NoahFence
Banned
Either that or we saw something extraordinary on a day where the extraordinary was commonplace.
Merged So there was melted steel
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
Either that or we saw something extraordinary on a day where the extraordinary was commonplace.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
In this case its apparently backwards. Assuming MM doesnt think people like Bart are stupid, then that leaves being in on the coverup as the reason why he cant tell melted steel means thermite and why he cant see its a demolition when its "so obvious" according to truthers. So they have to have him being in on it, yet he decided to be stupid enough to just admit the use of a high tech incendiary to the whole world apparently oblivious that its a smoking gun.
Either way, stupid genius, idiot savant. Amazing world truthers live in.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
(my formatting)
In all these pages, has any of the CTs ever answered this coherently?
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
So then you admit that you grasp so tightly to these few people claiming they saw seeing molten steel because it's what the cult sucked you in with and the delusion crumbles if those witnesses were wrong about it being molten steel because then there was no conspiracy.
Just as i thought...
I notice that eye witnesses that are beyond fallibility seems to be a common trick used by many religious cults.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
NoahFence
Banned
No, as was previously stated, the stock answer to that hasn't been given to them by the powers that be in twooferville yet.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
And yet you have not shown there was steel melting temperatures. You have Bart who said that there was melted steel, as if this kind of report is an strange occurrence and therefore there probably was. But it is NOT a strange occurrence to find people reporting the same thing about melted steel in other fires. Therefore if you want to claim there was melted steel you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
Kind of like when you guys claim there were people who heard explosions and say this means they heard bombs going off, well so what? Why do we have any reason to think they were bombs when explosions and people reporting explosions in other fires are COMMON?
You have refused to explain why we should think what Bart said is correct, while all the endless examples of people saying the same things about steel in other fires were not. Why cant Bart be just as easily wrong as all those other people? I mean you already think he is completely wrong about everything else, since he doesnt agree with you that thermite was required or that the towers were demolished.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Also, you seemed to miss the word "highrise".
Do highrise fires burn differently than other fires? Not really.
Do you have a point, or are you going to continue on this retarded merry-go-round till your mom kicks you off the computer?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
In this thread we assume, as base premise, that there was molten (liquid in bulk amounts) steel. I think it is fair to deduct steel melting temps from that. We are looking for reasons why this would necessarily have to be logically connected to the failure modes that lead to building collapses weeks earlier.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Yea but they don't want to deal with that argument. So I gave up on it.
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
I think i understand what they are saying. Apparently in the CT mind, a few people had to have seen molten steel because molten steel can only mean that 911 was a conspiracy by an illuminati of joooish reptilian neocon freemasons that run the US Gov't and strive to create an NWO.
It's all falling into place...
It's all falling into place...
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Well, but the argument really is:
1. reports of molten steel therefore 2. molten steel therefore 3. (fill in answer to the OP) therefore 4. inside job.
This chain is broken at 3.
No need to debate whether 1. or 2. are valid, if the chain of reasoning isn't even complete. That's what ozeco calls "enganging them on their own turf".
Imagine this: Suppose new documents appeared that show that they did in fact find hundreds of tons of molten or previously molten steel at Ground Zero weeks and months after the attacks. Or at least a few pounds. Then what? Does this then mean we are wrong with the story of 19 hijackers and office fires, and they are right with inside job? No! Because they never explained why molten steel would point to nefarious means of collapse initiation. You can't be 100% sure that there was absolutely no molten steel - but that is no problem! By defending the position that there was no molten steel, you kinda reinforce theit conviction that presence of molten steel would be suspicious and proof of wrongdoing.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Actually I would call it "engaging them on their own turf" although with the number of us on "our side" "enganging" is sort of appropriate.
The derivation of the principle is military - "Don't fight your enemy on ground of his choosing." He has no doubt chosen that ground because it gives him advantages. Fight on the ground which suits you. (BTW hence my admiration of Chris Mohr debating Gage in Gage's chosen arena.)
Which is where Oystein and others have reprimanded my several times for taking logic shortcuts. When I make statements like "I don't care if there was 100tonnes of thermXte on site - there was no demolition..."
Oystein et al are quite correct to chastise me for the short cut...
....doesn't change the fact that I am right on Point 1.
Even if there was a 100 tonne stockpile of thermXte on Ground Zero it is a very long way from proving CD in the collapses.
...or, translating to the current topic:
Even if there was molten steel in the foundations it is a very long way from proving CD in the collapses.
...I'm also right on Point 2
When we respond to truthers or trolls claims which are less than half made out we do tend to reinforce their false convictions or trolling. Put more simply if we encourage them they'll keep posting.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
The OP was a great idea. But no way can we get truthers to tell us how it was done, even if we "allow" them the starting point.
A W Smith
Philosopher
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.
Leslie Robertson,
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Well obviously here is the argument... you have on one side a proposal that the melted steel was achieved due to thermite (truthers claim) or via a furnace effect we have already gone over.
The reason the argument with truthers doesnt work is they can't explain why their hypothesis of thermite is more likely than a furnace effect. To me thats all there is to it, they will keep insisting that furnace effect is unlikely while ignoring the absurdity of their alternative suggestion.
But all of that just gives them too much credit to start with, they have latched onto the idea there was melted steel due to people like Bart Voorsanger that happened to mention it. Ergo himself said that melted steel existed because it was abnormal to see that in a fire which is why you can find quotes from people that said there was melted steel on 911.
My argument therefore is much simpler and cuts to the point of it all. It is NOT abnormal for people to report melted steel in fires and there is nothing special about what Bart said on 911. Its not remarkable in any way whatsoever, in fact its SO common for people to incorrectly report melted steel in fires that I would even go so far as to say its expected for find people like Bart or firefighters saying there was melted steel on 911.
As you can see they dont want to touch that fact at all. Closest thing was ergo doing some impressive goal post maneuver claiming that high rise fires and peoples response to them are somehow totally different to any other fire.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Leslie was lying he's in on it! He doesnt even think the WTC was a demolition!
When he said there was molten steel before, he was telling the truth!
Not sure why he would admit the conspiracy, but they do that a lot, ahahah we got you stupid NWO!!
Last edited:
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
I clearly meant something for this thread. Crazy, I know.Why should steel melting temperatures have not existed there? What about a gravity collapse precludes steel melting temperatures?