Merged So there was melted steel

A W Smith said:
Leslie Robertson,
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So Leslie does not remember telling an audience at a seminar sponsored by the Structural Engineering department at Stanford University that he was in the B1 level and one of the firefighters said to him "I think you might be interested in this" and "pulled off a big block of concrete" and there was "a little river of steel flowing" - ? He doesn't remember telling an audience that?

Where's your source for that quote?

And are you now back to your position that there was no molten steel in the WTC debris pile? Or that there were no reports of it? What is it, actually, that you are saying? 9/11 liars change their story so much it's hard to keep track.
 
ergo said:
So Leslie does not remember telling an audience at a seminar sponsored by the Structural Engineering department at Stanford University that he was in the B1 level and one of the firefighters said to him "I think you might be interested in this" and "pulled off a big block of concrete" and there was "a little river of steel flowing" - ? He doesn't remember telling an audience that?

Where's your source for that quote?

And are you now back to your position that there was no molten steel in the WTC debris pile? Or that there were no reports of it? What is it, actually, that you are saying? 9/11 liars change their story so much it's hard to keep track.
Click to expand...

Looks like ergo thinks the requisite amount of time has passed, allowing him to return to the thread without answering the OP.

Uh...not quite.

Get on it please.
 
ergo said:
And apparently no one was capable of answering my question.
Click to expand...
I asked Robertson, he said no melted steel. Looks like you peaked with a moon sized pile of debris.

You can't do 911, better take up a different hobby, you have no clue on 911 issues. zero ability to figure out 911, you might want to work with Bigfoot followers.


ergo said:
By the way, that's a sucky drawing of a platypus...
Click to expand...
Failure, at every post.
 
Last edited:
The appropriate question given the OP's assumptions might be, if we give credence to the idea that all of these experts are correct then:

- Why aren't they sounding alarms?
- Have these assumed findings of melted steel been found to contribute to initiating the collapse at all?


Ozeco brought up a few times - and I do agree with him - that with the parameters set by the OP you could potentially expose nefarious intent, like a plot to execute something with thermxte, but if the presence of melted steel can't be linked to the cause of collapse then truthers immediately hit a brick wall trying to prove any kind of CD.

Truthers always focus on:
the presence of melted steel = use of thermite = demolition

But they can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the collapse for all intents and purposes occurred without any assistance, and with truthers unable to establish the missing link, that's how it stays.

The OP would grant truthers a case for a "plot to demolish the buildings" but not the ability to claim that the "plot" was executed.
 
tmd2_1 already answered those questions on the first page.

Somehow, it has taken so-called skeptics here 60 more pages of dithering and equivocating and they still don't understand the answers.

But I find your question "Why aren't they sounding alarms?" interesting.

Why do you think they would?
 
Temperature measurements typically cited for what tmd remarks on were taken after the collapse effectively putting that argument in a loop (there are no reliably accurate temperature measurements taken on-site during the event). The OP already assumes that thermite was present along with melted steel after the collapse; what he doesn't remark on is how post-collapse measurements he claims to represent evidence accurately reflects the situation precollapse, something which needs to be established very clearly in order for the "conspiracy to demolish" to turn into an executed plan.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
tmd2_1 already answered those questions on the first page.

Somehow, it has taken so-called skeptics here 60 more pages of dithering and equivocating and they still don't understand the answers.

But I find your question "Why aren't they sounding alarms?" interesting.

Why do you think they would?
Click to expand...

I think they would because I'm not in a cult that brainwashes me with fear and paranoia so that I see all the experts as sinister conspirators, like you do.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Somehow, it has taken so-called skeptics here 60 more pages of dithering and equivocating and they still don't understand the answers.
Click to expand...

Somehow, it has taken so-called truthers 10 years of dithering and equivocating and they still don't understand the answers.
 
ergo said:
"I think you might be interested in this" and "pulled off a big block of concrete" and there was "a little river of steel flowing" - ? He doesn't remember telling an audience that?
Click to expand...

He didn't say that there was "a little river of steel"..

He said, "and there was LIKE, uh, a little river of steel".

And why would it matter if it was correct?

How could thermite do it? (presuming this is the twoofer stance)

How could painted on thermite, after being mixed with the dust, concentrate itself into pure piles capable of producing these "rivers of steel", when Dr Jones himself admitted that said painted on thermite couldn't heat the steel worth a crap, and instead was used as a match for the conventional explosives?

I expect a dodge and weave, and zero conclusive statement.

Prove me wrong, troll....
 
Seymour Butz said:
How could thermite do it? (presuming this is the twoofer stance)

How could painted on thermite, after being mixed with the dust, concentrate itself into pure piles capable of producing these "rivers of steel", when Dr Jones himself admitted that said painted on thermite couldn't heat the steel worth a crap, and instead was used as a match for the conventional explosives?

I expect a dodge and weave, and zero conclusive statement.

Prove me wrong, troll....
Click to expand...

Not likely considering he believes this post already answers your question.

ergo said:
tmd2_1 already answered those questions on the first page.

Somehow, it has taken so-called skeptics here 60 more pages of dithering and equivocating and they still don't understand the answers.
Click to expand...

tmd2_1 said:
Because steel melts at about 2700F, the hottest jet fuel burns at is about 1800F, there is nothing that would burn hotter than this 1800F in a normal office environment. Given this there is nothing that should have been naturally occurring that was hot enough to melt steel. So if there was melted steel, game over for the official story. It doesn't matter whether it was thermite or some other agent. If there was molten steel, it's game over for the official story.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Lol.



Here's a thought. You guys figure out what you're saying, then get back to us. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



We're talking about two different arguments going on here ergo, do keep up.

Travis is operating under the assumption that there was molten steel as a hypothetical exercise.

Maybe you're not bright enough to know the difference.
 
ergo said:
So Leslie does not remember telling an audience at a seminar sponsored by the Structural Engineering department at Stanford University that he was in the B1 level and one of the firefighters said to him "I think you might be interested in this" and "pulled off a big block of concrete" and there was "a little river of steel flowing" - ? He doesn't remember telling an audience that?
Click to expand...

So you think he is lying? Why would he do that?

If he is lying, why would be have admitted there was melted steel to start with?

Is he another one of your stupid genius' conspirators?
 
Edx said:
So you think he is lying? Why would he do that?
Click to expand...

What do you think, EdX? Which statement of his should we take as true? The one he made to an audience of structural engineers at Stanford University? Or the one that you haven't sourced?

What does your "skepticality" tell you is right?
 
ergo said:
So Leslie does not remember telling an audience at a seminar sponsored by the Structural Engineering department at Stanford University that he was in the B1 level and one of the firefighters said to him "I think you might be interested in this" and "pulled off a big block of concrete" and there was "a little river of steel flowing" - ? He doesn't remember telling an audience that?

Where's your source for that quote?

And are you now back to your position that there was no molten steel in the WTC debris pile? Or that there were no reports of it? What is it, actually, that you are saying? 9/11 liars change their story so much it's hard to keep track.
Click to expand...


The quote you attribute to Leslie Robertson never came from him. It was taken second hand from a bullet point list of notes James M.Williams took at a SEAU conference. "Following are some other interesting
facts you may not know."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom