Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

Clearly I am not. Simply stating, that whatever you believe happened on 9/11 it was the result of a malicious act.

As the premise of the original thread there was molten steel. If you believe the official story 100% correct that molten steel would not have been there if the planes were not flown into the buildings. Meaning the planes flying into the buildings resulted in the furnace, and therefore the molten steel. This if you believe the official story correct.

In short anything and everything that was at ground zero (aside from worker's hats..etc) was the result of a malicious act. We may believe they were different malicious acts and who was behind them, but they were the result of a malicious act nonetheless. This is something we all agree on. That's all I am saying in this point.

I've also made it clear I understood that was not the intent of this thread. It is why should molten steel = alternative theory? Which I have been trying to explain.

Deflect much?

Listen kiddo - you don't think planes+fire = collapse. You think planes+fire = irrelevant. CD = Collapse.

Enough with the wordsmithing -

WHY does molten steel = Controlled Demo?

 

[Oystein]

Clearly I am not. Simply stating, that whatever you believe happened on 9/11 it was the result of a malicious act.

This makes no distinction between what we believe and what you believe

As the premise of the original thread there was molten steel. If you believe the official story 100% correct that molten steel would not have been there if the planes were not flown into the buildings.

Strawman Logical Fallacy
This claim is never made by any version of the "official story". Also not made by anyone here as far as I can see. The "official story" is totally unconcerned with details of rubble pile conditions.
It is only ever made by truthers. You just made that claim, tmd.

Meaning the planes flying into the buildings resulted in the furnace, and therefore the molten steel. This if you believe the official story correct.

...resulted only ultimately, that is, very indirectly, in whatever conditions arose at GZ. They proximately caused fires, and the fires proximately caused the collapses, and the collapses proximately caused the debris pile and its conditions.
It follows that it didn't necessarly take planes, or any other means of malicious intent, to proximately cause debris conditions. Any non-malicious, for example accidental, fire of that proportion would have caused very similar conditions, with the same likelihood of furnaces and molten steel. Unless you have some Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) up your sleeve to convince us otherwise.

In short anything and everything that was at ground zero (aside from worker's hats..etc) was the result of a malicious act. We may believe they were different malicious acts and who was behind them, but they were the result of a malicious act nonetheless. This is something we all agree on. That's all I am saying in this point.

In short, you agree that molten steel weeks after the collapses could possibly be the ultimate result of crashing planes into the towers, and is not indicative of that story being wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

I've also made it clear I understood that was not the intent of this thread. It is why should molten steel = alternative theory? Which I have been trying to explain.

No, you have not. You have forgotten to write down your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) that led you to a conclusion which you reasserted over and over again.


It's high time for you, tmd, to start working on that Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic)

 

[Oystein]

*sigh*
...
Possibly, although highly unlikely, one such condition was molten steel weeks after the event.
...
We need you to come up with better proximate explanation that does not start with planes, but starts with some other malicious, intentional act.

Yeah that's pretty much my point.

Which is your point? I made several. That you need to come up with a better proximate explanation that does not start with planes, but starts with some other malicious, intentional act? Cool! Start now, please!

I pointed that out to him only as a passing point. A technicality so to speak. I did not intend for this to be a big deal. I understood the point of the OP, and have been trying to show, that his furnace seems highly unlikely.

Interestingly, that's what I have been saying all along.

Now you need to come up with an explanation that is more likely. Just don't forget to include your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) this time, please.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've also made it clear I understood that was not the intent of this thread. It is why should molten steel = alternative theory? Which I have been trying to explain.

But it's not true that alternative theory = conspiracy theory. Nor is it true that a low probability of conditions in a hydrocarbon fire able to cause molten steel weeks after the collapses implies thermite, because thermite cannot explain molten steel weeks after the collapses at all. So, if we have a phenomenon we cannot understand, namely molten steel in the rubble pile, how does this favour an impossible theory over a merely improbable one?

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

LOL

TMD won't even answer why he won't answer a question.....

