Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

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

Post 962 of this thread...I laid out what I think may have happened, and in fact if I were given the task, that's pretty much what I would have done. I'll add to that there are ways thermite reaction can be slowed down. Look at this simple home video. If you search you can find more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs

In terms of molten steel not occurring, I can't say with 100% certainty that is the case, but as I've said there appears to be no similar events landfill fires..etc that have gotten hot enough to melt steel. No one's really explained how a natural furnace would have taken place, except to say the subway providing oxygen. In short no one has really been able to explain how it could have been there

 

[tmd2_1]

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"?

Sure, they did the best they could to make it not look like a classic CD. As I said that is what I would have done if I were given that task. In fact it looks like 7 was rigged the same top down way, the plane just never made it there. But 7's design was different and more regular CD techniques would be used, because of the building design. But I also said it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned. Which is what we see at the towers, you have to take more then just a quick glance to notice the "un-randomness" of it. At the same time it is not overly difficult to see. The perps knew this would be the case, along with the media jamming it down people's throats that it was AQ. Unfortunately people just believe what they are told. It was a brilliant plan really, of course evil, but brilliant nonetheless.

 

[tmd2_1]

The whole issue is simply because he refuses to answer a simple request for clarification of his meaning.

He asked me: 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.
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.

...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".

You see the whole point of this "do" thing is quite simple, and shows why you don't know what you are talking about. You made the statement (paraphrasing) the "truther" expert witnesses couldn't get away with their "parlor tricks" in court. Yet I gave you examples of what would be the prosecution expert witnesses (NIST) doing things that clearly would not work in court. Not releasing their numbers, and their circular reasoning about explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Post 962 of this thread...I laid out what I think may have happened, and in fact if I were given the task, that's pretty much what I would have done.

So your attempt at a complete and fully realised account of how molten steel came to be in the rubble pile is as follows:

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."

So your sequence of events is as follows: Thermite remains unreacted in large amounts in the rubble pile. As the fire reaches large pockets of thermite, they react, producing molten steel. This molten steel is then seen by workers on the rubble pile.

There is one enormous problem with this. The molten steel produced by the thermite reaction would remain so for only a very short time. You're therefore suggesting that, every time molten steel was observed, a thermite reaction had taken place very shortly beforehand, yet this reaction, producing intense heat, a blindingly strong white flame, and not an inconsiderable amount of noise, was not observed by the person observing the molten steel. This is utterly implausible; it's impossible that a blinding white flame coming from just below the surface of the rubble pile would go either unnoticed or, in the case of people reporting molten steel as an unusual occurrence, unreported. It's another example of you requiring thermite to have some but not all of its properties; in this case, it has to be able to melt steel, but without being noticed.

The other problem with all this, of course, is that controlled demolitions do not use thermite. What you're doing here is trying to define the conspiracy to fit the evidence you think you have, even if that makes no sense in terms of the aims of the conspiracy. You're suggesting that an operation that needed to destroy the WTC reliably and without being detected was chosen to have been carried out by a completely untried technique.

Let me try to simplify this. Your chain of logic is that molten steel at the WTC is evidence of thermite, and thermite is evidence that the buildings were demolished. You haven't clearly established the first part of this, but you've at least made an attempt. You, and the rest of the truth movement, have not only failed to address the second part satisfactorily; you seem to have a strange psychological blind spot that prevents you from even seeing that it needs to be proven. It makes no sense, working forwards from the decision to demolish the WTC, to use thermite for that demolition. The only way it can be arrived at is from the presumption you and all other truthers make, that anything you don't understand is evidence of a conspiracy, and the conspiracy doesn't need to make sense as long as you can fit it to what you think the evidence is.

I'll add to that there are ways thermite reaction can be slowed down. Look at this simple home video. If you search you can find more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsPpjaGWJs

But this is irrelevant to the suggestion that the WTC was demolished using thermite. Adding an inert filler to slow the burn rate would make the thermite less, not more, effective in melting the steel columns, because it would both reduce the total heat produced and the rate at which that heat was introduced to the structure, the latter reduction meaning that the loss of heat would be greater. Again, you're cutting the conspiracy to fit the cloth, even if that makes no sense in terms of the aims of the conspiracy. The conspirators could have sneaked around the rubble piles whenever the cleanup workers weren't looking and installed electric furnaces to melt steel if their aim had been to produce molten steel at ground zero; but their supposed purpose had nothing to do with the molten steel weeks afterwards, so why would they make their plan less effective just to maintain molten steel for longer?

And in any case, 40 seconds burn time is still nowhere near long enough.

In terms of molten steel not occurring, I can't say with 100% certainty that is the case, but as I've said there appears to be no similar events landfill fires..etc that have gotten hot enough to melt steel. No one's really explained how a natural furnace would have taken place, except to say the subway providing oxygen. In short no one has really been able to explain how it could have been there

We know that the rubble pile provided insulation. We know that there was the possibility for forced draught through the rubble pile, caused by convection together with a supply of air to the bottom of the rubble pile via the subway - something notable by its absence from landfill fires. We know that there was the possibility of this air being pre-heated by stored heat as it passed through the lower regions of the rubble pile, leading to higher flame temperatures when it supported combustion in the upper regions. This is all that is necessary for a furnace effect. We also have reports of molten steel in other fires, where there is no reason to suspect a prior building demolition using thermite. On the other hand, the thermite claim requires the presence of pockets thermite, unestablished; the timing of ignition of pockets of thermite to shortly before observation of molten steel, unestablished; the failure of workers on the rubble pile to notice any signs of a thermite reaction, unexplained; and the presumption that thermite might have been chosen as a means of demolition, unsupported and highly counter-intuitive.

All in all, the furnace effect is a greatly superior theory. And even that assumes that the reports of molten steel are accurate, which there is no reason to believe.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I did you don't know the definition of "do". That would be the most blatant.

Do you want to try that again in English?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

so what skills are you bring to this discussion with yourself? You never studied physics, engineering or advanced math. Wouldn't it be better knowing your educational limititations to simply look at what real experts say.....say folks at MIT, Purdue and NIST?

I don't believe 2 airplanes and fires brought down those towers

So you decided what you believed before making inquiries....sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias to me.

so I ask myself what would I do to make it look like they did.

but you have no way of knowing what "they" did until after you have sudied the event properly

Which would have been the objective.

Nope thats simply confirmation bias....absolutely worthless.

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.

If "they did it they wouldn't ask an uneducated person like you to do it so why do you think your idea is of any value? You are trying to guess what a competent expert would 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

.

how do you make the planes crash in exactly the right spot?
and why is there no evidence of the timers, containers, igniters etc left?
They would have been found and unless you are accusing the FDNY of being liars and murderers then your plot fall flat right here.

They wanted to give it that "crush down" appearance,

why? because that how it would fail due to impact and fire? if not then what would be the point? and if yes, then why not let the impact and fire do the job without adding magical nanny thermnight?

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.

I don't see how it helps at all. Fire would work just as well and also explains molten metal........

Thermite was probably also placed in key locations of the core columns, obviously to aid in the collapse.

Core columns failed last so if anything they slowed the collapse not speeded it up

The rest may have been handled by conventional explosives,

rest of what? and it cannot have been conventional explosives as there were none of the characteristic noise associated with them.

or nano-thermite.

which is doing what?

The demolition was clearly over-engineered,

how so?

as they had to make sure it came down

.

why?

Could not afford it not to.

why not? whats the point?

But I've told you before I or anyone would need to know how much molten steel was found when it was found..

and you can't do that, ever, because the molten metal people saw was never tested to see what it was.

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

.

but you cannot ever prove that now even if that was the case, so whats the point?

Right...before the collapse. Yes I said the building was over-engineered for a reason..meaning there was more thermite than necessary.

you made a assertion that was the case but have not actually shown that to be true.

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.

The aircraft did impact the core.........

It would have fallen in such that the unreacted thermite would have ended up under the rubble, or at least most of it.

Since the core came down last then it would be on the top......

But as I said I am distrustful of what was not found at the rubble.

how can you distrust something that WASN"T found???????

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.

Nope columns end on top of the pile. The pancaked floors were on the bootom with all the stuff that would burn.

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.

so they are smart enough to know where it went but not smart enough not to use way too much.......right....... And Robertson never said he found molten steel.

To me based on everything I know,

perhaps if you stopped thinking you KNOW things you might have a better grasp on reality

something like I just described is what I think is most likely. Of course this can change, if new evidence is introduced.

"

It already changed. Reality exists and your fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

 

[dafydd]

Sure, they did the best they could to make it not look like a classic CD. As I said that is what I would have done if I were given that task. In fact it looks like 7 was rigged the same top down way, the plane just never made it there. But 7's design was different and more regular CD techniques would be used, because of the building design. But I also said it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned. Which is what we see at the towers, you have to take more then just a quick glance to notice the "un-randomness" of it. At the same time it is not overly difficult to see. The perps knew this would be the case, along with the media jamming it down people's throats that it was AQ. Unfortunately people just believe what they are told. It was a brilliant plan really, of course evil, but brilliant nonetheless.

Only one flaw there. It is a total fantasy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wow, it's almost like the building fell in a sequence because key supports were built to a logical plan. A holds as long as B holds. When B gives way everything above it is overloading A. And so forth downwards.

 

[Oystein]

Holy shmoly, tmd

I posted

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"?

I hilited the first question. I would have expected that you answer the first question first, and that it would have been a simple "yes" or a simple "no", or maybe a yes or no for each of the three towers.
What I got is this:

Sure, they did the best they could to make it not look like a classic CD. As I said that is what I would have done if I were given that task. In fact it looks like 7 was rigged the same top down way, the plane just never made it there. But 7's design was different and more regular CD techniques would be used, because of the building design. But I also said it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned. Which is what we see at the towers, you have to take more then just a quick glance to notice the "un-randomness" of it. At the same time it is not overly difficult to see. The perps knew this would be the case, along with the media jamming it down people's throats that it was AQ. Unfortunately people just believe what they are told. It was a brilliant plan really, of course evil, but brilliant nonetheless.

Could you please hilite in that train wreck of thought which part gives me the simple "yes" or "no" to the question "do you think that the collapses did NOT look like CDs?"

Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

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?

You completely lost track of the topic of this thread.

So let me remind you of the very first line posted by the OP:

Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of [molten steel] means anything malicious.

Remember?
More formally, this thread calls out to those who think that molten steel weeks after the collapses necessarily implies, or corroborates, the conclusion of malicious means to CD the towers (other than by crashing planes), and asks these people to provide the Reasoning (using facts, laws of science and logic) they used to reach the conclusion "malicious deed, but not plane crashes, BEFORE collapse" from the premise "molten steel AFTER collapse".

Did you think I would stop asking you to provide that Reasoning?

Please take note that this thread does not ask anything of people, such as myself, who do NOT claim there was molten steel and do NOT claim that something malicious, other than plane crashes, is responsible for the collapses.

This thread is for you to answer, not for me.

 

[tmd2_1]

so what skills are you bring to this discussion with yourself? You never studied physics, engineering or advanced math. Wouldn't it be better knowing your educational limititations to simply look at what real experts say.....say folks at MIT, Purdue and NIST?



So you decided what you believed before making inquiries....sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias to me.



but you have no way of knowing what "they" did until after you have sudied the event properly



Nope thats simply confirmation bias....absolutely worthless.



If "they did it they wouldn't ask an uneducated person like you to do it so why do you think your idea is of any value? You are trying to guess what a competent expert would do?

.

how do you make the planes crash in exactly the right spot?
and why is there no evidence of the timers, containers, igniters etc left?
They would have been found and unless you are accusing the FDNY of being liars and murderers then your plot fall flat right here.



why? because that how it would fail due to impact and fire? if not then what would be the point? and if yes, then why not let the impact and fire do the job without adding magical nanny thermnight?



I don't see how it helps at all. Fire would work just as well and also explains molten metal........



Core columns failed last so if anything they slowed the collapse not speeded it up
[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/article-1249885-083BEFD2000005DC-203_964x1175-1.jpg[/qimg]


rest of what? and it cannot have been conventional explosives as there were none of the characteristic noise associated with them.





which is doing what?



how so?

.

why?



why not? whats the point?



and you can't do that, ever, because the molten metal people saw was never tested to see what it was.

.

but you cannot ever prove that now even if that was the case, so whats the point?





you made a assertion that was the case but have not actually shown that to be true.



The aircraft did impact the core.........



Since the core came down last then it would be on the top......



how can you distrust something that WASN"T found???????



Nope columns end on top of the pile. The pancaked floors were on the bootom with all the stuff that would burn.


so they are smart enough to know where it went but not smart enough not to use way too much.......right....... And Robertson never said he found molten steel.



perhaps if you stopped thinking you KNOW things you might have a better grasp on reality

"

It already changed. Reality exists and your fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

You know nothing of my education, I have never even hinted at what it might be. As for Leslie Robertson he assuredly did see molten steel. Here is the video. He also contradicts himself late as this video shows. Please spare me that he was saying "like" a little river of steel, it is clear he is not comparing it to anything. Why did he feel the need to say something totally different years later?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCwq3-RzZs

 

[NoahFence]

You know nothing of my education, I have never even hinted at what it might be.

We can be 100% sure of what it wasn't though...

(Physics, Engineering, Archetecture, Law Inforcement, Construction Trades, Health and Human Services.....Disaster Mitigation.....Firefighting....Math.....)

As for Leslie Robertson he assuredly did see molten steel. Here is the video. He also contradicts himself late as this video shows. Please spare me that he was saying "like" a little river of steel, it is clear he is not comparing it to anything. Why did he feel the need to say something totally different years later?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCwq3-RzZs

Wow. You either made something up or misrepresented what you saw, or both? Like that's ever happened.....

 

[tmd2_1]

So your attempt at a complete and fully realised account of how molten steel came to be in the rubble pile is as follows:



So your sequence of events is as follows: Thermite remains unreacted in large amounts in the rubble pile. As the fire reaches large pockets of thermite, they react, producing molten steel. This molten steel is then seen by workers on the rubble pile.

There is one enormous problem with this. The molten steel produced by the thermite reaction would remain so for only a very short time. You're therefore suggesting that, every time molten steel was observed, a thermite reaction had taken place very shortly beforehand, yet this reaction, producing intense heat, a blindingly strong white flame, and not an inconsiderable amount of noise, was not observed by the person observing the molten steel. This is utterly implausible; it's impossible that a blinding white flame coming from just below the surface of the rubble pile would go either unnoticed or, in the case of people reporting molten steel as an unusual occurrence, unreported. It's another example of you requiring thermite to have some but not all of its properties; in this case, it has to be able to melt steel, but without being noticed.

The other problem with all this, of course, is that controlled demolitions do not use thermite. What you're doing here is trying to define the conspiracy to fit the evidence you think you have, even if that makes no sense in terms of the aims of the conspiracy. You're suggesting that an operation that needed to destroy the WTC reliably and without being detected was chosen to have been carried out by a completely untried technique.

Let me try to simplify this. Your chain of logic is that molten steel at the WTC is evidence of thermite, and thermite is evidence that the buildings were demolished. You haven't clearly established the first part of this, but you've at least made an attempt. You, and the rest of the truth movement, have not only failed to address the second part satisfactorily; you seem to have a strange psychological blind spot that prevents you from even seeing that it needs to be proven. It makes no sense, working forwards from the decision to demolish the WTC, to use thermite for that demolition. The only way it can be arrived at is from the presumption you and all other truthers make, that anything you don't understand is evidence of a conspiracy, and the conspiracy doesn't need to make sense as long as you can fit it to what you think the evidence is.



But this is irrelevant to the suggestion that the WTC was demolished using thermite. Adding an inert filler to slow the burn rate would make the thermite less, not more, effective in melting the steel columns, because it would both reduce the total heat produced and the rate at which that heat was introduced to the structure, the latter reduction meaning that the loss of heat would be greater. Again, you're cutting the conspiracy to fit the cloth, even if that makes no sense in terms of the aims of the conspiracy. The conspirators could have sneaked around the rubble piles whenever the cleanup workers weren't looking and installed electric furnaces to melt steel if their aim had been to produce molten steel at ground zero; but their supposed purpose had nothing to do with the molten steel weeks afterwards, so why would they make their plan less effective just to maintain molten steel for longer?

And in any case, 40 seconds burn time is still nowhere near long enough.



We know that the rubble pile provided insulation. We know that there was the possibility for forced draught through the rubble pile, caused by convection together with a supply of air to the bottom of the rubble pile via the subway - something notable by its absence from landfill fires. We know that there was the possibility of this air being pre-heated by stored heat as it passed through the lower regions of the rubble pile, leading to higher flame temperatures when it supported combustion in the upper regions. This is all that is necessary for a furnace effect. We also have reports of molten steel in other fires, where there is no reason to suspect a prior building demolition using thermite. On the other hand, the thermite claim requires the presence of pockets thermite, unestablished; the timing of ignition of pockets of thermite to shortly before observation of molten steel, unestablished; the failure of workers on the rubble pile to notice any signs of a thermite reaction, unexplained; and the presumption that thermite might have been chosen as a means of demolition, unsupported and highly counter-intuitive.

All in all, the furnace effect is a greatly superior theory. And even that assumes that the reports of molten steel are accurate, which there is no reason to believe.

Dave

Well first of all don't you think after the buildings fell some other material could have combined with the thermite slowing down the reaction. Also you make it sound like the molten steel would just re-solidify instantly. The truth is how much time it would take to re-solidify is a difficult things to assess. As you said it was an insulated environment, could not the heat have stayed trapped keeping the steel molten, and only solidifying after debris were removed, exposing it to cooler elements? I honestly see no reason why what I suggested could not have happened, and as I said, that is pretty much how I would do it, given this task.

In regards to a natural furnace, the only thing you wrote that makes it any different than regular landfill fires is perhaps the subway. But as I said I could not find any other landfill fire/collapse fire that approached steel melting temperatures. Surely there must have been something similar somewhere, some subway system providing oxygen to a landfill fire, yet I could not find any. (notice I am saying that I could not find any, not that there was none, I can not say that for sure) To me is just seems very unlikely something like that could have occurred, not saying it's impossible(can not make a statement like that with 100% certainty) just very unlikely.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You know nothing of my education, I have never even hinted at what it might be.

LOL you have made it crystal clear what your level of education is. Every post you make is a written record of how dismally the education system has failed you, or you it.

As for Leslie Robertson he assuredly did see molten steel. Here is the video. He also contradicts himself late as this video shows. Please spare me that he was saying "like" a little river of steel, it is clear he is not comparing it to anything. Why did he feel the need to say something totally different years later?

because idiots like you think he meant literally molten steel when all he meant was a molten metal. He didn't test it so he cannot know what it, was so no he did not see molten steel. And it doesn't matter if he did or didn't since no test means no proof. No proof means you have no case.

 

[tmd2_1]

Holy shmoly, tmd

I posted

I hilited the first question. I would have expected that you answer the first question first, and that it would have been a simple "yes" or a simple "no", or maybe a yes or no for each of the three towers.
What I got is this:


Could you please hilite in that train wreck of thought which part gives me the simple "yes" or "no" to the question "do you think that the collapses did NOT look like CDs?"

Thanks.

This is a very loaded question. It does not resemble a "classic" CD no, because that is not how it was engineered. But if you take CD for what it is Controlled demolition as in not a random occurrence. If you look at it for any more than just a glance (which is something perps know most people would not look to intently into it, along with media shoving AQ down our throats) you can clearly see that it is controlled, as in not random. It was a brilliant job to engineer it to appear to have that crush down affect, but as I said it is extremely difficult to make something look random when it is in fact planned.

 

[tmd2_1]

LOL you have made it crystal clear what your level of education is. Every post you make is a written record of how dismally the education system has failed you, or you it.





because idiots like you think he meant literally molten steel when all he meant was a molten metal. He didn't test it so he cannot know what it, was so no he did not see molten steel. And it doesn't matter if he did or didn't since no test means no proof. No proof means you have no case.

If he meant something else he should have said something else. Also if you listen to the radio interview, at 30 seconds or so, he says, "[he's] never run across anyone that's seen molten metal" so either way he's contradicting himself.

Also there really is no need to call me an idiot. You really are only making yourself and your "debunking" cause look bad. But you do whatever you want.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I honestly see no reason why what I suggested could not have happened, and as I said, that is pretty much how I would do it, given this task.

and since you have no expertise in any of the relevant fields you opinion is
absolutely irrelevant and worthless.

In regards to a natural furnace, the only thing you wrote that makes it any different than regular landfill fires is perhaps the subway.

Nonsense, how many landfills have huge quantities of steel beams in them?

But as I said I could not find any other landfill fire/collapse fire that approached steel melting temperatures.

It wasn't a land fill.....and you have no collapse data other than the WTC.

Surely there must have been something similar somewhere, some subway system providing oxygen to a landfill fire, yet I could not find any

.

Similar to 911? you are joking......surely.......nothing comes even close to the sacle of the WTC collapses

(notice I am saying that I could not find any, not that there was none, I can not say that for sure) To me is just seems very unlikely something like that could have occurred, not saying it's impossible(can not make a statement like that with 100% certainty) just very unlikely.

who cares what things "seem" to you? No court ios going to care less what you think as you have no credibility as a "expert" witness.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If he meant something else he should have said something else. Also if you listen to the radio interview, at 30 seconds or so, he says, "[he's] never run across anyone that's seen molten metal" so either way he's contradicting himself.

Sigh......you have been shown many times that people often make that error of speech after fires. He didn't test therefore he cannot possibly have known what it was! and him saying it is not someone else saying it so no contradiction either.....

Also there really is no need to call me an idiot.

I don't lie. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck .....

You really are only making yourself and your "debunking" cause look bad. But you do whatever you want.

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Irony-796569.jpg

 

[NoahFence]

this guy is just pathetic. like EVERY truther.

 

[tmd2_1]

Sigh......you have been shown many times that people often make that error of speech after fires. He didn't test therefore he cannot possibly have known what it was! and him saying it is not someone else saying it so no contradiction either.....



I don't lie. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck .....




http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Irony-796569.jpg

This is not a very hard concept, this is what you said "because idiots like you think he meant literally molten steel when all he meant was a molten metal. " I was stating that Robertson said molten metal in the radio interview, so even if he meant metal and not steel(I don't believe that for a second by the way) he's still contradicting himself.