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

[WildCat]

I'll ask again, since we need to know what you are actually arguing: Which thermite theory are you going with? The one where a small amount is used so no one notices it being planted or igniting, or the one where such a ridiculous amount was used it continued to react for weeks and even months after 9/11, enough to make "little rivers of molten steel"?

You have to pick one or the other, you can't claim both. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[WildCat]

If you watch Cole’s videos you see he melts steel with only the smallest amount of it….I mean we’re talking single digit pounds.

So you're abandoning the theory of massive amounts of thermite reacting for weeks in the pile, producing "little rivers of molten steel" and now you're going to argue exclusively for small amounts of thermite, "single digit pounds"?

 

[Dave Rogers]

First of all molten steel is a big problem for the official story...most people even those on this site will admit it. To say it's not, even in smaller amounts you'd be disagreeing with a lot of people.

It's clear that molten steel casts series doubts about al qaeda doing it.

Not really, no. Let's see what would be necessary conditions for molten steel casting serious doubts on who did it.

Firstly, molten steel would have to be clearly established to have been present. The only evidence for the presence of molten steel is eyewitness reports. There is no physical evidence supporting the claim that steel was at some point present in a liquid form; in particular, there is no known instance of any mass of steel being recovered in a form that indicated that it had been liquefied at some point during the collapse. Since it is impossible to identify the chemical composition of liquid metal by visual inspection alone, we therefore have no reliable evidence of the presence of molten steel.

Secondly, the presence of molten steel would have to be incompatible with any conditions present in the towers consistent with al-Qaeda's attack having been the sole cause of their collapse. Again, this is not established. Examples have been offered of molten steel having been created by building contents fires. It is well known - in fact, it's a major part of the foundation of human civilisation - that a hydrocarbon fire with an appropriate forced draught can create sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel, and it's by no means impossible that the complex airflows created by the fires on and after 9/11 might have created similarly high temperatures. So it has, at best, yet to be proven that molten steel is incompatible with al-Qaeda having carried out the attack.

Thirdly, the presence of molten steel would have to be compatible with some feasible hypothesis in which someone other than al-Qaeda was responsible for carrying out the attacks. This is perhaps the weakest non-link in the non-chain of truther non-reasoning. The hypothesis is that thermite, used to bring about the collapses, also produced molten steel in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses. As has repeatedly been pointed out, the thermite reaction occurs rapidly, and cannot be stopped once initiated. It is physically impossible for a thermite reaction to act as a long-lasting reservoir of heat, capable of maintaining sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel for weeks. So, finally, there is no such hypothesis that reaches any acceptable standard of feasibility.

Of the three links of reasoning required for this to be a valid argument, therefore, not one is actually present.

Dave

 

[tmd2_1]

I'll ask again, since we need to know what you are actually arguing: Which thermite theory are you going with? The one where a small amount is used so no one notices it being planted or igniting, or the one where such a ridiculous amount was used it continued to react for weeks and even months after 9/11, enough to make "little rivers of molten steel"?

You have to pick one or the other, you can't claim both. They are mutually exclusive.

So you're abandoning the theory of massive amounts of thermite reacting for weeks in the pile, producing "little rivers of molten steel" and now you're going to argue exclusively for small amounts of thermite, "single digit pounds"?

I'll make this quick...I don't where this idea that I said this came from. All I said was on going thermetic reaction for a time afterward causing high temperatures, fires, and perhaps the melting of steel. No where did I say a large amount would have been used. I distinctly said, I don't know, I would think not "that" much...but I don't know. You see that's the difference, there's only one way for the official story to be true, one way and that's all. For something else to be true it's many ways...it's why in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense can propose many relevant theories....but does not have to prove them. Only give evidence to support another theory is possible.

 

[tmd2_1]

Not really, no. Let's see what would be necessary conditions for molten steel casting serious doubts on who did it.

Firstly, molten steel would have to be clearly established to have been present. The only evidence for the presence of molten steel is eyewitness reports. There is no physical evidence supporting the claim that steel was at some point present in a liquid form; in particular, there is no known instance of any mass of steel being recovered in a form that indicated that it had been liquefied at some point during the collapse. Since it is impossible to identify the chemical composition of liquid metal by visual inspection alone, we therefore have no reliable evidence of the presence of molten steel.

Secondly, the presence of molten steel would have to be incompatible with any conditions present in the towers consistent with al-Qaeda's attack having been the sole cause of their collapse. Again, this is not established. Examples have been offered of molten steel having been created by building contents fires. It is well known - in fact, it's a major part of the foundation of human civilisation - that a hydrocarbon fire with an appropriate forced draught can create sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel, and it's by no means impossible that the complex airflows created by the fires on and after 9/11 might have created similarly high temperatures. So it has, at best, yet to be proven that molten steel is incompatible with al-Qaeda having carried out the attack.

Thirdly, the presence of molten steel would have to be compatible with some feasible hypothesis in which someone other than al-Qaeda was responsible for carrying out the attacks. This is perhaps the weakest non-link in the non-chain of truther non-reasoning. The hypothesis is that thermite, used to bring about the collapses, also produced molten steel in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses. As has repeatedly been pointed out, the thermite reaction occurs rapidly, and cannot be stopped once initiated. It is physically impossible for a thermite reaction to act as a long-lasting reservoir of heat, capable of maintaining sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel for weeks. So, finally, there is no such hypothesis that reaches any acceptable standard of feasibility.

Of the three links of reasoning required for this to be a valid argument, therefore, not one is actually present.

Dave

You'll have to argue with other people at this site. Those fires should have gotten to about 1800F steel melts at about 2700F...seems like a problem. But again, even people on this site will say that.

It would have been un-reacted thermite, most of which would have been going off in the early days after. Although Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have an interesting report, on EPA data at the time. See above. This FOIA requested data, shows higher lever then which the EPA officially released at the time. I wonder why that is?

 

[WildCat]

I'll make this quick...I don't where this idea that I said this came from. All I said was on going thermetic reaction for a time afterward causing high temperatures, fires, and perhaps the melting of steel. No where did I say a large amount would have been used. I distinctly said, I don't know, I would think not "that" much...but I don't know. You see that's the difference, there's only one way for the official story to be true, one way and that's all. For something else to be true it's many ways...it's why in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense can propose many relevant theories....but does not have to prove them. Only give evidence to support another theory is possible.

I do know. If you're talking about thermite surviving the collapse in concentrated enough quantities to ignite (whether from fires you claim didn't exist or from detonators being detonated in the pile for some reason) and produce "little rivers of molten steel" you are requiring enormous amounts of thermite. Tons and tons and tons of it.

Your claims that only small amounts were needed to cause the collapses but that thermite was also responsible for "little rivers of molten steel" weeks after 9/11 are mutually exclusive.

That is a fact, not an opinion. So which thermite theory are you going with? You either have to abandon the "small amounts no one would notice" theory or the theory that so much thermite was used it continued to react for weeks producing "little rivers of molten steel" in the pile.

So which is it tmd2_1?

 

[twinstead]

That's why nobody pays attention to truthers; replacement theories should REDUCE the number of questions not add to them.

 

[DGM]

This FOIA requested data, shows higher lever then which the EPA officially released at the time. I wonder why that is?

If memory serves, this is because the EPA only released data outside of the "ground zero" area at the time. This was the area of public health concerns. The FOIA data was inside the site.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Unreacted thermite indeed. How does that happen?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You'll have to argue with other people at this site. Those fires should have gotten to about 1800F steel melts at about 2700F...seems like a problem.

I see you didn't read my post. It's not completely impossible that pockets of fire may have got hot enough, due to extreme ventilation conditions, to melt small quantities of steel. It's pure speculation, of course, because we have no compelling evidence for molten steel in the first place; but even if it were there, it's unlikely, not impossible that it might arise from the fires.

It would have been un-reacted thermite, most of which would have been going off in the early days after.

Enough unreacted thermite, weeks after the collapses, to make steel run like rivers? And yet the thermite that actually initiated the collapses produced nothing observable but a small amount of molten steel (in truther fantasy world, that is; whatever it was, we know for certain it wasn't molten steel) at the time of collapse?

You see, this thermite fantasy of yours is like a small child's lie. You start with something simple enough, but you don't think through the consequences. When they're pointed out to you, you make up a new bit of the lie to cover it. Your lie gets more and more complex, and more and more implausible, and you can't even see you're lying by now, because in your mind it can't have been al-Qaeda so there must have been thermite, but nobody saw the blinding white light of the reaction so there must have been only a very small amount of thermite, but the rubble pile stayed hot for weeks, so there must have been lots of thermite, although there were only very small amounts as well, and the fires can't have burned that long because it had to be thermite, but something had to set off the thermite so the fires had to have burned that long, but no previously molten steel was recovered, so someone must have covered it all up, so...

The bizarre thing is, we can all see you doing it, but you can't see yourself.

Although Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have an interesting report, on EPA data at the time. See above. This FOIA requested data, shows higher lever then which the EPA officially released at the time. I wonder why that is?

My starting assumption these days is that anything Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan says about 9/11 is automatically a lie, or a deliberate distortion, unless proven otherwise. Oh, and "I can't see him lying about that and the EPA not taking action against him"? Why would they bother? Outside of this and a few other internet forums, nobody cares about Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

You see, this thermite fantasy of yours is like a small child's lie. You start with something simple enough, but you don't think through the consequences. When they're pointed out to you, you make up a new bit of the lie to cover it. Your lie gets more and more complex, and more and more implausible, and you can't even see you're lying by now, because in your mind it can't have been al-Qaeda so there must have been thermite, but nobody saw the blinding white light of the reaction so there must have been only a very small amount of thermite, but the rubble pile stayed hot for weeks, so there must have been lots of thermite, although there were only very small amounts as well, and the fires can't have burned that long because it had to be thermite, but something had to set off the thermite so the fires had to have burned that long, but no previously molten steel was recovered, so someone must have covered it all up, so...

The bizarre thing is, we can all see you doing it, but you can't see yourself.




Dave

That's what puzzles me about truthers. Have they all had lobotomies?

 

[tmd2_1]

I see you didn't read my post. It's not completely impossible that pockets of fire may have got hot enough, due to extreme ventilation conditions, to melt small quantities of steel. It's pure speculation, of course, because we have no compelling evidence for molten steel in the first place; but even if it were there, it's unlikely, not impossible that it might arise from the fires.



Enough unreacted thermite, weeks after the collapses, to make steel run like rivers? And yet the thermite that actually initiated the collapses produced nothing observable but a small amount of molten steel (in truther fantasy world, that is; whatever it was, we know for certain it wasn't molten steel) at the time of collapse?

You see, this thermite fantasy of yours is like a small child's lie. You start with something simple enough, but you don't think through the consequences. When they're pointed out to you, you make up a new bit of the lie to cover it. Your lie gets more and more complex, and more and more implausible, and you can't even see you're lying by now, because in your mind it can't have been al-Qaeda so there must have been thermite, but nobody saw the blinding white light of the reaction so there must have been only a very small amount of thermite, but the rubble pile stayed hot for weeks, so there must have been lots of thermite, although there were only very small amounts as well, and the fires can't have burned that long because it had to be thermite, but something had to set off the thermite so the fires had to have burned that long, but no previously molten steel was recovered, so someone must have covered it all up, so...

The bizarre thing is, we can all see you doing it, but you can't see yourself.



My starting assumption these days is that anything Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan says about 9/11 is automatically a lie, or a deliberate distortion, unless proven otherwise. Oh, and "I can't see him lying about that and the EPA not taking action against him"? Why would they bother? Outside of this and a few other internet forums, nobody cares about Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan.

Dave

You're clearly putting words in my mouth. Read through all the posts. I clearly say I don't know how much thermite was there, and I don't know when the molten steel was found. Even my initial post I say the possibility of molten steel. Now all of a sudden I said molten steel was found weeks after ward? When in my first post all I say is possibility. Unbelievable it really is. And I'm the one lying? It's clearly a tactic you guys use. Clearly is..trying to get me to talk about something, and trying to get me to slip up. Nail me down to a specific thing, I clearly said I don't know. What I do know is that if I go to these two sites http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

You see extremely hot temperatures just on the surface...how hot could it have been under neath. In the first site...you see red hot steel being pulled out on 10/21...red hot steel over a month later despite all the cooling efforts?

I also know you premise that is could not have been steel pouring form the south tower is false. It very well could be. Watch Cole's videos he proves it could not have been aluminum mixed with anything by experiment. Don't like his results, use that big brain of yours and prove him wrong by experiment.

 

[WildCat]

One other thing tmd2_1, if you're going to claim the material flowing out of the WTC is molten steel you likewise must abandon your "small amount of thermite" theory. It would take thousands of pounds of thermite to produce that amount of molten steel.

So which thermite theory will you be going with?

 

[WildCat]

You're clearly putting words in my mouth. Read through all the posts. I clearly say I don't know how much thermite was there, and I don't know when the molten steel was found. Even my initial post I say the possibility of molten steel. Now all of a sudden I said molten steel was found weeks after ward?

Yes, you are. You claim Leslie Robertson saw "little rivers of molten steel". Robertson was at Ground Zero 3 weeks after 9/11. If you claim what he saw is the result of thermite, you are talkling massive amounts of it reacting at least 3 weeks after 9/11.

This is the problem with you truthers, you make claims but are unable to see the implications of your claims.

 

[tmd2_1]

One other thing tmd2_1, if you're going to claim the material flowing out of the WTC is molten steel you likewise must abandon your "small amount of thermite" theory. It would take thousands of pounds of thermite to produce that amount of molten steel.

So which thermite theory will you be going with?

I have the right to go with either, or any of multiple theories, and to change my mind as I go... you don't big difference. One way and only one way. You have to jump threw hoops defending it. I've said many times I don't know. It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was) there was clearly something else going on. How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes, you are. You claim Leslie Robertson saw "little rivers of molten steel". Robertson was at Ground Zero 3 weeks after 9/11. If you claim what he saw is the result of thermite, you are talkling massive amounts of it reacting at least 3 weeks after 9/11.

This is the problem with you truthers, you make claims but are unable to see the implications of your claims.

This is ridiculous, Robertson made the claim take it up with him. That's the problem with you guys...it's not important that he said he saw molten steel, it's that it was weeks later, how much or little thermite...(that's a matter for an investigation.) But that's all that matters...not that Robertson said that...arguing about the definition of like. Saying it was used in a comparison, is laughable he wasn't comparing it to anything. You have to do these things to hold on to your beliefs. But I'm the one that doesn't think of the implications?

 

[dafydd]

You're clearly putting words in my mouth. Read through all the posts. I clearly say I don't know how much thermite was there, and I don't know when the molten steel was found. Even my initial post I say the possibility of molten steel. Now all of a sudden I said molten steel was found weeks after ward? When in my first post all I say is possibility. Unbelievable it really is. And I'm the one lying? It's clearly a tactic you guys use. Clearly is..trying to get me to talk about something, and trying to get me to slip up. Nail me down to a specific thing, I clearly said I don't know. What I do know is that if I go to these two sites http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

You see extremely hot temperatures just on the surface...how hot could it have been under neath. In the first site...you see red hot steel being pulled out on 10/21...red hot steel over a month later despite all the cooling efforts?

I also know you premise that is could not have been steel pouring form the south tower is false. It very well could be. Watch Cole's videos he proves it could not have been aluminum mixed with anything by experiment. Don't like his results, use that big brain of yours and prove him wrong by experiment.

Which one are you going with today? Lots of thermite or a small amount? You have propounded both theories,use your big brain and tell us which one.

 

[dafydd]

I have the right to go with either, or any of multiple theories, and to change my mind as I go... you don't big difference. One way and only one way. You have to jump threw hoops defending it. I've said many times I don't know. It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was) there was clearly something else going on. How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.

ROLFLMAO. This is 'research' in Twooferland. Hliarious. How old are you?

 

[dafydd]

This is ridiculous, Robertson made the claim take it up with him. That's the problem with you guys...it's not important that he said he saw molten steel, it's that it was weeks later, how much or little thermite...(that's a matter for an investigation.) But that's all that matters...not that Robertson said that...arguing about the definition of like. Saying it was used in a comparison, is laughable he wasn't comparing it to anything. You have to do these things to hold on to your beliefs. But I'm the one that doesn't think of the implications?

It's been investigated. Don't you get the news over there in Twooferland?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have the right to go with either, or any of multiple theories, and to change my mind as I go... you don't big difference. One way and only one way. You have to jump threw hoops defending it. I've said many times I don't know. It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was) there was clearly something else going on. How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.

See, we don't NEED to change our minds. Understanding that the well homogenized remains of a flaming skyscraper can create complex chemistry that might result in high temperatures is internally and externally consistent and doesn't require any outside agency or arm-flailing.

You assert the right to change your mind because your "theory" is inconsistent both with itself and with observable reality and you know it.