patrick.net

Bigsby says

Truth Seeker says

Believe whatever you want clown! Just because I sequentially defended Gage's positions prior to revealing that I had formerly never even heard of the man actually says that I'm more interested in getting down to the truth (positions), rather than simply engaging in a tit for tat flame war with a bunch of ideologically bankrupt trolls.

But I guess that when idiots are out of good ideas, that's exactly what they resort to.

So truly, I think it's obvious that the only ones swallowing big "porkie pies" are guys like you! (and Homeboy, of course! - LOL)

Ah now, you're very hostile, aren't you? You do understand that you're the conspiracy theorist. That you are in the minority. That a vast body of evidence contradicts what you're arguing. And yet, here you are, posting what you post. I guess it takes all sorts.

Actually Bigsby, polls have been showing for a long time now that a MAJORITY of Americans believe that there is something wrong with the "official version" of 9/11. Concomitantly, there is a steadily growing body of people that flat out REJECTS those fairy tales.

If these current trends continue, it won't be terribly long before some sort of a "tipping point" occurs and pressure will be enormous to re-open the investigation to consider some of the key, critical evidence that was blatantly "overlooked".

Truth Seeker says

Well Bigsby, those so-called "experts" are the ones who would try to get you to believe that WTC7, a massive 47 story building, somehow came completely down due to "fires" that were supposedly "raging". Yet there is NO VIDEO EVIDENCE of any fires in that building prior to approx. 12pm!

What exactly are you trying to say? That there were no major fires inside the building? Is that really what you are trying to imply?

Truth Seeker says

Actually Bigsby, polls have been showing for a long time now that a MAJORITY of Americans believe that there is something wrong with the "official version" of 9/11. Concomitantly, there is a steadily growing body of people that flat out REJECTS those fairy tales.

Er, those polls aren't asking if people believe that the government blew up the buildings, are they, so you are being incredibly disingenuous. And yes, many uninformed people do enjoy conspiracy theories, alien abduction stories etc. etc., so what?

Truth Seeker says

Oh, and let's not forget perhaps the most incredible claim of all - that 3 buildings could be COMPLETELY destroyed (in the exact same manner as a controlled demolition), but using ONLY 2 AIRPLANES(!)

On the same note the Oklahoma City bombing actually damaged an addition 347 buildings and 16 of them had to be torn down. Twenty blocks of the city had to be cordoned off Some of the other buildings had to be torn down although they were not directly in the blast site. If you roll things back the only thing to compare them to would be the marine barracks bombing in and in all due regards Beruit is much more urban than OKC.

So your argument that two planes could not take down three buildings is false.

http://www.nps.gov/okci/faqs.htm

"22. Were any of the buildings in the area damaged?
The bomb damaged 347 buildings in the immediate area. Thirty buildings were heavily damaged and approximately 16 have since been torn down. Twenty blocks of downtown OKC had to be cordoned off due to the bomb’s extent."

So how could one bomb damage 348 buildings pretty much take out one, heavily damage 30 and 16 had to be torn down..

If you can do that with a Ryder rental truck I'm pretty sure two 747's could take down three buildings. You can site all the conspiracy related materials you want but frankly you aren't getting to a real point.

If everything has to have video evidence then it is hard to prove anything prior to the 50's or 60's...heck the first films were what...1890's?

You cannot logically replace one item with some half agnostic/schroders cat concept here. What specifically is your point? Once I had a conversation with a person that thought a missile hit the pentagon. OK so where did the hijacked plane go..um then claims it landed at some military base...um..ok so where did the people go? Then there's some that claim it was holograms that hit the towers which again is impossible because you wouldn't be able to see it from all angles.

To note it is a weak argument to simply ask someone else to google or search and read though someone elses material.

Eventually conspiracy like claims form a concept of mass panic and gradually get debunked because frankly there is little evidence. We went though this stuff in the 1980's with the so called satanic ritual abuse. Here's a link to a debunked book largely made for some cash. In a nutshell non of this persons story was true once it was investigated. But at the time the presumption of innocence made it believable. Now adays with the economy it is no wonder why some 9/11 "truth" groups sprout up..they simply want cash and fame (albeit limited)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Remembers

Bigsby says

Well Bigsby, those so-called "experts" are the ones who would try to get you to believe that WTC7, a massive 47 story building, somehow came completely down due to "fires" that were supposedly "raging". Yet there is NO VIDEO EVIDENCE of any fires in that building prior to approx. 12pm!

What exactly are you trying to say? That there were no major fires inside the building? Is that really what you are trying to imply?

The fires that supposedly brought down WTC7 apparently did not even start until after 12pm. LONG after the North Tower fell and damaged the building. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd??

Truth Seeker says

The fires that supposedly brought down WTC7 apparently did not even start until after 12pm. LONG after the North Tower fell and damaged the building. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd??

I thought your whole argument was that the building was brought down by explosives, so why does the timing of the fire concern you? Oh, and here's a link to a video of the fire in WTC7. Not out of control at all:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Homeboy says

Truth Seeker says

Oh, and let's not forget perhaps the most incredible claim of all - that 3

buildings could be COMPLETELY destroyed (in the exact same manner as a controlled demolition), but using ONLY 2 AIRPLANES(!) This alone stretches credulity far beyond any semblance of rational possibility. And then, if you can somehow wrap your mind around all of that, there are STILL MANY other problems and unexplained inconsistencies with the "official story".

So I guess it would be funny if it weren't so painfully sad that your line of thinking is apparently what's passing for 'American education' and critical thinking these days... Unbelievable!

First, the buildings were not destroyed in "the exact manner of a controlled

demolition". In fact, it wasn't anything like a controlled demolition at all.

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Truth Seeker says

The fires that supposedly brought down WTC7 apparently did not even start until after 12pm. LONG after the North Tower fell and damaged the building. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd??

What's your point? Do you believe that someone went into the building at 12:00 and set some fires for no reason, then blew up the building? Does that really make any kind of sense to you?

Truth Seeker says

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

No, it wasn't anything like a controlled demolition. You're just saying that because that's what your god Richard Gage said. Please view the video I posted earlier showing that it in no way resembled a controlled demolition. Are you afraid to look at the video? Does it threaten your "religion"?

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Very sophisticated these unknown demolition people who set charges weeks/months/years before convincing arabs to conveniently fly planes into the building to cover up for the demolitions. So 1&2 wt were set to demolish from the top down so that people would believe that the planes actually did it, but 7 wt was set to demolish from the bottom to that people would believe???

One would think that the number of people that good with demolition would be pretty small. Pretty easy to check out. Hmmm wonder why no one has done that?

So what happened to the tagging of the explosives? All explosives are tagged. Oh I forgot they humped in a couple of tons of thermite in backpacks. I see it's all clear now.

Homeboy says

Feel free to view my earlier link to a video explaining the difference. Somehow I don't think you'll watch it, because it's not part of your religion of Richard Gage worship.

Again Homeboy, YOU are the one who first introduced me to Richard Gage. But he's obviously a very smart guy.

What's the matter? You seem to be highly intimidated by his superior analytical skills and can't seem to cough up a point-by-point rebuttal to his excellent, very articulate points. (yes, we're still waiting for that from you Homeboy)

But then again, what would we expect from an intellectual lightweight like you who mistakenly claims that multiple, uniquely different websites are somehow "the same" while believing and parroting everything he sees and hears on Fox News :-)

Truth Seeker says

Homeboy says

Feel free to view my earlier link to a video explaining the difference. Somehow I don't think you'll watch it, because it's not part of your religion of Richard Gage worship.

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Truth Seeker says

Well Bigsby, those so-called "experts" are the ones who would try to get you to believe that WTC7, a massive 47 story building, somehow came completely down due to "fires" that were supposedly "raging". Yet there is NO VIDEO EVIDENCE of any fires in that building prior to approx. 12pm!

Also, those supposedly "raging" fires actually appeared to be low on fuel and relatively benign by the time that the building actually came down at 5:20pm.

