Merged So there was melted steel

[Oystein]

I have ergo on ignore, for good reasons, but as I have nothing better to do at this time than to watch an episode of Two and a half Men for the 3rd or 4th time, I thought this could be fun. Gee, ergo, you really should read up first. Even the 56 pages here.

...

1) Why didn't they just investigate it in the first place? Take pictures even?

Assuming the Conclusion Logical Fallacy.
There was no molten steel and very little molten metal. The molten metal that was there was totally unremarkable.
You can't investigate things that are not there.
You can't photograph things that aren't there.
They did investigate what they found and photographed lots of it.

2) Why does this sound so much like the "There was no free fall, dammit!!1!" argument?

Strawman Logical Fallacy.
Because that's how truthers frame it.
In reality, no one ever insisted that nothing fell at free fall speed at any time at all. And no one ever denied that there was molten metal.

3) Where is the evidence/reports of molten steel/metal in the most significant highrise fires of the last century?

EDX has posted plenty of evidence for reports of molten steel and other metals many many times in this thread. You ought to have read the thread, or at least the last several pages.
If you read these posts, then you totally missed the point: Reports of molten steel are common - however they are not evidence for molten steel. These reports are simply wrong in nearly all cases. You (consciously, it seems) conflate "reports of" with "evidence".
Equivocation Logical Fallacy.

4) If it's so common, why would 9/11 idiots spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11? (see question 2).

Yes indeed, see question 2:
Strawman Logical Fallacy.
In reality, no one ever denied that there was molten metal. Melting several metals such as aluminium, copper, lead etc. is totally unremarkable and expected given their melting points and the temperatures commonly reached in building fires.



Ergo, if you have questions that are not stupid, maybe I'll consider answering them. For now, back to ignore with you.

 

[carlitos]

4) If it's so common, why would 9/11 idiots spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11? (see question 2).

I think that ergo's question #4 is a good one, and best represents the reason to take Mackey's good advice and ignore the current crop of trolls discussing 9/11. Just because you can do it while watching 2 1/2 Men reruns doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[ergo]

Strawman Logical Fallacy.
Because that's how truthers frame it.
In reality, no one ever insisted that nothing fell at free fall speed at any time at all. And no one ever denied that there was molten metal.

The claim was for years, that none of the buildings fell at free fall speed. This claim only changed when NIST acknowedged that WTC 7, for a segment of its descent, did free fall.

Assuming the Conclusion Logical Fallacy.
There was no molten steel and very little molten metal. The molten metal that was there was totally unremarkable.
You can't investigate things that are not there.
You can't photograph things that aren't there.
They did investigate what they found and photographed lots of it.

OMG. How do you know there was no molten steel if you didn't investigate the reports of molten steel?? And now you're just going back to lying? I see.

Carry on. Your other points don't even address my questions.

 

[ergo]

I think that ergo's question #4 is a good one,

Thanks, Carlitos. Care to answer it?

 

[Oystein]

I think that ergo's question #4 is a good one, and best represents the reason to take Mackey's good advice and ignore the current crop of trolls discussing 9/11.

I don't think it's a good questions, and gave my reasons.

Just because you can do it while watching 2 1/2 Men reruns doesn't make it a good idea.

I didn't claim it's a good idea. In fact, I meant to let you guys know that I am fully aware that my post was rather worthless - not because the content isn't clever, but because arguing with ergo has in the past proven useless. I just couldn't think of a better entertainment alternative while having my tea.

 

[Edx]

9/11 idiots, including John Gross, spend how many years saying there was no molten steel, there was no molten metal. Now they admit (sort of, pending official acknowledgement) that there was but that it's common to find molten steel/molten metal in highrise fires? And/or that the molten metal is actually molten aluminum. (The stories change a fair bit )

Who said there was no molten metal? Molten metal is expected in fires.

As I told MM, reports of molten steel are also COMMON in other fires and therefore EXPECTED on 911.

 

[Oystein]

The claim was for years, that none of the buildings fell at free fall speed. This claim only changed when NIST acknowedged that WTC 7, for a segment of its descent, did free fall.

The claim still stands: None of the buildings fell at free fall speed, and NIST has not acknowledged any such folly.
A part of a building fell at around free fall speed for a brief time interval. The buildings fell at less than free fall acceleration at all times during their collapses.

OMG. How do you know there was no molten steel if you didn't investigate the reports of molten steel??

Because such reports are unremarkable and in almost all cases obviously not literally true. There is zero initial evidence for molten steel, and at any rate, as this thread has shown over and over again, no one has yet been able to explain why the presence of molten steel would be of any interest with regard to determining how and why the towers collapsed. There is zero logical connection between the two.

Carry on. Your other points don't even address my questions.

Of course they don't: Your questions have invalid premises and deserve no answer. I addressed the premises and showed how and where they are wrong. Whether the reason is stupidity or dishonesty on your part, I leave that open.

 

[ergo]

Who said there was no molten metal? Molten metal is expected in fires.

John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.

Leslie Robertson confirms molten steel.

 

[carlitos]

I don't think it's a good questions, and gave my reasons.

Fair enough. We disagree. While I don't characterize you as a "9/11 Idiot," I think that the question:

why would [9/11 idiots] spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11?

is a fair one. Why, indeed. Most of us realized, in the very first thread in which ergo participated, that he was simply trolling for lulz.

Just to clarify my earlier post, 'plonk' is a usenet term, meaning I put him on ignore. Arguments from incredulity get old quickly.

Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed.

Don't forget that this attention-seeker also asserted that a pile of rubble the size of the Earth's moon might not crush a high rise. It's a game; forget it. JREF allows trolling. On the bright side, he/she will likely win the August Stundie award.

I didn't claim it's a good idea. In fact, I meant to let you guys know that I am fully aware that my post was rather worthless - not because the content isn't clever, but because arguing with ergo has in the past proven useless. I just couldn't think of a better entertainment alternative while having my tea.

Fair enough. I've been guilty of this enough that I can't really criticize. On the bright side, I have learned a lot of physics for free.

 

[Edx]

John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.

Leslie Robertson confirms molten steel.

Ii asked you, ergo, "Who said there was no molten metal?"

Not all metals are steel.



Please do check the thread, its common for people and experts to report - incorrectly, that steel melted in fires. Why is it no truthers can ever deal with this? MM's being ignoring it for pages and pages.

 

[ergo]

Ii asked you, ergo, "Who said there was no molten metal?"

Don't play word games, Ed. Most of the early reports of molten metal were actually reports of molten steel, so right now we are talking about steel. As are both John Gross and Leslie Robertson. Can you resolve the contradiction created by their statements?

 

[Oystein]

Fair enough. We disagree. While I don't characterize you as a "9/11 Idiot," I think that the question:

why would [9/11 idiots] spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11?

is a fair one. Why, indeed. ...

In context, the question was:

...
9/11 idiots... spend how many years saying there was no molten steel, there was no molten metal. Now they admit (sort of, pending official acknowledgement) that there was but that it's common to find molten steel/molten metal in highrise fires? And/or that the molten metal is actually molten aluminum. (The stories change a fair bit )
...
4) If it's so common, why would 9/11 idiots spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11? ...

It would be a fair question if rational people had in fact
- denied (for "X-many years") that there was molten metal,
or
- conceded now that molten steel is common in highrise fires.
Carlitos, is one of those premises true, or are both false? It is my observation that no one ever claimed that there was no molten metal, and no one really agrees that there was molten steel. Do you agree or disagree?

Basically, ergo is conflating metal and steel, is doing that rather clumsily, and I think you are falling for it.

 

[Edx]

Don't play word games, Ed. Most of the early reports of molten metal were actually reports of molten steel, so right now we are talking about steel. As are both John Gross and Leslie Robertson. Can you resolve the contradiction created by their statements?

lol, its not a word game. Not all metals are steel. Plenty of metals melt in fires.

Molten metal is expected in fires, they even teach firefighters about what metals melt and what metals to expect to encounter. They even teach you that steel can sometimes appear melted.

The contradiction is irrelevant, because people and experts INCORRECTLY say that there is molten steel in other fires ALL THE TIME. Therefore I do not see it as at all special that people incorrectly said there was molten steel on 911 as well.

 

[Oystein]

Don't play word games, Ed. Most of the early reports of molten metal were actually reports of molten steel, so right now we are talking about steel. As are both John Gross and Leslie Robertson. Can you resolve the contradiction created by their statements?

You are still conflating reports of something with the actual thing. Edx sees this very clearly, and I think you should by now know that Edx sees this clearly, as do I, so please do not again try to pass this by us. Understand?

 

[ergo]

You don't read very well.

John Gross denied reports of molten steel, even though one of those reports was from Leslie Robertson himself.

Translation for our Terrists-Done-It friends: Yes, there were reports of molten steel. John Gross says there weren't. Who's right?

 

[ergo]

Here's one of the origins of the 9/11 idiot "steel columns melted" theory:

The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

Note he says "collapsed" rather than "dripped".

The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

 

[Edx]

You don't read very well.

John Gross denied reports of molten steel, even though one of those reports was from Leslie Robertson himself.

Translation for our Terrists-Done-It friends: Yes, there were reports of molten steel. John Gross says there weren't. Who's right?

Again, i really don't care if Gross didnt know that Robertson said it. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that its COMMON for people to report that there is molten steel in fires? I even showed MM examples of fire experts before 911 that not only incorrectly said steel melted, but said that fire melted it!

Is this point invisible to you guys? hahaha

Its not abnormal to have people saying these kinds of things. Sorry.

 

[carlitos]

No no no, I already admitted, without qualification, that I am feeding a troll.

But you said his question #4 was a fair one. Is it?

I only meant the "why would [9/11 Idiots] spend years..." part. I wouldn't expect ergo to formulate an honest question with legitimate premises. No worries.

 

[ergo]

Again, i really don't care if Gross didnt know that Robertson said it.

You're kind of missing the point here. Oystein claims there were no reports of molten steel and that's why no one investigated. We know, in fact, that most reports of molten anything were reports of molten steel. POOLS of molten steel.

The reason why these were reported was because they're highly unusual.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that its COMMON for people to report that there is molten steel in fires?

Please show us evidence of reports of molten steel in other significant highrises. Hint: You won't find any, because it DOESN'T HAPPEN. If firefighters routinely encounter pools of molten steel from highrise fires why would they comment on it re: the WTC? Why would Leslie Robertson comment on it?

 

[Oystein]

I only meant the "why would [9/11 Idiots] spend years..." part. I wouldn't expect ergo to formulate an honest question with legitimate premises. No worries.

Oh - that...