Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

No-one witnessed it happening

Correct

or heard it happening.

It's possible that the explosion that Michael and Barry heard ejected the elevator cars.

It was seen later I believe.

That is my understanding too.

Are you saying that this guy is a liar and a coward?

You like to call people liars and cowards. I just said it was interesting that he changed his story.

He says his remarks were taken out of context.

His remarks on 9/11 were crystal clear.

So did Barry Jennings. They say it did not happen, they are credible witness'

They did not mention the elevators in the first place.

What ejected the elevator cars into the hallway if not a very large and powerful explosion?

A huge building falling into it.

Wrong! The debris did not reach the core area, much less the north side of the core area.

No-one know why they were there, any other claims by you are wild speculation.

Only a blithering idiot would deny that it would take a large explosion to eject 2 elevator cars out of their shafts and into a hallway.

I cant get youtub here but i hope its not that guy on the phone video that has been debunked.

People can listen to the video and decide for themselves. What you guys call debunking is actually denial.

 

[Christopher7]

and insulation or not the burden of proof is yours to prove that it was sufficient to keep temperatures sufficient high for your speculation to be credible.

No. You are asking for the impossible in a vain attempt to ignore the obvious.

If you believe the witnesses then there is no need to explain how the steel stayed molten.

If you don't believe the witnesses, your question is rhetorical.

How many times do you want to go around this mulberry bush?

 

[Egil]

I have yet to find a scientific paper detailing these pools and streams of molten metal.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct

Good

It's possible that the explosion that Michael and Barry heard ejected the elevator cars.

Except the big explosion did not happen, it was the tower falling on the building

That is my understanding too.

Good

You like to call people liars and cowards. I just said it was interesting that he changed his story.

Again your blatant hypocrisy shows you for the dishonest and disingenious person you are. You have used this very fallacy on us for the last god knows how many pages. I suspect many of the people you source would change what they said at the time. Thats why you will not clarify.

So is he lyng now or mistaken? Or something else.

His remarks on 9/11 were crystal clear.

he has clarified them, he says these big explosions did not happen. Barry Jennings says he was taken out of context.

They did not mention the elevators in the first place.

You are mistaking my post. I am saying they never heard the expolosion you claim had to have moved these elevators. You know the massive specualation again.

Wrong! The debris did not reach the core area, much less the north side of the core area.

The debri did not have to reach the core. When someone gets hit on the head in a car crash the solid piece does not reach the brain but the brain is damaged.

Only a blithering idiot would deny that it would take a large explosion to eject 2 elevator cars out of their shafts and into a hallway.

Only a liar would say they would not speculate and then continue to do it for pages. I am taking the words of the witness as they see it. No big explosions. Watch the BBC doc about WTC7

People can listen to the video and decide for themselves. What you guys call debunking is actually denial.

Its not about what they hear its when. The guy on here blew that video away. If you were any sort of researcher you would know this. That video does nothing for your claims. Try again, bring us audio.

 

[Christopher7]

Except the big explosion did not happen, it was the tower falling on the building

If you say so.

So is he lyng now or mistaken? Or something else.

I don't know.

he has clarified them, he says these big explosions did not happen.

Whatever

Barry Jennings says he was taken out of context.

About the bodies, not about the explosion. He reiterated that he heard explosions.

They did not mention the elevators in the first place.

You are mistaking my post. I am saying they never heard the expolosion you claim had to have moved these elevators.

OK

The debri did not have to reach the core. When someone gets hit on the head in a car crash the solid piece does not reach the brain but the brain is damaged.

Not there's a dumb statement.
The falling debris hitting the south side did not eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the core.

The only explanation for the elevator cars in the hallway is explosives.

Its not about what they hear its when.

I just said it was possible. Someone estimated the time at 10:20AM. Plus or minus 30 minutes encompasses the time Michael and Barry said they heard an explosion.

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[funk de fino]

If you say so.
I don't know.
Whatever

The minute you say that, you know you have lost.

About the bodies, not about the explosion. He reiterated that he heard explosions.

Did you watch the BBC WTC7 program? Did he reiterate his huge explosion that blew him back up the floors?

Not there's a dumb statement.
The falling debris hitting the south side did not eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the core. Only a blithering idiot would suggest that that it did.

How can a true statement be dumb? You are speculating. That is hypocritical.

The only explanation for the elevator cars in the hallway is explosives. By denying this and saying it was the falling debris, you have only proven that you are a blithering idiot.

Which way did the elevators shafts run? Where did NIST say there were regions of possible damage?

I just said it was possible. Someone estimated the time at 10:20AM. Plus or minus 30 minutes encompasses the time Michael and Barry said they heard an explosion.

Did you look at the analysis on here? When NIST used a factor of uncertainty in the final report on WTC7 of about 20mins, what did you say?

Michael says this explosion did not occur. Are you calling him a liar?

You are reported for calling me an idiot although actually being an idiot is more acceptable to me than being a liar.

 

[Christopher7]

The minute you say that, you know you have lost.

No. I am just acknowledging that we disagree.

Did you watch the BBC WTC7 program? Did he reiterate his huge explosion that blew him back up the floors?

He changed his story to "I was left hanging" but he still said there were explosions.

How can a true statement be dumb?

If you think that debris hitting the south side and not reaching the core can eject 2 elevator cars out of their shafts and into a hallway north of the core,{you are wrong}.

Edited for Rule 12. Attack the argument not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Which way did the elevators shafts run?

Up and down.

Where did NIST say there were regions of possible damage?

As if you did not know.

I just said it was possible. Someone estimated the time at 10:20AM. Plus or minus 30 minutes encompasses the time Michael and Barry said they heard an explosion.

Did you look at the analysis on here? When NIST used a factor of uncertainty in the final report on WTC7 of about 20mins, what did you say?

Actually, they said plus or minus at least 10 minutes. They offered no data to support that. Plus or minus 30 minutes is reasonable unless it can be clearly demonstrated how the estimate was done and the level of accuracy verified.

Michael says this explosion did not occur. Are you calling him a liar?

I'm more inclined to believe what someone said at the time.

You are reported for calling me an idiot although actually being an idiot is more acceptable to me than being a liar.

At least you had the audacity to take a stab at it. Everyone else here cowered away because they did not have the courage to admit the truth or look like an idiot. What you lack in intelligence you more than make up for in chutzpah.
Love ya funk.

 

[stateofgrace]

You like to call people liars and cowards.

Really ?

<snip>
perhaps you were brain damaged in the car accident you spoke of.
<snip>
Everyone else here cowered away because they did not have the courage to admit the truth or look like an idiot. What you lack in intelligence you more than make up for in chutzpah.

<snip>
This is off-topic and a subject for another thread. However the cowardice exhibited here in the refusal to address this issue will probably prevail on a separate thread so what's the point? Will you address this issue or are you a coward too?
<snip >

This from a guy who refused point blank to answer a simple yes or no question, five times. This from a guy who refused to answer a simple question that forces him to face the reality of what he as concluded. This from a guy who after refusing to answer a simple , civil, yes or no question had so much courage he resorted to

You ask unanswerable questions that make assumptions, demand answers and refuse to reciprocate.

Address this and stop asking the same dumbass question over and over again.

Yes, Chris everybody can see your courage, you have not even got the courage of your convictions; you cannot and will not face the reality of what you are proposing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The question of what kept the steel hot is the question you're repeatedly trying to avoid answering. The reason you're trying to avoid answering it is not that you can't

I did answer. No one can say for sure. This is just a cheap denial tactic.

Then you admit that there was a heat source in the rubble pile, and that you don't know what that heat source was. Good. We're getting somewhere.

P4: A heat source capable of maintaining temperatures above the melting point of steel is also capable of creating these temperatures.

Wrong. The heat source need only slow the cooling.

OK, let's re-phrase P4: A heat source capable of maintaining temperatures above the melting point of steel may also be capable of creating those temperatures.

C3: Therefore, there was a heat source present in the rubble pile which may have been capable of melting the steel.
(Since we don't know at present the identity of that heat source, you have no grounds for your claim that it was capable of slowing the cooling of the pile but not of heating it to the required temperatures.)

Therefore, there is no evidence for the presence of thermite at ground zero.

Circular logic.

No, it isn't. I've demonstrated that, whether P1 is assumed to be true or untrue, there is a viable hypothesis explaining all phenomena which does not require thermite, and does not require the presence of any other phenomenon which we do not already know to be present. Therefore, thermite is not a necessary premise for a vialbe hypothesis. This isn't circular logic, as its conclusion (thermite is not a necessary premise) is not assumed in any of its premises.

Unless you can point to any fallacies in this chain of reasoning, you have no argument for thermite.

This is a bunch of double talk based on your assumption that the witnesses were lying or mistaken.

No, it isn't. As you, and everyone else reading the post, can see, I've started from the premise that the witnesses were correct, and demonstrated that thermite is not a necessary premise. Therefore, the existence of molten steel several weeks after the collapse is not proof of the presence of thermite. You are the one refusing to see things you don't want to see.

Dave

 

[buka001]

C7 Will you continue to ignore the fact that you were WRONG about aluminium furniture and press on with other lies?

Will you consider that if you were wrong about furniture, maybe you are wrong about physics and engineering?

Will you consider that you cannot be debating about molten metal, if you can't provide proof to a means that would melt metal?

Do you know that thermite is not explosive? Thereby your suggestion that the lifts were knocked over by explosions implies you believe either the thermite exploded or thermite and explosives were used.

Therefore you must NOW provide proof of the use of EXPLOSIVES in building 7. Provide proof in terms of explosive residue and other evidence for explsoives. USe of witness statemenst that say "sounds like explosions" are inadmissable because this point hass been proven before.

Please provide proof of the size and type of explosive used and also how and where the explosives were planted, without detection.

Thank you

 

[Disbelief]

NIST did not explain how this happened. They left it out of the Final report because the only explanation for the elevator cabs in the hallway is a very large explosion.

So, are all the people who were around the building in on the conspiracy? Why was this very large explosion not described by the firefighters who had set up a safe zone? How could such a large explosion go unnoticed by these people?

 

[GStan]

No. You are asking for the impossible in a vain attempt to ignore the obvious.

Your acknowledgement that providing an explanation for your fantasy is impossible at least shows some progress.

If you believe the witnesses then there is no need to explain how the steel stayed molten.

I can't believe you have the cajones to say this in a debate against people who are trained in scientific fields and the scientific method. If you believe your eyes, (or their eyes), you don't have to scientifically explain things? What a convenient position for truthers to have to completely dismiss their own abysmal understanding of all things science.

If you don't believe the witnesses, your question is rhetorical.

How many times do you want to go around this mulberry bush?

Forever. As long as it takes. Someone will always be here to protect people from being infected by the truth movement's willful ignorance. As long as you and your ilk keep trying to sell poop sandwiches, someone will be here to make sure people are aware that they are eating poop.

 

[funk de fino]

No. I am just acknowledging that we disagree.

Funny, thats what teenagers say to their parents when told off.

He changed his story to "I was left hanging" but he still said there were explosions.

Did you watch the BBC WTC7 program.

If you think that debris hitting the south side and not reaching the core can eject 2 elevator cars out of their shafts and into a hallway north of the core, perhaps you were brain damaged in the car accident you spoke of.

Baby steps mate. Think dominos.

Up and down.

The banks ran north to south. South to North. Hit one hard at the south side, what do you think happens to the ones at the north end?

As if you did not know.

Inline and into one of the elevators banks eh?

Actually, they said plus or minus at least 10 minutes. They offered no data to support that. Plus or minus 30 minutes is reasonable unless it can be clearly demonstrated how the estimate was done and the level of accuracy verified.

That is a ridiculous staement. You can estimate, but no-one else can, is what you are basically saying. Did you look at the analysis done on here regarding the stupid video you posted? It was done using shadows. How do you think NIST did it? How did you do it when you said there were fake photos?

I'm more inclined to believe what someone said at the time.

Oh, really? Why is that? You dont believe what he is saying now?

So when all the first responders said that WTC7 was fully involved in fire and there were huge fires on many floors you believe them? When that Dutch demo guy said WTC were definitely not CD you believe that? When Willie the liar says that it sounded like a freight train you believe him?

At least you had the audacity to take a stab at it. Everyone else here cowered away because they did not have the courage to admit the truth or look like an idiot. What you lack in intelligence you more than make up for in chutzpah.
Love ya funk.

And another report for insults directly after a warning not to.

 

[DGM]

I have yet to find a scientific paper detailing these pools and streams of molten metal.

That's not surprising, because solidified pools of steel were never found. Either they weren't there or the NWO is really, really good at hiding [rule 10]. (I'm still try to find out how much the guy's I know that cleaned it up were paid, but they won't tell me)

 

[Sunstealer]

Therein lies the rub. The fires in the debris pile were nowhere close to 1000°C.

For god's sake man slow down and actually read what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the rubble pile with the bit you quote I was talking about the pre collapse fires.

Honestly C7 - you need to read everything twice, take your time and then have someone else read the post to you so that you actually understand what is being said.

However, because a eutectic solidified at 940°C then the fires in the pile must have been hot enough otherwise the composition would not form a eutectic structure.

Slow down, think things through, read them twice, understand what someone is saying before you reply - if you need more info just ask.

 

[Jono]

You obviously don't read anything that is linked or understand that grain boundary melting, liquation and inter-granular melting are all the same thing.

No he doesn't seem to read much of those, perhaps browse for words he recognize at most, remember how the scoffed and ducked and dodged and shrugged his shoulders at the links on organic-metallic chemistry, flux, organic binders et al?

 

[twinstead]

C7 if you are aware of any scientific papers detailing the molten steel at the WTC can you please provide a link?

 

[Sunstealer]

If you believe the witnesses then there is no need to explain how the steel stayed molten.

And herein lies the fatal flaw in C7's logic. It's easy for everyone else to see that it's a massive flaw, but C7 either cannot see it or he refuses to acknowledge it when shown so.

Simply believing whatever any witness says whether it's to do with 9/11 or any other scenario is not scientific. You have to be slightly critical and therefore look to make sure that what the witness claims to have seen is true or probable.

An example would be me claiming that I've seen an elf riding a pink unicorn down my street sprinkling stardust around. According to C7's logic anyone who asks for confirmation or clarification is accusing me of being a liar. The reason people ask for conformation of my unicorn sighting is because experience has told those questioners that unicorns do not exist, therefore it's highly unlikely that I have seen a unicorn so it's perfectly valid to find out what I mean.

The same is true of liquid steel, because I know that it takes vast quantities of energy to keep a ladle of steel liquid for a only a few hours let alone 6 weeks, I can therefore realise that they have either been mistaken by what they have seen eg: describing non-liquid metal/steel as molten or seen a liquid yet wrongly described it as metal or steel, or have genuinely witnessed something very odd.

So what you do is start looking at the facts and the physical evidence to confirm the witnesses, not the other way around. So far no mechanism for the energy required has been put forward that cuts the mustard and no physical evidence has been found confirming that liquid steel was once present.

If C7 takes the witnesses at face value it means he's not thinking critically and must therefore believe any persons claim on the planet even when two peoples claims are mutually exclusive.

C7 - you have to see this and realise that witnesses are fallible and that their statements need checking and clarifying. Assuming they are perfect is a foolish way to start from let alone linking it to something else that again there is no evidence for.

 

[LibraryLady]

Three posts moved to Forum Management.

 

[Christopher7]

double post deleted