GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Edi]

The first of your own links actually disproves the assertion you are making that there was partly evaporated structural steel. That is clear to anyone who has an even cursory understanding of chemistry and physics.

The quoted analysis there speaks specifically of the steel girders being exposed to an eutectic mixture formed of iron, oxygen and other substances. The substance is being referred to as liquid and having corrosive properties. Exposure to spatters of corrosive liquid would result in steel girders looking like Swiss cheese without temperatures ever getting anywhere near close to the vaporization point of steel.

Furthermore, it is stated in your own articles that it is unknown whether the exposure happened during the fire or afterward in the pile of rubble, but all the references are to a corrosive liquid.

It's a sad testament to the utter incompetence and ignorance of 9/11 Truthers that they actually present as evidence material which by itself debunks their claims.

I also do not want to hear any bleating about an NYT article referencing "partly vaporized steel girders", because it is extremely common for reporters to get technical terminology completely wrong. In this case, vaporized, corroded, melted and so forth are all technical terms that have very specific definitions from a materials science standpoint, and it is materials science that has been used as a basis in the reports. If some reporter paraphrases that wrong due to ignorance, it is NOT evidence of a government coverup.

As far as the second links assertions, the one that says "There have been other fires that didn't result in structural collapse!" says it all. It is an idiotic comparison, because it says nothing of the structures of these other buildings or how the fires occurred there, so it is an absolutely useless comparison. Totally worthless. The rest of the material behind that link seems to consist of similar drivel.

Kindly try to provide better evidence in your next response.