 

[Tomtomkent]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct.

Well, you can say that all you like, but it isn't answering the question asked is it? WHAT malicious act? HOW does steel melted in the debris AFTER a demolition prove that steel was melted DURING the demolition, or that it CAUSED the demolition?


And note this is still a hypothetical "IF there was molten steel" discussion. You seem to be working on the theory that in this alternate universe, where I wear an eyepatch, Elvis is still touring and there is molten steel in the rubble the official reports would for what ever reason have ignored it. IF there were molten steel in the rubble, some of the MANY official reports, the clean up sheets, the hazardous waste clearance, the contractors called in to shift it, etc, would have mentioned it. There would be tangible evidence not claims. So your "Even if you believe the official story 100%" is odd.

 

[Travis]

I trust, that I have explained clearly, that if there was molten steel, it was the result of a malicious act, even if you believe the official story 100% correct. The molten steel would not have been there had those planes not been flown into the buildings, and that is certainly a malicious act.

Now I never said the furnace was impossible, just highly unlikely.

And nobody has said the furnace was likely. Only that it is more probable than some new mysterious substance keeping steel melted that was also, somehow, related to a controlled demolition.

You asked what are the odds of it occurring, so let's take a look at those odds. Here is what the article said "Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions took place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years"

I don't believe you can count that it was running for several hundred thousand years, as it was the same set of conditions causing it, but I'll get to that later. So that would be 16 times in 1.7 billion years, all over the world. That would be once every 106,250,000 years. Those are your odds.

Thanks for that completely irrelevant distraction. The point is that a lot of people would have doubted such a thing could have happened at all until it was found.

That's what you would be saying happened at the world trade center.

No, I never said that. I used the Oklo reactors as in imperfect example of something happening naturally that normally requires human engineering.

Now even if you want to use those "hundred thousand years" (something you clearly shouldn't) I'll just round it up to running a million years. So that's 16 million years. That's still 1 in 106.25 years. Still something that is unlikely.

Well a WTC debris pile has still only happened once in all of human history. How unlikely is that?

 

[tmd2_1]

This makes no distinction between what we believe and what you believe


Strawman Logical Fallacy
This claim is never made by any version of the "official story". Also not made by anyone here as far as I can see. The "official story" is totally unconcerned with details of rubble pile conditions.
It is only ever made by truthers. You just made that claim, tmd.


...resulted only ultimately, that is, very indirectly, in whatever conditions arose at GZ. They proximately caused fires, and the fires proximately caused the collapses, and the collapses proximately caused the debris pile and its conditions.
It follows that it didn't necessarly take planes, or any other means of malicious intent, to proximately cause debris conditions. Any non-malicious, for example accidental, fire of that proportion would have caused very similar conditions, with the same likelihood of furnaces and molten steel. Unless you have some Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) up your sleeve to convince us otherwise.

I take it you understand anything we saw at ground zero was the result of a malicious act?

In short, you agree that molten steel weeks after the collapses could possibly be the ultimate result of crashing planes into the towers, and is not indicative of that story being wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

Not at all. Unreacted thermite reacting as fire got to it could be a reason. Note I don't believe/trust anything they said was not found at ground zero, so don't harp on about thermite not being found. Nobody independent was let in until early October. I mean Leslie Robertson himself said he saw molten steel, he's on video saying there was "like a little river of steel" Let's please not get started on "like" again, his meaning is quite clear. Riggs saw a steel beam melt, there are pictures of a crane pulling out what appears to be a column dripping. I can get all of these things, but I know you know they are true. I point these things out to show there indeed appears to be molten steel, and it was not officially reported or at least officially reported that there were reports of molten steel (i.e Gross). So I don't trust for one second what was "not found"

No, you have not. You have forgotten to write down your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) that led you to a conclusion which you reasserted over and over again.


It's high time for you, tmd, to start working on that Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic)

[/QUOTE]

As I said many people have had ideas, you seem to not be interested in them.

 

[tmd2_1]

And nobody has said the furnace was likely. Only that it is more probable than some new mysterious substance keeping steel melted that was also, somehow, related to a controlled demolition.



Thanks for that completely irrelevant distraction. The point is that a lot of people would have doubted such a thing could have happened at all until it was found.



No, I never said that. I used the Oklo reactors as in imperfect example of something happening naturally that normally requires human engineering.



Well a WTC debris pile has still only happened once in all of human history. How unlikely is that?

That was not an irrelevant distraction. You gave that as an example of something happening naturally, in what is a complex device to make. I wanted to show just how rare it was.

Your premise is molten steel right? So you really believe that something by your admission is rare (furnace), and to my knowledge has never happened in a similar event (i.e landfill fire) is more likely than a foreign agent being used to melt steel to aid in the demolition? Forget about thermite for a second. You know the saying that goes something like when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains has to be what happened. Now by your admission something happening naturally is unlikely, getting close to the impossible level (the impossible are my words). You believe this to be more likely then humans concerned with gaining more power and wealth (as has been the case all through out history.."all poor men want to be rich all rich men want to be kings and I king ain't satisfied until he rules everything") that these type of people couldn't figure something out that would melt steel, therefore causing the results that would have been seen (hypothetically) If you really believe this there's nothing I can really tell you, except to really look within yourself, and not be so closed to the possibilty that 9/11 was not as it was presented to be.

 

[jaydeehess]

I take it you understand anything we saw at ground zero was the result of a malicious act?
.

Semantics tmd?

Yes the attacks on the WTC were malicious acts. Hijacking and murder are normally considered malicious. Do you really require that both sides specify a 'who' when referring to maliciousness and nefarious acts?
If so then I suppose you will from now on include an organiztion of specific people every time you comment on the perpetrators of the acts you believe took place?

Note that "TPTB" doesn't cut it. You might as well write boogey-man'

 

[jaydeehess]

It is easy to ignore your unprovided examples that are supposedly comparable to the WTC debris pile conditions.

MM

I have shown that the debris pile of the WTC was unlike a landfill in at least one respect, air supply. I have shown that it was unlike an open air fire in that it was insulated.

I have pointed out, and it would seem that this rubble was uncomparable directly to anything that had occured before in history.

However, now that you are on about a desire to provide direct examples, you will show us one of an underground fire fed heat over weeks by the slow addition of dust containing less than 1% thermitic compounds?

 

[Travis]

That was not an irrelevant distraction. You gave that as an example of something happening naturally, in what is a complex device to make. I wanted to show just how rare it was.

Your premise is molten steel right? So you really believe that something by your admission is rare (furnace), and to my knowledge has never happened in a similar event (i.e landfill fire) is more likely than a foreign agent being used to melt steel to aid in the demolition? Forget about thermite for a second. You know the saying that goes something like when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains has to be what happened. Now by your admission something happening naturally is unlikely, getting close to the impossible level (the impossible are my words). You believe this to be more likely then humans concerned with gaining more power and wealth (as has been the case all through out history.."all poor men want to be rich all rich men want to be kings and I king ain't satisfied until he rules everything") that these type of people couldn't figure something out that would melt steel, therefore causing the results that would have been seen (hypothetically) If you really believe this there's nothing I can really tell you, except to really look within yourself, and not be so closed to the possibilty that 9/11 was not as it was presented to be.

Let us look at what we know and don't know here:

We know that a furnace effect is possible. Physics tells us that.
We know that the conditions in the pile had all the right ingredients to instigate that effect.
We know that no steel building has ever been brought down by thermite.
We know that steel buildings will collapse if subjected to fire.
We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.

We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
We don't know of any way that thermite would still be reacting weeks after the collapse.
We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
We don't know of any structural steel members that exhibited signs of thermite damage.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Molten steel, as with any debris that were at the World trade center, could only be the result of something malicious. There is nothing vague about it.

Uhh... you're not distinguishing between the malicious act carried out by the hijackers and a fanciful malicious act carried out by an undefined Them™. I'd say that counts as being vague; damn vague, even.

 

[NoahFence]

TMD ignoring again.

Typical.

 

[tmd2_1]

Let us look at what we know and don't know here:

We know that a furnace effect is possible. Physics tells us that.
We know that the conditions in the pile had all the right ingredients to instigate that effect.
We know that no steel building has ever been brought down by thermite.
We know that steel buildings will collapse if subjected to fire.
We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.

We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
We don't know of any way that thermite would still be reacting weeks after the collapse.
We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
We don't know of any structural steel members that exhibited signs of thermite damage.

Let's take a look at what you wrote.

We know that a furnace effect is possible. Physics tells us that.
I suppose so, but there appears to be no evidence that it has happened before.
We know that the conditions in the pile had all the right ingredients to instigate that effect.
What do you base this on?
We know that no steel building has ever been brought down by thermite.
Steel building no, steel structure yes. http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false
We know that steel buildings will collapse if subjected to fire.
To some degree.. but there appears to have been things wrong with the building of steel frame collapses in the past, also "complete collapse" is a good talking point here is a good piece please don't bring up anything about Taylor's credentials...everything is well referenced. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html
We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
Perhaps there are some ways the reaction can be slowed down. Take a look at this simple video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs ..if you look you there are plenty more. Also molted steel found weeks later could have been unreacted thermite. As I said before I am very skeptical of what they say was found or not, especially in the first couple of days before anyone independent was in. So don't bring up nothing was found on the top of the pile, that will my reply.
We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
I have doubts whether AQ even exists, or at least not in the form we are led to believe.
We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.
I don't think it was the U.S. government. A relatively small cabal inside of it, the cabal also extends to other countries and the private sector.

We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
Perhaps but thermite starts off at a higher temperature, therefore it will be insulated at that higher temperature, or at least that's what I would think.
We don't know of any way that thermite would still be reacting weeks after the collapse.
Answered above in regards to thermite burning quickly.
We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
Well as I said before I am very distrustful of anything those first days at the WTC. Also I mean isn't that where the fires were? Don't you think the millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, would affect the surface? I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.
We don't know of any structural steel members that exhibited signs of thermite damage
As I said a few times now I am very distrustful of anything especially in those first days at the WTC. Also especially what was NOT found, and then some say the FEMA report appendix C is in fact the result of thermite damage.

 

[beachnut]

... As I said a few times now I am very distrustful of anything especially in those first days at the WTC. Also especially what was NOT found, and then some say the FEMA report appendix C is in fact the result of thermite damage.

The Appendix C samples, a result of corrosion due to fire. Thermite leaves evidence.

 

[tmd2_1]

Semantics tmd?

Yes the attacks on the WTC were malicious acts. Hijacking and murder are normally considered malicious. Do you really require that both sides specify a 'who' when referring to maliciousness and nefarious acts?
If so then I suppose you will from now on include an organiztion of specific people every time you comment on the perpetrators of the acts you believe took place?

Note that "TPTB" doesn't cut it. You might as well write boogey-man'

Yes semantics indeed. But it really goes to show you the mindset of you guys. It should not have taken nearly that long or nearly as many posts as I did...to make a simple passing point. You guys are always argumentative, and completely dismissive of "twoofers" comments without even reading them, or at least not reading them carefully. You guys really do come off as followers of some dogma, defending it to the end. Look at the replies to my simple post, just blind defense, because it was perceived to be an attack on the official story. When in reality, it was something we can all agree on, and I was just making a quick passing point. If there is ever a set of posts that show the mind set here, it was these last couple.

 

[NoahFence]

TMD

Answer a question for ONCE!!!


WHY does molten steel = Controlled Demo?

pathetic.

TMD (well, all truthers, really) debating:

Go ahead - prove me wrong.

 

[beachnut]

Yes semantics indeed. But it really goes to show you the mindset of you guys. ...

Rational people use science 911 truth uses lies and failed opinions. 911 truth fails to realize corrosion is not caused by thermite. Believing liars liars who make up thermite over science and reason, that is what 911 truth does. What mindset does 911 truth have? A failed group of follower, people who can't think for themselves so they repeat mindlessly lies and fantasy claims made up for them to copy and paste. Does 911 truth have original work on 911 issues to support their fantasy version of events? No

911 truth Followers repeat melted steel nonsense due to hearsay and ignorance.

 

[A W Smith]

Let's take a look at what you wrote.

We know that a furnace effect is possible. Physics tells us that.
I suppose so, but there appears to be no evidence that it has happened before.

first time in history fallacy, The Discovery disaster proved that a piece of foam insulation can cause a spacecraft to burn up and fall out of the sky.

We know that the conditions in the pile had all the right ingredients to instigate that effect.
What do you base this on?

fuel load and a loose pile of already burning debris

We know that no steel building has ever been brought down by thermite.
Steel building no, steel structure yes. http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false

special pleading logical fallacy, Examples of partial collapse of wings of steel buildings are hand waved off by 911 trollers but we are expected to accept examples not even applicable to buildings at all

We know that steel buildings will collapse if subjected to fire.
To some degree.. but there appears to have been things wrong with the building of steel frame collapses in the past, also "complete collapse" is a good talking point here is a good piece please don't bring up anything about Taylor's credentials...everything is well referenced. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html

Again, Special pleading logical fallacy

We know that thermite burns quickly and is unstoppable once it is started.
Perhaps there are some ways the reaction can be slowed down. Take a look at this simple video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs ..if you look you there are plenty more. Also molted steel found weeks later could have been unreacted thermite. As I said before I am very skeptical of what they say was found or not, especially in the first couple of days before anyone independent was in. So don't bring up nothing was found on the top of the pile, that will my reply.

So all this evidence of thermite demolition landed only on TOP of the debris pile? and was whisked away within days? Yet you contradict yourself ignorantly in the same paragraph by claiming that "unreacted thermite" could have remained in the pile and ignited for 99 days? Can you be any more ignorant?

We know that Al Qaeda had a long history of attacking the USA.
I have doubts whether AQ even exists, or at least not in the form we are led to believe.

You have doubts they exist? What? Do you live in a cave? Or under a rock? Never tuned in Al Jazeera? The AQ recruiting and martyrdom web sites? Explains your ignorance.

We know that at no point in history has the US Government ever killed it's own citizens in a fake attack.
I don't think it was the U.S. government. A relatively small cabal inside of it, the cabal also extends to other countries and the private sector.

A cabal small yet vast enough to whisk away evidence of incendiaries in 1.8 million tons of debris with days, A cabal small yet vast enough to "fake" the very existence of AQ in the world wide media. A cabal small yet vast enough to mislead not only NIST but the largest investigation in the history of ever! ever!?

We don't know that thermite or any other exotic combustible would keep steel molten unless it was already in an insulated environment where other combustibles could easily accomplish the very same thing.
Perhaps but thermite starts off at a higher temperature, therefore it will be insulated at that higher temperature, or at least that's what I would think.

There's your problem right there. you are under the delusion that you can THINK

We don't know of any way that thermite would still be reacting weeks after the collapse.
Answered above in regards to thermite burning quickly.

Sorry, not answered. Appeal to unknown technology or magic.

We don't know why thermite would only react buried under the rubble and never at the surface.
Well as I said before I am very distrustful of anything those first days at the WTC. Also I mean isn't that where the fires were? Don't you think the millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, would affect the surface? I mean you guys told me the water wouldn't reach beneath, or at least not that much.

Appeal to ignorance

We don't know of any structural steel members that exhibited signs of thermite damage
As I said a few times now I am very distrustful of anything especially in those first days at the WTC. Also especially what was NOT found, and then some say the FEMA report appendix C is in fact the result of thermite damage.

Again? They removed all steel members which exhibited evidence of thermite incendiaries in 1.8 million tons of debris within the first few days? PLEASE! Stop yourself!!