It might be worth bearing in mind that the 9/11 hijackers who flew the planes were fully instrument rated and commercially licensed pilots.

There are, of course, a good number of lies in the above video (especially by Michael Meacher), but I'm amazed to see clips which advocate the "No planes hit the World Trade Center" theory being propagated on Videosift these days.

No. I'm saying that what the clip says is in the paper, isn't in the paper. So, you seem to have made the mistake of thinking that I was saying the precise opposite of what I was actually saying. That must be my fault. The blame must lie with the impenetrable way in which I posted the quotations. I'm sure the fact that you advocate imbibing of psilocybin tea before sitting down to evaluate the meaning of a political paper can have nothing to do with it.

None of the above is to say that I have any time for the Project for the New American Century or Neo-Conservatives generally, mind you.

Two quick contextomys:

The clip states that the aforementioned paper calls for the elimination of "states like Iraq"; here's what it really says:

In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.

For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as "the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space" – must be an essential element of our military strategy.

Well, I suppose making snide insinuations that Paul Wolfowitz (or "The Paul Jew Wolfowitz", as the original YouTube user calls him) either hand a in or foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks is a step back from making less equivocal yet equally baseless accusations. The clip implies that in the Rebuilding America's Defences paper, the sentence "[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" means "[T]he process of transformation... is likely to be far too long a one, therefore we need to engineer or facilitate a catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." However, there's no reason to think that it means any such thing. Further, given that the satellites, missile defence systems etc. advocated by the paper are practically useless for fighting a non-lateral "war on terror", 9/11 could hardly be considered an effective tool in securing them.

Well, thanks for the discussion. If you have anything else to add, please let me know.

I'm not claiming that there necessarily wasn't any molten steel. However, being as molten aluminium would have been present given both cooler and hotter conditions and also that molten steel would have only been present given extremely hot conditions (extremely hot conditions which, as I understand it, are only hypothetical), it's intrinsically much more likely that the molten metal was aluminium.

I'm not exactly certain what you're getting at. Those who reported flowing or dripping steel had most likely seen molten aluminium. Those who didn't mention that the substance was moving in any way had most likely seen either molten aluminium or simply oxidised steel.

The National Fire and Arson Report (Volume 10. Number 4.)

Recent studies performed in our laboratory indicate that it is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized.

"Indicators of Trouble" by John J. Lentini, CFI, F-ABC

A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.

Well, if either of you have any evidence or any argument to offer, please let me know.

Oh, I think it's gone beyond that : )

The conspiracy theorists have a responsibility to provide evidence to support their claims. That is simply not going to change.

Certain corrupt and unpleasant people and organisations might well be rich and powerful as a direct or indirect result of the wars that followed 9/11; indeed, that is a tragic and unjust fact. However, it doesn't give us epistemological carte blanche to simply jettison the principles of properly applied evidence and argument.

You somewhat bizarrely describe the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report as "little"; it's approximately ten thousand pages long. If you believe that it was insufficiently thorough, please explain why.

You're right; your question is a reasonable one. The molten metal was most likely aluminum. It could have come from a number of sources such as the wreckage of the airliner, the aluminum cladding used in the construction of the building or any number of pieces of machinery or office equipment.

Regarding the supposed destruction of evidence: yes, that's exactly the point; as I said "If you have no such evidence, then please explain the ways in which it is rational to hold this belief."

I notice that in order to try to salvage your argument, you have resorted to the rather desperate measures of attempting to open up fundamental concepts such "proof", "evidence" and "logic" to personal and subjective interpretation. However, no, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence of a conspiracy.

Secondly, evidently, you're under the impression that the National Institute of Standards and Technology have it all wrong. We have already seen that fire can appreciably affect structural steel and bring about a global collapse; we have also seen that the fireproofing was either damaged or insufficient to withstand fires of the requisite duration. So, please explain to me, in structural engineering (or even more prosaic) terms, the ways in which the buildings were "capable of withstanding the damage that they sustained." Further, you claim that "When one floor collapses upon the other, it does not gain speed - it loses speed"; please explain to me, in terms of the principles of the conservation of momentum, acceleration due to gravity, and those of elastic and inelastic collisions, how you have arrived at this conclusion.

Thirdly, please provide some evidence of "ground-level explosions".

Lastly, please provide some evidence to substantiate your belief that "The Bush administration, with a lot of help from Giuliani, went out of their way to conceal and destroy the evidence"; if you have no such evidence, then please explain the ways in which it is rational to hold this belief.

rougy:

Firstly, you seem to display a willing ignorance of the events of 9/11 and also an inability or unwillingness to actually read my posts.

You say that the towers "were made of strong steel reinforced with concrete columns" and yet this is simply wrong. It's truly amazing that you can have come to such firm conclusions about these matters without even knowing the very basics about the construction of the buildings.

You ask, "Why did WTC7 fall?" and yet I have already clarified the explanation best supported by the evidence a number of times.

You ask, "Wouldn't it be nice to know? Like, by investigating?" and yet as I have pointed out a number of times, it has been and is being investigated.

You ask, "Why is it so important to you that nobody question the official explanation for the WTC collapses?" and yet I have said that I am "all in favour of asking questions" and added that "equally vital, however, is recognising answers."