Merged So there was melted steel

[jaydeehess]

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.

This is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. You are saying that since one element of an event is not fully explained then your contention of nefarious intent and actions are valid and MUST be the only other explanation.

One problem with the above is the first hilited section. You assume that since it has not been explained that it COULD NOT be a natural consequence of the collapses.

Another lies with the second hilted section where you fail to address the question posed, and instead posting a reiteration of the OP.

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?

No, however it would be pertinent if you explained how it was wired to do what was observed and how this accomplished the molten steel in the underground (and incidentally , not on the surface) of the rubble.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Whats the rational explanation for a monster in a closet and how does it differ from your "molten steel"?

There are eye witnesses for both, the eye witnesses are mistaken, grown ups dismiss both as silly.

"Comparing a "monster in a closet" to molten steel"

Why not? both are stories by people who were mistaken. You have no more proof that your molten steel ever actually existed than the kid has for his monster.

and even more amazing that other people will really think this is brilliant.

Twoofers also lack a sense of humor....perhaps if they stopped being the joke they might just get it.

When it is really sad more than anything else.

True, mental illness resulting in insane beliefs by grown adults is sad. Have you spoken to your doctor about this?

 

[jaydeehess]

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?

Holy Carp! You were just told that Gross responded to a question SPECIFICALLY about huge pools of molten steel. THERE ARE NONE!. There are reports that use terms like "little' in reference to the amount of molten metal and some of these refer to the metal as steel.

Indeed IF there were large pools of steel, significant quantities, then those would have been removed as solid blobs of steel. You cannot show us any picture OR report of any such large blob. Each and every picture the 911 CT movement has posted is that of something that was never molten. Its either a red hot chunk of steel or a 'meterorite' with bits of combustible materials sticking out of it(obviously never particularily hot)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

duplicate

 

[jaydeehess]

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?

What is the mechanism by which this molten steel is found exclusivly underground rather than either still molten or in resolidified compostion, on the surface?

 

[NoahFence]

Comparing a "monster in a closet" to molten steel,

They've both got the same chance of actually being there....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

They've both got the same chance of actually being there....

In fact the monster is far more likely than his pools of molten Steel. Monsters do exist, both animal and Human and the latter at least have been known to hide in closets and come out and attack their victims.

Now molten steel pools? not so much. remotely possible but not likely and no credible evidence that any existed at all.

 

[Oystein]

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

This is either a plain lie, or a sign of utter stupidity, because you haven't even tried to present that explanation; you the thing called Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) that connects the premise "molten steel weeks after collapse" with the conclusion "CD".

I'll give you some hints what that Reasoning should take care of:
- No method of CDing buildings that's ever actually employed produces any molten steel whatsoever
- thermite contains so little energy, it can't keep steel molten for more than a few minutes, more likely for some seconds only
- No reports of "molten steel" also mention blindingly bright light typical of the thermite reaction

All the while you offer none yourself.

Because there is nothing to be explained. There is zero reason to assume that there was any molten steel. If there was molten steel, despite the odds, there is absolutely no explanation involving CD, so who cares what the correct explanation would be?

I will not play this game with you. You are a proven deceiver (remember the 76mm) and have no interest in real discussion.

Ad hom.

I do not know what your interest is to be honest.

What a surprise.
My interest is to lead you to the realisation that you know nothing and have no theory and all your believes about 9/11 are false and in each and every case the opposite is more likely true.

But it's definitely not having real discussions.

You are wrong. As always.

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

highly suspicious of WHAT?

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

Most people here are rational. You are not. You are devout follower of a creed.

 

[Oystein]

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

What - tmd using deceptive techniques? You don't say...

 

[Oystein]

Brilliant indeed. Amazing what you guys will do. You take something that would have a rational explanation..

..which you fail to provide despite having been asked a hunbdred times.
Quite an evasive rational explanation. Maybe ... it doesn't exist!?

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.

You failed to get the metaphor. Things that don't exist don't require an explanation. Only when YOU claim they do exist do YOU need to provide an explanation. Easy concept really, but very high above your head, apparently.

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.

There's mno monster in the wardrobe despite numerous reports of monsters in wardrobes.
And there is no molten steel in the debris despite numerous reports of molten steel in the debris.

But even if there were molten steel, this doesn't mean "CD". If you think it does, you must provide some Reasoning.

 

[Travis]

I wonder if this line of thinking that Truthers exhibit would also lead them to believe that the existence of a billion year old nuclear reactor must mean visitation by aliens a billion years ago?

After all you don't see nuclear reactors just naturally forming all over the place today.

 

[tmd2_1]

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

oh no not on ignore, whatever shall I do? Gross is a liar it's as simple as that. Ever wonder why he doesn't sue the people that call him a liar? It's not just me, there are people well known people who have said it. You'd think he'd do something.

By the way thanks for the documented reports of fires getting as hot as you said.

 

[tmd2_1]

This is either a plain lie, or a sign of utter stupidity, because you haven't even tried to present that explanation; you the thing called Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) that connects the premise "molten steel weeks after collapse" with the conclusion "CD".

I'll give you some hints what that Reasoning should take care of:
- No method of CDing buildings that's ever actually employed produces any molten steel whatsoever
- thermite contains so little energy, it can't keep steel molten for more than a few minutes, more likely for some seconds only
- No reports of "molten steel" also mention blindingly bright light typical of the thermite reaction


Because there is nothing to be explained. There is zero reason to assume that there was any molten steel. If there was molten steel, despite the odds, there is absolutely no explanation involving CD, so who cares what the correct explanation would be?


Ad hom.


What a surprise.
My interest is to lead you to the realisation that you know nothing and have no theory and all your believes about 9/11 are false and in each and every case the opposite is more likely true.


You are wrong. As always.


highly suspicious of WHAT?


Most people here are rational. You are not. You are devout follower of a creed.

I told you I'm not playing games with you. Anybody somewhat open minded will see what is going on. There's always more and more questions yet you answer none. As I said any rational person would think not being able to explain molten steel is suspicious. Viewers of this thread can make their own decisions. Of course I don't necessarily mean posters here, we already know what they will say.

 

[Travis]

I told you I'm not playing games with you. Anybody somewhat open minded will see what is going on. There's always more and more questions yet you answer none. As I said any rational person would think not being able to explain molten steel is suspicious. Viewers of this thread can make their own decisions. Of course I don't necessarily mean posters here, we already know what they will say.

Except we have offered an explanation.

And, besides, just looking suspicious does not mean something is malicious.

 

[Oystein]

I told you I'm not playing games with you. Anybody somewhat open minded will see what is going on.

Correct: Truthers dodging and dancing around the fact that they don't have an explanation beyond "something, I don't know what, did something, I don't know how" (and that is a literal rendering of your theory!).

There's always more and more questions yet you answer none.

Since I am not proposing a conclusion, why should I have to answer your questions?

As I said any rational person would think not being able to explain molten steel is suspicious.

Suspicios of WHAT? That's Call to Perfection Logical Fallacy coupled with False Dilemma Logical Fallacy. Why do we have to be able to explain absolutely everything, yet you have to explain absolutely nothing? And why is lack of an explanation within theory A evidence for theory B, and not, say, theory C, D, E or F?

Viewers of this thread can make their own decisions. Of course I don't necessarily mean posters here, we already know what they will say.

This callout to lurkers rarely goes well for truthers. last year, a fellow called jammonius addressed a large number of his posts to "posters and lkurkers", causing many lurkers to delurk. The result was 100%: Every single lurker that delurked declared that jammonius was insane and his posts as wrong as wrong gets.
And still jammo continued to claim that lurkers would support him.
A case of total detachment from reality, a delusion.

You are likewise deluded if you believe there are any lurkers who think you are not losing here.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I told you I'm not playing games with you. Anybody somewhat open minded will see what is going on. There's always more and more questions yet you answer none. As I said any rational person would think not being able to explain molten steel is suspicious. Viewers of this thread can make their own decisions. Of course I don't necessarily mean posters here, we already know what they will say.

Yes. We can see what is going on. You are advocating there was molten steel, that must mean there was a controlled demolition, with out offering any reasoning to connect the two.

Melting steel is, and has been shown to be, common in fires. If there were pools of liquid steel, which is unlikely given your aversion to evidence, you have given no reason this was not melted by the fire, or any property that connects it to cd.

Any rational person would not expect molten steel THAT WAS NOT THERE to be explained.

 

[Oystein]

Yes. We can see what is going on. You are advocating there was molten steel, that must mean there was a controlled demolition, with out offering any reasoning to connect the two.

Melting steel is, and has been shown to be, common in fires. If there were pools of liquid steel, which is unlikely given your aversion to evidence, you have given no reason this was not melted by the fire, or any property that connects it to cd.

Any rational person would not expect molten steel THAT WAS NOT THERE to be explained.

Tomtomkent, I suspect that's not what you mean. Care to check? Do you mean "reports of molten steel"? Or molten metal?

 

[GlennB]

Indeed. Peak temperatures in house fires are in the 1000-1100°C range, sustained temperatures a good deal lower. Not sufficient to melt steel.

Perhaps the problem here is the word "melt", which some take to include "soften to the point of failure". Dunno.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To clarify I meant that in industrial fires it is not uncommon for metals (not steel, my mistake) to melt, warp, or even reach a liquid state. This may be less common in domestic fires, but certainly in fires around depots, warehouses, and so forth, it is not uncommon and i beleieve examples have been given elsewhere in this forum.

Sorry for any confusion.

The point remains that should molten metals have been found in the rubble there are known causes that do not require a conspiracy, and no mechanism by which the conspiracy would expect to produce molten metals.

As no evidence has been produced they were found the point is moot.

 

[tmd2_1]

Correct: Truthers dodging and dancing around the fact that they don't have an explanation beyond "something, I don't know what, did something, I don't know how" (and that is a literal rendering of your theory!).


Since I am not proposing a conclusion, why should I have to answer your questions?


Suspicios of WHAT? That's Call to Perfection Logical Fallacy coupled with False Dilemma Logical Fallacy. Why do we have to be able to explain absolutely everything, yet you have to explain absolutely nothing? And why is lack of an explanation within theory A evidence for theory B, and not, say, theory C, D, E or F?


This callout to lurkers rarely goes well for truthers. last year, a fellow called jammonius addressed a large number of his posts to "posters and lkurkers", causing many lurkers to delurk. The result was 100%: Every single lurker that delurked declared that jammonius was insane and his posts as wrong as wrong gets.
And still jammo continued to claim that lurkers would support him.
A case of total detachment from reality, a delusion.

You are likewise deluded if you believe there are any lurkers who think you are not losing here.

As I said viewers of this thread can make their own conclusions as to whether or not the presence of unexplainable (your words) molten steel is suspicious or not.