Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

That's par for the course with 9/11 bedunkers.

I already summed it up here.

 

[abaddon]

That's par for the course with 9/11 bedunkers.

I already summed it up here.

So you admit you have nothing.

 

[ergo]

Nothing of what?

 

[abaddon]

Nothing of what?

Nothing of a notion as to what it might mean if there was melted steel. Or even where to take your argument next.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That's par for the course with 9/11 bedunkers.

I already summed it up here.

"If there was molten steel: so what?" [JREF bedunkers]

[/indent]

and again we ask "so what?"

Seriously. We've accepted, for the purpose of discussion, that molten steel was found in the WTC rubble pit.

So what? Why is it important? Is it unexpected? Is it totally unexplainable? Have you an explanation? Are you limited to posting cheesy one-line leading questions by intellect or by contractual obligation?

 

[ergo]

Nothing of a notion as to what it might mean if there was melted steel. Or even where to take your argument next.

What's my argument?

 

[ergo]

Seriously. We've accepted, for the purpose of discussion

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

As I said, good enough for me.

 

[abaddon]

What's my argument?

Apparently, you do not have one.

 

[abaddon]

Seriously. We've accepted, for the purpose of discussion

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

As I said, good enough for me.

Can you read?

 

[Travis]

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

As I said, good enough for me.

And why is this a good thing?

Seriously if pleases you that we've accepted this then tell us what is at the root of this pleasure? Why is it a positive thing that we accept there was molten steel?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

You're off topic again.



What we want to know is, what does the presence of melted steel mean?

Why is it important to you?

What are the implications?

How does it advance/support truther CD theories?

Here's the OP, as a reminder:

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?

Take as much time as you like

 

[thedopefishlives]

He knows full well what we're asking. He's not going to answer us because he doesn't have an answer for us. The only conclusion to draw, then, is that the melted steel is insignificant, despite ergo's protestations to the contrary. Just a curious quirk of an insanely complicated mess that was the WTC tower collapses.

 

[Justin39640]

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

As I said, good enough for me.

Intellectual dishonesty is all you got. Thanks again for demonstrating why truthers should be ignored by the general public.

ETA: And no one believes the reports of flowing rivers of steel. There's just no evidence of it.

 

[Spanx]

Like a little river of steel flowing


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eOulVB-1ZM&feature=youtube

How did it flow for a hundred days.

 

[NoahFence]

I told you they're all too chicken to answer it.

 

[DGM]

I told you they're all too chicken to answer it.

Can they take that as a "double dog dare"? Hope we don't need to go the ultimate........."triple dog dare". No "truther" could possibly let it get to that.

 

[ergo]

Bedunkers don't seem to understand their own logic, even though it's been explained to them several times in this now melting pot of a thread which has no official topic because it contains several different threads.

If there is nothing significant about the presence of melted steel in the WTC pile, then no thread needs to exist on this subject. Just like no thread exists on the subject of burnt paper at the WTC. No need to ask further questions about it.

If there is something significant about melted steel at the pile, then it's obvious that no appropriate investigation was done of it, because no credible explanation has yet appeared in the literature as to how temperatures in the pile reached the point at which steel melts. My rough timeline on the official and bedunker responses to the subject of melted steel at the WTC in fact shows that there is much doubt about melted steel, and several different attempts to dismiss it.

Finally, if there was no melted steel at the pile, which I suspect is the true thesis of our dishonest bedunkers here, this has never been properly established. We still see attempts (failed) by bedunkers in this thread to explain away steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion, and a persistent refusal to accept the fact of molten steel at the WTC as anything but a working hypothesis. This tells me you don't accept the fact of molten steel at the pile, so the question of "so what" does not interest me. If it interests you folks so much, WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER IT?

When you can start answering your own questions and make plausible attempts to explain melted steel at the pile, then this thread can continue. Until then, it's just junk posts as usual. I have better things to do.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No. You've accepted definitively that there was melted steel in the pile. And that reports of melted steel were likely true.

As I said, good enough for me.

What's good enough for you ? That you think I've "definitively" accepted the presence of melted steel? Or that you get a pass on this kind of intellectual dishonesty in the apparently vain hope you'll eventually discuss the topic?

Again, we circle back around to the OP questions, thirty five hundred + posts later:

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?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Mark F]

Not so fast pal.

Ergo, your ability to avoid a simple question posed to you dozens of times by nearly as many people simply boggles the mind. So, hopefully for the last time:

Please explain why we should care about molten steel in the rubble pile. If you can't explain why we should care about molten steel in the rubble pile then just please admit that so we can all move on.

No more evasions.

There is no other topic of discussion here now until you stop evading this question.

Think about it - why is molten steel important. What does it mean?

Any attempt to dodge this issue again or proclaim that you are not interested will be treated as a tacit admission that molten steel is not important and you will never be allowed to bring it up again.

 

[ergo]

Lol. Do you need closure?