal intuition, which is completely inadequate for this unique situation. I have the feeling that if people are confronted which such dramatic events, they are forced to have an opinion to stick with, it might be helpful whether it is the right one or not.
This video is interesting, but what it is not, is proof of molten steel.