Merged So there was melted steel

[sheeplesnshills]

Looking into the Dresden bombing and subsequent firestorm, a direct result of thermitic incendiaries, the only reference to molten metal I've found was this;

MM

This has to be a new record! three stundie quality comments from one guy in ONE DAY!

So now a few ton of incendiaries spread over a large city were the cause of the heat in the huge fires that followed, when its likely burning even just one building alone contained more energy than all the incendiaries put together!

So now MM adds History to the list of subjects he knows nothing about.

 

[tmd2_1]

And did those other situations match the basic configuration of a furnace?

Let's make this simple. In what way was the WTC pile not like a basic furnace?

Those other situations (there are thousands by the way) were/are random, just as the WTC pile. So if the WTC did produce a furnace like atmosphere, it would have been the only time, at least that I could find.

Again if there was this furnance like atmosphere why were there no official reports of molten steel? There was certainly enough steel around.

 

[TJM]

And did those other situations match the basic configuration of a furnace?

Let's make this simple. In what way was the WTC pile not like a basic furnace?

Those other situations (there are thousands by the way) were/are random, just as the WTC pile. So if the WTC did produce a furnace like atmosphere, it would have been the only time, at least that I could find.

Again if there was this furnance like atmosphere why were there no official reports of molten steel? There was certainly enough steel around.

Fascinating. In your mind do you believe your replies adequately answer Travis' direct questions?

 

[Travis]

Those other situations (there are thousands by the way) were/are random, just as the WTC pile. So if the WTC did produce a furnace like atmosphere, it would have been the only time, at least that I could find.

Again if there was this furnance like atmosphere why were there no official reports of molten steel? There was certainly enough steel around.

So your argument, as it stands right now, is that you don't think it was a furnace like effect because there wasn't any molten steel?

This was in response to my direct question of "in what way was the WTC pile not like a basic furnace?"

 

[tmd2_1]

So your argument, as it stands right now, is that you don't think it was a furnace like effect because there wasn't any molten steel?

This was in response to my direct question of "in what way was the WTC pile not like a basic furnace?"

No my response is that the random affects at the WTC, based on everything I could find would have been the first and so far the only time it happened.

I'm not saying there was no molten steel, you are without a doubt trying to be deceptive and twist words around. What I'm saying is if there was a "furnace" taking place, there would have had to have been reports of molten steel. My personal belief is that there was molten steel, it wasn't reported becuase it would be known that it shouldn't have been possible (ie even with your furnace) If this furnace was possible I'm sure they would have loved to report it or at least say it was possible (molten steel that is). Because if it were indeed possible, it couldn't be used as evidence by CTs.

 

[TJM]

I'm not saying there was no molten steel, you are without a doubt trying to be deceptive and twist words around. What I'm saying is if there was a "furnace" taking place, there would have had to have been reports of molten steel. My personal belief is that there was molten steel, it wasn't reported becuase it would be known that it shouldn't have been possible (ie even with your furnace) If this furnace was possible I'm sure they would have loved to report it or at least say it was possible (molten steel that is). Because if it were indeed possible, it couldn't be used as evidence by CTs.

What the hell is this? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Are you feeling well?

 

[Travis]

No my response is that the random affects at the WTC, based on everything I could find would have been the first and so far the only time it happened.

I'm not saying there was no molten steel, you are without a doubt trying to be deceptive and twist words around. What I'm saying is if there was a "furnace" taking place, there would have had to have been reports of molten steel. My personal belief is that there was molten steel, it wasn't reported becuase it would be known that it shouldn't have been possible (ie even with your furnace) If this furnace was possible I'm sure they would have loved to report it or at least say it was possible (molten steel that is). Because if it were indeed possible, it couldn't be used as evidence by CTs.

Okay.....I'm trying to follow this. It seems you are saying that you think my idea of a furnace effect can't be right because Truthers think that the presence of molten steel must be evidence of an inside job. And a furnace effect most definitely is not evidence of an "inside job."

And I don't have to deceptively twist your words around. I'm trying to honestly untwist them so we can figure out what in the hell you are saying.

 

[Travis]

And this bit is particularly amusing.

What I'm saying is if there was a "furnace" taking place, there would have had to have been reports of molten steel.

 

[Oystein]

Travis, it is really unfortunate that you introduced this furnace topic here. Why?

The topic of this thread should have been "If we accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that there was molten steel in the debris, what explanation do TRUTHERS have that results in a conclusion of CD and inside job?", because it is TRUTHERS who hold this premise as true, and it is TRUTHERS who hold this conclusion as true, and it is TRUTHERS who think that this conclusion, through some as of yet unknow process of reasoning, follows from the premise. So they, the TRUTHERS, must provide the as of yet unknow process of reasoning. We, who think that the premise is doubtful and the conclusion is untrue have no reason at all to fill in any explanation.

You have fallen into a trap that's labelled "Call to Perfection Logical Fallacy". The fallacious argument is that, because we can't explain some quirky observation with certainty, their theory is true. It isn't! They apparently don't even HAVE a theory!

Can't we concentrate on THEIR THEORY? And not on furnaces and other foolish stuff that contributes nothing to THEIR THEORY?


(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, if any existed at all. Any molten steel weeks after the collapses would be evidence of some condition in the debris pile, but, absent any theory, not evidence of anything of some condition in the intact buildings before collapse. Miragememories already admitted that he has no theory, only speculation.)

 

[GlennB]

Travis, it is really unfortunate that you introduced this furnace topic here. Why?

Can't we concentrate on THEIR THEORY? And not on furnaces and other foolish stuff that contributes nothing to THEIR THEORY?

(Let it be known for the record that I have serious doubts that anywhere in the debris pile, furnace-like conditions arose that were both sufficient to melt steel and open enough to allow visual observation. So what? It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not, ....

Wholeheartedly agree. I was about to type something similar (but less well expressed no doubt).

The furnace idea is a distraction from a well-judged o/p, an o/p that no Truther has managed to address yet.

 

[Travis]

Sure, but you have to admit that tmd's last post was pretty amazing.

 

[GlennB]

Sure, but you have to admit that tmd's last post was pretty amazing.

Breathtaking. As far as I can tell he's saying that whatever happened proves a CT. But I wouldn't put money on having understood him

 

[OCaptain]

I hate Martinis. People say that Scotch tastes bad but will glady slurp on a glass of Gin? Might as well suck on a juniper twig.

Yeah, gin tastes disturbingly like pine needles to me. Paired with your Juniper twig observation it seems like we have a solid evergreen connection to gin.

Update: upon further digging, it looks like you were right. Gin is derived from juniper through its berries. Somebody must have been really desperate to get drunk!

Now, scotch? Mmmmmmmm

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No my response is that the random affects at the WTC, based on everything I could find would have been the first and so far the only time it happened.

I'm not saying there was no molten steel, you are without a doubt trying to be deceptive and twist words around. What I'm saying is if there was a "furnace" taking place, there would have had to have been reports of molten steel. My personal belief is that there was molten steel, it wasn't reported becuase it would be known that it shouldn't have been possible (ie even with your furnace) If this furnace was possible I'm sure they would have loved to report it or at least say it was possible (molten steel that is). Because if it were indeed possible, it couldn't be used as evidence by CTs.

Wow, just wow! TMD has spent weeks insisting there were reports of molten STEEL at ground zero and now says that IF there had been a furnace effect there would have been reports of molten steel.

A classic.

 

[OCaptain]

So, if no Truther can ever meet the challenge of this thread should we declare the molten steel issue settled as not relevant?

Yes, but it won't matter because they'll bring it up anyway.

I still am told on a daily basis on another board that I am a Gatekeeper and that the official story breaks the laws of physics, usually followed by a dizzying array of trutherisms like "freefall speed", "into its own footprint", "through the path of greatest resistance".

 

[tmd2_1]

Okay.....I'm trying to follow this. It seems you are saying that you think my idea of a furnace effect can't be right because Truthers think that the presence of molten steel must be evidence of an inside job. And a furnace effect most definitely is not evidence of an "inside job."

And I don't have to deceptively twist your words around. I'm trying to honestly untwist them so we can figure out what in the hell you are saying.

I trust you follow the lack of a previous example, so I will not bother to explain that more.

