Merged So there was melted steel

[IDB87]

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.

The bolded bit is your job.

He then threw it back on "truthers" to explain how that would support CD.

It wouldn't have to be CD per say. What do you think it supports?

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.

Head_desk.jpeg

 

[twinstead]

HOW are reports of molten steel bad for the official story? How are they bad for ANY story?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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."

No a logical interpretation is that molten steel doesn't matter at all to the "official story".

So you in essence have agreed your furnace is not a viable option

It is if there was molten steel..........if there wasn't then its moot whether it could have existed or not.

and you would not have a theory for why there would be molten steel.

No. If there was molten steel we have a credible theory why that might be, if there wasn't molten steel then we don't need a theory for it!

Put this against the main point of this thread which is that you conceded there was molten steel,

NO he didn't. learn to read! The PREMISE was that it existed not that it actually did.

Definition of PREMISE
1
a : a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn

Note the use of the word "supposed"..........

and were essentially asking "So what?" You have just admitted you got your answer to "so what?"

Yes we did but I don't think you grasped that.......the discussion concluded that a furnace could have formed in the debris and could have melted steel.
Twoofers did not come up with any credible way that thermite could have resulted in molten steel so a logical conclusion is that even if there was molten steel at ground zero it doesn't mean anything.

So this thread should be over.

You ended it several posts back, you just don't seem to have grasped that yet

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

No.

Let's suppose that it is possible, but not certain, that a furnace effect can create molten steel in the rubble pile. In that case, neither a report of molten steel nor a lack of reports of molten steel is inconsistent with the possibility of a furnace effect, given that such an effect may or may not occur. It seems, therefore, that the only inconsistency you have highlighted is between the alternative theory and a lack of reports of molten steel. I don't happen to agree with you on that, but I admire the skillful way you've painted yourself into a corner despite there being no paint in the can.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

So thats 840 tons of thermite bombs, equivalent to the energy output of about IIRC 100 tons of wood, so maybe two or three houses.......

now spread your thermite over 15sq miles and we have, at most, a small campfire per acre.......hardly enough to toast marshmallows.

It was the building burnings that killed all those people and melted kitchen pots not the "matches" that started the fires.

 

[tmd2_1]

No a logical interpretation is that molten steel doesn't matter at all to the "official story".



It is if there was molten steel..........if there wasn't then its moot whether it could have existed or not.



No. If there was molten steel we have a credible theory why that might be, if there wasn't molten steel then we don't need a theory for it!




NO he didn't. learn to read! The PREMISE was that it existed not that it actually did.



Note the use of the word "supposed"..........



Yes we did but I don't think you grasped that.......the discussion concluded that a furnace could have formed in the debris and could have melted steel.
Twoofers did not come up with any credible way that thermite could have resulted in molten steel so a logical conclusion is that even if there was molten steel at ground zero it doesn't mean anything.




You ended it several posts back, you just don't seem to have grasped that yet

My points were clear, nothing you said contradicts them, in the slightest.

 

[Sunstealer]

So thats 840 tons of thermite bombs, equivalent to the energy output of about IIRC 100 tons of wood, so maybe two or three houses.......

now spread your thermite over 15sq miles and we have, at most, a small campfire per acre.......hardly enough to toast marshmallows.

It was the building burnings that killed all those people and melted kitchen pots not the "matches" that started the fires.

MM seems not to understand what an incendiary is. Hardly surprising.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

My points were clear, nothing you said contradicts them, in the slightest.

I agree, your points were perfectly clear

You said that reports molten steel proves CD and that the lack of reports of molten steel also proves CD. However only you could think that makes sense.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

http://www.archive.org/stream/Apocalypse1945TheDestructionOfDresden_44/Dresden_1995_djvu.txt

I'd be more inclined to believe someone who wasn't David Irving. Holocaust deniers are despicable liars and worthless scum, and they tend to be rather worse than incompetent at research, so if his unsupported word is all you have then I don't consider it worth anything at all. Do you have any sources written by people who deserve to be members of the human race?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7583166&postcount=497

 

[Oystein]

I trust this will be the end of the thread?

How could it be, when not a single significant answer from the OP has been answered by any truther at all?
Unless you admit that truthers cannot and will not answer these questions, EVER, because there IS no logical and factual connection between collapse initiation mode and reports of molten steel.

In Oyestein's post he stated that your furnace is not a viable option.

FALSE.
I stated that I have serious doubts about such "furnaces" being the root cause for reports of molten steel. That is not the same as saying they are not viable (impossible).

Stop those deceiving tactics, quote or paraphrase my words correctly!

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.

Although you put it in a slightly deceptive way, this is not entirely wrong: Yes, I have no theory to explain this hypothetical existence of molten steel. I don't need one - I don't think the premise "there was molten steel" is true, so why should I offer a theoretical explanation? This is like saying "What you believe as the history of the moon is wrong, because you don't have a theory that explains green cheese on the moon if the moon consists of green cheese".

He then threw it back on "truthers" to explain how that would support CD.

Yep, because both the "molten steel" premise and the "thermite / CD / inside job" conclusion are yours, not mine. I don't have to explain claims that I don't believe to be true. Would you do that?
But you believe "molten steel" is correct, right? And you also believe "thermite / CD / inside job", right? And you also believe that there is some logical connection between the two, right? Don't you think it is fair to ask you what that logical connection between the two is?

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.

No, I don't think that at all!
I think that reports of molten steel are totally unremarkable and have no bearing at all on the oficial story; and I think that presence of actual bulk amounts of molten steel is highly unlikely; this assessment goes as a factor into the Baysean logic which makes me further believe that furnaces that melt steel are highly unlikely, too. (You probably don't know what Baysean is, right? )

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.

Your logic is flawed.

 

[Travis]

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.

Sorry, this is not the way logic works. Just because an outcome didn't happen because of numerous variables doesn't mean that an explanation for one possible outcome is wrong. When the pile comes down it will either do so in such a way that it will form this natural furnace effect or it won't. Whether this happens will depend on chaotic factors that probably start at the quantum level. But if it does--and then it does melt some steel--we have a potential explanation for it.

Think of it this way. I have a huge pile of junk outside and in middle of it, somewhere, is an electrical device that is live. I now pour water on it. If the water falls down through the pile in one particular way it will hit the live electrical device. That should cause an immediate short.

So now IF I hear a loud pop and see smoke I have an explanation for why it occurred. The fact that it might not happen if the water cascades in a slightly different way doesn't invalidate the idea that water will short out the device and cause that reaction. And if it does "pop" and make smoke you can't come in and say the real reason is someone snuck a bunch of potassium pellets into the pile when no one was looking. Especially not if the presence of the electrical device is already established while the potassium is not.

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.

I have conceded nothing. It's your job to figure out why molten steel was there if it was as I already have one explanation that satisfies me. Do you believe molten steel was there? Do you still believe the only way it could be there is through a bunch of magic thermite that only goes off underground?

 

[jaydeehess]

How could it be, when not a single significant answer from the OP has been answered by any truther at all?
Unless you admit that truthers cannot and will not answer these questions, EVER, because there IS no logical and factual connection between collapse initiation mode and reports of molten steel.

To give props where props are due MM has put forth that he believes that the molten steel was there from the beginning and was kept molten by the slow release of heat due to the insulative effects of the rubble pile.

That is as close to answering the OP that anyone has come.

tmd insists on debating the existance of molten steel in a thread in which the OP assumes there is molten steel.
A clear case of an inability to take 'yes' for an answer it would seem.

tmd asserts that since no 'official' account exists concerning molten steel or any discussion of how such would be produced, that the existance of molten steel is therefore poison to the 'official' story.

Far from it of course. Take NIST for example, what was their task? To work on the damage to the buildings and the collapses. Underground fires and the effects that such fires have on the rubble of collapsed buildings was simply not their task.
FEMA had interest in the rescue and clean up and the underground fires would have hampered that effort but as proved in Centralia it already known how difficult fighting such fires is and there would be no impetus to describe in minute detail, those fires.

So I have to ask, what official agency would be interested or tasked with determining the details of the underground fires and why?

tmd asserts that this answers the qusetion of 'so what?' His reasoning goes something like this:

There are reports of molten steel>>Molten steel is not mentioned officially>>therefore molten steel is anathema to the official story>> therefore the official story is hiding the existance of molten steel because it illustrates the falseness of that history.

1) it has been shown that reports of molten steel are no uncommon
2) there is no reason for any official mention of the molten steel in the underground other than as it affected the clean up operation and certainly no reason to attempt a detailed analysis of how said molten steel came to be.
3) It does not follow, logically, that not mentioning a detail that has nothing to do with the task of a report is evidence that the report is false.
4)this still does not explain from a 911 conspiracy POV how the molten steel came to be and given that this molten steel is considered to be a cornerstone of the conspiracy 'evidence' , explaining its distribution and how it came to be is important for any conspiracy theory.

 

[Edx]

I have conceded nothing. It's your job to figure out why molten steel was there if it was as I already have one explanation that satisfies me. Do you believe molten steel was there? Do you still believe the only way it could be there is through a bunch of magic thermite that only goes off underground?

We already know Tmd always without fail chooses the least likeliest explanation he can think of even if theres a perfectly understandable simpler explanation, so I doubt you'll have much luck with this argument.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

To give props where props are due MM has put forth that he believes that the molten steel was there from the beginning and was kept molten by the slow release of heat due to the insulative effects of the rubble pile.

That would have to one heck of an insulation. perhaps if he gives us an idea of the tonnage of molten steel involved and its temperature when it has reached its "pool" we could work out just how long it would remain liquid.

 

[beachnut]

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

Dave will learn and check it out, you will continue to post nonsense about 911. Like...

...
A byproduct of the thermitic reaction with steel, is molten iron. In a confined and sufficiently well insulated location, the heat generated could also melt steel. Without the steel, the thermitic material has nothing to react with. Is that sufficiently clear?

MM

No one knows this one, how did you connect to dots to mess up this bad.? Have you retracted this nonsense yet?

 

[000063]

Were there raging, well-insulated, but somehow oxygen fed basement fires in WTC 1,2 & 7 to create molten metal and sustained heat over a period of months?

Actually, there were fires after the collapse. Whether they created molten metal after the collapse, I don't know, but it seems plausible.

Is it reasonable to presume that the fires burning high up in the WTC Twin Towers would somehow find themselves continuing to burn in the basement after each collapse?

Yes, it is.

 

[000063]

Wall of incredulity. That's new.

Are you sure you've been here since 2007?

 

[Miragememories]

What about the thermitic behavior of the dust?

We know that much of the WTC and its contents were pulverized into dust.

We know that the WTC dust is thoroughly impregnated with red chips that ignite at 430 C, at which temperature, they flare up and release a significant amount of energy.

Imagine the conditions in the debris pile where pockets have been created during the collapse and have initial temperatures high enough to ignite the red chips in any exposed dust lining the pocket.

Up above, Ground Zero debris removal operations are constantly disturbing unspent dust which continues to fall into these pockets and ignite.

Surrounded and thermally insulated by the dense mass of the pulverized debris pile, and constantly being re-supplied with falling dust, very high temperatures capable of melting metal could be achieved.

As long as any one of these thermal pockets has a minimal temperature of 430 C and a steady supply of un-ignited dust, the hotspot will perpetuate.

As each pocket is excavated, the temperature inside would immediately begin dropping and once a pocket is exposed sufficiently to reduce the temperature below 430 C, the dust would no longer ignite.

MM

 

[000063]

Are you presenting this information in support of a point, or just spitballing?