Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
99.5% of the steel was destroyed.

You keep asking for what you know does not exist to justify denying the statements of the witnesses.
Click to expand...
I am completely justified in denying your witnesses’ statements and you really should know that by this point.

Now, molten steel might mean thermite was used to bring the buildings down, but it could mean other things. But any discussion as to the significance of the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero is moot in the absence of any evidence of such!
 
TheDaver said:
I am completely justified in denying your witnesses’ statements and you really should know that by this point.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your denial but don't fault those who believe the witnesses.

Now, molten steel might mean thermite was used to bring the buildings down, but it could mean other things.
Click to expand...
Like what? Why do you keep repeating that?

The only known possible cause of the molten steel is thermite.

You know that yet you keep inferring there is.

But any discussion as to the significance of the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero is moot in the absence of any evidence of such!
Click to expand...
The government destroys the physical evidence and their disinfo agents write lists of reasons to deny the witness statements. This double talk is accepted and repeated by those looking for a way to deny what they can't deal with.

You are all reading from the same script. New posters repeat the same double talk and ask the same questions.

The fact that you adamantly refuse to believe the witnesses who said there was molten steel and the witnesses who heard explosions is rather telling.

Before you say it, saying they were 'mistaken' is refusing to believe there was molten steel or explosives.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are entitled to your denial but don't fault those who believe the witnesses.
Click to expand...
I’m not faulting you for believing the witnesses. I’m faulting you for taking what they say as fact. There’s a big difference there.

Like what?
Click to expand...
Like fires fueled by kerosene or office furnature or supplies, in the right conditions.

Why do you keep repeating that?
Click to expand...
Because I hope that it’ll eventually sink in.

The only known possible cause of the molten steel is thermite.
Click to expand...
Horse@#$%.

The government destroys the physical evidence and their disinfo agents write lists of reasons to deny the witness statements. This double talk is accepted and repeated by those looking for a way to deny what they can't deal with.

You are all reading from the same script. New posters repeat the same double talk and ask the same questions.
Click to expand...
Oh, and I’m sure you have some evidence that that’s actually what’s going on.

The fact that you adamantly refuse to believe the witnesses who said there was molten steel and the witnesses who heard explosions is rather telling.
Click to expand...
The way you just make up your own reality as you go along is particularly telling.

Before you say it, saying they were 'mistaken' is refusing to believe there was molten steel or explosives.
Click to expand...
Of course. Why should I believe something that has no basis in fact?
 
TheDaver said:
I’m not faulting you for believing the witnesses. I’m faulting you for taking what they say as fact.
Click to expand...
Not absolute fact but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Enough reason to warrent a new independent investigation.

Like fires fueled by kerosene or office furnature or supplies, in the right conditions.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Jet fuel or office fires don't burn hot enough to melt steel.
NIST Final 1-A pg 132
"It was expected, and soon confirmed, that the fires could generate temperatures up to 1,100°C."

Steel melts at 1,500°C.

C7 said:
The only known possible cause of the molten steel is thermite.
Click to expand...
Horse@#$%.
Click to expand...
Give another reason or give it up.
 
Absolutely not. Jet fuel or office fires don't burn hot enough to melt steel.
NIST Final 1-A pg 132
"It was expected, and soon confirmed, that the fires could generate temperatures up to 1,100°C."

Steel melts at 1,500°C.
Click to expand...
So, as therm*te wasn't found immediately after the collapses, since the NIST experts on explosives didn't find any evidence of thermite, the stell didn't melt, and that only proves that the witnesses had no idea of what molten steel looks like.

QED.
 
TheRedWorm said:
What is the composition and temperature of the following?

picture5o.png
Click to expand...


Think about why you are dodging this, C7.
 
Christopher7 said:
99.5% of the steel was destroyed.
Click to expand...


After being examined .

You've been lied to.

The Adults In The Room know that most of the steel was examined by qualified engineers and all the rubble was sifted down to finger-nail sized bits. 55 FBI evidence collection teams were involved at WTC.

They found nothing consistent with thermite or molten steel.
 
You are all reading from the same script. New posters repeat the same double talk and ask the same questions.
Click to expand...

Or maybe new posters all notices the same huge holes in your "arguments".
 
Christopher7 said:
Witness testimony identifying a particular person is unreliable. Numerous credible witnesses are saying they saw molten steel. Others, who had no reason to lie, said they heard about it from others, who had no reason to lie. All these people were not mistaken or misled.
Click to expand...

Heh, meaning you do not necessarily trust a witness to recognize a face, yet you believe that people can by sight, without examination, identify a molten metallic substance to be steel? (as opposed to just assume it is steel since that is an assumption a bit closer to the tongue than aluminum, zink, tenn, copper mixtures dripped on materials etc?)
In actuality, to positively identify the componental nature of a metallic drip in such a pile of blends is virtually impossible to do by sight, and as I've told you before, if for argument's sake some molten material seen had been steel then the heat which caused it to melt and drip would've done the same to other substances and metals in the piles, creating a blend either way making it further impossible to determine the metal's composition in such surroundings.
You disregard the above problems, yet you have no problem admitting that witness identification of a particular person can be unreliable (without the witness necessarily lying, as opposed to assuming or guessing).
 
Last edited:
Why do we keep conflating the two separate unlinked issues of "something molten up there which some folks allege is steel" with "something possibly molten down there which probably was steel"?

When:
  • There is no way that the stuff up there could be steel from multiple thermate/thermite cuts in the "impact and fire zone" which all got to one place by a miracle;
  • Whatever the "something molten down below in the rubble pile" it was not molten steel which had come from "up there" and/or remained molten by another miracle. So it had nothing to do with demolition etc AND
  • Why are we ignoring exothermic reaction of burning iron in the rubble heap as ther obvious way to get molten iron. Why make it seem complicated to get molten steel/iron in a fire? After all there was a fire and at least one possible feed of oxygen (the infamous oxygen dihydride beloved of firefighters is one potential source)
 
240-185 said:
So, as therm*te wasn't found immediately after the collapses, since the NIST experts on explosives didn't find any evidence of thermite,
Click to expand...
They didn't find any explosives because the didn't look for any. They ruled out explosives before the started their whitewash. NIST is part of the cover up just like the 9/11 commission. Thomas and Kean said they were set up to fail.
You believe the government that lied us into a war over the people who saw molten steel.

the stell didn't melt, and that only proves that the witnesses had no idea of what molten steel looks like.
Click to expand...
Circular denial. You are using your conclusion that there was no molten steel to claim the witnesses don't know what they are talking about.

The witnesses are professionals and to say they don't know what they are talking about is arrogant and insulting to the max.

Can you admit that they saw molten metal? Or are you going to call them all liars?
 
BigAl said:
After being examined .
Click to expand...
Double talk. It was NOT examined for explosives residue.

You've been lied to.
Click to expand...
We have all been lied to by our government.

The Adults In The Room know that most of the steel was examined by qualified engineers and all the rubble was sifted down to finger-nail sized bits. 55 FBI evidence collection teams were involved at WTC.
Click to expand...
They tested for DNA, not explosives or thermite.

They found nothing consistent with thermite or molten steel.
Click to expand...
They did not look for it.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue."
 
Did they test any debris to see if the towers were destroyed using a giant laser from outer space? No? Why not? How do we know the towers weren't destroyed using a giant laser from outer space if they didn't test for it?
 
Christopher7 said:
It looks like orange juice.
Click to expand...

It's not orange juice, and the material is genuinely hot, but I digress.

Christopher7 said:
Your question is stupid and deserves an answer in kind.
If you have a point, make it. Don't ask stupid questions.
Click to expand...



I'll agree that the question is stupid, and that is intentional. What I want you to realize is that you are using the same stupid logic for your claims. Do you recognize this?
 
ozeco41 said:
Why do we keep conflating the two separate unlinked issues of "something molten up there which some folks allege is steel" with "something possibly molten down there which probably was steel"?

When:
  • There is no way that the stuff up there could be steel from multiple thermate/thermite cuts in the "impact and fire zone" which all got to one place by a miracle;
Click to expand...
You are denying the falling molten metal was steel because you can't figure out where it came from. Deal with reality. NIST admits it was molten metal and tries to claim it was aluminum mixed with organic materials.
  • Whatever the "something molten down below in the rubble pile" it was not molten steel which had come from "up there" and/or remained molten by another miracle.
    Click to expand...
    It was not what came from 'up there'.

  • Why are we ignoring exothermic reaction of burning iron in the rubble heap as ther obvious way to get molten iron.
    Click to expand...
    That has been covered. It is absurd. If that were possible, any steel building that caught on fire would self destruct.

  • Why make it seem complicated to get molten steel/iron in a fire? After all there was a fire and at least one possible feed of oxygen (the infamous oxygen dihydride beloved of firefighters is one potential source)
    Click to expand...
    Why do new posters come along and spout the from the same denial handbook?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom