I take it you understand anything we saw at ground zero was the result of a malicious act?
It was in fact the
ultimate result of a malicious act, but not the
proximate result of said malice. It did NOT
necessarily take malice to produce molten steel (IF there was molten steel), yet
that is your claim: That only malice could be the ultimate reason for molten steel. This claim is patently false, notwithstanding the admission that the malicious act of flying planes into the towers was in fact the ultimate cause for a chain of events that caused all the conditions of the GZ debris pile, including any molten steel that may have been there (even though that is not very likely) and the (unknown) conditions that would have produced that molten steel, if there had been molten steel, such as cinditions similar to those in a furnace capable of melting steel (a setup that is, in general, not very likely to arise by chance, but whose likelihood would raise significantly once we are informed that there was molten steel - that's Bayesian Probability, if you want to look something up and educate yourself).
"
Not at all." to the quoted "
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."?
This means I have to revise the bolded rendering of your claim as such:
tmd claims that molten steel weeks after the collapse can only be the ultimate or proximate result of malice, with the explicit exception of fires started by crashing planes.
tmd, please let me know if this is now a fair rendering of what you claim! If yes, then a simple "YES" will do, of not, please correct it!
I will state now that I disagree with this claim.
Unreacted thermite reacting as fire got to it could be a reason.
Ok. So you are saying:
The premise "molten steel" leads me to the possible conclusion "Unreacted thermite reacting as fire got to it".
.
Now, what's missing here is of course the
Reasoning why you think unreacted thermite could have melted steel weeks after the collapses. In particular, you'd have to explain how that unreacted thermite got to where it was when it ignited and melted the steel, and why it wasn't widely dispersed in the debris because of the violent, turbulent collapses. So please describe the path the thermite took from just before it was brought to the WTC by malicious actors, through its implementation, the collapse, and the waituing time in the debris pile!
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.
The only ones who claim that thermite WAS found are Harrit and friends. According to their analysis, the allegedly "thermitic" red-gray chips were dispersed in the dust and constituted only about 0.1% by weight of the dust in all 4 samples. Further, Harrit and friends inform us that only the red layer, itself half (50%) of each chip, contained thermitic stuff, while the gray layer did not and was presumably inert. Further, their data, and especially Mark Basile's quantitative analysis, reveal that the red layers consisted mainly of materials that were NOT thermite, and that a stochiastic mix of Fe2O3 and Al was at most 10% by weight of the red layer. The main refererence that Harrit uses for real, existing, nanothermate, a paper by Tillotson, informs us that nanothermite has an energy density of about 1.5kJ/g.
From these numbers, all of which we know from Harrit and friends. it follows that even if they are right and they did find nanothermite, it constituted only
0.1% * 50% * 10% = 0.005% of the dust, giving the dust a thermitic energy density of 1.5kJ/g * 0.005% = 0.000075 kJ/g, or 0.075 J/g, or 0,018 Calories/g. It would take nearly than 100 kg of that "thermitic" dust to boil one shot (0.02 liters) of water. Oh wait, no, wrong, this would be true if it was possible to heat the water that's in contact with the dust without warming the dust! The fact of the matter is, that the alleged thermite in the dust could warm the dust itself only by a fraction of a degree.
TMD, even if it was true that Harrit and friends found thermite in the dust from the towers, it would be 4 to 5 orders of magnitude too ineffective to melt even minimal amounts of steel.
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"
I struck out every word in this paragraph that's totally unnecessary in this thread, owing to the fact that, in this thread and for the purpose of debate, we assume without evidencer that there was molten steel. No one is aking you to prove that. Why don't you understand that? Cut it out!
As I said many people have had ideas, you seem to not be interested in them.
What a transparent falsehood! I am
very much interested in your
Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) that you employed when you accepted for yourself that
molten steel could be the result of
unreacted thermite in the rubble, or some other malicious act, with the exception of planes flown into the towers that started fires.
You are the one utterly unwilling, or unable, to provide this
Reaoning (using established facts, laws of science and logic) and quench my interest!
