• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged So there was melted steel

I'm shocked that ergo would be more interested in boging the discussion down instead of working towards a conclusion; conspiracy theorists NEVER do that.
 
Once again, reports of "molten steel" in fires are common. What we would like to see are reports of molten steel, and the witness reported this as suspicious. Even better would be an arson case where the prosecution introduced evidence of molten steel. How about an engineering investigation of a fire and the investigation verified that steel actually melted?:rolleyes:

Otherwise, reports of molten steel in fires are merely anecdotal, and of no value whatever.:mad:
 
ergo said:
Sounds good.

So reports of molten steel in the rubble pile are likely true, you're saying. Good enough for me.
Click to expand...

(Ergo exits stage left)

The witness statements of "rivers" of molten steel I still think are completely incorrect but given the chaos that existed in the rubble pile I could never, and would be foolish to, completely rule it out.

Still, it means absolutely nothing as to the cause of the collapses. If there was flowing, molten steel in the pile, it came to that state in the pile not before the collapses. Ergo's evasion and cowardly exit is a great example of truthers using out of context statements to promote misleading and dishonest conclusions.

Thanks for the demonstration Ergo! :)
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
In any serious discussion, when debate hangs up at one detail one can , in all seriousness, agree to consider the point moot and move past it. In this way if, later on, the point can be shown to have great import as to its veracity or not it can then be revisited.

Such is the case here. SINCE debate has hung up on existance or not , of the molten steel, we can declare the point moot (having been argued already) and move past it. In this way, if a mechanism can be demonstrated in which molten steel in the rubble is shown to be of great significance in the larger question of how the three of the WTC structures collapsed, then its existance can be revisited.

That is, IMNSHO, would define the topic as 'serious'.

Better?
Click to expand...
Much better.
thumbup.gif


In fact very good.
clap.gif
 
Long ago I realized that molten steel was a red herring. It seemed unusual to Truthers so they latched onto it as evidence for their side never thinking of why it would be evidence for their side.

I mean unless someone does want to just come out and take up the challenge. MirageMemories at least tried.
 
Travis said:
Long ago I realized that molten steel was a red herring. It seemed unusual to Truthers so they latched onto it as evidence for their side never thinking of why it would be evidence for their side.
.
Click to expand...

That, it would seem, is the crux of the situation here.
Its your OP so I would assume then that you are willing to grant that the spectacle of molten steel would be worthy of comment. That is to say, in much the same way that one might comment on the spectacle that is a forest fire for instance. A restatement of your OP then might be; is it unusual, is it suspicious, is there a reason to expect that it has any bearing on the mechanism of collapse of three of the seven WTC structures, and if so, let's have as detailed an explanation as possible.

To the first point, "is it unusual?" , it has been demonstrated that reports of molten steel in other fires are most certainly not unusual. From this we then can logically assume that one of two things are true;
1) that steel can melt in large fires. This would mean that the answer to the question is that it is not unusual.
2) that steel cannot melt in large fires. This would mean that reports of molten steel are erroneous in other fires and therefore most probably erroneous in this case. Logically then, we would require a lot more compelling reason to label this report as unusual, and that is very much lacking in this case.

To the second point; "is it suspicious?".
Given the existance of the myriad of reports of molten steel in other large fires one can logically conclude that the answer to this question is "no".

So, to the last question, and for this we will assume that molten steel did exist in the rubble hot zone even though no truly compelling evidence demonstrates it. For this we can also assume the truther arguement of the existance of thermitic compounds in the WTC dust do exist, even though there is great dispute concerning that finding.
The purpose of this thread then is to ask for as great a detailed explanation as to how this compound would be used to cause all of the events known to have occured; ie. the manner by which the structures collapsed; the creation of weeks long molten steel hot spots in the rubble.

Have at it ergo, MM , any one.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Long ago I realized that molten steel was a red herring. It seemed unusual to Truthers so they latched onto it as evidence for their side never thinking of why it would be evidence for their side.

