NoahFence
Banned
I love how his hypothesis of "abundant" use of thermetic material doesn't include any reasonable discussion on just how it was supposed to have happened.
UNDETECTED.
UNDETECTED.
Merged So there was melted steel
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
911 cults don't use reasonable discussion on how, you are supposed to believe it on the same basis as a 911 CTer. Because some guy on the internet said so. That's not good enough for you?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
They can thank Steven Jones for this dilemma. He introduced the therm*te hypothesis, then molten steel became a truther obsession. But he backed away from therm*te and started pushing for nanothermite, which supposedly is an explosive, not a molten steel producer (it can apparently fling huge beams 600' with this power).
Truthers are stuck believing all the above, whereas Jones shrugs off one theory when he finds another, more attractive one. It's what he does.
What truthers haven't figured out yet is that the answer may be: NONE of the above. They're not smart enough, apparently.
NoahFence
Banned
911 cults don't use reasonable discussion on how, you are supposed to believe it on the same basis as a 911 CTer. Because some guy on the internet said so. That's not good enough for you?
The trouble with that, speaking only for myself of course, is that the first post on the webz was a post saying it was impossible. So that has to be right... doesn't it? Maybe I shouldn't have even turned on teh interwebz until AE911 came out.
Grrr....
ETA
You know what? Maybe there's a secret twoofer contest to see who can hold out the longest spewing lies, sorta like Seinfeld's "master of your domain" episode only instead of playing with the front they talk out of the back?
Last edited:
It comes down to special 911 truth logic.
molten steel + jet fuel can't melt steel = inside job
911 truth cult math - take any false statement or random fact about 911, add a true statement or random fact about anything, the answer is "inside job".
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
It seems to me that its based on a two assumptions.
1. The reports on 911 are abnormal and not expected. and there had to be molten steel because no one would report seeing molten steel if there was none.
2. Only thermite could have melted steel
Therefore it had to be an inside job.
Turns out they are completely wrong with both assumptions but as you say they dont have a answer to regurgitate even they find plausible so they simply avoid discussing the two points entirely with any bizzare reasons they can think of. Ive been trying to get MM to talk about the fact that its entirely expected for people to report molten steel on 911 but if you look back he just won't deal with it, no truthers will. But MM is the definition of special pleading, so it should be of no real surprise.
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
Your pics are nice but I need to see the original wideshot.
While you're at it, since you apparently take great pride in your photo scrutinizing ability, and given that you are so incredulous regarding paper surviving in purported close proximity to molten steel, how do you account for this famous 'go to' image image which Official Story advocates love to drag out?
MM
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Or where exactly it was used and why whatever housings it was stored (required to make it cut through columns) were tough enough to survive the impact of the plane yet so fragile they were turned to dust in the collapse, nor that a single one of all the columns should show any sign of being cut..........and if the containers were tough enough to survive the impact how did all the thermite get scattered about yet still in magical concentrations to magically filter into magically insulated areas which magically kept steel molten for weeks yet still act as a fire retardant on the surface?????
All the above seems more probable to him than a few guys speaking outside their areas of expertise simply being mistaken?
Makes no sense to me......
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
lol, you know how easily paper burns, don't you MM? The wood in this image is burnt, maybe you cant see that with your amazing blinkers on.
The point of this picture is that it shows that wood can hold its structural integrity for longer than steel in fires. No one says it isn't even burnt. hahaha!!
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
"Char". It's what makes wood a more heat resistant building material than steel.
You're welcome.
Miragememories
Banned
Lame.
I am well aware of char and its heat resistant ability.
But why did the wood not burn through in a fire hot enough to bend I-beams?
How did the wood retain sufficient strength to not snap under the weight of those I-beams?
So why is it not possible for that large WTC debris specimen to contain re-solidified molten steel yet have spots containing paper?
MM
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Because unprotected steel doesnt perform well in fires maybe? Beacuse it doesnt take temperatures that hot to weaken steel to this point?
But no you're probably right, its all a big conspiracy by the wood companies. Its clearly staged. There really are conspiracies everywhere!
So apparently you don't know how easy it is to set paper on fire.
Look, here's a video showing how you can even burn paper with an empty lighter!
And it may be another fake but I hear some people know how to make fire hot enough to burn paper simply by rubbing two sticks together!!
So then... how did the paper not burn but the steel melt, MM?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
What's the "official story"? Isn't that just a dishonest childish slogan chanted by cult kooks which refers to the reality of what happened?
And who are it's "advocates"? Aren't they the people that aren't stupid enough to fall for 9/11 cult's many and varied delusional stories and lies?
NoahFence
Banned
Those beams were never molten - but see how they sag? Stick 25 or so stories each an acre on top of em and see how long that structure lasts.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Sorry, I missed part two of your post. I personally never said it wasn't. I also don't really care. How would this indicate anything I should be interested in?
It is that simple.
NoahFence
Banned
Re solidified steel disproves CD more than it proves it.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm not sure I would go that far. I think something along the lines of "irrelevant" would be more appropriate.
"Unless someone can come up with a logical connection, the presence of previously molten steel is irrelevant".
Better?
A W Smith
Philosopher
you will find that is a quote from 102 minutes which in turn is a quote from city in the sky. They were the authors.
A W Smith
Philosopher
So there was "melted" steel. what does it prove?