Yet, this is the stuff that fairy tales are made of Bigsby!

Yeah, Bigsby. You believe in fairy tales. You should accept the much more logical story that the U.S. government planted thousand of pounds of thermite in each of 3 buildings without any of the thousands of occupants of those buildings seeing them do it, then projected holographic images of jet planes hitting two of the buildings, and somehow the holographic images made holes in the buildings (or maybe the holes were holographs as well?), made fake passenger manifests for the planes and put all the listed passengers in witness protection since they didn't actually die, then set some fires for no reason, then took the buildings down in classic controlled demolitions which made explosion noises that could be heard by witnesses but somehow couldn't be picked up on the numerous video recordings that were made, then paid off thousands of government officials, rescue workers, and engineering experts to lie about the real story, and none of them has ever come forward.

It's all so simple. How could you believe in a fairy tale?

bob2356 says

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Very sophisticated these unknown demolition people who set charges weeks/months/years before convincing arabs to conveniently fly planes into the building to cover up for the demolitions.

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

Truth Seeker says

Again Homeboy, YOU are the one who first introduced me to Richard Gage. But he's obviously a very smart guy.

Either you are a liar, or you were spouting all these conspiracy theories without even being aware of their source, which would be kind of like discussing the theory of relativity without knowing who Einstein was.

Either way, it doesn't bode well for you.

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

O.K., then tell us what really happened. I'm waiting.

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

Zlxr says

Homeboy

Great video Zlxr. I hadn't actually seen some of that footage. Thanks for sharing!

Homeboy says

Homeboy

Here are the points raised by your video along with some comments that effectively refute those points.

Point #1 - "The actual, real collapse time was well in excess of 14 seconds, probably closer to 18 seconds."

Well if you really want to split hairs, we could actually time the collapse of the buildings from any single point when the myriads of explosive charges throughout the building were going off. Pick your favorite explosion from the MANY that are clearly seen and heard throughout the '911 Mysteries’ documentary, some of which began long before the
towers actually fell, then start your stopwatch. That will actually prove nothing!

The only criteria that matters in this particular discussion deals with the amount of time
that it actually takes for the MAJOR part of the structure to drop to the ground (the largest mass of dropping debris). Based upon this criteria and the simple laws of physics, it is quite impossible for the "official pancake theory" to hold any merit (defined as each floor collapsing upon the floor below in a sequential, domino-like fashion).

That theory just doesn't hold water as each floor smacking into the floor below would push up against a certain amount of mass and weight, which would necessarily require a greater amount of TIME to push through the next floor below. Multiply that more time consuming process times 110 floors and you will conclude that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for a 110 story building to drop in a "pancake-like manner" as quickly as a rock falling from the sky from the same height.

So the ONLY explanation that would allow the speed of a 110 story building (the MAJOR part of the building, not the antenna, Penthouse, etc) to fall as quickly as gravity, would necessitate the use of EXPLOSIVES to clear the path for a more rapid collapse. Only if the steel core super structure were completely destroyed at multiple points (controlled demolition), could it fall as quickly as a rock at the speed of gravity. This is a HUGELY important point that all but PROVES that explosives had to have been used as part of a "controlled demolition" in WTC1 & 2.

Again, the “official version” promotes the fairy tale about the pancake theory. Yet any critically thinking person can easily surmise that simple physics and common sense dictate otherwise.

For a more thorough explanation about the NIST claims, watch the following excellent video:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pP4_8s-2Gmc&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJwQ&index=6&feature=plcp

Homeboy says

Let's see if you tinfoil heads have the guts to watch this:

Point #2 - "No loud explosions? No explosive flashes?" (from WTC7).

Watch the following video that contains MUCH more detail about this point, including eye witness accounts and sophisticated audio/video/time sequencing:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ERhoNYj9_fg&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJwQ&index=7&feature=plcp

Homeboy says

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

POINT #3 - "FDNY officers knew that WTC7 was severely damaged by huge fires. They pulled personnel away by about 2pm, and were expecting the building to collapse. The press were notified."

Well according to Fox’s supposed “live coverage”, this anchor-woman is caught PRE-ANNOUNCING the falling of WTC7 BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!

BBC made the same “mistake” (look it up!), so this obviously proves that the PR handlers were directing the media coverage to a very controlled degree, even PREDICTING that the building would fall at an approximate time. And they were confident enough about their scripted “prediction” to pre-notify all of the media.

If this isn’t proof-positive that explosives had to have been systematically installed throughout the building prior to 9/11, I don’t know what to say to the Sheeple who believe otherwise!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QOVnvFl5jZo&feature=related

Homeboy says

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

POINT #4 - "WTC7 also burned with multiple fires for several hours after being hit by a 1000' tall building, the WTC North Tower. In no way do these circumstances resemble a 'classic controlled demolition'"

What’s the matter Homeboy, you don’t believe your own lying eyes?? LOL!

I know how much you HATE this evidence but it’s so OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCING to anyone with even a modest amount of critical thinking skills, that I just had to offer it up for the Patrick.net viewers:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Oh, and on a related topic (considering the number of persistent trolls around here), if any of you doubt that our government is not actively trying to influence these types of discussions through the use of hired PR firms, social networking manipulation, etc, check out this story. It came out about a year ago reporting that the Feds actually issued a 'request for proposal' (RFP) seeking to hire vendors to create a program to help them sway peoples opinions through social media. There are plenty of other websites that go into much further detail with this story, but just pointing out this blatant government attempt at crowd control and manipulation. This represents an attempt to create a modern version of propaganda to sway and control public opinion (not unlike the objectives that Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao all tried to achieve).

Is manipulation and propaganda really a valid function of government??

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-federal-reserve-has-just-entered-the-counterespionage-era-and-will-be-monitoring-everything-written-about-it-anywhere-in-the-world.html

So is “Homeboy” one of those hired PR types who has nothing better to do than sit around posting THOUSANDS of comments on this and probably many other various websites in an effort to sway public opinion towards the status quo??? Each of you will have to answer that for yourself.

As for myself, I’ve decided that rather than trying to continue feeding the trolls like Homeboy and others, I’ll just let the mountains of evidence speak for themselves. Life is actually more fun (and more productive) that way!

So I’m leaving this discussion for now, though I may occasionally check back from time to time to offer some selective information.

It really is worth it to invest the necessary time to see beyond the lies and distortions so common in our MSM news. In fact, it's practically a survival skill in today’s screwed up, deceptive world. Wishing you all the best in searching for the truth ~

Correction to Point #4 - this is the actual, direct link that I was referring to (and now, I'm outta here!) :

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hZEvA8BCoBw

Truth Seeker says

As for myself, I’ve decided that rather than trying to continue feeding the trolls like Homeboy and others, I’ll just let the mountains of evidence speak for themselves.

Yes, please for the love of God do that.

Very weak argument. RFP's are issued even by local governments, they are pretty common. Can the government try to sway opinion..sure..will it? Probably not

How is this plan different from any other company plan? Companies are deathly afraid of what people say on the internet...especially when it comes to sensitivity.

One video made by one guy led to all of the violence in Libya and Egypt...just one video.

You never made any real specific argument in terms of what was the outright group(s) responsible and what exactly was the net gain? Could it be argued it made it easier to attack Iraq? Maybe..but the USA had no fly zones against Iraq for eight years so it was already bombing them on a weekly basis.

So what was the profit...Halliburton?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AHAL 33 billion dollar market cap and yet there are box stores (tractor supply) that have outperformed it with ease. Now if halliburton was the largest company on the planet maybe you'd have some small evidence. So what was the gain...war? a lack of space in nyc? just deaths? a patriot act that few enforce etc. You are asking us to suspend the concept of belief of one line of thought but not asking us what exactly to replace it with..

Truth Seeker says

Well if you really want to split hairs, we could actually time the collapse of the buildings from any single point when the myriads of explosive charges throughout the building were going off. Pick your favorite explosion from the MANY that are clearly seen and heard throughout the '911 Mysteries’ documentary, some of which began long before the
towers actually fell, then start your stopwatch. That will actually prove nothing!

I'm starting to think you may actually have brain damage. There were no "explosive charges". Even if there were, why would you time the collapse from then? You should time the collapse from when THE COLLAPSE starts.

Do you realize that the building was not hollow? It had structural columns throughout the center of the building. When you see that penthouse fall, what is happening is that the center of the building is collapsing. Where did you think the penthouse is going? Do you think it is sharing the same space with the still-intact floor below it as it falls? Do you think it phased into another dimension like on Star Trek? How would that be possible? Obviously, something has collapsed underneath it. To try to argue against this fact and to cherry-pick the time when YOU want the collapse to start, demonstrates your blind adherence to your "religion".

The only criteria that matters in this particular discussion deals with the amount of time
that it actually takes for the MAJOR part of the structure to drop to the ground (the largest mass of dropping debris). Based upon this criteria and the simple laws of physics, it is quite impossible for the "official pancake theory" to hold any merit (defined as each floor collapsing upon the floor below in a sequential, domino-like fashion).

Um, you really have no idea what you are talking about. WTC7 was a progressive collapse. The TOWERS pancaked. You are confusing the two. Please explain how you are able to determine which portion of the collapse contains the "largest mass" from a video, where you cannot even SEE the center of the building collapsing. And why would that be relevant anyway?

Truth Seeker says

POINT #4 - "WTC7 also burned with multiple fires for several hours after being hit by a 1000' tall building, the WTC North Tower. In no way do these circumstances resemble a 'classic controlled demolition'"

What’s the matter Homeboy, you don’t believe your own lying eyes?? LOL!

I know how much you HATE this evidence but it’s so OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCING to anyone with even a modest amount of critical thinking skills, that I just had to offer it up for the Patrick.net viewers:

So you watched the footage of a real controlled demolition, with deafening explosions and bright flashes, and then saw the footage of WTC7 collapsing, with no sound of explosions and no bright flashes, and you thought to yourself, "Yep, that looks exactly the same"?

Yep, gotta be brain damage.

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

I did educate myself with the voluminous body of information. The problem is unlike you I actually looked at sources other than 911truth.org. That's why I don't believe any of this explosives crap. The whole convoluted theory is so far out in space it's hard to believe anyone can be that paranoid without being institutionalized. Maybe the question should be who is making money on 911truth.org.

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Please explain (don't just post a link to a 911truth video) what your evidence is for claiming it was a controlled demolition.

You didn't answer my question. I'll post it again. Is that why you're ducking out now? Afraid to answer it?

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

O.K., then tell us what really happened. I'm waiting.

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Probably with a chemist or engineer.

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel

Oh, you mean the Steven E. Jones who up to that point had studied fusion and has absolutely no experience whatsoever in building collapse forensics? The Steven E. Jones whose other paper claims to prove that Jesus visited America? The Steven E. Jones who got kicked out of BYU and whose colleagues think is a joke?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

We're not going to watch a video of some idiot rambling for 25 minutes. Where exactly does he mention those "nano thermite particle spheres"? He appears to be mostly talking about 1,3 diphenylpropane. He didn't test for that, the EPA monitored it in the air. He claims it's conclusive proof of sol-gel used to hold the thermite in place. If you would bother to read any sources other than your 911 conspiracy site, you would discover that burning plastic can produce 1,3 diphenylpropane. How many plastic things like computers do you think burned in the fires on 9/11?

Steven E. Jones is a joke.

p.s. FOR THE FOURTH TIME, THE STEEL DIDN'T MELT, IDIOT.

Zlxr says

We don't have to watch idiots ramble - we have you.

Obviously you don't know what steel is or what melt means.

If you want sparks - you're better off lighting your farts.

What are you trying to say? Do you think the WTC melted? Please, show me your proof.

NIST report:

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. "

Which word don't you understand, "steel", "melt", or "no"?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.