ozeco41
Philosopher
Otherwise stated:
"There was no molten steel, and even if there was, "So what?"
Which sort of takes us back to the OP, dunnit?
Last edited:
Merged So there was melted steel
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
"There was no molten steel, and even if there was, "So what?"
Which sort of takes us back to the OP, dunnit?
That top pic has metal, iron rich, that looks as if it may have melted.
Any ideas why it looks that way? I ain't no metallurgist, but I am curious.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
If you want my opinion... Lighting and texture mostly... The latter which would be from the environment the mass was in before it was recovered (wear and corrosion). The oxidized iron (rust) would be a product of the same environment. I've seen numerous cases in existing buildings where the concrete is stained by rust runoff, it's actually quite common.
The surface material itself is concrete though
The surface material itself is concrete though
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
My commiserations to Travis who started this thread "posted the OP" if you want the jargon.
The OP had a worthy objective. Stated simply that objective was to get the truthers to explain how molten steel is relevant if we grant the hypothetical that it was found. In effect asking "So what if there was molten steel?"
Unfortunately many "debunkers" are enjoying discussing the technical details of "was there molten steel".
...which plays right into the tactics of the trolls and truthers...
...and totally derails Travis's OP.
No pressure on truthers or trolls if we go along with playing their derail games...
Good try Travis .... but it hasn't worked...
The OP had a worthy objective. Stated simply that objective was to get the truthers to explain how molten steel is relevant if we grant the hypothetical that it was found. In effect asking "So what if there was molten steel?"
Unfortunately many "debunkers" are enjoying discussing the technical details of "was there molten steel".
...which plays right into the tactics of the trolls and truthers...
...and totally derails Travis's OP.
No pressure on truthers or trolls if we go along with playing their derail games...
Good try Travis .... but it hasn't worked...
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
No pressure on truthers or trolls if we go along with playing their derail games...
Good try Travis .... but it hasn't worked...
If you look back we did try but truthers refused to understand the point of the OP.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Many weeks and pages ago, we had some of their attention long enough to establish as fact that these truthers do not argue rationally, either because they are inbapable of thinking rationally (for lack of intelligence or other cognitive impairment), or they steadfastly refuse to employ any rational skills. Either way, it has been shown that truthers have no hypothesis of any CD scenario that would be confirmed by the presence of molten steel long after the day.
The inevitable conclusion is: Molten steel is NOT evidence for CD. If it were, if at least one truther had the reasons why molten steel is evidence for CD, she would have understood the point of the OP and written down those reasons.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Good summary.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
How about Bart Simpson?
Miragememories
Banned
In terms of the o/p, previously molten steel in those compacted floor sections would not point to CD by thermite or anything else. For the simple enough reason that the CD "agent" would have no business in those parts of the building in the first place.
Miragememories
Banned
James Glanz and Eric Lipton said:
Ah no. They were not.
Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn wrote 102 Minutes.
MM
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Otherwise stated:
"There was no molten steel, and even if there was, "So what?"
Which sort of takes us back to the OP, dunnit?
Ah yes. The OP. The place where truthers won't tread.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Like I said before, if my experience with the CIT topic is any indication they fundamentally do not understand how evidence is handled. That even with something that raises suspicion present in the area, there are a good deal of cases where that alone isn't enough. For the conspiracy rhetoric, the presence alone is the proof.
For example if one assumes molten steel were found there's no evidence presented so far that can show that:
A) It was like that before the collapse
or
B) That any of the structure was cut that way in such a manner as to initiate collapse.
It'd be a rather interesting find... but ultimately not the priority...
It's a mishandling, intentionally misleading, or absolute ignorance of the way eye witness testimony is collected with the witnesses cited for molten metal or steel. The assessment is always skin deep. If you argue they're testimony doesn't indicate anything the conspiracy view is that you're accusing them of lying... when other factors are at play that don't warrant such a conclusion...
And as for the OP... well... analysis and investigation... how many times have people asked them to do it? They really .... don't... The mere mention of molten steel regardless of context, circumstance or otherwise is their "proof" of the CD. Everything beyond that is Dunning Kruger territory... Something that the whole meteorite excursion exemplifies IMO to the "T". Not that it isn't already clear in the thousands of other threads in the sub forum.
As well-intended as the OP is, I think the answer to its premise was kinda rhetorical... but a good demonstration...
For example if one assumes molten steel were found there's no evidence presented so far that can show that:
A) It was like that before the collapse
or
B) That any of the structure was cut that way in such a manner as to initiate collapse.
It'd be a rather interesting find... but ultimately not the priority...
It's a mishandling, intentionally misleading, or absolute ignorance of the way eye witness testimony is collected with the witnesses cited for molten metal or steel. The assessment is always skin deep. If you argue they're testimony doesn't indicate anything the conspiracy view is that you're accusing them of lying... when other factors are at play that don't warrant such a conclusion...
And as for the OP... well... analysis and investigation... how many times have people asked them to do it? They really .... don't... The mere mention of molten steel regardless of context, circumstance or otherwise is their "proof" of the CD. Everything beyond that is Dunning Kruger territory... Something that the whole meteorite excursion exemplifies IMO to the "T". Not that it isn't already clear in the thousands of other threads in the sub forum.
As well-intended as the OP is, I think the answer to its premise was kinda rhetorical... but a good demonstration...
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
Otherwise stated:
"There was no molten steel, and even if there was, "So what?"
Which sort of takes us back to the OP, dunnit?
Which sort of takes us back to your lack of credibility regarding objective unbiased analysis ozeco41.
The basis of my hypothesis for the molten steel found in various pockets of the WTC Ground Zero debris site, is that it was the consequence of the abundant use of thermitic material.
You dismiss any evidence of of controlled demolition because your incredulity removes any evidence to the contrary from consideration.
You should recuse yourself from any further discussion relating to the subject of controlled demolition ozeco41.
MM
NoahFence
Banned
Not exactly kiddo.
We dismiss any evidence of CD because there WAS NO evidence of CD.
Here's what you fail to grasp:
Molten anything isn't evidence of CD. Period.
You also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it was impossible for whatever material you can conjure up to survive the first few moments of the event!
Everything else is moot.
GET A NEW HOBBY, JUNIOR.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
You dismiss any evidence that the commonly-held narrative is true because your incredulity removes any evidence to the contrary from consideration.
It sounds better that way because there actually IS evidence for the commonly-held narrative.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Lets be fair. He does have a "paper" published in a pay journal, peer-reviewed by associates of the authors that had no experience with the material they were looking for. To compensate for this they made-up their own tests and found a compound they had to make-up the properties of. To drive their point home they, published the data that proves the material they found was not what they say it is.
What makes this all suspicious? No one in the scientific world is paying attention. Proof positive it has to be a cover-up.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So is this thread still the CTers trying to prove there was thermite, or have any of them actually made a coherent hypothosis of why that would mean a controlled deomolition?
Last time I checked the theory was:
Calling paint "thermite" + Mystery Spice = Molten Steel days later.
Which doesn't explain how it would be used to collapse a building. In any practical method.
Last time I checked the theory was:
Calling paint "thermite" + Mystery Spice = Molten Steel days later.
Which doesn't explain how it would be used to collapse a building. In any practical method.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Your "hypothesis" has been shown to be nothing but a result of your imagination and wishful thinking. This is just my opinion, of course, but I'm not alone; you can't very well form a hypothesis on something that isn't a given, can you?
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
911 CTers can't answer how molten steel means massive government plot because their cult leaders haven't told them what to regurgitate on that question yet. Without a CT website or youtube video to tell them what to believe, they are stumped...
Last edited: