Merged So there was melted steel

[LSSBB]

Leslie Robertson's opinions about 9/11 truth have nothing to do with what he witnessed in the WTC rubble pile.

Ok, so you can take some of the things he says as gospel, and leave out the other things?

Astaneh-asl also subscribes to the natural collapse theory. But he saw melted steel, and other evidence of extreme temperatures in the wreckage.

Scientific or forensic confirmation, please. You know, sensor measurements and metallurgic analysis, not just "dude says so". Try the skeptic hat, don't just accept what people say (or just accept some of what they say, and not accept the stuff you don't like).

 

[DGM]

ergo:

What's it all mean? How does this support something other than the "official story"?

Remember, the data you are presenting is actually from the "official story".

Maybe this is a good time for you to explain why "truthers" pick this point to harp on.

I don't expect you to make a coherent point but, a man can wish.

 

[000063]

You have quoted Les Robertson as a witness of molten steel however I know he thinks truthers are nuts. I wonder how you can latch onto one of his statements and ignore the others. Is that how truth works?

No, it's how Twoof works.

 

[ergo]

Scientific or forensic confirmation, please. You know, sensor measurements and metallurgic analysis, not just "dude says so".

You want me to ask Astaneh-asl for his data? Why? I have no reason to doubt him. If you're doubting, you can ask him.

But ask yourself this question first before you pester him: why do doubt his claims, and those oof all the others who reported on similar observations?

Try the skeptic hat, don't just accept what people say (or just accept some of what they say, and not accept the stuff you don't like).

I'll remember that for some of the claims you try to make here.

 

[JSanderO]

Leslie Robertson's opinions about 9/11 truth have nothing to do with what he witnessed in the WTC rubble pile. Astaneh-asl also subscribes to the natural collapse theory. But he saw melted steel, and other evidence of extreme temperatures in the wreckage.

Well.. maybe the extreme temps and some of melted metals seen were artifact of the collapse not related to causes... Why do you guys have so much trouble understanding that the collapse did not end when everything hit the ground... lots of processes began... and by the time witness got up close and personal they were seeing all sorts of POST COLLAPSE phenomena which had nothing to do with causing the collapse but were in fact CAUSED BY the collapse. And YES they were witnessed (obviously duh)!

 

[LSSBB]

You want me to ask Astaneh-asl for his data? Why? I have no reason to doubt him. If you're doubting, you can ask him.

But ask yourself this question first before you pester him: why do doubt his claims, and those oof all the others who reported on similar observations?

I doubt all such claims without physical corroboration. I know people can be wrong. Do you?

I'll remember that for some of the claims you try to make here.

Feel free.

 

[DGM]

Noting ergo skipping this easy question.

ergo:

What's it all mean? How does this support something other than the "official story"?

Remember, the data you are presenting is actually from the "official story".

Maybe this is a good time for you to explain why "truthers" pick this point to harp on.

I don't expect you to make a coherent point but, a man can wish.

 

[ergo]

I doubt all such claims without physical corroboration.

Saved for posterity.

I know people can be wrong. Do you?

Absolutely. Do you think people were wrong about seeing melted steel beams or girders? Do you think they were maybe looking at beams and girders made of some other material?

 

[DGM]

Absolutely. Do you think people were wrong about seeing melted steel beams or girders? Do you think they were maybe looking at beams and girders made of some other material?

Strange no one thought to save or even take a picture of one of these beams/girders.

Must be part of the cover-up of.........................wait.......we don't really know what or why they would be covering this up.

Strange.

 

[000063]

As I've pointed out before, some of the first collapse explanations circulating in the media at the time involved a melting steel narrative. This is because of the numbers of reports that were coming from Ground Zero about molten metal and molten steel specifically.

This would be the same media that's supposedly part of the conspiracy? The same media that reported the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind them?



The same media, in fact, that you once described as providing five years of propaganda? That you said was actively trying to suppress Truthers?

Come to think, it was rather silly of Them to use such a distinct method of demo twice. They couldn't get Their puppets to report 7's collapse on time, yet They trusted them to not report melted steel? Oh, wait, the patsies couldn't even do that right.

That there was melted steel in the debris pile at Ground Zero is not a debatable point.

As long as the debate ends in your favor, that is.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I suppose the hilarious irony is
As Stupid as the first time in history argument is, if they applied that same reasoning here they wouldn't even be arguing for the molten steel being a contributor of the collapse. After all, no demolition in history has ever been carried out using thermite. (I think the stupidity of that logic goes both was but its fun to muse
On the selective reasoning. )

 

[LSSBB]

Saved for posterity.



Absolutely. Do you think people were wrong about seeing melted steel beams or girders? Do you think they were maybe looking at beams and girders made of some other material?

Still nothing to validate these claims? Is this about my belief or is it about getting to the Truth? Is the Truth proven by selecting some of what people say, and not other things they say? Is the Truth in believing what they say is the Truth, without validation? Where, sir (madam?), is your validation?

 

[DGM]

I suppose the hilarious irony is
As Stupid as the first time in history argument is, if they applied that same reasoning here they wouldn't even be arguing for the molten steel being a contributor of the collapse. After all, no demolition in history has ever been carried out using thermite. (I think the stupidity of that logic goes both was but its fun to muse
On the selective reasoning. )

They also don't trust "mainstream media" but, all their evidence to support their belief in "molten steel" comes from (you guessed it),"mainstream media".

Irony is lost on "truthers".

 

[000063]

I suppose the hilarious irony is
As Stupid as the first time in history argument is, if they applied that same reasoning here they wouldn't even be arguing for the molten steel being a contributor of the collapse. After all, no demolition in history has ever been carried out using thermite. (I think the stupidity of that logic goes both was but its fun to muse
On the selective reasoning. )

I don't think I've ever seen a truther respond to someone pointing out that FTIH applies to their claims as well.

 

[LSSBB]

I suppose the hilarious irony is
As Stupid as the first time in history argument is, if they applied that same reasoning here they wouldn't even be arguing for the molten steel being a contributor of the collapse. After all, no demolition in history has ever been carried out using thermite. (I think the stupidity of that logic goes both was but its fun to muse
On the selective reasoning. )

Actually, one of the Skyride towers from the Chicago World Fair was accomplished with thermite. It wasn't easy, though.

 

[Redwood]

Ergo, do you find it odd that in the almost 12 years since 9-11, not a single truther anywhere has ever done an in-depth interview of anyone who has ever supposedly claimed to have seen "molten steel" in the WTC debris? Time and date, location, estimate of flow and quantity - did you acquire a sample? - did you take photographs or videos? - did you find this suspicious? - if so, did you attempt to report this to any investigators or interested parties?

If I were a truther, that's the first thing I would have done.

Why have truthers not followed up on evidence right under their noses that will send those murdering NWO bastards straight to the gallows and ignite a worldwide revolution that will lead to True Democracy for all?

Why do they instead produce ad nauseam the same YouTube video pastiches of cherry-picked segments from Mainstream Media (a key element of the Vast Conspiracy!) reports from 9-11, and parts of speeches by other truthers? Why the endless Internet chittering?

More and more, the villains are escaping into the arms of Thanatos. The traitor Gene Corley is dead, Josephine Harris is dead, and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Silverstein, Les Robertson, Zdenek Bazant and a host of others are not long for the world, unless they have an immortality formula.

Are you gonna let these traitors escape, or are you gonna take action? Hmmm?

 

[ergo]

Still nothing to validate these claims? Is this about my belief or is it about getting to the Truth? Is the Truth proven by selecting some of what people say, and not other things they say? Is the Truth in believing what they say is the Truth, without validation? Where, sir (madam?), is your validation?

Um, are you going to answer my question?

 

[ergo]

You guys are so good at "debunking" stuff.

 

[DGM]

You guys are so good at "debunking" stuff.

There is nothing here to "debunk". People claim to have seen something. So what?

What would you like "debunked"? What they thought they saw?

You might want to explain how any of this matters. Oh, that's right, you have no clue.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Unbelievable. You're equating the witnessing of melted steel at the World Trade Center with seeing ghosts and UFOs. This is incredible.

Are you suggesting that the reports of fire chiefs, structural engineers and ironworkers are somehow less informed that the armchair opinions of anonymous internet bedunkers? Orphia Nay, do you know more about these matters than Richard Garlock, Leslie Robertson, Ahmed Ghoniem, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, RJ Lee, and the American Society of Safety Engineers? Do you know more about these matters than they do, Orphia Nay?

But here's an answer to your inane question: if large groups of people, including credible sources, saw these phenomena at the same time and the same place and reported on them publicly, and I wasn't there myself, I would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, for the time being at least. Who am I to say what others saw, when I wasn't even there?

Testimonials are worthless unless supported by evidence.

Appeals to popularity and authority are not evidence.

Got evidence?