Merged So there was melted steel

[TJM]

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.

Let's see... An uniformed 9/11 truther, on an obscure internet forum, who can't even come up with a coherent narrative. I think if I were the TPTB, I would rather you and your kind keep yammering away, you'd be doing me a great favor that way.

This is of course assuming as the OP said there was in fact molten steel.

Sad that you can't (or won't) understand where Travis was going with his OP, though it has been spelled out.

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.

Still on about John Gross? There's a very important part of his statement that you consistently omit. Let's see if you're honest enough to tell me what that might be.

 

[NoahFence]

Seriously...how much of a tool do you really need to be to quote mine a person, when that quote is in the SAME FRICKIN THREAD?!?

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

TMD: catching the OP in a contradiction?

"(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.

Uh...not so much. TMD - finish reading the quote, then comment on it in its entirety, or don't bother. You truthers are so transparent it's not funny. It's like you're not even trying. YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY! NONE OF YOU ARE!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Don't you think TPTB would love to shut people like me up?

You're not that important.

 

[A W Smith]

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?? I mean seriously...all joking aside it really is in a lot of ways pointless to debate you. 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?

you are dancing tmd. the fallacy you are committing is
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle

as well as
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#selective

Also

a landfill is compact,

yet it burns

WTC? not so much

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

Don't you think TPTB would love to shut people like me up?

Why? You are a Chihuahua yapping in the wilderness.

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?

So the fact that it is "getting out" - on all the web sites and YouTube videos - must mean no conspiracy, because if there was a conspiracy, TPTB could and would use their P to silence you.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Exactly, I do that over and over again, waiting for some truther to finally try to explain something, and it turns ot that truthers cannot explain a great many things, they don't even try. They don't even understand the question!

But I am not turning anything back on anyone, unless they first turned it away from them. Remember the OP? Travis wanted to have explanations; such as if and how thermite managed to keep things molten for 6 weeks. You have not provided an explanation. You lose by default.

Here's a theory on a very high level for you.

Hm let's see if you actually have a theory...

Your own words you can't explain molten steel? A natural deduction from that is that there is no natural cause.

Wha...????
Can someone please help me out there and name that Logical Fallacy? It's a simple Non Sequitur, isn't it?
tmd, what strange world is this that you live in?? You say that, since I Oystein, cannot explain something (that I don't even really believe is factual), some random imaginary just-so-story is correct? Really?
Yep, I can turn that easily around for you:
Tmd, you can't explain molten steel? A natural deduction from that is that there is no artificial cause.
(For the record: No, I don't think that is a valid deduction; just showing tmd how mortally flawed his "natural deduction" is)

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?

So.... this something (what something? You don_t know??) was put there BEFORE the collapse, ignited BEFORE the collapse, and melted steel BEFORE the collapse, right (man, you didn't even specifically say this, I have to painstakingly guess what your theory is)? Cool. Then why did the molten steel not disperse DURING the collapse and resolidify seconds later? Why was there still molten steel weeks later? You don't explain that AT ALL.

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.

No, MM has also failed to explain why some demo method applied before (and into) the collapse resulted in molten steel weeks later.

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.

You have not even tried to explain molten steel, you have put no reasoning to it, and the facts of science are against you (thermodynamics demands that steel cools of quickly and won't be liquid any longer an hour after the event). The burden of proof is on you if you want to have your conclusion ("CD") accepted. It is not I who has to provide an explanation for something that I don't even believe to be factual. You got the whole world upside down, tmd.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

A scene from tmd2_1 at home.

tmd2_1's young son runs into the living room: "Daddy, Daddy, i saw a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1 (earnestly): "Don't worry. I will investigate"

Young son finally goes to sleep and tmd2_1 returns to speak to rational wife and her rational girlfriends.

tmd2_1 (to wife): "I think your mother has cast a spell and sent monsters into our sons wardrobe"

Wife (aghast): "What?"

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monster?"

Wife (concerned): "Honey, I don't think he really saw a monster!"

tmd2_1: "You are accusing our son of lying then?"

Wife: "No, I think he was mistaken"

tmd2_1: "Well I see no reason to doubt what he was saying and he stayed with your mother last week and I really don't trust her".

Wife (exasperated): "Lets say there really was a monster, what has this got to do with my mother?"

Wife's friend Edna X (helping): "Look tmd2_1, I've printed out lots of google reports of children reporting monsters in the wardrobe, it's really rather common and got nothing to do with your mother in law"

tmd2_1: "But even my wife said there really was a monster in the wardrobe"

Edna X: "No, she said "lets say" there was a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "You just want to have it both ways, first there isn't monsters in the wardobe and now there is".

Wife: "Honey, can you just read the reports that Edna X gave you and spend some time thinking about this, I'm really worried about you"

tmd2_1: "Edna X said she had lots of reports of children reporting monsters but a few of these are talking about boogie men, I think she's too close to your mother"

Edna X (bemused): "But most are talking about monsters though!"

Wife (now angry): "I need to know why you're blaming my mother for the monsters in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "So you accept there are monsters in the wardobe. Thank you. Now we need to report your mother"

Wife (furious): "Jesus NO! What is wrong with you? There are no monsters in the wardrobe! It could be the sleeve of his jumper crumpled like a monster face. What I'm saying is, even if there was a real monster what has this got to do with my mother?"

tmd2_1: "So you're now accepting there was a monster's face in the wardobe."

Wife: "Oh my god, I said "like" a monsters face, if it wasn't for the fact that you don't have a sense of humour I'd supect this is some hilarious joke."

tmd2_1: "You saw your mother last month at your sister's birthday, even you said she was way out of line"

Wife: "Yes she was out of line then but what does that have to do with her casting evil spells on our son."

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monsters in the wardrobe?"

Wife and Edna look at each other dejected, there own mental health is now at stake in pursuing this argument any further, but to give up seems a failure.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So wait. One person can't explain what the cause was?

And that means it must be cd?

So we use binary logic now? If it was not x, we don't consider all possible reasons and consider evidence to falsify them, we just assume y?

Oystein can't explain molten steel, if there was any, ergo Chuck Norris headbutted the steel until it was molten.tmd has yet to explain it. Ergo Chuck Norris.

Mystery solved, time for a new thread.

 

[tmd2_1]

Exactly, I do that over and over again, waiting for some truther to finally try to explain something, and it turns ot that truthers cannot explain a great many things, they don't even try. They don't even understand the question!

But I am not turning anything back on anyone, unless they first turned it away from them. Remember the OP? Travis wanted to have explanations; such as if and how thermite managed to keep things molten for 6 weeks. You have not provided an explanation. You lose by default.



Hm let's see if you actually have a theory...


Wha...????
Can someone please help me out there and name that Logical Fallacy? It's a simple Non Sequitur, isn't it?
tmd, what strange world is this that you live in?? You say that, since I Oystein, cannot explain something (that I don't even really believe is factual), some random imaginary just-so-story is correct? Really?
Yep, I can turn that easily around for you:
Tmd, you can't explain molten steel? A natural deduction from that is that there is no artificial cause.
(For the record: No, I don't think that is a valid deduction; just showing tmd how mortally flawed his "natural deduction" is)


So.... this something (what something? You don_t know??) was put there BEFORE the collapse, ignited BEFORE the collapse, and melted steel BEFORE the collapse, right (man, you didn't even specifically say this, I have to painstakingly guess what your theory is)? Cool. Then why did the molten steel not disperse DURING the collapse and resolidify seconds later? Why was there still molten steel weeks later? You don't explain that AT ALL.


No, MM has also failed to explain why some demo method applied before (and into) the collapse resulted in molten steel weeks later.


You have not even tried to explain molten steel, you have put no reasoning to it, and the facts of science are against you (thermodynamics demands that steel cools of quickly and won't be liquid any longer an hour after the event). The burden of proof is on you if you want to have your conclusion ("CD") accepted. It is not I who has to provide an explanation for something that I don't even believe to be factual. You got the whole world upside down, tmd.

What you do is ask for explanations, receive explanations, and then dismiss them without fail. All the while you offer none yourself. I will not play this game with you. You are a proven deceiver (remember the 76mm) and have no interest in real discussion. I do not know what your interest is to be honest. But it's definitely not having real discussions. Most rational people would think not being able to explain molten steel (as you admitted) is a reason to be highly suspicious. But not you, and many of the other posters here.

 

[alienentity]

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're misrepresenting what Gross said in his reply. Don't do that.

He was asked about 'huge pools of molten steel', and he responded that he had no reports of it, nor had he seen any onsite. He did not comment on the handful of reports of 'molten steel', which you are claiming, but specifically on the 'huge pools of molten steel' put to him by the questioner.

What you're doing is precisely the same distortion applied to Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' comment. I've seen many truthers claim that he said 'pull the building', when he did not.

The famous video which tries to setup Dr Gross in fact fails to quote anybody who says they saw 'huge pools of molten steel', so it appears that the questioner 'pulled' that report out of thin air. No wonder Gross denied having heard of it!

Perhaps, tmd, since you've spent so much time poring over this molten metal subject, you could enlighten us about the size of the pools of molten steel - where were they, who measured them, and what sizes were they?

btw, to remind you, there are confirmed cases of underground fires reaching 1,700°C. That's a hydrocarbon fire, and it's a fact, not speculation. So even if there indeed were some molten steel in the piles, it is physically plausible that the heat source could have been supplied by fires alone.

As the OP suggests, it still would not 'prove', in any rational way, controlled demolition of the towers. Quite the opposite, in fact. The totality of facts simply do not favour the 9/11 Truth doctrine of CD, and they never will. CD is a fantasy, that is all.

 

[alienentity]

Bravo Horace! Well put sir.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

A scene from tmd2_1 at home.

tmd2_1's young son runs into the living room: "Daddy, Daddy, i saw a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1 (earnestly): "Don't worry. I will investigate"

Young son finally goes to sleep and tmd2_1 returns to speak to rational wife and her rational girlfriends.

tmd2_1 (to wife): "I think your mother has cast a spell and sent monsters into our sons wardrobe"

Wife (aghast): "What?"

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monster?"

Wife (concerned): "Honey, I don't think he really saw a monster!"

tmd2_1: "You are accusing our son of lying then?"

Wife: "No, I think he was mistaken"

tmd2_1: "Well I see no reason to doubt what he was saying and he stayed with your mother last week and I really don't trust her".

Wife (exasperated): "Lets say there really was a monster, what has this got to do with my mother?"

Wife's friend Edna X (helping): "Look tmd2_1, I've printed out lots of google reports of children reporting monsters in the wardrobe, it's really rather common and got nothing to do with your mother in law"

tmd2_1: "But even my wife said there really was a monster in the wardrobe"

Edna X: "No, she said "lets say" there was a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "You just want to have it both ways, first there isn't monsters in the wardobe and now there is".

Wife: "Honey, can you just read the reports that Edna X gave you and spend some time thinking about this, I'm really worried about you"

tmd2_1: "Edna X said she had lots of reports of children reporting monsters but a few of these are talking about boogie men, I think she's too close to your mother"

Edna X (bemused): "But most are talking about monsters though!"

Wife (now angry): "I need to know why you're blaming my mother for the monsters in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "So you accept there are monsters in the wardobe. Thank you. Now we need to report your mother"

Wife (furious): "Jesus NO! What is wrong with you? There are no monsters in the wardrobe! It could be the sleeve of his jumper crumpled like a monster face. What I'm saying is, even if there was a real monster what has this got to do with my mother?"

tmd2_1: "So you're now accepting there was a monster's face in the wardobe."

Wife: "Oh my god, I said "like" a monsters face, if it wasn't for the fact that you don't have a sense of humour I'd supect this is some hilarious joke."

tmd2_1: "You saw your mother last month at your sister's birthday, even you said she was way out of line"

Wife: "Yes she was out of line then but what does that have to do with her casting evil spells on our son."

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monsters in the wardrobe?"

Wife and Edna look at each other dejected, there own mental health is now at stake in pursuing this argument any further, but to give up seems a failure.

Brilliant! You have TMD2 in a nutshell (note TMD, I do not mean literally in an actual nutshell............)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What you do is ask for explanations, receive explanations, and then dismiss them without fail.

Well there is that little issue of credibility.........what else would one do with incredible explanations. And no you don't do explanations......just assertions.

All the while you offer none yourself.

Covered ad nauseum......you make the assertions, you need to provide the explanations.

I will not play this game with you.

Why? because you hate losing?

You are a proven deceiver

Creepily pseudo religious........

and have no interest in real discussion.

Irony at it finest.

"

Most rational people would think not being able to explain molten steel (as you admitted) is a reason to be highly suspicious.

Why? I can't explain how light travels through space and appears to be both a particle and a wave but I'm not suspicious at all that light doesn't exist!
Only an paranoid idiot would assume that just because they could not explain something that this meant it was suspicious.

But not you, and many of the other posters here.

We are not paranoid idiots..............

 

[tmd2_1]

A scene from tmd2_1 at home.

tmd2_1's young son runs into the living room: "Daddy, Daddy, i saw a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1 (earnestly): "Don't worry. I will investigate"

Young son finally goes to sleep and tmd2_1 returns to speak to rational wife and her rational girlfriends.

tmd2_1 (to wife): "I think your mother has cast a spell and sent monsters into our sons wardrobe"

Wife (aghast): "What?"

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monster?"

Wife (concerned): "Honey, I don't think he really saw a monster!"

tmd2_1: "You are accusing our son of lying then?"

Wife: "No, I think he was mistaken"

tmd2_1: "Well I see no reason to doubt what he was saying and he stayed with your mother last week and I really don't trust her".

Wife (exasperated): "Lets say there really was a monster, what has this got to do with my mother?"

Wife's friend Edna X (helping): "Look tmd2_1, I've printed out lots of google reports of children reporting monsters in the wardrobe, it's really rather common and got nothing to do with your mother in law"

tmd2_1: "But even my wife said there really was a monster in the wardrobe"

Edna X: "No, she said "lets say" there was a monster in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "You just want to have it both ways, first there isn't monsters in the wardobe and now there is".

Wife: "Honey, can you just read the reports that Edna X gave you and spend some time thinking about this, I'm really worried about you"

tmd2_1: "Edna X said she had lots of reports of children reporting monsters but a few of these are talking about boogie men, I think she's too close to your mother"

Edna X (bemused): "But most are talking about monsters though!"

Wife (now angry): "I need to know why you're blaming my mother for the monsters in the wardrobe"

tmd2_1: "So you accept there are monsters in the wardobe. Thank you. Now we need to report your mother"

Wife (furious): "Jesus NO! What is wrong with you? There are no monsters in the wardrobe! It could be the sleeve of his jumper crumpled like a monster face. What I'm saying is, even if there was a real monster what has this got to do with my mother?"

tmd2_1: "So you're now accepting there was a monster's face in the wardobe."

Wife: "Oh my god, I said "like" a monsters face, if it wasn't for the fact that you don't have a sense of humour I'd supect this is some hilarious joke."

tmd2_1: "You saw your mother last month at your sister's birthday, even you said she was way out of line"

Wife: "Yes she was out of line then but what does that have to do with her casting evil spells on our son."

tmd2_1: "How else can you explain the monsters in the wardrobe?"

Wife and Edna look at each other dejected, there own mental health is now at stake in pursuing this argument any further, but to give up seems a failure.

Brilliant indeed. Amazing what you guys will do. You take something that would have a rational explanation..monster in the closet, and compare it to something that by at least what some people have said they do not have an explanation for. Truly amazing. Comparing a "monster in a closet" to molten steel, and even more amazing that other people will really think this is brilliant. When it is really sad more than anything else.

 

[tmd2_1]

You're misrepresenting what Gross said in his reply. Don't do that.

He was asked about 'huge pools of molten steel', and he responded that he had no reports of it, nor had he seen any onsite. He did not comment on the handful of reports of 'molten steel', which you are claiming, but specifically on the 'huge pools of molten steel' put to him by the questioner.

What you're doing is precisely the same distortion applied to Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' comment. I've seen many truthers claim that he said 'pull the building', when he did not.

The famous video which tries to setup Dr Gross in fact fails to quote anybody who says they saw 'huge pools of molten steel', so it appears that the questioner 'pulled' that report out of thin air. No wonder Gross denied having heard of it!

Perhaps, tmd, since you've spent so much time poring over this molten metal subject, you could enlighten us about the size of the pools of molten steel - where were they, who measured them, and what sizes were they?

btw, to remind you, there are confirmed cases of underground fires reaching 1,700°C. That's a hydrocarbon fire, and it's a fact, not speculation. So even if there indeed were some molten steel in the piles, it is physically plausible that the heat source could have been supplied by fires alone.

As the OP suggests, it still would not 'prove', in any rational way, controlled demolition of the towers. Quite the opposite, in fact. The totality of facts simply do not favour the 9/11 Truth doctrine of CD, and they never will. CD is a fantasy, that is all.

You can argue about what a "pool" is all you like. Witnesses certainly say they saw what they believed to be steel in a liquid form. Making Gross a liar. If you're so concerned about it, contact him, I'm sure he would love to sue the makers of that video, for libeling him.

Next can you show me one of these reports of fires getting that high?

 

[alienentity]

You can argue about what a "pool" is all you like. Witnesses certainly say they saw what they believed to be steel in a liquid form. Making Gross a liar. If you're so concerned about it, contact him, I'm sure he would love to sue the makers of that video, for libeling him.

Next can you show me one of these reports of fires getting that high?

OK, not only did you answer a question with a question, which is a cheap, stupid tactic (you cannot offer any sizing of the pools, so you just avoided it and attempted to blame Gross AGAIN!)

But, your accusation that Gross is a liar is enough for me. You are now on ignore. You have graduated into that unfortunate group of dishonest individuals who purport to look for 'truth' but are in reality internet trolls.

Goodbye

 

[alienentity]

One further note about my putting tmd on ignore - if he had been able to show that

a) there were in fact reports of huge pools of molten steel, as alleged in the video
b) that Dr Gross had received these reports

He could then make an honest claim that Dr. Gross is lying. However, he has done neither of those things, to meet even a minimum burden of proof for his (very serious) accusation.

His lack of honesty coupled with his obvious slander earns him a place on my ignore list. His input here is worthless, his lack of honesty amply demonstrated. Another troll bites the dust....

 

[djlunacee]

Brilliant indeed. Amazing what you guys will do. You take something that would have a rational explanation..monster in the closet, and compare it to something that by at least what some people have said they do not have an explanation for. Truly amazing. Comparing a "monster in a closet" to molten steel, and even more amazing that other people will really think this is brilliant. When it is really sad more than anything else.

Reread. You missed the point. Just like all truthers you focus on one single point of minutia, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

 

[jaydeehess]

I meant official verified reports of molten steel. Don't you think TPTB would love to shut people like me up?

No, I believe that the people in charge could not care less about what you say.

They could say there was molten steel, and there's a reason why.

They would do that if the supposed molten steel in the underground rubble could be shown to have any bearing on the official reports that were commissioned. It doesn't and therefore those reports do not contain any investigation into it.

This is of course assuming as the OP said there was in fact molten steel.

As I explain above, the existance of molten anything in the underground rubble cannot be shown to have anything to do with the pervue of the official reports commissioned.

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?

You realize you just debunked yourself, right?

You ask me to consider IF there was a conspiracy there would be a cover up as you envison it. However that sword cuts both ways tmd, imagine if you will that there was no conspiracy. Would the musings of a fringe group be considered worth addressing? NO!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Where is the evidence there were pools of molten steel?
Where is the evidence that connects molten steel to any form of CD?
Where is the viable mechanism through which a form of CD can melt steel?
Where is the evidence that the steel was produced by a CD?
Where is the evidence that molten steel can not be produced by fire alone?