Molten Steel

[Dog Town]

It's 2008 and these braniacs are still making the claim that no steel framed buildings have ever collapsed from fire.

Again...to be fair, it is

20 times over! At the very least. Hi D'oh P.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Not nesc.

I agree. Not necessarily.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

 

[thewholesoul]

i deny that the evidence is undeniable

I know a bit more about formal argument than you do.

Is that a fact?

You dishonestly and falsely claimed that the "evidence" for molten steel is "undeniable." No evidence exists and all of us rationalists deny that anyone has established that the molten metal in the rubble pile was definitively identified as steel.

It is an undeniable fact that steel melts at 1500c, it is an undeniable fact that temperatures of 1500c were recorded at GZ, it is an undeniable fact that lots of steel was present at GZ, it is a undeniable fact that steel exposed to such temperatures will turn molten and the fact that people saw this molten steel is hardly surprising. The meteorite is yet another undeniable fact that steel melted at GZ.

But of course i should have qualified premise one to include folk like yourself who would readily deny the nose upon their own face!

That which has been denied cannot, by definition, be undeniable.

FOR NO GOOD REASON I DENY THE TRUTH IN THAT STATEMENT

Ah this must be an example of that formal argumentation you were talking about...There was this guy called Rene Descartes and he was so skeptical that the only thing he said we could not doubt is that we are thinking creatures hence he formulated the famous maxim “I think therefore I am”. But according to your nominally true statement above, if I deny that I am thinking by definition thinking is nolonger undeniable! So much for the Rene the fool.

I suppose another nominally true statement would say - That which has been accepted cannot, by definition, be unacceptable but such statements when applied to the real world are demonstratably untenable once we pose the questions who defines what is acceptable and how should we define it?

So the falsehood you spoke of turns out to be the fact I stated the evidence for molten steel was “undeniably”. Wow.

So how about I qualify premise one as: There is “irrefutable” evidence of molten steel at GZ?

What is false about that pomeroo? You see if you want to refute the evidence of molten steel at GZ then you will have to do a little more than produce nominally true statments, personal incredulity and actually present some reasons as to why the evidence I presented was false. You have yet make that case despite your expertize in formal argumentation?

Twaddle. You have been exposed. Offhand comments from people unable to distinguish molten steel from other molten metals or mixtures of metals are not evidence. Your first premise is invalid. You got caught trying to steal a base. Your dishonest attempt to reason from a demonstrably invalid premise is worthless.

why do you always ignore ALL the evidence i presented in support of premise one? are you willfully ignorant or do you just enjoy the comfort of sticking your head in the sand? And once again you present no reasons why premise two is false.

I'll keep repeating that your first premise rests on a falsehood. The molten metal has not been identified as steel and no evidence exists to suggest that it was, in fact, steel.

The only “falsehood” you discovered in relation to premise one was your ability to deny something without any good reason.

Your weakness in logic manifests itself again.

To quote star trek – “Are you out of your vulcan mind”

It is impossible to determine the cause of something that didn't happen.

Took a while before that apple dropped, eh?

You are guilty of begging the question.

And my sentence is?

You want, for obscure reasons, to pretend that the molten metal pooled under the rubble pile was steel.

I know there was steel, i know there was temperatures of 1500c, i know that steel + 1500c over a period of time = molten steel. besides you are the only one pretending there was no evidence. Maybe all those years in acting school are starting to pay off.

No evidence exists to suggest that it was.

Where has that nose on your face gone pomeroo?

So like i thought, my expectations were confirmed. You are patently unable to provide any valid reasons against premise one two or three thus for that reason and for the remainder of this thread at least i will deny your existence pomeroo...who?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Yet again this nasty liar repeats a lie after it being pointed out to him with pictorial evidence he was indeed lying.

How low can the TM go?

Here it is again TWS

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg[/qimg]

You missed a few posts, I wonder why?

ah i was wondering when my little nitpicker friend would arrive on the scene.
allow me to reclarify - no steel framed skyscraper - which was obvious to anyone who read my quote in CONTEXT

i will reply to your post in the pother thread in time.

hey sonce your are i the thread i opened any chance of responding to any of the premises one two and three? dont worry i wont be holding my breath.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

The meteorite was not molten steel. It was the result of several floors impacting and crushing together. It is largely comprised of concrete. There is no evidence of melting on it. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that there is even pieces of paper visibly embedded in it. If it was made from molten steel, the paper would have burned away.

Yes, that quote should definitely be removed. There are others that should be removed as well, and your inclusion of them suggests a carelessness when it comes to looking at the facts. So far, everything that you have claimed as showing your first premise to be undeniable has been shown to be wrong.

did you see the videos of the firefighters testimony to molten steel? i posred the link.
what about the thermal images?
the meteorite was on video, also posted for you to see http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related the expert says molten steel was fused with concrete by heat. are you an expert?

 

[funk de fino]

ah i was wondering when my little nitpicker friend would arrive on the scene.
allow me to reclarify - no steel framed skyscraper - which was obvious to anyone who read my quote in CONTEXT

i will reply to your post in the pother thread in time.

hey sonce your are i the thread i opened any chance of responding to any of the premises one two and three? dont worry i wont be holding my breath.

peace

Its all about making correct claims not incorrect claims. You are making lots of incorrect claims.

Have any proof or experiments to show it was molten steel? This is what you claim NIST should do for everything so you need this also or your claims are junk. You are a hypocrite as well as a liar by the looks of it

Wheres your scientific method this time TWS?

TAM answered your joke claims and you handwaved them. Show us the proof.

 

[thewholesoul]

The only thing the video highlights is anecdotal claims that the said material was steel. The photographic evidence is rather dubious:

petitio principii: In the context of the evidence the video provides, see above.
tu quoque: I'll take the chance to as well call upon you to address how therm?te accounts in the post-collapse. Since we've cleared up the fact that normal therm*te charges would not have survived the collapses to account for post-collapse heating. You (as stated earlier) claimed then that nano therm*te could be responsible.

Are there any industry related websites that can verify that such thermite exists? Or is this claim hinged solely on the claims made by Steven Jones?

look i am not responding unless you can construct a better argument.

e.g. soul i think premise one is false because reason x, y and z....

your posting images of hot steel being removed that i never included as evidence.

it is completely irrelevant to focus on the tetsimony witout refuting the other two counts of evidence: meteorite and thermal images. i posted two videos on testimony of people seeing molten steel.

as for nanothermite - it was found in the dust as unignited red chips
q1 : are you denying this fact?

now such unignited thermite with enough heat (1500c) will react and produce heat
q2: are you denying this?

which would generate more heat, (a) smoldering pile with randomly distributed nanothermite or (b) a smoldering pile without?

i posted all the links about thermite in an exchange we had in the other post
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Probably because it didn't have one. It was dismantled piece by piece, from the top down.

good point gumboot, i was unaware of that. i just read demolistion and assumed it was conventioanlly demolished.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"The meteorite is yet another undeniable fact that steel melted at GZ. "

BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong again. Why don't you just keep copy pasting the same post over and over again to save yourself some trouble?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"did you see the videos of the firefighters testimony to molten steel? i posred the link. "

Now just include the metalergy testing those fire fighters did. Or are you going to sit here and tell us that their 'opinion' is proof?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"as for nanothermite - it was found in the dust as unignited red chips"

BZZZZZT!! Wrong again.

 

[thewholesoul]

Sure. After the buildings collapsed some of the remaining jet fuel as well as other building combustibles found themselves in a space in the pile that was vented at the bottom and top. Air was drawn in through the bottom and fed the fire from below and this produced a blast furnace effect especially as oxygen began to run out. I know from personal experience that it is possible to get abnormally hot fires from normal combustible materials in a condition such as I described.

so if there was no ventilation your explanation would fail correct?
`
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Notice the HUGE contradictions between the two scenarios. The Singer building is a confirmed demolition by explosives. No hot spots, molten steel, swiss cheese metal, etc. Absolutely nothing like WTC 7. This is absolute proof that WTC 7 was NOT a controlled demolition or it would have the same characteristics of the Singer building. You can't even find one controlled demolition by explosives that has ever produced the molten steel, hot spots, collapse of the roof structures prior to the rest of the building, etc. Why do you keep debunking yourself?

when you can produce a fired induced collapse prior to 911 or since that produced hot spots seen from space etc let me know ok.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

when you can produce a fired induced collapse prior to 911 or since that produced hot spots seen from space etc let me know ok.

peace

Most any fire could be seen asa hot spot from tape. It should also be noted that no, the images from NASA do not show temperatures of 1500 degrees either. They were around 725C. I'm sure you frauds find good ways to twist the numbers just like you sit and use opinions and call them facts.

 

[thewholesoul]

Fixed the link for you. But that page does not contain the of image the "red hotspots" two hours after the collapse.

it says

Hotspots associated with fires raging at ground zero appear in red.
figure 3.4 Infrared SPOT image, acquired three hours after the World Trade Centre attack on the 11th September 2001

so when did the attack start, Norseman? when the first tower was hit. the towers fell in roughly one hour. so 3 hours minus one hour = two hours after the collapse - not attack.

It is Figure 3.4 that is a false color infrared image taken by the French satellite SPOT-4 at 11:55 am. Fires give off a of lot of infrared radiation. So they have given those areas the color red. The hotspots matches the locations of the towers. They were burning when they collapsed and they continued to burn. The image shows that it is fire there. It does not show red hot glowing steel if that was what you believed it did.

i said redhotspots seen from space. you can interpret that however you like.
but a good post nonetheless.

 

[thewholesoul]

Who told you the NFPA 921 code is compulsory or required? It is guidelines and recommendations it is is not mandatory. You are wrong again.

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

You have made quite a few mistakes in this thread and others, it seems to me you should check the info you are borrowing from others before bringing it here.

correct and i will continue to make mistakes on the minor details. thankfully there is people like you who spend there time combing through my posts for those little mistakes. shame you dont address the main argument i am making however. so take a pot shot and debunk my premises.

peace

 

[funk de fino]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Show me the proof and tests done to confirm this.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Not government position. Seperate investigations. There is no proof of molten steel.

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

You need to prove the molten steel was there in the first place. Then you have to show us what it means. Get going.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

Get going then. It should not take too much to set up and independant investigation into molten steel. Heck you could do a lot of the legwork with a phone and email. Actually ask people.

I know you will not though.

correct and i will continue to make mistakes on the minor details. thankfully there is people like you who spend there time combing through my posts for those little mistakes. shame you dont address the main argument i am making however. so take a pot shot and debunk my premises.
peace

Sorry champ but this is exactly what you are doing with the NIST, FEMA and any other investigation you look at. You pick out little anomolies you think prove inside job and expand them instead of looking at the whole and realising you are ignoring the theory which best fits the facts. You are using video evidence yet when this is used by NIST you say they need experimentation. You are hypocritical and you fail to understand basic physiscs, fire theory among other things. You are a little poster on a forum who thinks he is more clever than he actually is but keeps getting caught with his pants down when he steals junk from other sites and repeats it here without actually checking if it good info.

You pull the NFPA card to try and acuse someone of breaking the law. This is not a minor point. This is accusing someone of dishonesty and you got it wrong. You should apologise. Then, if you have to steal that from somewhere else again you may check the source first which will stop you making the same schoolboy errors time and time again.


This thread is full of your junk incorrect claims. Lurkers will see this and see that if you make all these mistakes then what is it you could ever actually get correct?

 

[funk de fino]

when you can produce a fired induced collapse prior to 911 or since that produced hot spots seen from space etc let me know ok.

peace

same old argument from history junk

just because something has not happened before does not mean it cannot happen

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

INCORRECT.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Thank you for showing us that you simply don't even understand what those groups do and how they are organized. There is no explanation for molten steel because there is no evidence of molten steel. And being that it's not impossible for there to have been molten steel under the conditions found there, there's no need to investigate. Fires alone can sometimes cause this to happen. The melting temperatures are under lab conditions and there's no way to predict exact temperatures since there are far too many variables in the materials and conditions.

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

INCORRECT.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

INCORRECT. First off the investigation of the collapse was and is independent. 2nd, if you want your own independent investigation, then it's up to you to start one. No one is stoping the silly parade from doing their own investigation. So far your little group has been unable to come up with anything reasonable, hence the demand for someone else to come up with something reasonable. "We want an independent investigation" = "We can't back up our claims so we're just going to pretend to be unhappy with the people who HAVE backed up their claims scientifically".

shame you dont address the main argument i am making however. so take a pot shot and debunk my premises.

peace

Shame you conveniently ignore every post that does address your little claims and your pretend premise which has been debunked at least 100 times in this thread alone.

 

[phunk]

i said redhotspots seen from space. you can interpret that however you like.

I'd interpret it as you being wrong. It's a false color image, they didn't see red spots from space, they used red to represent the hottest parts of the image. That doesn't mean they were literally red hot.