Merged So there was melted steel

[beachnut]

Some JREF posters are fooled.

Can't be. JREF stands for critical thinking. No JREF member could be fooled by a dumbed down fantasy of an inside job, or thermite nonsense made up by a failed physicist. A JREF poster could explain why melted steel means an inside job, or correct themselves in a matter of minutes.

What melted the steel? Super secret thermite, top-secret super duper nano-thermite used in the minds of terrorist apologists to blame people for 911 they can't name.


There is a melted steel convention, (plus all the other silly claims) https://www.starwoodmeeting.com/StarGroupsWeb/booking/reservation?id=1304294992&key=2BC95
Does the Hotel know they are hosting a convention of irrational nuts?

 

[jaydeehess]

Why are the first experts wrong and the second experts right? Why did PBS NOVA get it wrong?

But good to know where you stand on the issue.




NIST most certainly knew of reports of molten steel, since they address the issue of molten steel later in their timeline by commenting briefly that molten steel in the pile is "plausible". John Gross works for NIST and he made that comment in 2005. There's no way he didn't know of reports of molten steel.




There are no pictures of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames either. Yet that's what many of you claim. What's your opinion of the extent of fires in WTC 7, and what do you base it on?




No, it hasn't. Where do you get this from?




Any steel that has been melted has reached the point at which steels melts.




Which is it? You can't have it both ways.




I've already stated my opinion on the matter. You're the ones who keep trying to reverse the conversation.

If you agree that building fires cannot melt steel (see your comments above), then don't you want to answer for yourself what created the molten steel in the pile? Have you done that yet? That's what your thread is about.

I will no longer deign to grace your derail and evasion of this topic.

You have been granted , in this thread, the existence of molten , meant to be read as liquid state, steel in the WTC rubble fires.
The query now is what significance does this have wrt the manner of collapse of the three structures in question.

I await proof that you are serious about the subject.

 

[jaydeehess]

There is a melted steel convention, (plus all the other silly claims) https://www.starwoodmeeting.com/StarGroupsWeb/booking/reservation?id=1304294992&key=2BC95
Does the Hotel know they are hosting a convention of irrational nuts?

Now, beachnut, its not like they are FMOTL. The hotel just wants them to pay their bills and not damage the rooms.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is particularly amazing and extrodinary in this thread is the apparent inability of most truthers to take, "yes" for an answer.

Here we ate attempting to move beyond the debate about the existence of liquid state steel and allow for it. Yet most of the truther replies have been to try and continue the debate that has been conceded to them in the OP.

 

[carlitos]

Can't be. JREF stands for critical thinking. No JREF member could be fooled by a dumbed down fantasy of an inside job, or thermite nonsense made up by a failed physicist. A JREF poster could explain why melted steel means an inside job, or correct themselves in a matter of minutes.

They could, but they don't. Which is sad.

 

[ozeco41]

What is particularly amazing and extrodinary in this thread is the apparent inability of most truthers to take, "yes" for an answer.

Here we ate attempting to move beyond the debate about the existence of liquid state steel and allow for it. Yet most of the truther replies have been to try and continue the debate that has been conceded to them in the OP.

The underlying problem IMO is that we have shifted the meaning of "truther" to conflate "troll" with "truther" AND we are glossing over the difference between those genuinely concerned truthers who are amenable to reason and those who sadly, and for whatever cause, are truly deluded and beyond the reach of reason.

There are three broad classes of behaviour we see in these "discussions" viz:

A) Genuine truth seeking behaviour demonstrated by people who have been genuinely concerned about 9/11 events but who are prepared to advance their understanding.

B) (The hard ones) Behaviour which demonstrates delusions and an unwillingness to move away from strongly held false beliefs which support the delusions no matter how accurately or how many times the truth is explained.

C) Trolling where truth seeking is not the objective and deliberate goading of the opponents is. The objective is to keep debunkers responding and wasting energy. It is a form of remote written bullying which uses 9/11 events as the catalyst of irritation but where the truth of 9/11 is actually irrelevant. So coherence and consistency are not required.

I cannot recall seeing any class "A" genuine truther behaviour for several years. It was the main discussion type in 2006-7-8

We still have a couple of members who display class "B" deluded misunderstandings in periodic visits.

And one at least whose routine class "C" trolling of stupidities sometimes reveals genuine grasp of class "A" reality.

Most of the stuff we see routinely exhibited is trolling. Pure class "C". And responding to trolling as if it is intended to be reasoned debate is not going to progress the topic.

Sure there are a couple of partially legitimate debunker objectives in favour of responding.

But there is so little genuine 9/11 discussion these days that if we stopped feeding the trolls we could shut up shop and save cleaning plus lighting an A/C costs.

 

[ergo]

I will no longer deign to grace your derail and evasion of this topic.

You have been granted , in this thread, the existence of molten , meant to be read as liquid state, steel in the WTC rubble fires.

Lol. Thanks, but I don't need to be granted anything.

The query now is what significance does this have wrt the manner of collapse of the three structures in question.

You already know that if molten steel was present, then an investigation into its causes should have occurred. You also know about the nanothermite CD hypothesis, so you don't need to ask again about this. So what is it that you're asking? If you want to start a thread to solicit theories about the obvious coordinated destruction of the towers, then start a thread about it.

Until then, you guys need to sort out your logic. Are reports of molten steel in the WTC pile true or untrue? What's your answer, JD? If they are untrue, how have you determined this? If they are true, how do you explain the presence of molten steel, and what authorities or evidence are you citing?

This is what the thread is about.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

if molten steel was present, then an investigation into its causes should have occurred.

I suggest researching iron smelting technology through the ages. The meteorite-looking lump in particular looks a lot like an aggregate of bloomery iron aggregated with random debris. The residual fires in the rubble piles were a reducing-atmosphere kiln, with plenty of "limestone" (from the drywall gypsum) to act as flux, plenty of plastic from computers, lights, carpet and padding, desks and cubicles to act as coke once the volatiles had cooked off, and very little air flow. The fires were smelters.


Plus, you need to establish that the "molten steel" was actually molten and was actually steel. The rototilled WTC towers contained an astonishing wealth of minerals and metals of many kinds -- lead, silver, tin, copper, aluminum in particular, plus whatever metals were in the various pigments in paint, plastic and carpet.

 

[carlitos]

But there is so little genuine 9/11 discussion these days that if we stopped feeding the trolls we could shut up shop and save cleaning plus lighting an A/C costs.

the nanothermite CD hypothesis

Yup.

 

[carlitos]

Plus, you need to establish that the "molten steel" was actually molten and was actually steel.

No. The point of the thread is that there was molten steel. It's been stipulated. The question is "so what?"

 

[dafydd]

No. The point of the thread is that there was molten steel. It's been stipulated. The question is "so what?"

Nothing, judging by the silence.

 

[abaddon]

Lol. Thanks, but I don't need to be granted anything.

You are entirely wrong there. You have no evidence for any molten steel. You have nothing. Still to pursue the discussion, you have been granted the molten simply to see what you think it proves. Given that, you still cannot do anything with it.

You already know that if molten steel was present, then an investigation into its causes should have occurred.

Evidence? No?

You also know about the nanothermite CD hypothesis, so you don't need to ask again about this.

Evidence? No?

So what is it that you're asking? If you want to start a thread to solicit theories about the obvious coordinated destruction of the towers, then start a thread about it.

Come up with something, anything, which has actual evidence.

Until then, you guys need to sort out your logic. Are reports of molten steel in the WTC pile true or untrue?

Nope. Plane hits building, building falls down. Hello Occam.

What's your answer, JD? If they are untrue, how have you determined this? If they are true, how do you explain the presence of molten steel, and what authorities or evidence are you citing?

You mean the thing you fail to establish? Molten steel? For which you have no evidence?

This is what the thread is about.

Nope. This thread demonstrates how you have no evidence. That is all.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No. The point of the thread is that there was molten steel. It's been stipulated. The question is "so what?"

I'm willing to concede the point to further the interests of the "so what" question, but I haven't seen the conclusive data myself. For this thread I'll let that go.

And again, as for the "so what," ergo seems to be unwilling to discuss the fact that the smouldering rubble of the WTC towers was, in effect, a smelter loaded with very rich ore. There's no reason why pre-collapse conditions would need to include therm*te or anything else for this to occur, nor would any rapid energy release mechanisms have served to melt metals of any kind in large quantity. The smelter was left running for what, 12 weeks or so? That's a lot of time to cook the ore.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Are reports of molten steel in the WTC pile true or untrue?

And, more importantly, What difference does it make?

Perhaps you can enlighten us. If there was molten steel, what does that mean, exactly?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you agree that building fires cannot melt steel (see your comments above), then don't you want to answer for yourself what created the molten steel in the pile?

I'm sure if there was it would be a curiosity and you might in such a case prove a conspiracy plot.... but as far as proving it collapsed the buildings as seen, you've got the challenge that the visual record shows no controlled demolition. It's truly fun to speculate on the possibilities but I have to bore you... real life doesn't give the luxury of imagining different scenarios, it happened regardless of whether or not you like the answers, and if you wish to perpetuate the argument for your own fun that's your call too, but I don't see the "value" in arguing just for the sake of arguing

 

[ergo]

If there was molten steel, what does that mean, exactly?

What part of my numerous answers to this are you not understanding?

Why do you keep saying "if"? Do you doubt there was molten steel? If so, why? What evidence do you have that there wasn't?

 

[ergo]

Sorry, but we're not going to play "iffys" or hypotheticals in this thread.

Bedunkers need to come out and say what they believe. Either reports of molten steel in the WTC were true or they were untrue. Which is it? Just answer the question.

If you can't answer the question, there's no point having a "discussion" about it.

 

[ergo]

In fact, I'd like Chris Mohr to answer the question.

Were reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble true or untrue? If true, how do you explain its presence? If untrue, how have you determined they were untrue?

 

[tsig]

What is particularly amazing and extrodinary in this thread is the apparent inability of most truthers to take, "yes" for an answer.

Here we ate attempting to move beyond the debate about the existence of liquid state steel and allow for it. Yet most of the truther replies have been to try and continue the debate that has been conceded to them in the OP.

Their script doesn't cover that so all they can do is repeat the old lines.

 

[tsig]

In fact, I'd like Chris Mohr to answer the question.

Were reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble true or untrue? If true, how do you explain its presence? If untrue, how have you determined they were untrue?

Yes, how do you do that and what does it mean?

ETA:You seem to be:

1.molten metal

2.???

3. inside job.