Lol. Thanks, but I don't need to be granted anything.
You have been asking us to grant you an answer. Here you go, YES, let's assume molten steel is present.
You already know that if molten steel was present, then an investigation into its causes should have occurred.
Why? as pointed out innumerable times, reports of molten steel are fairly common in many fires. How are you determining that this case is in particular need of further investigation?
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.
The theory concerning ?therm?te goes something like this:
molten steel=?therm?te=CD
There are a couple of missing details such as how much of this substance was required. In addition, if this substance was responsible for the molten steel in the rubble hot zones for days/weeks, how much more supposed 'left over' ?therm?te does that require?
Where were the devices placed that contained this substance? How were they set off? How did they survive the aircraft crashes? How were they timed just right to cause a supposed CD-like collapse?
Not a single one of these questions has been answered without resort to imbueing the ?therm?te with magical properties.
Unless, that is, you'd care to fill in these blanks.
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.
No, THIS thread is about moving past the debate about molten steel's existance. I certainly have (see below)
You fail to recognize the thrust of this thread despite the very clear language of the OP and the dozens of times it has been explained since then.
.
We don't need hypothetical concessions here. We need your actual position on the subject. Otherwise there's no discussion.
Ok, here you go ergo. You have convinced me. As I work through to type this post I have had an epitome. I , jaydeehess, a poster on JREF do hereby declare that the eyewitness testimony of having seen molten steel in the rubble of the WTC complex is compelling evidence of the existance of molten steel.
Having been convinced of this, I now wonder how it came to be there, and how it might be the result of a controlled demolition of three of the seven WTC structures.
Do you have any thoughts on this ergo? Perhaps you have answered these questions earlier in this thread. Would you please point me to the page or post number?