Comment: Substantial vs. "insubstantial"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: How refreshing to see this! (see in situ)

Substantial vs. "insubstantial"

"Fire doesn't melt steel" is a claim unrelated to the destruction sequence.

There were eyewitness accounts of molten metal flowing before and after the collapse, and some truthers argue this is further evidence for controlled demolition. However, the key distortion is that it is often conflated with the steel weakened by fire collapse theory as a strawman that the beams had to have melted for the building to collapse, and non-truthers then argue that they did not have to melt, "winning" the argument, but that was never the point.

Regardless, ground zero workers can't be trusted so their eyewitness accounts can be dismissed, and their molten metal reports, supporting thermate, are useless.

But I would like to say that "it fell too fast" is NOT insubstantial. NIST admitted free-fall for a significant duration. This should prove demolition to any reasonable engineer or scientist.