Merged So there was melted steel

[DGM]

The knife

I might add........

The husband still walks free because. The jury was packed with "truthers" and they believed he couldn't cook.

 

[NoahFence]

The better question to ask is "How does it not?"

Well answering a question with a question isn't what I had in mind, but it's a start kiddo.

I'll answer your question ON THE FIRST ASK.

(you might want to start doing that)

No controlled demolition that anyone is aware of has ever produced molten anything. That's how.

Now onto you -

HOW DOES MOLTEN ANYTHING PROVE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!?!?

ffs answer the : question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The better question to ask is "How does it not?"

By the complete absence of molten steel from every controlled demolition ever carried out.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

It's simple if there is doubt as to how those buildings fell, and therefore something was in those buildings that shouldn't have been.

FYI -

There IS no doubt how they fell, and there WAS something in there that shouldn't have been. A flippin' airplane!!!

As soon as you and your ilk decide to join the rest of us in reality, what happened on 9/11 is very obvious.

When will you people be joining us in reality land?
9/11 "Twoof" is the single most asinine conspiracy theorie(s) I can think of! Nothing - not a single aspect of the dozens you people regurgitate is even physically possible given the circumstances! NOTHING!

Replacing elements of the towers with weaker elements? IMPOSSIBLE!
No airplane at the Pentagon? IMPOSSIBLE!
Space Beams? Mini Nukes? IMPOSSIBLE!
Controlled Demolition? IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Painted On Thermite? IMPOSSIBLE!
Thermate? IMPOSSIBLE!

as is each and every theory put forth by each and every 'truther'.
THEY'RE ALL IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[dafydd]

The better question to ask is "How does it not?"

Dear,dear. The world turned upside down.

 

[dafydd]

By the complete absence of molten steel from every controlled demolition ever carried out.

Dave

Something else for Tmd to ignore.

 

[Oystein]

Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe something other then the official story was involved in melting the steel.

Well, some proper Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic, would be a starter. Strange that you ask this, I must have told you 20 times otr more by now. It would convince me if
- the facts are in fact factual
- the laws of science have been used correctly
- the logic is stringent and pertinent

I really would like to hear it.

I have no idea which facts, laws of science or logic you could say, because I am absolutely convinced that NO facts, laws of science and logic will explain that molten steel weeks AFTER the collapses can ONLY be the ultimate result of a MALICIOUS act BEFORE the collapse OTHER THAN plane crashed into towers, or more specifically of thermite used BEFORE the collapse to cause the collapse.

You've been presented so much, yet none of it works for you.

When? Where?
I have been presented with lots of variations of the same two or three claims, but am still waiting in vain for your Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic.

Can you please quote any of your own previous posts wherein you think you provided such Reasoning, and highlight
- the specific facts
- the specific laws of science
- the specific logical deductions and inductions
you used to connect molten steel AFTER the collapse with thermite BEFORE the collaspes. Thanks.

If you don't mind can you lay out a somewhat full theory assume molten steel before and after.

No, I cannot, I need not, and I will not.
It is not I who claims there was molten steel. It's you.
It is not I who claims molten steel is proof of malicious intent. It's you.

The burden of proof, the task to provide Reasoning, and the chore to lay out a theory, is thus entirely yours.

Also introduce evidence as you see fit...what I mean is you would need to see this, to believe molten steel's presence was not the result of the official story. I would really love to hear it.

Evidence for what? I am not making any claims here. I have nothing to prove.

 

[Oystein]

....so how does molten steel prove controlled demo?

The better question to ask is "How does it not?"

Easy.
No CD on record has produced molten steel that was observed weeks after the event.

Molten steel is NEVER a result of CD.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It's simple if there is doubt as to how those buildings fell,

I know of no credible person who has any doubt.

and therefore something was in those buildings that shouldn't have been

,

It was a 767

it casts great doubt to the guilt of AQ.

no it points straight at them as it was AQ members that hijacked it.....

But you are right about one thing the court case is a moot point. If it a fair system the case would never get to trial as there is no evidence against OBL/AQ. Couldn't even get an indictment on him

.

You are right there never will be a trial for OBL.....he is dead. And we don't try organisations either in the US so no trial for AQ either.

My problem?

No question there.....you are bat poop crazy

Oh there most assurdely was molten steel,

perhaps but you can't prove it, none was collected or tested, not that it would matter if there was as there are is a plausible reason why it would be there.

that's not my problem. My problem is with people like you, and the tactis you clearly use, to try and deceive others.

deceive who? about what?

so are you going to tell us how molten steel is a sign of CD or not?

 

[jaydeehess]

This is the exact quote "· The immense heat. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires."

Let me know where it says anything about being extapolated.

Tell me how underground temperatures get directly measured via helicopter.

Really, please, tell me.

 

[ozeco41]

No it is clearly you who do not know what you are talking about, and like a few to many posters here are clearly playing games. Did you find out the meaning of "do" yet? As in how Gross would do on the stand. This reminds of Bill Clinton 12 or so years ago. Asking for the definition of "is". The same type of thing, same kind of tactics. My concern is not with you, nothing will change you, but those who may find this forum and are "raw" That is the only reason I respond to these types of posts.

It's simple if there is doubt as to how those buildings fell, and therefore something was in those buildings that shouldn't have been, it casts great doubt to the guilt of AQ. But you are right about one thing the court case is a moot point. If it a fair system the case would never get to trial as there is no evidence against OBL/AQ. Couldn't even get an indictment on him.

My problem? Oh there most assurdely was molten steel, that's not my problem. My problem is with people like you, and the tactis you clearly use, to try and deceive others.

Wow! A shotgun personal attack including multiple evasions. But at least we are finally getting you closer to making clear statement as to your problem.

I won't waste energy responding to all ten bits of nonsense in your post. Let's stick with your attempt to pass your own problem onto me - the claim what I don't know what I am talking about.

Just identify one aspect of what I have said where you claim I am wrong, that I don't know what I am talking about...
... and give us your proof that I "don't know what I am talking about".

 

[MIKILLINI]

Easy.
No CD on record has produced molten steel that was observed weeks after the event.

Molten steel is NEVER a result of CD.

Unignited therm?te argument in 4...3...2...

 

[tmd2_1]

By the complete absence of molten steel from every controlled demolition ever carried out.

Dave

Yeah?...and how many CDs in history were designed to not look like a CD, but the result of a plane flying into them? Therein lies the problem, it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned.

 

[tmd2_1]

Wow! A shotgun personal attack including multiple evasions. But at least we are finally getting you closer to making clear statement as to your problem.

I won't waste energy responding to all ten bits of nonsense in your post. Let's stick with your attempt to pass your own problem onto me - the claim what I don't know what I am talking about.

Just identify one aspect of what I have said where you claim I am wrong, that I don't know what I am talking about...
... and give us your proof that I "don't know what I am talking about".

You want to whine about personal attacks. Take a look through this thread and see the personal attacked hurled my way. But it's ok I'm just a silly "twoofer"

As I said you seem to not know the definition of the word "do" That is a perfect example of the tactics you use. Never ending questions, you'll always find something to question or something that is wrong but never anything of substance to say. Much the same as Oystein, and to a lesser degree jaydeehess. In terms of the court, the defense experts can make a case (it really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, but they certainly can) and the prosecution experts can't even explain why it was there. So it a matter of a theory, vs nothing, the jury would have no choice but to conclude at the very least there is certainly reasonable doubt to OBL and AQ being guilty.

 

[tmd2_1]

Tell me how underground temperatures get directly measured via helicopter.

Really, please, tell me.

Tell me where they say extrapolated? Why should I conclude anything other then what they wrote? It was there writing they could have said those temperatures were extrapolated.

 

[tmd2_1]

Well, some proper Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic, would be a starter. Strange that you ask this, I must have told you 20 times otr more by now. It would convince me if
- the facts are in fact factual
- the laws of science have been used correctly
- the logic is stringent and pertinent


I have no idea which facts, laws of science or logic you could say, because I am absolutely convinced that NO facts, laws of science and logic will explain that molten steel weeks AFTER the collapses can ONLY be the ultimate result of a MALICIOUS act BEFORE the collapse OTHER THAN plane crashed into towers, or more specifically of thermite used BEFORE the collapse to cause the collapse.


When? Where?
I have been presented with lots of variations of the same two or three claims, but am still waiting in vain for your Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic.

Can you please quote any of your own previous posts wherein you think you provided such Reasoning, and highlight
- the specific facts
- the specific laws of science
- the specific logical deductions and inductions
you used to connect molten steel AFTER the collapse with thermite BEFORE the collaspes. Thanks.


No, I cannot, I need not, and I will not.
It is not I who claims there was molten steel. It's you.
It is not I who claims molten steel is proof of malicious intent. It's you.

The burden of proof, the task to provide Reasoning, and the chore to lay out a theory, is thus entirely yours.


Evidence for what? I am not making any claims here. I have nothing to prove.

Ah another classic post. Here I basically give you the floor. I ask you to tell me what it would take to convince you that molten steel was not the result of planes crashing into the building but some other agent and/or to convince you of CD, and you give no answer what so ever. Does anyone really need to look any further to see you have no interest in real debate?

 

[beachnut]

This is the exact quote "· The immense heat. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires."

Let me know where it says anything about being extapolated.

Quote? Source. Who said so? Your source agrees 19 terrrorist did 911, and not thermite. You don't check your sources?
Do you have the original data?
Who took the measurements?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

....so how does molten steel prove controlled demo?

The better question to ask is "How does it not?"

By the complete absence of molten steel from every controlled demolition ever carried out.

Dave

Yeah?...and how many CDs in history were designed to not look like a CD, but the result of a plane flying into them? Therein lies the problem, it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned.

What the ****?

 

[tmd2_1]

Quote? Source. Who said so? Your source agrees 19 terrrorist did 911, and not thermite. You don't check your sources?
Do you have the original data?
Who took the measurements?

American society of safety engineers. Have a problem...take it up with them.
http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm

 

[ozeco41]

You want to whine about personal attacks.....

I challenged you to support your claim that I don't know what I am talking about. Just one item will do together with your proof that I was wrong on that item.

The rest of your nonsense I am ignoring.

So why not stop making a clown of yourself with your false claims about court procedure. Your foundation premise is wrong in law.