Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Disbelief said:
if you think it supports you. Even though you have not demonstrated first hand accounts or proven the qualifications of the people making the claim. If you truly believed the statment that you made, you would agree with NIST, Purdue, Arups, etc. because they are qualified people (which can be verified) saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
No matter how you slice it, you are just grasping for a reason to deny all the highly qualified and not so highly qualified eyewitness statements.

They were there, you were not!

They say molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it.
 
DGM said:
Chris;
Considering at that time there was probably only a couple of dozen excavators on-site,with 3-4 operators (assuming 24 hour operation) each. Why don't you actually do some research and find the guy that "dipped the bucket"? You do want to know the truth don't you?
Click to expand...

Every excavator was manned by a team. Someone was close up to the claw to watch for bodies, if nothing else. Firemen were hosing down hotspots where found. Were a excavator team to come across a "pool of molten steel", lots of people would have been involved to get past it. No such even is report to have happened.

You can read this as a source; Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

You can read the book to find out who Stout, Vitchers, & Gray are and what they did at WTC.
 
DGM said:
Should I take that as a no?
Click to expand...
You can take that as ROFLMAO :D

Would you like me to give you the names of the companies that had that equipment on-site (later when I have some time to look it up)?
Click to expand...
Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Why can't you accept what they said? A reasonable person would not be going to all this trouble trying to find reasons to deny what they said.
 
Christopher7 said:
I understand that. So what? The metal did in fact stay molten. I didn't say that, eyewitnesses said that. You can deny it if that makes you feel good but reasonable people will accept the numerous credible statements as valid.
Click to expand...

What you seem unable to understand, Chris, is that the above line of argument invalidates the thermite hypothesis. Let me try, yet again, to explain why and how.

Case 1: No molten steel. If there was no molten steel, then there is no reason to believe thermite was present. Case closed.

Case 2: Anecdotal reports of molten steel weeks after the collapse are correct. If there was molten steel weeks after the collapses, then there was a heat source in the rubble pile capable of maintaining the required temperatures. If it was capable of maintaining the required temperatures, then in the timescal in question it was capable of creating them. This heat source cannot have been thermite, as its reaction cannot be slowed sufficiently to maintain heat emission for weeks. Therefore there is no reason to believe thermite was present. Case closed.

Therefore, your own evidence, if accepted, disproves your argument. The only thing left unknown is how many times this has been pointed out to you. So let me phrase it as a question. What kept the steel hot for weeks? If you don't know, how do you know it didn't melt the steel too?

Dave
 
BigAl said:
Every excavator was manned by a team. Someone was close up to the claw to watch for bodies, if nothing else. Firemen were hosing down hotspots where found. Were a excavator team to come across a "pool of molten steel", lots of people would have been involved to get past it. No such even is report to have happened.

You can read this as a source; Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

You can read the book to find out who Stout, Vitchers, & Gray are and what they did at WTC.
Click to expand...
I'll have to check that book out!

I might add that I personally know 3 guys that worked the piles. #1 none of them saw "molten steel", #2 they were required to use masks and or respirators at all times (happy to report they are all healthy today).
 
BigAl said:
Every excavator was manned by a team. Someone was close up to the claw to watch for bodies, if nothing else. Firemen were hosing down hotspots where found. Were a excavator team to come across a "pool of molten steel", lots of people would have been involved to get past it. No such even is report to have happened.
Click to expand...
Dude! Dozens of people reported it. The government is trying to hide it so they ignored the reports. You are trying to aid in the cover-up by constantly denying what the eyewitnesses reported.

It's was even on the History Channel.

The History Channel's "World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon"
Richard Riggs a Debris Removal Specialist that was doing the clean up.
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogru...eature=related


There was molten steel in the debris pile!


Deal with it!
 
Christopher7 said:
No matter how you slice it, you are just grasping for a reason to deny all the highly qualified and not so highly qualified eyewitness statements.

They were there, you were not!

They say molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You really are delusional. You take a few quotes as gospel, yet deny thousands of experts from NIST, Purdue, Arups, etc.
 
Christopher7 said:
Dude! Dozens of people reported it. The government is trying to hide it so they ignored the reports. You are trying to aid in the cover-up by constantly denying what the eyewitnesses reported.

It's was even on the History Channel.

The History Channel's "World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon"
Richard Riggs a Debris Removal Specialist that was doing the clean up.
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogru...eature=related

There was molten steel in the debris pile!


Deal with it!
Click to expand...

Riggs didn't say he saw anything molten first hand.
 
Dave Rogers said:
What you seem unable to understand, Chris, is that the above line of argument invalidates the thermite hypothesis.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

You are subject shifting and chanting Gravy's mantra:

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.
 
Christopher7 said:
No it doesn't.

You are subject shifting and chanting Gravy's mantra:

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're running away from the important question. Your argument is that only thermite can melt steel. If steel remained molten for weeks, then there was a heat source present, capable of melting steel, that cannot have been thermite. What's your reason for believing that thermite was present as well as your other unexplained heat source? Sticking your fingers in your ears, chanting mantras, then pretending everyone else is behaving the same as you, doesn't constitute an answer.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
You have a wall of delusion between you and any statement about molten metal.
Click to expand...

This from someone whose god is thermite, who says prayers in its name, who claims impossible powers for it, and who sees proof of its existence where none is to be found. How were you converted to thermite-worshipping, Chris?

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
Thank you for bringing this up. Although your approach leaves a great deal to be desired, your efforts did lead to my learning that Leslie Robertson did not see or hear of molten metal.
Gravy, in his round about way, that starts with "you're a liar" or some other insult, eventually me led to what it was he was talking about and I learned that sample #2 had been analyzed.
funk "beats around the bush" a lot before getting to the point too.

We could save a lot of column space if you-all would just state your point, provide your evidence and dispense with the insults.

Peace

Chris
Click to expand...
You actually are learning but forgetting your whole OP is filled with hearsay and you admit the Robertson statement was a lie posted by you because you failed to read it.

Your thermite chips are a lie, thermite scenario is made up nut case junk from Jones, and the fact is there is tons of aluminum in that corner of the building with office parts, people parts, carpet, insulation, glass, lead, cheap computer metal, oxygen generators, and more as you apologize for terrorist and ignore reality.

You are insulting all the un-named people you blame for doing 911 with your failed thermite junk ideas as you give a free pass to the terrorists.
Stop eating the thermite chips handed out by Jones and wake up the thread is based on hearsay and lies. Read the opening post you have hung your hat on while sipping the Kool-aid from 911Truth and eating those thermite chips from Jones.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
So what? You deny that there was molten metal at all.

You think all the highly qualified eyewitnesses are mistaken and you know better.

You are in denial.
Click to expand...
Where did I deny that there was molten metal. Frankly, I don't care if there was or wasn't. However, if the molten metal was caused by therm*te, then people would have seen the thermite burn. You have yet to provide such evidence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Your argument is that only thermite can melt steel. If steel remained molten for weeks, then there was a heat source present, capable of melting steel, that cannot have been thermite. What's your reason for believing that thermite was present as well as your other unexplained heat source?
Dave
Click to expand...
I'm not going to speculate again because that is just an excuse for diversion. [and a lot of insults]

I don't know how the metal stayed molten for as long as it did, only that it did.

I believe the people who said there was molten metal months later.

You would rather call them liars.

Don't tell me you are not calling them liars.

Either you believe them or you don't.

Which is it?


You are just trying to sidestep the FACT that thermite is the only thing that could melt the steel in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom