Merged So there was melted steel

[DGM]

I'm merely pointing out that he is critical of how the WTC steel was handled prior to a proper investigation.

And what is his views on the conclusions of the investigation? How about Robertson? Does he want a new investigation?

 

[ergo]

Why are all these "experts" apparently so blasé about saying that there was melted steel?]

They're not. Have you not heard the testimonies? Have you not read the quotes?

It’s this fused element of steel, molten steel, and concrete, and all of these things all fused by the heat……Architects, engineers, people who work with steel, welders, have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in our lives…

 

[DGM]

Bart Voorsanger, Structural Engineer

What does he think about your conclusion that the buildings were demolished by controlled demolition?

 

[DGM]

Ergo:

Why do you keep quoting names of people that don't agree with you?

 

[ergo]

I don't know, DGM, why don't you ask him. Right now I'm just trying to establish that there were many, many credible reports of melted or fused steel, molten steel, rivers and pools of molten metal in the debris.

This seems to be a real cognitive block for you guys.

 

[DGM]

I don't know, DGM, why don't you ask him. Right now I'm just trying to establish that there were many, many credible reports of melted or fused steel, molten steel, rivers and pools of molten metal in the debris.

This seems to be a real cognitive block for you guys.

Not at all. I've said it before. I don't care if there was molten steel. Show me how it changes the "official story".

Bet you can't?

(PM me if you want to make a wage).

 

[Edx]

They're not. Have you not heard the testimonies? Have you not read the quotes?

We've been over that exact quote for pages and pages and pages with MM

It applies to him as well.

Deal with the questions..

• Why doesnt he know that melted steel points to thermite?
  
  
• Why doesnt he even think its suspicious?
  
  
• Why are all these "experts" apparently so blasé about saying that there was melted steel?

The quote of Robertson's that you keep saying he "can't remember saying" was the wrong quote. His quote on molten steel is found here.

I KNOW HE SAID IT. Robertson said he cant remember saying it - which is my point exactly. They ARE blase about saying this. WHY IS THAT?

People say things like that all the time, even experts, to describe any melted metal. We know this because I showed you that they do, EVEN FIRE EXPERTS.

If they are not blase about it and they really do mean what you think they mean, then it means you require Robertson to have been correct saying there was molten steel, but then deny it later because he is in on a conspiracy to cover up the "obvious" demolition. Therefore making him a IDIOT co-conspirator that couldn't keep his mouth shut.

With Bart Voorsanger, he is blase about saying that there is melted steel. He uses the phrase in the exact same way it used - incorrectly - in hundreds of other fires. At no time does he suggest anything suspicious about it.

You however require Voorsanger and his company to be an expert enough to know there is melted steel, but too incompetent to know what that means, which according to you is that it is suspicious and points to something like thermite. But its worse, because he doesnt agree it was a demoltion either, like Robertson, so that makes him just another IDIOT co-conspirator that apparenlty cant keep his mouth shut.

With Astaneh its the same story. You have more to use here because of his terrible broken English on occasion... But whatever you try and glean from his quotes the point remains that Astaneh doesnt think that there is anything suspicious about the melted steel, something you say can only mean thermite. You said he is an expert, yet he cannot be an expert if he can't know something that even unqualified people on the internet can understand. But he also doesnt agree with you about demoltion either, so again this means he is not an expert and incompetent at the same time, rather he is an idiot co-conspirator that is too stupid to keep his mouth shut.

Maybe none of them mean what you think they mean.

 

[BasqueArch]

Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?

I don't know, DGM, why don't you ask him. Right now I'm just trying to establish that there were many, many credible reports of melted or fused steel, molten steel, rivers and pools of molten metal in the debris.

This seems to be a real cognitive block for you guys.

Gee ergo
Per OP, to date, we know thermite wasn't used, natural means would have caused the steel to melt, if any, if it was steel, and so no Conspiracy. What else you got?
[/thread]

 

[ergo]

With Bart Voorsanger, he is blase about saying that there is melted steel. he uses the phase in the exact same way it used - incorrectly - in hundreds of other fires.

I'm sorry, I can't continue an argument with someone who insists that EVERYONE's statements were "WRONG!", and providing no evidence, because he can't, that this is so.

Surely you understand this.

 

[ergo]

we know thermite wasn't used,

Oh, news to me. Where has this been determined? Where is the big thermite-debunking paper?

 

[ergo]

If they are not blase about it and they really do mean what you think they mean, then it means you require Robertson to have been correct saying there was molten steel, but then deny it later because he is in on a conspiracy to cover up the "obvious" demolition. Therefore making him a IDIOT co-conspirator that couldn't keep his mouth shut.

And I've already addressed this. EdX, you're not paying attention to anything that's being said here. Your arguments are hysterical and irrational.

 

[Edx]

I'm sorry, I can't continue an argument with someone who insists that EVERYONE's statements were "WRONG!", and providing no evidence, because he can't, that this is so.

Surely you understand this.

Ergo, stop this. I specifically said that I did not think they were wrong, just that EVIDENTLY they cannot mean what you think they mean. If they did then they have to be incompetent and experts at the same time.

You wont answer the question as to how its possible for them to be experts to know its melted steel but too incompetent to know what that means, because you know you can't. You will have to reject the idea that they are experts, which then removes your appeal to authority and you'll have nothing yet again.

Go ahead prove me wrong,. tell me how to reconcile these two contradictory stances of yours.

 

[Edx]

And I've already addressed this. EdX, you're not paying attention to anything that's being said here. Your arguments are hysterical and irrational.

You didnt address anything, you just denied you were saying that.

I am asking how you reconcile the two positions.

• 1. They are experts to know there was melted/molten steel.

...VS...

• 2. They are too incompetent to know that steel indicates thermite

• 3. They are two incompetent to know that the towers were demolished.

Because of 2 and 3 you believe should be obvious even to unqualified amateurs, this makes point 1 a contradiction. All 3 points cannot be true at the same time, unless they are lying, which would still make them idiots for admitting a critical part of the conspiracy.

Show me how to reconcile it.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
we know thermite wasn't used,

Oh, news to me. Where has this been determined? Where is the big thermite-debunking paper?

My post last page. You don't read or comprehend good.
Probably that big faith stick in your eye.
Here it is:

This theory is a multiple appeal to magic.

First of all, you fantasize about a "steady supply of un-ignited dust" - as if there was a mechanism that continually moved just the right amount of solif fuel to the hotspot, over the course of weeks, without interrruption. This in a chaotic, but largely steady debris pile. That's wishful thinking. buddy. Your magic: Dust is solid and liquid at the same time, and it moves wherever it's needed all by its own!
Secondly, you wish for nanothermite to do exactly what it is designed NOT to do: To burn slowly. The whole point of nano-sizing thermite is to make it burn a lot faster than regular thermite! Your magic: You make nano-thermite burn fast and slow at the same time! Thirdly, there is a dissonance between keeping the hotspot just above 430°C, and having it hot enough to melt steel. Which is it? Your magic: The nano-thermite fire is fairly cool and extremely hot at the same time! Fourthly, and that's what kills your theory: You want nanothermite, with its measly energy density of 1.5 kJ/g to keep burning and staying hot for weeks. This defies even the simplest considerations of thermodynamics. Even the best insulation in a debris pile could not do that, unless you have absolutely ridiculous amounts of the stuff at your disposal. Your magic: Little energy turns into great heat - You create energy out of nothing!
In short: With thermite, no matter how you turn it, you can't have it both ways: Burn it slowly over the course of weeks, and make it melt steel in the process.

I guess you will reject the points I raised, because you have zero understanding of the chemical physics and of thermodynamics behind them. You certainly don't have the faintest clue about why thermite can melt steel in the first place. You never grasped what energy density means, and how it relates to your problems. It is only because the science involved here is utterly foreign to you that you can, and must, believe in magic.

Clarke's third law applies to you, Miragememories: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Fire and insulation are, like falling things, technologies too advanced for you. You don't know where their science ends and your magic begins.

 

[ergo]

Ergo, stop this. I specifically said that I did not think they were wrong, just hat EVIDENTLY they cannot mean what you think they mean. If they did then they have to be incompetent and experts at the same time.

No, not "evidently." That's your problem. Your basis for your beliefs is personal conjecture. You have no authority to judge the verity of these statements.

 

[ergo]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
we know thermite wasn't used,


My post last page. You don't read or comprehend good.
Probably that big faith stick in your eye.
Here it is:

A post by Oystein is your big thermite-debunking paper?

 

[Edx]

No, not "evidently." That's your problem. Your basis for your beliefs is personal conjecture. You have no authority to judge the verity of these statements.

It is "evidently", because otherwise it makes them expert morons.

It is "evidently", because if they're not expert morons, they are idiot co-conspirators that can't keep their mouths shut.

I am asking you to tell me how that makes sense, or if there is another way to reconcile the fact that they see no issue with melted steel or the collapse or the towers, yet at the same time remaining authoritative "experts".

 

[Carlos]

ergo

So, why Astaneh does not support the controlled demolition theory?

 

[DGM]

No, not "evidently." That's your problem. Your basis for your beliefs is personal conjecture. You have no authority to judge the verity of these statements.

I agree. So what is their opinion on what caused the towers to collapse? You quoted some big names, what do they think happened?

 

[BasqueArch]

A post by Oystein is your big thermite-debunking paper?

It's not big because it doesn't have to be, but it's right and you can't answer it.