Let's look at it from two points of view. An alternative theory is correct, and the official story is correct.

If an alternative theory is correct, and there is molten steel, if your furnace is a viable option they would have no problem reporting it, because there is an acceptable solution. Yet there was none reported.

If the official story is correct, your furnace would seem to be wrong on the outset. There should have been molten steel, and since there is no cover up they surely would have said that there was molten steel.

So either way your furnace does not appear to be a viable option.

 

[tmd2_1]

Sure, but you have to admit that tmd's last post was pretty amazing.

I trust this will be the end of the thread? In Oyestein's post he stated that your furnace is not a viable option. He also stated, in a roundabout way of course, that he would have no theory if there was molten steel of how to explain it. He then threw it back on "truthers" to explain how that would support CD. In short I think a logical interpretation of his post (through all of his usual semantic maze) is that molten steel is very bad for the official story. Though of course he'll never admit it. To which your reply was "Sure."

So you in essence have agreed your furnace is not a viable option and you would not have a theory for why there would be molten steel. Put this against the main point of this thread which is that you conceded there was molten steel, and were essentially asking "So what?" You have just admitted you got your answer to "so what?" So this thread should be over.

 

[excaza]

So, in conclusion, there is still no theory about how molten steel could be present.

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm not aware of any WW2 incendiary bombs using thermite. As far as I know, the only use of thermite in WW2 was in grenade form. The main active ingredient of the incendiaries used in the Dresden raid would have been white phosphorus. As for "pools of molten metal", we know that people use the term very loosely, whether to mean red-hot metal, metal that's reached some kind of softening point, metal that is currently liquid, or metal that was at some previous time molten. It seems fairly clear from this quote that the metal wasn't molten at the time the bunkers were re-opened; why would it be said that the uncommonly high temperatures were "testified to" by melted cooking utensils, when if they were still liquid the uncommonly high temperatures could simply have been measured?

Aluminium cooking utensils were of course very common in the 1940s, so the temperature may have been no higher than about 700ºC here in any case. So, no thermite, and temperatures accessible to a normal hydrocarbon fire. It seems to me that the results of the Dresden bombing are completely irrelevant here."

Well Dave I guess there are a few things you do not know.

http://www.archive.org/stream/Apocalypse1945TheDestructionOfDresden_44/Dresden_1995_djvu.txt
"The catastrophe which hit Wuppertal-Barmen that night could in fact be attributed to the employment of fire-raisers-in this case Lancaster bombers each loaded with ninety-six thirty-pound liquid-filled incendiary bombs and 1,080 of the four-pound thermite fire-bombs.

Although the bomb load which each Lancaster could carry was small in view of the eleven hours and twenty minutes duration of the flight, of the 480 tons of bombs dropped, 34? tons were fire-bombs of the small and particularly potent four-pound thermite type.


Altogether 234 Lancasters attacked dropping 872 tons of bombs within forty minutes, including 286,000 thermite fire bombs and nearly two hundred four-thousand pound block-busters.


...and only two aircraft, one of them a Mosquito, were lost during the whole attack, while 2 of 8 of the 213 despatched were able to drop their 863 tons of bombs -including no fewer than 420,000 thermite bombs-...

The incendiary bombs being more usually dropped from small bomb containers- metal trunks in the bomb bays, in which the 21-inch long hexagonal four-pound thermite incendiaries were stowed, and from which they were released into the wind over the target; these showers of small bombs presented a danger to other aircraft over the target area, and possessed no ballistic properties which enabled them to be accurately aimed."

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I trust you follow the lack of a previous example, so I will not bother to explain that more.

Let's look at it from two points of view. An alternative theory is correct, and the official story is correct.

If an alternative theory is correct, and there is molten steel, if your furnace is a viable option they would have no problem reporting it, because there is an acceptable solution. Yet there was none reported.

If the official story is correct, your furnace would seem to be wrong on the outset. There should have been molten steel, and since there is no cover up they surely would have said that there was molten steel.

So either way your furnace does not appear to be a viable option.

TMD, stop digging! you say reports of molten steel are proof of thermite but also that no reports of molten steel prove no furnace effect! you can't have it both ways!