I mean unless someone does want to just come out and take up the challenge. MirageMemories at least tried.
Click to expand...

I'll take that challenge.

Molten steel is proof of an inside job because SHUT UP!!11!!1

How does that compare to Truther responses? :D
 
I think it makes sense to look at it this way... the truthers are so focused on the notion that the conspiracy had to involve the buildings falling as a direct result of the extraneous controlled intervention that they overlook the fact that even without the molten metal being tie-able to the collapses there's still "room"for a conspiracy through other channels... yet they don't do that.....

I think the conspiracy to "attempt controlled demoltion" is still bullcrap, but it's miles more effective than trying to argue that the existence of molten metal is somehow tied to the collapse of the buildings themselves...

Just musing on it... You do get a lot of court trials that try to prove murder but fall back on lesser charges depending on where the evidence points. Just because there's no evidence to show there was some super secret conspiracy to blow up the towers... doesn't mean it's impossible to find the government complicit somewhere else, if the evidence is realistic anyway... But no... it always has to be the most complicated thing they can possibly think of...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I think it makes sense to look at it this way... the truthers are so focused on the notion that the conspiracy had to involve the buildings falling as a direct result of the extraneous controlled intervention that they overlook the fact that even without the molten metal being tie-able to the collapses there's still "room"for a conspiracy through other channels... yet they don't do that.....

I think the conspiracy to "attempt controlled demoltion" is still bullcrap, but it's miles more effective than trying to argue that the existence of molten metal is somehow tied to the collapse of the buildings themselves...

Just musing on it... You do get a lot of court trials that try to prove murder but fall back on lesser charges depending on where the evidence points. Just because there's no evidence to show there was some super secret conspiracy to blow up the towers... doesn't mean it's impossible to find the government complicit somewhere else, if the evidence is realistic anyway... But no... it always has to be the most complicated thing they can possibly think of...
Click to expand...

LIHOP would have been a better road for them to have gone down as far as reasonable doubt but that wasn't glamorous or big enough for their huge egos and tiny brains to grasp. :D
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I think it makes sense to look at it this way... the truthers are so focused on the notion that the conspiracy had to involve the buildings falling as a direct result of the extraneous controlled intervention
Click to expand...
Nice! I may borrow that term in the future
that they overlook the fact that even without the molten metal being tie-able to the collapses there's still "room"for a conspiracy through other channels... yet they don't do that.....

I think the conspiracy to "attempt controlled demoltion" is still bullcrap, but it's miles more effective than trying to argue that the existence of molten metal is somehow tied to the collapse of the buildings themselves...
Click to expand...
I agree that would be a better route to go rather than try to tie in the dubious existance of molten steel in a rubble fire that had been burning for weeks, to an "extraneous controlled intervention". However, since that is not the route one large group of truthers are taking, this thread wants to address the later scenario of molten steel=?therm?te=controlled demolition.

Just musing on it... You do get a lot of court trials that try to prove murder but fall back on lesser charges depending on where the evidence points. Just because there's no evidence to show there was some super secret conspiracy to blow up the towers... doesn't mean it's impossible to find the government complicit somewhere else, if the evidence is realistic anyway... But no... it always has to be the most complicated thing they can possibly think of...
Click to expand...


Justin39640 said:
LIHOP would have been a better road for them to have gone down as far as reasonable doubt but that wasn't glamorous or big enough for their huge egos and tiny brains to grasp. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes, of course, and again what I have been trying to do in the past week or so, is to get the resident truther who is apparently so focused on the existance of molten sterl in the rubble to move past that debate.

We concede the point for now and will revisit it IF he , or someone else, can show that its existance can fit a scenario of extraneous controlled intervention to demolish these three structures, in the fashion seen on the many videos of them, AND cause hot zones in the rubble capable of keeping steel in liquid phase for weeks on end.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Meanwhile, back on the topic, there was molten steel in the rubble, so what?

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/popcorn.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot therefore... inside job!

Yes, truthers really are that simple. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom