• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged So there was melted steel

jaydeehess said:
Irrelevant to both my post and the OP.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. It's all about the credibility. If we assume that it is true, or at least plausible, then there would be no need to deny it so vehemently.

I personally would have been more inclined to accept their theories if they had been less adamant that there were no possible alternatives or room for error.
 
AClark said:
I beg to differ. It's all about the credibility. If we assume that it is true, or at least plausible, then there would be no need to deny it so vehemently.

I personally would have been more inclined to accept their theories if they had been less adamant that there were no possible alternatives or room for error.
Click to expand...

Truthers have no credible theory how molten steel would have formed and deny counter theories, when the evidence challenges their theories, so molten steel is Irrelevant to the discussion at hand!
 
The Very First Sentence Of The Opening Post!
Travis said:
Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious.
Click to expand...

AClark said:
I beg to differ. It's all about the credibility. If we assume that it is true, or at least plausible, then there would be no need to deny it so vehemently. I personally would have been more inclined to accept their theories if they had been less adamant that there were no possible alternatives or room for error.
Click to expand...
It isn't being denied by Travis in his opening post. I am saying that ALL discussion about the veracity of the claim is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
Try addressing THAT.

You might also try addressing my thoughts on the relevancy of any reports or the existence of molten steel. If it is true and if also true that it existed in other fires not related to 9/11 then its irrelevant to 9/11 discussion.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
Truthers have no credible theory how molten steel would have formed and deny counter theories, when the evidence challenges their theories, so molten steel is Irrelevant to the discussion at hand!
Click to expand...
OK, but that, as I said, ignores Travis' inquiries in post #1
 
Last edited:
AClark said:
I beg to differ. It's all about the credibility. If we assume that it is true, or at least plausible, then there would be no need to deny it so vehemently.

I personally would have been more inclined to accept their theories if they had been less adamant that there were no possible alternatives or room for error.
Click to expand...

If you NanoThermate was a theory... how do you expect any engineers other than the nuts in AE911T to accept one of the dumbest theories on earth? You NanoThermate was made up with no evidence.

No damage to WTC from explosives or thermite products.. No NanoThermate found at the WTC. You were lied to by 911 truth, and use simile for evidence.

If engineers start with the fantasy theories, you know they are nuts on 911. AE911T has BS for evidence, and your NanoThermate theory failed on 911.
 
Beachnut, and others, you are letting the truthers steer the conversation. This thread assumes molten steel DID exist in the WTC rubble and basically asks questions that boil down to "so what does this mean -exactly". So far its just been ,at best, an airy fairy "well it shouldn't be there, therefore inside job" . That laughably sparse in detail.
 
Even IF there was melted steel, truthers must still make the case that their assumed culprit is what caused the buildings to collapse weeks and months BEFORE the fact. This is what happens when foundational claims thatvare incorrect have remained uncorrected for many, many years
 
jaydeehess said:
Beachnut, and others, you are letting the truthers steer the conversation. This thread assumes molten steel DID exist in the WTC rubble and basically asks questions that boil down to "so what does this mean -exactly". So far its just been ,at best, an airy fairy "well it shouldn't be there, therefore inside job" . That laughably sparse in detail.
Click to expand...

What it means, no CD believers can say. good point
 
jaydeehess said:
The Very First Sentence Of The Opening Post!


It isn't being denied by Travis in his opening post. I am saying that ALL discussion about the veracity of the claim is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
Try addressing THAT.

You might also try addressing my thoughts on the relevancy of any reports or the existence of molten steel. If it is true and if also true that it existed in other fires not related to 9/11 then its irrelevant to 9/11 discussion.


OK, but that, as I said, ignores Travis' inquiries in post #1
Click to expand...

Actually my comment was exactly on point, if no credible Truther theories exist, the molten steel can not be malicious and would have to be accepted as a natural occurance of the fires.
 
OK, I'll address the other half of your statements.

jaydeehess said:
If it is untrue that other fires have had molten steel temperatures it remains that the reports of melted steel are not uncommon, and thus reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble are no more valid than the reports of other fires having produced molten steel.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

You assume that if X is true, then Y is true, then you assume that if X is false then Y must be false, therefore saying X=Y. It's an easy assumption to make, but that doesn't make it true, especially if we are to believe that the conditions at GZ had never happened before. I call faulty logic.

Going back to the OPs questions.

Does molten steel prove or disprove thermite? No. It only proves molten steel.

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation? No idea, I don't know anything about thermite, despite beachnuts assertions.

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed? Not dismissed by me, happy to hear about them.

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go? Faulty Logic, they will pool at the lowest point they can flow to before cooling, this does not always mean the bottom. Where did it go? China most likely. How was it removed? Dunno, the area was restricted, ask the ironworkers or the guys with the big machines.
 
Last edited:
AClark said:
OK, I'll address the other half of your statements.



Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

You assume that if X is true, then Y is true, then you assume that if X is false then Y must be false, therefore saying X=Y. It's an easy assumption to make, but that doesn't make it true, especially if we are to believe that the conditions at GZ had never happened before. I call faulty logic.

Going back to the OPs questions.

Does molten steel prove or disprove thermite? No. It only proves molten steel.

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation? No idea, I don't know anything about thermite, despite beachnuts assertions.

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed? Not dismissed by me, happy to hear about them.

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go? Faulty Logic, they will pool at the lowest point they can flow to before cooling, this does not always mean the bottom. Where did it go? China most likely. How was it removed? Dunno, the area was restricted, ask the ironworkers or the guys with the big machines.
Click to expand...

You don't need planted thermite for molten steel, you have natural reactions that would explain more than thermite ever could.
 
The bathtub and debris pile would have been a natural furnace. It could easily have gotten hot enough in it to melt all sorts of metals.
 
AClark said:
OK, I'll address the other half of your statements.



Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

You assume that if X is true, then Y is true, then you assume that if X is false then Y must be false, therefore saying X=Y. It's an easy assumption to make, but that doesn't make it true, especially if we are to believe that the conditions at GZ had never happened before. I call faulty logic]
Click to expand...
No, I do not assume anything. I am saying that given a good deal of evidence that erroneous reports of molten steel in other fires , the mere existence of similar reports at the WTC rubble site simply cannot be accepted as proof positive of the existence of molten steel.
If other reports are untrue then the reports at the WTC site absolutely require validation in the form of physical evidence.


Now, how about the opposite? Assuming that reports of molten steel in other fires are true, it means that such molten steel in large fires is common and thus indicates nothing malicious at the WTC.
 
AClark said:
Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go? Faulty Logic, they will pool at the lowest point they can flow to before cooling, this does not always mean the bottom. Where did it go? China most likely. How was it removed? Dunno, the area was restricted, ask the ironworkers or the guys with the big machines.
Click to expand...

Ok, you picked that nit, the liquefied steel will pool at the lowest point it can flow to.

Ask the ironworkers? Go ahead, ask. Its the 9/11 TM claim, onus is on the claimant to find evidence in support of the claim. If you think it went to China , find some evidence of that. Rather laughable though, to assume the Communist Chinese govt, receiving evidence of large amounts of steel that had melted in the WTC rubble, would keep it hushed up.
 
jaydeehess said:
Beachnut, and others, you are letting the truthers steer the conversation.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

My constant frustration. When the ruddy debunkers cannot even identify the topic and stay on it - why bother posting.

Recently on another thread Oystein and I started a moderately high level topic discussion.

It was derailed by a truther/troll - situation normal.

BUT the DEBUNKERS "Bit" on the trolling derail and continued to feed the off topic trolling.

Whyt do debunkers so often play into the mediocrity of truther defined false contexts????

Desperate for "debate" at any price???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom