Merged So there was melted steel

tmd2_1 said:
sheeplesnshills said:
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.
Click to expand...

you really need to stop posting here, and seek help for whatever mental malady it is that requires you to lie.
Click to expand...
 
tmd2_1 said:
Did you even watch the video?
Click to expand...
You post hearsay and lies. All you do is SPAM JREF with nonsense you never check out, you just google and post, you take lies from 911 truth and recycle them.

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...
Have you retracted this hearsay you posted? Where is the original source? How hot was it? Got the data?

No, you ignore facts, post nonsense, and never finish anything.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You post hearsay and lies. All you do is SPAM JREF with nonsense you never check out, you just google and post, you take lies from 911 truth and recycle them.


Have you retracted this hearsay you posted? Where is the original source? How hot was it? Got the data?

No, you ignore facts, post nonsense, and never finish anything.
Click to expand...

That's an American society of safety engineers release.
 
tmd2_1 said:
[QUOTE-NoahFence;7650157]
tmd2_1 said:
you really need to stop posting here, and seek help for whatever mental malady it is that requires you to lie.
Click to expand...


Did you even watch the video?
Click to expand...
How about we quote accurately folks. :)

You didn't say that tmd2. And, yes, several earlier posts had similar misquotes.


(Yes I changed one character so my quote would accurately replicate look like what I was quoting.)


cccc
 
Way too tired to read that drivel right now.

So I'm calling either quote mining, misrepresenting, misinterpreting (on purpose) or making a stupid point out of something that just isn't there.

Do I win a million bucks when one of those proves to be true in the AM when I get around to reading it?

Do stay tuned!
 
NoahFence said:
Way too tired to read that drivel right now.

So I'm calling either quote mining, misrepresenting, misinterpreting (on purpose) or making a stupid point out of something that just isn't there.

Do I win a million bucks when one of those proves to be true in the AM when I get around to reading it?

Do stay tuned!
Click to expand...

Glad you think an ASSE release is drivel. I'm sure they would love to hear that.
 
tmd2_1 said:
That's an American society of safety engineers release.
Click to expand...
You posted hearsay, why don't you understand what hearsay is?

Where is the original data? Post the original data, or retract the hearsay. Can't you find real data? Are you fooled by what you read, blindly posting hearsay as your evidence.

tmd2_1 said:
Glad you think an ASSE release is drivel. I'm sure they would love to hear that.
Click to expand...
You posted hearsay. Why did you post hearsay? All your delusions on 911 are based on hearsay.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
This is the third time I posted it. http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm
Click to expand...

... it means you post hearsay three times and can't learn.

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." ...
Click to expand...
This is hearsay.
You and 911 truth take this hearsay and build your too hot delusion. Where is the original work? Will you do real research on 911, or stick with delusions from 911 truth?

AE take the hearsay and builds lies. How far does one piece of hearsay go, how many lies can you build on hearsay?
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-a...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html Like you do.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"

Or are you afraid to commit?

Thanks.
 
Unreal! You completely lost track of the topic of this thread. You totally ignored my last post which reminded you of that topic. As you have ignored a simple question ("what's your Reasoning?") asked of you many dozends of times. Allow me to repeat:

So let me remind you of the very first line posted by the OP:
Travis said:
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 it means anything malicious.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Oystein said:
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?"

Or are you afraid to commit?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the question has a simple yes or no answer. I gave the best answer I could. I said it was a very loaded question.
 
Oystein said:
Unreal! You completely lost track of the topic of this thread. You totally ignored my last post which reminded you of that topic. As you have ignored a simple question ("what's your Reasoning?") asked of you many dozends of times. Allow me to repeat:

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

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.
Click to expand...

I have been...post 993 is the latest example of it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I don't believe the question has a simple yes or no answer. I gave the best answer I could. I said it was a very loaded question.
Click to expand...

Well if you think the question is loaded (it isn't) what do you think the collapses looked like?
A) Did not look like CD.
B) Did look like CD.
C) Looked like CD to me but cleverly done so it doesn't look like CD to other people.
D) Did not look like CD but I think it was CD cleverly disguised.
E) (Fill in your version)................................................

I think you are down path "D" but the confusing way you write makes it hard to tell with any assurance. :)

And there is no real difference between "C" and "D" ;)
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I don't believe the question has a simple yes or no answer. I gave the best answer I could. I said it was a very loaded question.
Click to expand...

Let's try to remember what we are talking about here:

1. You claimed that the collapses were designed to NOT look like CD. Right? This question is not loaded and can be answered "yes" or "no"
2. I asked if YOU think that "they" succeeded with their design; this can be answered "yes" if YOU cannot tell by the look of of the collapses that they are CDs, and "no" if YOU can see that they are CDs. So this question can be rephrased: Can YOU, tmd, see that the towers were CDs?
This question is not loaded, and can be answered with a simple "yes" or a simple "no". You either can or can't; there is no middle ground. If "yes" you can see they are CDs, then the answer to my initial question "did they succeed with their design?" is "no", and vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom