Merged So there was melted steel

ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did you don't know the definition of "do". That would be the most blatant.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
What the ****?
Click to expand...

Yes often when you are trying to figure out how something happened, it is a good idea to ask yourself how you would have done it. That's exactly what I did with 9/11. I don't believe 2 airplanes and fires brought down those towers so I ask myself what would I do to make it look like they did. Which would have been the objective. I am going to copy and paste two posts of mine from this thread, that shows exactly how I would have done it. Now of course I don't go into the detail of where I would place every explosive..etc. That would take an awful long time to figure out, and I would probably need help. That would seem to be too difficult a job for one person to do.

"Want to know what I think may have happened? This is speculation on my part. I'd say there was some thermetic material placed at the impact zone of the planes. They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance, and I think you can see why have thermite would aid in this. This would explain why molten steel appears to be pouring out of the South tower before collapse. Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse. The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives, or nano-thermite. The demolition was clearly over-engineered, as they had to make sure it came down. Could not afford it not to. But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..etc..to give a more accurate theory. The point is that if there was molten steel found(as there almost assuredly really) it should not have been there.



Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary. Some of which would not have been reacted by the time the building came down. The abundance of thermite would have been located in the core columns, not at the Airplane impact zone. It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it. But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble. While it is impossible for the people to have planned this, to plan out the demolition 100% I mean where everything would have ended up, they can make very educated guesses, and plan so any unreacted thermite and therefore molten steel would end up under the pile. I mean clearly the people who would have done this are extremely intelligent. I think you can agree they could have made very educated guesses to this. So the molten steel found weeks later would have been as a result of this un-reacted thermite, as fires came to it. In fact if you listen to Leslie Robertson at Stanford, he mentions several slabs of concrete were removed to reveal the molten steel. To me based on everything I know, something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced."
 
tmd2_1 said:
I did you don't know the definition of "do". That would be the most blatant.
Click to expand...
Evasion noted. I will leave you to your dishonesty and delusions.
The challenge can remain open - "...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."
 
tmd2_1 said:
Yes often when you are trying to figure out how something happened, it is a good idea to ask yourself how you would have done it.
Click to expand...


If you're an idiot. Most people would get some form of an education, even if informal, in the relevant fields.

That's exactly what I did with 9/11.
Click to expand...


Oh, right.

I don't believe 2 airplanes and fires brought down those towers [...]
Click to expand...


Reality doesn't care what you believe.

[...] so I ask myself what would I do to make it look like they did.
Click to expand...


You've already started from a premise based solely on belief and personal incredulity. That's not rational. You failed before you left the gate.

Your previous question is essentially, "How is molten steel not proof of a style of demolition that's never been done before?" Read up on the affirming the consequent formal fallacy. What you're doing is exactly this:

  • If They™ used an entirely new style of demolition to bring down the towers, then there would be molten steel present in the debris pile.
  • There was molten steel present in the debris pile.
  • Therefore, They™ used an entirely new style of demolition to bring down the towers.
And you see absolutely nothing wrong with this. I pity you...
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Evasion noted. I will leave you to your dishonesty and delusions.
The challenge can remain open - "...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."
Click to expand...

Indeed my dishonesty and delusions. Coming from someone who doesn't know the definition of the word "do" This leads to the bigger claim that you have no idea what you are talking about, if you think Gross and company's "were not going to release the numbers" or the gem I'll add to the bottom of this post would hold up in a FAIR court of law, you are far more delusional than any "truther" is.










"NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time…."
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get whiplash from changing direction so quickly? You were asking how molten steel doesn't prove a CD; you've been told. Your response is to change the subject quickly in the hope that nobody will notice that your bluff got called. Well, it did get called, so live with it.

Now, given that we know CDs don't produce molten steel, how does molten steel prove a CD? And if it doesn't, how is it relevant?

Dave
 
tmd2_1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK, let's see how much interest you have in real debate. What it will take to convince me that molten steel was not the result of planes crashing into the buildings but the result of a CD is the following

Firstly, a coherent hypothesis by which a CD could result in the presence of molten steel weeks after the event, a phenomenon that has never been observed in any CD ever carried out by any means. This hypothesis must agree with the laws of physics and contain a complete set of causal links from CD to molten steel weeks later. It need not be the actual sequence of events, just a plausible sequence of events, but it must not have several steps missing. For example; "It was thermite; thermite melts steel" has numerous steps missing; it fails to explain either why steel would remain molten for weeks, or why thermite would remain unignited in large quantities for weeks, ignite just before a piece of debris was removed, and yet not be noticed reacting by the people working on the rubble pile.

Secondly, a clearly reasoned and compelling argument why molten steel cannot have occurred by the mechanisms already proposed, including natural furnace effects and elevation of flame temperatures by preheating of air in the rubble pile.

(It will not be a convincing argument, by the way, to say that there is no evidence for CD because the CD was designed to eliminate evidence for CD. We can all recognise the fallacy of begging the question very easily by now.)

If you can supply both those, then all you'll have to do is prove that the reports of molten steel were correct.

So, show us how interested you are in real debate by constructing your hypothesis as to how a CD could result in molten steel. Or demonstrate your contempt for real debate and your refusal to engage with reality by changing the subject and pretending that this post never existed. Your choice.

Dave
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Iesu mawr, can't you see how stupid that looks to a lurker?
 
tmd2_1 said:
American society of safety engineers. Have a problem...take it up with them.
http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm
Click to expand...
You copy and paste hearsay. Why do you post hearsay?

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let me know why you post hearsay. Do you do it to mislead? Don't you check your sources? Or do you post hearsay and then you say, take it up with them all the time? Do you stand behind any of your posts?

Are all your claims based on hearsay, lies and delusions you googled from 911 truth? You don't stand by the hearsay you posted, or you do? Looks like you are posting SPAM you don't support, you say, " ...take it up with them". Why did you post hearsay then if you do not stand behind your posts? I knew where you got the hearsay from, I was looking for the original source, the data. Got the data?

beachnut said:
Quote? Source. Who said so? Your source agrees 19 terrorist did 911, and not thermite. You don't check your sources?
Do you have the original data?
Who took the measurements?
Click to expand...
I wanted the original source for your hearsay. You posted the stuff, you need to source the original data, show your work, etc. ASSE does not support your delusions on 911. Why ? Can you get any organization, other than 911 truth liars to support your 911 claims?
 
dafydd said:
tmd2_1 said:
I did you don't know the definition of "do.
Click to expand...
Put some commas in so we know what you mean.
Click to expand...
The whole issue is simply because he refuses to answer a simple request for clarification of his meaning.

He asked me:
"How do you think Gross and company would do, with not releasing their numbers?"
Click to expand...
my emphasis.

Since he was insisting on putting the discussion into the context of criminal legal proceedings in a court I asked him to clarify what he meant.
ozeco41 said:
What do you mean by the vague word "do"? Do you mean "What would be the consequences of not providing numbers in court whilst acting as a witness?"
Click to expand...
I even "led" the answer - something to help him. He only needed to say "yes" or "no - I meant...xyz" He certainly would not get that help if in court - leading questions are not allowed for non-hostile witnesses.

So he would have been asked "clarify what you mean by the second use of the word "do"? And imagine the courts response if he tried the same evasions as he tried here:
"...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"

At this stage if he had tried it in court there would likely be a move to declare him an hostile witness. Then the cross examiner can take the gloves off. :rolleyes:

...and he forgets it was him who put it in the court scenario. So I played it as if in court but a lot gentler than a real lawyer would be with a witness who was playing "smart arse".

:D
 
Last edited:
So, to conclude; even though there was no molten steel, had there been any there are causes that fit with established facts, and there has been no clear indication of how or why molten steel would indicate any method of controlled demolition, truthers still expect us to believe that the towers were felled by cd. Apparrently because it didn't look right.

How nice.
 
tmd2_1,

What is your explanation for the reports of molten steel in other fires and at wtc6? I’m trying to work out your thinking because you’ve been teasingly avoiding it - (fatherly headlock) you cheeky little monkey!

Are you saying that in all these other instances the reports of molten steel are mistaken eyewitnesses but in the case of wtc1 and 2 it is really, honestly, assuredly, definitely, actual molten steel.

Or are you saying that in all these other cases the reports of molten steel suggests nefarious circumstances have been overlooked, and the use of thermite has been widespread in attempted demolitions and fires.

Or are you saying that NWO operatives have been busy back forging fire reports to make it look like people describing ‘weird gloopy stuff near mangled metal’ as ‘molten steel’ is quite common.

Or are you saying that metallurgists working with these materials daily are wrong in saying that molten steel is difficult to identify by sight and that the wtc1 and 2 witnesses have got skills unknown to the experts.

Or are you saying, ‘oh look an anomaly’, lets turn this into a spooky story about scary, evil men who are secretly controlling the world.

What are you saying?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Yeah?...and how many CDs in history were designed to not look like a CD
Click to expand...


Easy answer. None. ZIP, Nada, Zilch. The WTC failures only looked like CDs to ignorant paranoid fools. The rest of the world saw them for what they were Towers hit by aircraft and failing after terrible fires.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm the WTC CDs were designed not to look like CDs. Interesting.
TMD, what do you think: Did they succeed with that design? I.o.w., do you think that the collapses did NOT look like CDs?
If so, will you join me the next time another truther claims that the collapses looked like CDs, and correct them, saying "truther, you are wrong! I, tmd, can tell you with certainty that these collapses did NOT look like CDs"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom