Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

The NY bomb squad had it's bomb sniffing dogs at WTC. They didn't find anything.

Source: Bomb Squad by Esposito & Gerstein

Nice bit of sophistry. Where does it say they used the dogs to check all the steel for bomb residue?

Anyone can look at those pictures.

For a very large fee and after a very long wait. To my knowledge, none have been released yet and many people have applied. It will be big news on 9/11 Truth sites when it happens.

If someone from the "Truth Movement" hasn't done so after all these years, maybe the movement really isn't interested in a real investigation.

People in the truth movement have been trying for years to get NIST to give them some of the photos and videos. I applied 2 years ago and they said they would not release any until the investigation was over.

FOIA is easy. I'm about to do one to the CIA but I don't think it's necessary for a NIST file.

It is necessary.

 

[GStan]

Dave asked my to disprove something but he didn't tell me what it was. That does make the task rather difficult dontchathink?

I'm asking Dave to say what he thinks melted the steel.

I'm going to speculate here, but I think perhaps Dave is smart enough to know that there was no melted/liquid steel. You are the one trying to defend the position that there was liquid steel.

My claim?

Did I mention that numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel?

Yes you have mentioned it. In fact your entire yet-to-be-shared fantastical theory seems to resting on nothing other than the ten or less taken-out-of-context, refused-to-be-clarified, eyewitness statements that are not consistent with the entire body of evidence. If you wish to dismiss the entire body of evidence based on these statements, so be it.

That would require data that is not available and an understanding of thermodynamics that I cannot comprehend and you know that. Your question is rhetorical, because I am not technically capable of providing the answer.

Fixed that for you.

Indeed.

 

[funk de fino]

As I suspected the evidence from Brent Blanchard and Protec was ignored.

 

[Christopher7]

The same thing that kept it molten.

That is another non answer Dave.

What melted the steel if not thermite?

 

[Disbelief]

I have a question, probably for Sunstealer as he is obviously the most qualified.

If you have a ton of thermite and are using it to cut through two tons of steel, would the final weight of the result after reaction be between 2 and 3 tons or would it only be the weight of the steel? Would the thermite "burn off" completely?

 

[Dave Rogers]

That is another non answer Dave.

What melted the steel if not thermite?

If there was molten steel, I don't know what melted it, or what kept it molten for five months. However, if there was molten steel five months later, something must have kept it molten, and that something wasn't thermite. Therefore, if there was molten steel something was going on in the rubble pile that could have melted the steel. The fact that we don't know what it was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The irony in the fact that you're displaying the exact behaviour here that you pretended to see and satirise in your opponents recently is not lost on me. You can't figure out what it was, so it doesn't exist. Except that it has to exist, so it does exist. Your whole argument is based on claiming that a heat source capable of maintaining steel above its melting point, and hence quite possibly of melting it, both existed and didn't exist at the same time and place.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

As I suspected the evidence from Brent Blanchard and Protec was ignored.

No, I just read it again. It's the same "It can't be because" garbage I've been reading here.

They are NOT experts or investigators. They document CD's. They photographed a lot of stuff but they did not test for anything.

NIST did not test for explosive residue, neither did anyone else.

 

[BigAl]

That is another non answer Dave.

What melted the steel if not thermite?

Bingo!

We have yet to establish the existence of molten steel. Until we establish that, discussions of how it was "kept molten" are hypothetical and pointless.

All we have are eyewitnesses, most of them second hand. Eyewitnesses, even ones that we can cross-examine, are the lowest and weakest form of evidence. The only eyewitness I know of that has been cross examined says he didn't see or say what was attributed to him. That would be Loizeaux. The vast majority of eyewitnesses to WTC don't mention molten steel or anything consistent with burning thermite.

Second-hand eyewitnesses are not really eyewitnesses except to the "Half Truth Movement"

There is no physical evidence for molten steel.

There is no science consistent with confirmed eyewitnesses and physical evidence that would support any eyewitness accounts of molten steel.

 

[GStan]

If there was molten steel, I don't know what melted it, or what kept it molten for five months. However, if there was molten steel five months later, something must have kept it molten, and that something wasn't thermite. Therefore, if there was molten steel something was going on in the rubble pile that could have melted the steel. The fact that we don't know what it was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The irony in the fact that you're displaying the exact behaviour here that you pretended to see and satirise in your opponents recently is not lost on me. You can't figure out what it was, so it doesn't exist. Except that it has to exist, so it does exist. Your whole argument is based on claiming that a heat source capable of maintaining steel above its melting point, and hence quite possibly of melting it, both existed and didn't exist at the same time and place.

Dave

Well, don't forget about the electric blanket.

 

[BigAl]

No, I just read it again. It's the same "It can't be because" garbage I've been reading here.

They are NOT experts or investigators. They document CD's. They photographed a lot of stuff but they did not test for anything.

NIST did not test for explosive residue, neither did anyone else.

The FBI and NYPD forensics teams went through ALL the rubble with screens fine enough to find fingertips ans small jewlery. Demolition experts will tell you that bombs and explosives always leave debris.

NYPD had bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC.

 

[Christopher7]

If there was molten steel,

This double denial thing works really good. When not able to give an explanation for the molten steel other than thermite, shift back to denying the existence of molten steel.

I don't know what melted it, or what kept it molten for five months. However, if there was molten steel five months later, something must have kept it molten, and that something wasn't thermite.

But Dave, thermite is the only possibility. Your non answer confirms that there is no other possibility.

Therefore, if there was molten steel something was going on in the rubble pile that could have melted the steel. The fact that we don't know what it was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Dave, have you any idea how silly that statement is?

You can't figure out what it was

Dave, . . . . . I have figured out what it was.

Your whole argument is based on claiming that a heat source capable of maintaining steel above its melting point, and hence quite possibly of melting it, both existed and didn't exist at the same time and place.

No

 

[TheDaver]

Let’s see, we’re 73 pages in, and still no confirmation that there even was molten steel.

Here’s a new idea, Christopher7: Shut up!

 

[GStan]

This double denial thing works really good. When not able to give an explanation for the molten steel other than thermite, shift back to denying the existence of molten steel.

But Dave, thermite is the only possibility. Your non answer confirms that there is no other possibility.

Dave, have you any idea how silly that statement is?

Dave, . . . . . I have figured out what it was.

No

You have already acknowledged that thermite could not keep steel liquid for six weeks. And you also claim that thermite is the only thing that could keep steel liquid for six weeks.

 

[Christopher7]

The FBI and NYPD forensics teams went through ALL the rubble with screens fine enough to find fingertips ans small jewlery.

They were looking for remains of the people. They were testing for DNA, not explosives residue.

Demolition experts will tell you that bombs and explosives always leave debris.
NYPD had bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC.

They did not test for explosives residue.


NIST did not test for explosives residue.

Neither did anyone else!

Will you guys cut the sophistry please?

 

[GStan]

They were looking for remains of the people. They were testing for DNA, not explosives residue.

They did not test for explosives residue.


NIST did not test for explosives residue.

Neither did anyone else!

Will you guys cut the sophistry please?

Yup. Thankfully they could all see right from the getgo that notions of CD/explosives were total crap and they didn't waste any time on them. Good on them.

 

[Christopher7]

You have already acknowledged that thermite could not keep steel liquid for six weeks. And you also claim that thermite is the only thing that could keep steel liquid for six weeks.

Wrong! I said thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place and I don't know how it stayed molten for 6 weeks.

You're a bit slow on the uptake.

 

[BigAl]

They were looking for remains of the people. They were testing for DNA, not explosives residue.

They did not test for explosives residue.


NIST did not test for explosives residue.

Neither did anyone else!

Will you guys cut the sophistry please?

The rubble was sifted as many as 3 times at WTC and the Staten Island landfill. Thermite would have left so much characteristic slag that the people that were screening the rubbble would have found some. Small chunks of molten steel would also attract the curiosity of someone. It there were no small chunks of ex-liquid steel found, it's hard to see how huge ones could exist.

 

[GStan]

Wrong! I said thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place and I don't know how it stayed molten for 6 weeks.

This would be the point where your claim of thermite requires further explanation, to give it at least a shred of credibility. If you are unable to provide it, people might start to doubt your underlying claim that there was liquid steel*.

*There was no liquid steel.

 

[GlennB]

If there was molten steel, I don't know what melted it, or what kept it molten for five months. However, if there was molten steel five months later, something must have kept it molten, and that something wasn't thermite. Therefore, if there was molten steel something was going on in the rubble pile that could have melted the steel. The fact that we don't know what it was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The irony in the fact that you're displaying the exact behaviour here that you pretended to see and satirise in your opponents recently is not lost on me. You can't figure out what it was, so it doesn't exist. Except that it has to exist, so it does exist. Your whole argument is based on claiming that a heat source capable of maintaining steel above its melting point, and hence quite possibly of melting it, both existed and didn't exist at the same time and place.

Dave

This would be great in the "religion and philosophy" forum. You lost Chris7 when you wrote "If there was..." though

 

[funk de fino]

No, I just read it again. It's the same "It can't be because" garbage I've been reading here.

They are NOT experts or investigators. They document CD's. They photographed a lot of stuff but they did not test for anything.

That is a flat out lie again. There were demo teams, forensic examiners and public officials there. We do not know what forensic examinations were done by them but they inspected all the steel and never mentioned any blobs of previously molten steel. You have no idea what expertise any of them had. They documented the tasks they are not claiming they did them, it may help if you actually read things instead of making up lies. They are more expert than your witness' to molten steel.

If you really wanted to you could contact any of the people mentioned in that link and thyey could perhaps show you the photographs or the documentaion that they did when they saw this process. You wont because it destroys your fantasy world.

NIST did not test for explosive residue, neither did anyone else.

Speculation about anyone else, because you do not know what Brent Blanchard and his tean saw being done. I have no doubt that NIST did not but as I have said I am not talking about them. Why didnt they put to one side the previously molten blobs like they did with the corroded beams and other parts? Why do they have to test for explosives if they can see this molten metal? According to you it is obvious to sight, testing does not need done.

Why do you have to avoid this testimony?