Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

I haven't been proven wrong of anything.

Lie.

I said there was such a small chance it was hardly quantifiable.

Which was wrong.

Not impossible though. It's a non issue because i never mentioned it in my initial thread.

Your initial post (which is what I think you mean) is just that: your initial post. The rest of the thread is were you are supposed to back up the crap you spewed in your initial post. The pass port issue came up. You were proven wrong. Get over it.
 
Listen, the passport is a non issue in terms of my initial thread. According to experts on both sides, you can look through threads here...molten steel will cast serious doubts to the official story. As it shouldn't have gotten hot enough to melt steel. Don't take my word for it, go look through other threads on this site.

I'm sorry, has anyone ever produced evidence of molten steel at The World Trade Center stemming from the terrorist attack?
 
Look at the link as it relates to stock. It explains it all..If you have a problem talk to main stream sources that published it. there's so many things bogus about Lloyde's claim, besides what he stated there. There's another example when he knows he's being video taped...he flat denies being in front of the cobblestone despite the picture clearly showing him there. The fact that his hood looks like it just come out of the assembly line, despite a light pole falling through the windshield. Besides what leading question could possibly get him to say those things. We came over the hill together..he came over the hill with Al quaeda?..I mean really. I mean he said the rich people this is their thing...he certainly was not referring to Al Qaeda as well. His whole account casts doubt on the official story.

Honestly guys, this is becoming like dealing with Dr. Dusty. Anyone how could believe that Lloyde has anything to do with anything needs to see a doctor - really. I mean wow...that's so incredibly smart man. You're the dude having figured out the real identity of NWO super secret agent Lloyde England. You must be a hero for your Truther friends.

I'm out of this one. The real mystery for me has become figuring out why anyone would keep talking about this. Arguing with the brain dead doesn't seem smart very to me.
 
Why repeat myself?

We dont want you to repeat yourself, we want you to defend your arguments.


Example:


MOLTEN STEEL:

People reported molten steel on 911. Truthers claim this is remarkable because fire cant melt steel. But people have reported molten steel in exactly the same way they did on 911 before and since, So why should we think reports of molten steel on 911 mean anything if its common to see those reports in a fire?

So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway.
 
Last edited:
I just told you it was a tactic:

It is a tactic we use with everyone who uses the tactic of throwing muck at the wall to see what sticks. We look at each point in turn, debunking as we go.

I have never seen anything debunked successfully. Some of the attempts are laughable. WTC 7 it was just a mistake. Yeah....a mistake is saying WTC 5 went down when it was 7. I mean one report was at 11:07...give me a break
 
I have never seen anything debunked successfully.

That's because you wouldn't know any better even if you didn't have a preconceived bias.

Some of the attempts are laughable. WTC 7 it was just a mistake. Yeah....a mistake is saying WTC 5 went down when it was 7. I mean one report was at 11:07...give me a break

What are you talking about? The report that WTC 7 had gone down? That was a mistake, most likely based on what the structural engineer on the site and the fire fighters were saying.

Did you know that there were reports that Israel had been nuked in those first frantic hours? I guess that was true too, right?
 
We dont want you to repeat yourself, we want you to defend your arguments.


Example:


MOLTEN STEEL:

People reported molten steel on 911. Truthers claim this is remarkable because fire cant melt steel. But people have reported molten steel in exactly the same way they did on 911 before and since, So why should we think reports of molten steel on 911 mean anything if its common to see those reports in a fire?

So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway.

Right from NIST

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
 
I have never seen anything debunked successfully. Some of the attempts are laughable. WTC 7 it was just a mistake. Yeah....a mistake is saying WTC 5 went down when it was 7. I mean one report was at 11:07...give me a break

If you think the BBC are in on it then you must think the firefighters are as well.

Here's one:



There's plenty more all without a hint of dissenting opinion from any of them since 911.
 
Right from NIST

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

It most likely wasn't molten steel.
 
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

You again miss the point.:rolleyes:

i am not saying steel melted in the fire,
I am saying that your evidence for molten steel does not exist.

All you have is your eyewitness reports of molten steel, but as I showed you you can find the same kind of reports in other fires before and after 911 in exactly the same way.

I have asked you over and over again why we should think reports of molten steel on 911 is remarkable if people report molten steel in fires before and since 911 as well. They probably did not see molten steel then and they probably didnt see molten steel on 911.
 
Last edited:
We dont want you to repeat yourself, we want you to defend your arguments.


Example:


MOLTEN STEEL:

People reported molten steel on 911. Truthers claim this is remarkable because fire cant melt steel. But people have reported molten steel in exactly the same way they did on 911 before and since, So why should we think reports of molten steel on 911 mean anything if its common to see those reports in a fire?

So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway.

You again miss the point.:rolleyes:

i am not saying steel melted in the fire,
I am saying that your evidence for molten steel does not exist.

All you have is your eyewitness reports of molten steel, but as I showed you you can find the same kind of reports in other fires before and after 911 in exactly the same way.

You can't be serious right? You were clearly stating that molten steel would be insignificant. I mean it's right here. So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway
 
You can't be serious right? You were clearly stating that molten steel would be insignificant. I mean it's right here. So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway

You can't be serious, right? He was clearly saying "reports of molten steel" as opposed to "molten steel". Try reading for comprehension.
 
So? It's an open forum, and I've made this point numerous times only for you to ignore it.

How many times do I have to say it? It's all in the initial post. There's clear video of what appears to be molten steel. Witnesses saying there is molten steel, and John Gross lying or being grossly negligent, I won't address this again.
 
You can't be serious right? You were clearly stating that molten steel would be insignificant. I mean it's right here. So this is where we are at, and now we're waiting for you to justify your claim that reports of molten steel mean something anyway

Yes, "REPORTS" of molten steel.

What evidence do you have for molten steel bescides your eyewitness reports of it?

I said that reports of molten steel is totally unremarkable in a normal fire, you claimed I was totally wrong. Yet I showed you the evidence and you ignore it all. So if before and after 911 people have reported seeing molten steel in normal fires in exactly the same way as they did on 911, then why should we think reports of molten steel on 911 suddenly means thermite was used to demolish the building?
 
Last edited:
How many times do I have to say it? It's all in the initial post. There's clear video of what appears to be molten steel. Witnesses saying there is molten steel, and John Gross lying or being grossly negligent, I won't address this again.

So, you have no real evidence of molten steel other than "that looks like molten steel". In the face of multiple reports of "molten steel" in other fires, this is simply unremarkable as you have been shown time and time again.
 
So, you have no real evidence of molten steel other than "that looks like molten steel". In the face of multiple reports of "molten steel" in other fires, this is simply unremarkable as you have been shown time and time again.

*sigh* The pictures speak for themselves. Leslie robertson said he saw Molten steel. Don't say he took it back (I know he did) but this is such a big issue, don't you think he would have pushed for a retraction.

Abolhassan Astaneh: Professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 said:
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." These aren't just no body's.
 
Yes, "REPORTS" of molten steel.

What evidence do you have for molten steel bescides your eyewitness reports of it?

I said that reports of molten steel is totally unremarkable in a normal fire, you claimed I was totally wrong. Yet I showed you the evidence and you ignore it all. So if before and after 911 people have reported seeing molten steel in normal fires in exactly the same way as they did on 911, then why should we think reports of molten steel on 911 suddenly means thermite was used to demolish the building?

I did mis-understand you...I thought you were saying Molten steel itself is unremarkable.
 

Back
Top Bottom