I’m not particularly interested in debating the minutiae of slag and such with you. However, I find your method – to use an understatement – curious, and worthy of highlight.
Firstly, you have attempted to employ the principle of induction to infer a universal law (oxyacetylene cutting results in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but never on its near surface) from a single observation (a photograph of an instance of oxyacetylene cutting resulting in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but not on its near surface).
This is akin to pointing to a single photograph of a red apple and saying “There. So, all apples are red.”
Secondly, you claim that the cut is consistent with either thermite or thermate (I’m not entirely sure which as you switch between the two mid-post). This claim seems to be based solely on the fact that “thermite melts steel”.
So, as you would have it, when it comes to thermite, the fact that it melts steel is a sufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect. However, when it comes to oxyacetylene cutting, the same fact – that it melts steel – is an insufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect, and further factors (such as the precise ways in which it melts steel) need to be taken into account. Thus, there is an appreciable disparity when it comes to the standards being applied in each case. In short, you are falling foul of the fallacy of special pleading.
