Molten Steel

[TjW]

His certainty is. If god were to say there was molten steel in the debris pile Gravy and his faithful followers would instantly become atheists. You are just denying because you are probably getting paid to. Ignoring all the qualified experts is absurd.

Standard diversion statement. It sidesteps what melted the steel in the first place.

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that one. . . . Deal with the steel!

He said there were photos and videos of molten steel being dipped out. The govt. is hiding these photos and videos from the public.

He is just one of many who say there was molten steel. To deny them all is just denial.

No. His trust is evidence only that he trusts. The person he trusted could be misinformed, using hyperbole, retelling a story that he heard as if it had happened to him, or lying outright. Or telling the truth. I don't know. Neither do you. The retelling of a story by anyone, no matter how qualified, does not make the story true.

If you can find someone who took a sample of the liquid, and had an assay done on it, you could show that there was molten steel. Absent that, you're stuck. There isn't enough evidence to prove it.

If ignoring the qualified experts is absurd, and you are ignoring the qualified experts professional opinions, what does that make you?

It doesn't sidestep it. It makes the point that there is no unambiguous method of determining what melted it, if indeed, there was any completely melted, and not merely in a plastic stage.

In order for thermite to be the only explanation for reports of molten steel, it has to be the only explanation. If there's a likelihood that some energetic reaction in the rubble pile released enough energy to keep molten steel molten, then it's certain such a reaction released enough energy to make the steel plastic and to melt any number of substances with lower melting temperatures. Lead, aluminum, copper, and zinc were present in non-negligible quantities. So was glass.
What a heated-to-plasticity piece of steel being pulled out of some melted mixture of the above materials would look like, I don't know for sure. I expect the mixture would drip off the end, even if the steel weren't actually liquid.

Even if for the sake of argument you're given actual melted steel weeks later, you'd have to show unequivocally that whatever energetic mechanism maintained the steel in its liquid state, it could only have maintained the temperature, and not, under any combination of circumstances, melted the steel itself. Since you don't know what the mechanism is, you can't do that.
Since you can't do that, thermite is not the only explanation.

It's not enough to say, "Well, if X happened, and if Y happened, and if Z happened, then A is the only explanation." You have to show that X and Y and Z actually happened. You haven't shown that.

 

[BigAl]

He said there were photos and videos of molten steel being dipped out. The govt. is hiding these photos and videos from the public.

And thousands of people that worked on the pile, may of them professional steelworkers and welders that would have a professional interest in "how did steel do that ???" did what they were told and didn't talk about it, to this day, Riiiight. Some of them have died by now and could have made a death-bed statement. Essentially everyone working at ground zero worked for some powerful union with lots of lawyers to protect worker's interests. The crane workers and steel workers were not employees of any specific company.

 

[Mercutio]

Heavens no. He was told to say that.

Are you calling him spineless?

I'm not asking about his motives for saying what he said. I am asking you, was what he said a lie? Was he lying?

Come on, C7; you have chastised others for not accepting your perverted interpretation of others' words at face value, and hidden behind the "are you calling X a liar?" line. If you can dismiss someone else asking you the same question, then you have no grounds for asking it yourself.

 

[BigAl]

Please There was a thousand times more steel. 80,000 tons per building [i believe]

Oops. Concentrations.

It's spread out. The were pools of molten steel were in the basements and under WTC 7.

Time for a Mythbusters video.

Mythbusters puts 1,000 pounds of thermite on a SUV in the attempt to cut it in half. Figure the SUV weighs 3,000 pounds. Thermite doesn't even come close. "rivers" of molten steel would require rivers of thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

Notice how quickly the Thermite burns and cools quickly. Even though there is some glowing steel afterwords, the Mythbusters can get close without protective clothing. It's not molten. You can't do that with molten steel.

 

[bonavada]

Hey Chris,

?
​

Firstly, Riggs never mentions "office fire" in the clip. Those are your words. He says "office combustibles". There were no "office fires" following the destruction of the WTC. Only intense fires burning carpets, plastics, wood, paper, textiles etc in a pile of mangled wreckage.

Secondly, where is your evidence that Riggs was "told to say that"? Be honest, you just plucked that out of your arse right?

I see now why you have been called a liar so many times here.

BV

 

[stateofgrace]

Not at all. You are asking about "my fellow countrymen". These ****** psychopaths have NO respect for our country or the lives of their fellow countrymen. Your inability to accept and understand the basic underlying problem is the basis for your inability to accept any evidence that our government would murder 3,000 of its own citizens.


You believe and have stated that your fellow countrymen went into four fully occupied buildings in the centre of New York and planted so much thermite that once ignited it not only brought the towers down but kept metal molten, by the ton, for weeks afterwards. This operation ,unlike what you have now posted went totally unnoticed. You keep putting things in that statement that I do not agree with. I will state what I believe, you will not.

Long story made short:

Like you, I believed the OCT until I saw the collapse of WTC 7.
Realizing that it was a CD, I took another look at the towers.

The presence of molten metal under all three buildings can only be the result of thermite.

Therefore, thermite in combination with explosives were used in the demolition of the towers.

Classic stuff Chris,

I am not putting words into statements that you do not agree with; I am simply asking you very civil questions and quoting your statements that you fully agree with.

So, let me get this straight, you think that death squads controlled by a psychopathic Government went into three ( it is four actually ) fully occupied buildings prior to Sept 11th and planted lots and lots of thermite, so much so that when ignited it brought down these buildings and kept metal, by the ton, molten for weeks after it was ignited. And now you are saying that the same death squads planted explosives inside each of these buildings, right?

Yet, and here is the kicker,Chris, of the thousands of people that were inside these building nobody, not a single person noticed. Not a single person from the thousands spotted death squads planting lots and lots of thermite and lots and lots explosives inside the buildings.Not a single person, seven years later, figured out that the guy in the coveralls, they saw,wasn't really upgrading the telephone system but was planting tons and tons of thermite and explosives. Not a single people involved in the logistics of such a mammoth task as stepped forward and confirmed any of this. The suppliers, the buyers, the planners, the death squads themselves, nobody as stepped forward to confirm your beliefs.

Why do think that is Chris? Maybe they are all in denial, what do you think ?

 

[TheDaver]

Child.




Get serious.


You neither want to be convinced nor would you be convinced by a signed affidavit from god.

It couldn’t be because what you posted was absolute garbage, could it? Naaah…

ETA: This is a debate forum, not a nursery school.

Yes, this is a debate forum. Why are you so afraid of debate?

 

[Sunstealer]

C7 - can I ask some simple questions please.

How are you defining "molten"?
Does molten equal liquid or does molten mean solid but hot?
If it means solid at what temperature are you describing something as molten?

 

[A W Smith]

C7 - can I ask some simple questions please.

How are you defining "molten"?
Does molten equal liquid or does molten mean solid?
If it means solid at what temperature are you describing something as molten?

in c7's case. anything red is molten steel.

 

[Mercutio]

C7 - can I ask some simple questions please.

How are you defining "molten"?
Does molten equal liquid or does molten mean solid but hot?
If it means solid at what temperature are you describing something as molten?

Excellent questions, Sunstealer, but missing one small thing.

Christopher, how are your witnesses defining "molten"? Same question, but their answer, not yours. Have you checked with them? (we know already, you have not checked with them, and you will not check with them, because you know you are lying.)

 

[Christopher7]

Firstly, Riggs never mentions "office fire" in the clip. Those are your words. He says "office combustibles".

So what? Does it matter? NO!

There were no "office fires" following the destruction of the WTC. Only intense fires burning carpets, plastics, wood, paper, textiles etc in a pile of mangled wreckage.

The point is those materials cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

Secondly, where is your evidence that Riggs was "told to say that"?

Obviously he did not see the steel melt did he? Therefore someone told him.

I see now why you have been called a liar so many times here.

What is it with you people calling people liars? You are definitely reading from Gravy's playbook.

That is a personal attack based on your personal inability to figure out the obvious. Unreal.

 

[ravdin]

Please answer my question, C7. Who do you believe is responsible the 9/11 attacks, and why did they do it?

 

[Christopher7]

No. His trust is evidence only that he trusts. The person he trusted could be misinformed, using hyperbole, retelling a story that he heard as if it had happened to him, or lying outright.

Please.

Peter Tully was one of the contractors who told him. You are inferring that he might be lying or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Give it up. You are desperately looking for a reason to deny the molten steel.

Or telling the truth. I don't know. Neither do you. The retelling of a story by anyone, no matter how qualified, does not make the story true.

Loizeaux said there were photos and videos of the molten steel being scooped out. You are calling him a liar too.
Furthermore you are ignoring that if it is being "scooped out" it's fluid.

If you can find someone who took a sample of the liquid, and had an assay done on it, you could show that there was molten steel. Absent that, you're stuck. There isn't enough evidence to prove it.

The evidence was destroyed. You are not only defending the destruction of evidence, you are using it that to defend the people who ordered it destroyed.

Furthermore. You are discounting the numerous witnesses who said they saw beams dripping and the firemen who said "molten metal running down the channel rails." You are calling them liars too.

You are playing word games, finding a reason do doubt this quote and another reason to deny that quote.

Your unwillingness to put them all together and see that collectively they confirm the existence of liquid molten steel is proof positive you refuse to accept what you don't want to accept.

Your reasons for denial are straight out of Gravy's denial book and have been used by all his paid puppets. You cannot possibly all be thinking up the exact same denial garbage on your own.

 

[Christopher7]

Please answer my question, C7. Who do you believe is responsible the 9/11 attacks, and why did they do it?

That is a subject for another thread and will only result in a barrage of childish insults. No thank you.

 

[bonavada]

So what? Does it matter? NO!
The point is those materials cannot burn hot enough to melt steel

Just because you write it doesn't make it true.

Those materials I mentioned were all carbon based. Carbon is commonly used as a fuel to melt steel. It is far from impossible that steel melted in the GZ debris due to carbon based fire. In an enclosed/confined space under the right conditions burning "office combustibles" could be quite capable of melting steel

Obviously he did not see the steel melt did he? Therefore someone told him

Obviously? Someone told him? So it's out of the question that whilst on-site he witnessed the "office combustibles" burning intensly and melting the steel?

It is very amusing that one of the links you provide debunks your conclusion about thermite. Riggs says that intense fires of "office combustibles" melted the steel. He was there to see it, you weren't. Take it on the chin like a man. You are wrong.

What is it with you people calling people liars? You are definitely reading from Gravy's playbook. That is a personal attack based on your personal inability to figure out the obvious. Unreal.

Change the record will ya?
And BTW I didn't call you a liar. Can't you read? I just mused that I can now understand why people here have called you a liar. I stand by that. 100%

Reality bites.

BV

 

[Christopher7]

Excellent questions, Sunstealer, but missing one small thing.

Christopher, how are your witnesses defining "molten"?

"Steel beams dripping", "running down the channel rail", "Being scooped out by the buckets" Can you not add 2 and 2 and come up with 4?

Same question, but their answer, not yours. Have you checked with them? (we know already, you have not checked with them, and you will not check with them, because you know you are lying.)

I'm quoting witnesses and you are calling me a liar.
Rule 12 is a joke, selectively enforced.

The same old double talk and denial is endless. Just new people reading the same script.

 

[Mercutio]

Please.

Peter Tully was one of the contractors who told him. You are inferring that he might be lying ... [snip]

No, C7, we are not inferring that. We are out-and-out stating that you are lying with your witnesses' words.

Show us that they still believe this today, or admit that you are lying.

Again and again, you hide behind the "you are calling them liars" gambit. Sorry, C7, but we see through your lie. We are not calling them liars, because they do not believe what you pretend that they believe. You are the liar. You do, of course have the option of demonstrating that I am wrong. All you need to do is go to your star witnesses and ask them to verify what you claim they are saying. If you are telling the truth, it should be as easy as anything. But, of course, you are not telling the truth, and you will never provide us with the evidence that your witnesses believe the things you attribute to them.

Once more, C7, I offer you the opportunity to humiliate me. Prove me wrong, Christopher, if you can. You cannot, because you are a liar. You, Christopher, not Peter Tully. You.

Please. I beg of you. Prove me wrong.

But you cannot.

 

[Sunstealer]

So therefore you are defining molten as liquid. OK I have no problem with that. You keep showing us the claw photo and claiming molten metal but the claw photo clearly shows a solid.

Therefore by your own definition the claw is not picking up molten metal is it?

 

[Mercutio]

"Steel beams dripping", "running down the channel rail", "Being scooped out by the buckets" Can you not add 2 and 2 and come up with 4?

I'm quoting witnesses and you are calling me a liar.
Rule 12 is a joke, selectively enforced.

The same old double talk and denial is endless. Just new people reading the same script.

Yes, I am calling you a liar. But only because you are lying.

Contact your witnesses, C7. Humiliate me. You know you want to.

You are quoting, yes. I am asking you to verify these quotes. If you are right, you can rub my face in it. But we both know you are lying.

 

[Christopher7]

F

Those materials I mentioned were all carbon based. Carbon is commonly used as a fuel to melt steel.

In a blast furnace.

It is far from impossible that steel melted in the GZ debris due to carbon based fire.

No, that is not possible. You are talking thru your hat.

In an enclosed/confined space under the right conditions burning "office combustibles" could be quite capable of melting steel

Dude, steel melts at 2750 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F.

In your desire to deny the collective result of the witness statements you are making uninformed absurd statements.