Merged So there was melted steel

[GlennB]

by listening instead of sleeping in English class

No, you were going by what you THOUGHT he had said. No one else had any difficulty in comprehending it.

proven to or just people reporting "molten steel?

You are getting confused (again), There was no molten steel at ground zero ....

I've only just noticed that we cross-posted, to almost identical effect. Weird coincidence, or just being paid to say the same things? Our NWO emails might have had a hidden BCC .....

 

[jaydeehess]

Ah yes I'm sure it would be. Just like the WTC would have perfectly formed these conditions to have such a furnace. No doubt about it. Even Oystein doubts such a furnace took place, there's nothing more I can say. I have never found any similar type fire(due to collapse) or landfill fire that came close to coming hot enough to melt steel. Yet on this day that is what happened.

Other than the draft, this is NOT the same furnace that Oystein was referring to. I am Claiming a heated fuel and air supply.

Furthermore you completely ignore the idea that this is a fire that has characteristics of both landfill fires and office fires. The reason you cannot find a landfill fire that matches this is because its similar to but not a landfill fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

Besides the whole thing, I am having trouble with none of it. As I said before (and this is true not only in this case) things are whatever you would like them to be to suit your needs.

Oh, such as you wishing that the rubble was exactly like a landfill?

 

[jaydeehess]

Well lack of oxygen, ventilation...etc as in a landfill fire. But wait, that's one of the ways it's not like a landfill fire correct??

Correct would this be you wishing it to be whatever you want it to be?

You just come back with anything and try to make it sound like it supports your cause. When it doesn't at all. Really take a second look back at this thread...how do you think any neutral person would view it?

They would see you as the person who saw two flashes of light and developed a fantasy about a missile? Am I close?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

They would see you as the person who saw two flashes of light and developed a fantasy about a missile? Am I close?

And the one who thinks that NO reports of molten steel = Thermite AND reports of molten steel = Thermite and says so in the SAME POST!

 

[jaydeehess]

This is what he said (note we were talking about NASA thermal photos of the debris)


"So why is 1341°F (727°C) remarkable when a massive amount of burning material exists just below? 727°C is well in the range of ventilated building fires."

Let me know where he says "like" he has now clarified that he did mean like. But based on the below quote I could only conclude he meant that the pile of debris was a building fire. I wanted to clarify that for him, by stating there was clearly no building, to have a building fire. So the comparison between a regular building fire and the debris fire may not be a good one. That is all I was trying to get at.

Is the discussion going to come down to semantics?

YES, it is LIKE a building fire in that its fuel was that of an office building and parking garages, and in that it had a supply of air. It was UNLIKE an office fire in that it was underground and thus obviously much more insulated than an office fire.

I mentioned before that convection and radiation dispersion of heat would be small and zero respectively, Convective heat loss would be slowed by the fact that escaping combustion products would have to pass through a good deal of relatively small passages to get to the surface and would lose some of their heat to the surrounding volume on the way up. Radiative loss is nil at the site of the combustion because its in an enclosed space, radiation simply heats up the next layer of fuel.
Both of those two conditions do not exist in an office fire.
The air supply in the WTC rubble does not exist in landfill fires.

Thus the underground fires in the rubble of two city center, 110 storey office structures behaved exactly like fires in the rubble of two city center, 110 storey office structures, which has some characteristics common to landfill fires and some characteristic common to standing office building fires.

Its not a case of us wishing this to be true, it IS true.

OTOH you are telling us that some unknown substance MUST have been in the rubble. Perhaps you can find a situation which exactly mimics you scenario, a rubble pile with pixie dust therm?te sprinkled throughout it.
NO??? Why not?

 

[jaydeehess]

And the one who thinks that NO reports of molten steel = Thermite AND reports of molten steel = Thermite and says so in the SAME POST!

I forgot about that.

IIRC tmd states that the eyewitness reports of molten steel prove molten steel existed and therefore there was therm?te;
and
the fact that the organizations reporting on the cause of the collapses and attacks did not mention the reports of molten steel also proves that therm?te was present.

I'd get a cramp if I attempted such leaps of faith.

 

[Oystein]

...Even Oystein doubts such a furnace took place, there's nothing more I can say. ...

Yes, we know that there 's nothing more you can say. You did not understand why I doubt that there were such furnace conditions in the GZ debris pile: This doubt is intimately connected to my even graver doubt that there were any bulk amounts of molten (liquid) steel.
Once you convince me that there was indeed molten (liquid) steel (you'd need to show that someone had a method available that validly identifies a material as molten and as steel, and actually applied that method), then the likelihood for such furnace conditions rises automatically.

But this talk about furnace conditions is still an evasion of the real question that truthers MUST answer:

If your argument is

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job
​

what is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...)? I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD. SO please tell me your story: How did whatever the evil NWO did to intentionally demolish the towers also create pools of molten steel a significant amount of time after the demolition?

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes, we know that there 's nothing more you can say. You did not understand why I doubt that there were such furnace conditions in the GZ debris pile: This doubt is intimately connected to my even graver doubt that there were any bulk amounts of molten (liquid) steel.
Once you convince me that there was indeed molten (liquid) steel (you'd need to show that someone had a method available that validly identifies a material as molten and as steel, and actually applied that method), then the likelihood for such furnace conditions rises automatically.

But this talk about furnace conditions is still an evasion of the real question that truthers MUST answer:

If your argument is

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job
​

what is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...)? I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD. SO please tell me your story: How did whatever the evil NWO did to intentionally demolish the towers also create pools of molten steel a significant amount of time after the demolition?

See the problem is (for you anyway) I know all too well what you are talking about. The premise of this thread was there was indeed molten steel. Your exact words were

"(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.)"


So your now saying you doubt the furnace but if there's molten steel, it had to be a furnace. Give me a break.

Want to know why molten steel = alternative theory. Simple molten steel can't be explained(this is by your own words "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not") Therefore something ws there that shouldn't have been there, and that was melting the steel.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, we know that there 's nothing more you can say. You did not understand why I doubt that there were such furnace conditions in the GZ debris pile: This doubt is intimately connected to my even graver doubt that there were any bulk amounts of molten (liquid) steel.
Once you convince me that there was indeed molten (liquid) steel (you'd need to show that someone had a method available that validly identifies a material as molten and as steel, and actually applied that method), then the likelihood for such furnace conditions rises automatically.

But this talk about furnace conditions is still an evasion of the real question that truthers MUST answer:

If your argument is

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job
​

what is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...)? I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD. SO please tell me your story: How did whatever the evil NWO did to intentionally demolish the towers also create pools of molten steel a significant amount of time after the demolition?

I might point out that the furnace experiment I proposed would not, IMO , produce molten steel. I said melted aluminum and possibly copper.

as for trying to get tmd to actually answer your question,,,,,,,,,, that's another story.

So far he continually argues in favour of a point that is part of the premise of this thread. Like I said before, apparently he is unable to take 'yes' for an answer.

 

[tmd2_1]

I forgot about that.

IIRC tmd states that the eyewitness reports of molten steel prove molten steel existed and therefore there was therm?te;
and
the fact that the organizations reporting on the cause of the collapses and attacks did not mention the reports of molten steel also proves that therm?te was present.

I'd get a cramp if I attempted such leaps of faith.

My logic was simple. there are only two options, official story or not..correct. If there was no cover up, and there was a furnace like affect going on, I would think there would have been plenty of reports of molten steel. So therefore no furnace affect was in place. If it was an alternative theory (and there was molten steel) if "the powers that be" really thought a furnace was an option, they would still report the molten steel. Because look at it from a conspicary point of view...wouldn't "they" love to have a way to explain the molten steel, instead of running around having to cover it up? Of course this assumes (as the OP) there was molten steel.

 

[jaydeehess]

Want to know why molten steel = alternative theory. Simple molten steel can't be explained(this is by your own words "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not") Therefore something ws there that shouldn't have been there, and that was melting the steel.

It doesn't matter because you have been asked "HOW". If you claim that there was molten steel, HOW was that created and HOW does this fit into an alternative theory of HOW the buildings collapsed?

So far you have said that if molten steel cannot be explained as a consequence of the office or rubble fires then it must equate to an alternative scenario for collapse.
HOW? EXPLAIN!

Furthermore you have been shown that reports of molten steel are most certainly not unigue to the WTC fires. You have been shown examples of other metals having melted in other fires.

These are definitive in that they show that molten metal is not unusual and that, if we accept your premise that molten steel was present because of the reports of it then you must also accept the reports of molten steel in other fires as valid and thus molten steel is certainly not unusual in such fires and therefore no other unknown materials or speculative natural draft furnaces need be invoked to explain it.

 

[jaydeehess]

My logic was simple. there are only two options, official story or not..correct.

Not really. You would be required to explain the 'not' in such a way that it makes more sense than the 'official story. You have failed in that.

If there was no cover up, and there was a furnace like affect going on, I would think there would have been plenty of reports of molten steel.

There were plenty of reports of molten steel. That is why you believe there was molten steel. You fail to acknowledge that such reports are common to many fires.

So therefore no furnace affect was in place.

Following from above then , this statement is not shown to be correct.

If it was an alternative theory (and there was molten steel) if "the powers that be" really thought a furnace was an option, they would still report the molten steel. Because look at it from a conspicary point of view...wouldn't "they" love to have a way to explain the molten steel, instead of running around having to cover it up? Of course this assumes (as the OP) there was molten steel.

Presupposes first that there was a conspiracy, and then that TPTB are concerned with the musings of a fringe element of society.

It is circular logic to boot.
"If there was a conspiracy then TPTB would try to cover it up or not metion it therefore since it was not mentioned there was a conspiracy and therefore they did not mention it."

 

[WildCat]

So far you have said that if molten steel cannot be explained as a consequence of the office or rubble fires then it must equate to an alternative scenario for collapse.
HOW? EXPLAIN!

I predict that tmd2_1 will be unable to answer this question.

 

[Oystein]

My logic was simple. there are only two options, official story or not..correct. ...

INCORRECT.

There are a zillion options, or two, or three, or ten, or one. One is the bare minimum: The official story.
If you think there is (at least) a second optional story, it's your job to tell that story. You haven't told us that story yet!

 

[Oystein]

See the problem is (for you anyway) I know all too well what you are talking about. ...

No, you do not.
Sorry if I was unclear about the fact that my "for the record" statement did not assume the premise of the OP to be true. I put that statement in parentheses, as it was not intended to answer the OP. It was actually off-topic.

But this talk about furnace conditions is still an evasion of the real question that truthers MUST answer:

If your argument is

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job​

what is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...)? I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD. SO please tell me your story: How did whatever the evil NWO did to intentionally demolish the towers also create pools of molten steel a significant amount of time after the demolition?

You tried to pass this non-answer off as an answer:

Want to know why molten steel = alternative theory. ...

NO, I do NOT "Want to know why molten steel = alternative theory"
I want to to know the Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) why molten steel = CD / Inside job. Not just any "alternative" theory (this term would encompass theories without an element of conspiracy and/or controlled demolition).

... Simple molten steel can't be explained(this is by your own words "It doesn't matter if we can explain molten steel or not")

Yep, I fully agree with that: Truthers cannot explain molten steel, and that is why you have so far completely failed to provide the answer through hundreds of pages of this thread. You don't even try!

Therefore something ws there that shouldn't have been there, and that was melting the steel.

What is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) that leads you to conclude that this "something" that is obviously entirely unknown to you, or else you'd clue us in what this "something" might be, "shouldn't have been there"? How do you know that?
And what Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) leads you to further conclude (I presume you do) that this "something" is the method by which nefarious agents imploded the towers?

You see, tmd, I am asking for your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...), and all you repeat over and over and over and over again is the conclusion. Start working on your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...), tmd!

 

[ozeco41]

...I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD...

Correct.
Nor has anyone yet come forward to actually tell us how and why thermite residue in the dust from ground zero would be evidence for CD

Nor has anyone yet come forward to actually tell us how and why loud banging noises would be evidence for CD

Nor has anyone yet come forward to actually tell us how and why a collapse through the path of least resistance (mendaciously described as the path of greatest resistance) would be evidence for CD

etc...etc

No truther has ever put forward a complete pro-CD explanation that could stand scrutiny.

 

[ozeco41]

My logic was simple. there are only two options, official story or not..correct...

INCORRECT.

There are a zillion options, or two, or three, or ten, or one. One is the bare minimum: The official story.
If you think there is (at least) a second optional story, it's your job to tell that story. You haven't told us that story yet!

Ah!! The old false dilemma canard.

I doubt that anyone can be a supporter of the entire "Official Story". I'm certainly not. There are some bits I don't agree with. There is a vast lot more where I must be agnostic - I simply have never read three quarters of the NIST reports so how can I hold an opinion either for or against?

Then the usual conflation of something claimed to have been done with attribution to someone of intent or malice for doing it. This example going the truthers way: "The CD of the towers was an inside job." Well there was no CD so can we claim "no inside job". No. The legitimate claim is that CD was not an inside job.

...and dozens of other canards all dealt with about 2006.

 

[tmd2_1]

Not really. You would be required to explain the 'not' in such a way that it makes more sense than the 'official story. You have failed in that.



There were plenty of reports of molten steel. That is why you believe there was molten steel. You fail to acknowledge that such reports are common to many fires.


Following from above then , this statement is not shown to be correct.



Presupposes first that there was a conspiracy, and then that TPTB are concerned with the musings of a fringe element of society.

It is circular logic to boot.
"If there was a conspiracy then TPTB would try to cover it up or not metion it therefore since it was not mentioned there was a conspiracy and therefore they did not mention it."

I meant official verified reports of molten steel. Don't you think TPTB would love to shut people like me up? They could say there was molten steel, and there's a reason why. This is of course assuming as the OP said there was in fact molten steel. You know so people like Gross don't have to deny that there were even reports of it, or he knows of no one who said they saw it.

You bet TPTB would be concerned about a "fringe" movement, I mean assume it was a conspicary and you were involved, don't you think you would not want it to get out?

 

[tmd2_1]

No, you do not.
Sorry if I was unclear about the fact that my "for the record" statement did not assume the premise of the OP to be true. I put that statement in parentheses, as it was not intended to answer the OP. It was actually off-topic.

But this talk about furnace conditions is still an evasion of the real question that truthers MUST answer:

If your argument is

Molten steel -> Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) -> CD / Inside job​

what is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...)? I take it no-one has yet come forward to actually tell us how and why molten steel would be evidence for CD. SO please tell me your story: How did whatever the evil NWO did to intentionally demolish the towers also create pools of molten steel a significant amount of time after the demolition?

You tried to pass this non-answer off as an answer:

NO, I do NOT "Want to know why molten steel = alternative theory"
I want to to know the Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) why molten steel = CD / Inside job. Not just any "alternative" theory (this term would encompass theories without an element of conspiracy and/or controlled demolition).

Yep, I fully agree with that: Truthers cannot explain molten steel, and that is why you have so far completely failed to provide the answer through hundreds of pages of this thread. You don't even try!


What is your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) that leads you to conclude that this "something" that is obviously entirely unknown to you, or else you'd clue us in what this "something" might be, "shouldn't have been there"? How do you know that?
And what Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...) leads you to further conclude (I presume you do) that this "something" is the method by which nefarious agents imploded the towers?

You see, tmd, I am asking for your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...), and all you repeat over and over and over and over again is the conclusion. Start working on your Reasoning (using established facts, scientific laws, logic...), tmd!

Your pattern of posting is always the same, you simply find something turn it back on me (or whoever) to explain, and you really don't so much of anything.
Here's a theory on a very high level for you. Your own words you can't explain molten steel? A natural deduction from that is that there is no natural cause. How about something was put in there to melt the steel to help in the demolition of the building? How's that for a wild theory. I mean that's what your asking for essentially for right? How does molten steel, mean an alternative theory? How did the molten steel get there? There's your answer, that's how molten steel = alternative theory. I mean really when does it end with you guys, do you want me to tell you when the people who were wiring the buildings were taking bathroom breaks as well?

More detailed theories have been explained to you before, we only have to look at MM in this thread. You just dismiss it. It's not my fault you do that.

But it's your own words, and you can try and put it back on me all you want. But anybody reading this that's even the slightest bit open minded, knows that not being able to explain molten steel (as you admitted) is not good for the official story.