Merged So there was melted steel

ergo said:
So, our tea-sipping armchair theorist says that he knows more about what Leslie Robertson, lead engineer for the WTC, saw for himself in the debris pile at Ground Zero. Interesting. And saved for posterity. :D
Click to expand...

You ignore every single eye witness so long as it doesnt agree with you. You dont care that Robertson doesnt agree with you, apparently he's too stupid. You ignore every single firefighter on 911 that has spoken about WTC7, for example.

You also ignore the fact that its common for people to incorrectly report molten steel in fires and that therefore its completely expected to see the same thing happen on 911.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Wow. Seriously wow.

Why would it make any difference whatsoever whether it was in a highrise. Does a high rise not contain any metal? Why wouldnt people make the same incorrect statement that there was melted steel?

The fire experts I quoted not only think steel melted, but that fire melted it.
Click to expand...

The universal laws of nature - physics and chemistry among them - are fundamentally different in highrise buildings.



At least in ergo's universe.
 
ergo said:
So you think the steel did melt at the WTC?
Click to expand...

UH, no? :confused:

I said that the firefighters I quoted said that not only did the steel melt in those fires, but that fire melted it. These are trained experts in what metals melts in fires, where they are even instructed to not attribute the presence of melted metals to an additional accelerant necessarily and describes how steel can appear melted when it hasnt. Yet, they still incorrectly said that steel melted in those fires AND that fire melted it.

What i am telling you is that its a COMMON mistake even experts make in other fires, so to find people saying the same thing on 911 is completely expected and totally unremarkable.

I can literally find endless examples where people talk about how steel melted in other fires. So why should we find it remarkable on 911?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
CAN YOU SPEAK UP A BIT??!!? I can't hear you...

Also, you seemed to miss the word "highrise". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You missed the entire question... quite on purpose i'm sure because your own distorted logic comes back to bite you, so i'll repeat it.

Please show evidence of other significant highrises being taken down by thermite. Hint: You won't find any, because it DOESN'T HAPPEN.
 
Edx said:
You dont care that Robertson doesnt agree with you, apparently he's too stupid.
Click to expand...

Um, just for the record, Robertson doesn't know me, and nothing in my posts have suggested that he's stupid. You might want to check Oystein's posts, though.

Robertson claims he saw rivers of molten steel. There were many other reports of molten steel in the rubble pile of WTC. John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.

Can we agree on these facts, or are you denying them?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
So, our tea-sipping armchair theorist says that he knows more about what Leslie Robertson, lead engineer for the WTC, saw for himself in the debris pile at Ground Zero.

Interesting. And saved for posterity. :D
Click to expand...

Strawman.
No, I did not say I know more about anything than he does.
I replied to this question:
ergo said:
Oystein, are you also saying that Leslie Robertson was wrong?
Click to expand...
and my reply was
Oystein said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

No mention of "knowledge".

Robertson wasn't wrong because he knows less than I do, but because he either used wrong (imprecise) words for what he saw (ETA: or which others saw and told him - don't recall at this time if he refered to his own observation or second-hand), or didn't think his conclusion through.




Question back at you now - and this time, I want a Yes or a No from you, without qualifications:



Do you believe that Robertson actually thinks he witnessed molten steel - a white-hot liquid that is above 2700°F?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
I said that the firefighters I quoted said that not only did the steel melt in those fires, but that fire melted it. These are trained experts in what metals melts in fires, where they are even instructed to not attribute the presence of melted metals to an additional accelerant necessarily and describes how steel can appear melted when it hasnt. Yet, they still incorrectly said that steel melted in those fires AND that fire melted it.
Click to expand...

So the steel girders in the bridge fires you reported are NOT steel?
 
Oystein said:
Robertson wasn't wrong because he knows less than I dom, but because he either used wrong words for what he saw, or didn't think his conclusion through.
Click to expand...

And you know more about this than he does - how ?
 
Quote:
- 1:28 "melted boots ... it's still 1100 degrees...". 1100 degrees is far below the melting point of steel. Workers could not walk on melted steel to get their boots melted
Wow. What a clumsy strawman.
Click to expand...

So you're saying they CAN??


Game over.
 
Oystein said:
The universal laws of nature - physics and chemistry among them - are fundamentally different in highrise buildings.



At least in ergo's universe.
Click to expand...

What's the threshold for that anyway? Physics change after say, 50 stories? Do physics get fuzzy the closer they get to the threshold?

ergo?
 
Robertson claims he saw rivers of molten steel. There were many other reports of molten steel in the rubble pile of WTC. John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.
Click to expand...

Did either of these two people ever come forward and suggest that these rivers of molten steel were indicative of something sinister? That they couldn't possibly have existed outside the realm of controlled demolition?


No?


WELL THEN WHO CARES!?!?
 
NoahFence said:
What's the threshold for that anyway? Physics change after say, 50 stories? Do physics get fuzzy the closer they get to the threshold?

ergo?
Click to expand...

No, would have to be at most 47 stories to account for building 7.

Actually, there are probably at least two thresholds: One slightly below 47 stories, one higher up. Because thermite works differently in WTC7 and the twin towers, and differently still in the rest of the world.
 
Oystein said:
No, would have to be at most 47 stories to account for building 7.

Actually, there are probably at least two thresholds: One slightly below 47 stories, one higher up. Because thermite works differently in WTC7 and the twin towers, and differently still in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Truthers really are that stupid, aren't they?
 
So I'll just repost my questions for the OCTers here before I take a break:

Robertson claims he saw rivers of molten steel. There were many other reports of molten steel in the rubble pile of WTC. John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.


Can we agree on these facts, or are you denying them?
 
ergo said:
So I'll just repost my questions for the OCTers here before I take a break:

Robertson claims he saw rivers of molten steel. There were many other reports of molten steel in the rubble pile of WTC. John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.


Can we agree on these facts, or are you denying them?
Click to expand...

Oystein had a question for you he asked first:

Do you believe that Robertson actually thinks he witnessed molten steel - a white-hot liquid that is above 2700°F?
 
ergo said:
So I'll just repost my questions for the OCTers here before I take a break:

Robertson claims he saw rivers of molten steel. There were many other reports of molten steel in the rubble pile of WTC. John Gross denies there were any reports of molten steel.


Can we agree on these facts, or are you denying them?
Click to expand...
And why should we consider this noteworthy? Are you just trying to tell us there were hot fires? Are you saying this proves something sinister? Spit it out, what are you getting at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom