Merged So there was melted steel

[dafydd]

What is surprising about reports of molten material in a gigantic pile of burning debris, anyway?

Only truthers find it surprising.

 

[jaydeehess]

As I've said, that's fine with me. Molten/melted steel, but no special significance. That's fine.

So have we established now that there was molten/melted steel at the WTC?

I mean, reports of molten steel in fires are either ALL correct, or ALL mistaken. Right? That's your understanding of it?

No, its not like saying that all are correct or all are not.
However, by the mere fact that there is a question of whether or not they are correct means you cannot say that the existance of molten steel in the WTC rubble fires has been established.
You need verification with physical evidence

 

[jaydeehess]

What is surprising about reports of molten material in a gigantic pile of burning debris, anyway?

That would be the essence of the problem. Sure it seems surprising in the way that any massive fire itself is shocking. However is it unusual? Its not so unusual to be reported, but is it real?

I have thought of a test design to see if a hydrocarbon fore w/o forced air can burn hot enough to melt steel but if I go through with it my wife will think, or confirm, I am crazy

 

[Animal]

That would be the essence of the problem. Sure it seems surprising in the way that any massive fire itself is shocking. However is it unusual? Its not so unusual to be reported, but is it real?

I have thought of a test design to see if a hydrocarbon fore w/o forced air can burn hot enough to melt steel but if I go through with it my wife will think, or confirm, I am crazy

I would suspect that if you showed a warped wide flange, bent in the shape of a 'u' to most people, told them it was in a fire and asked them what do you think happened....their response would be "it melted" Mostly, only us geek architects and engineers know anything different.

 

[The Platypus]

Interesting how not one conspiracy peddler will even attempt to answer the most basic questions about their molten steel claims. Why would i believe them when they can't even do that...

 

[DGM]

As I've said, that's fine with me. Molten/melted steel, but no special significance. That's fine.

So, why wouldn't you be interested in physical verification like the rest of us?

So have we established now that there was molten/melted steel at the WTC?

No, there has never been any documented example found. Strange this doesn't seem to phase you.

I mean, reports of molten steel in fires are either ALL correct, or ALL mistaken. Right? That's your understanding of it?

Does this work for all reports?

Why are you not interested in verifying these reports? You said it holds no significance.

 

[The Platypus]

He has no interest in verifying the reports because conspiracy sheeple are never interested in verifying anything. They just believe whatever lies they are told by their conspiracy websites and youtube videos.

 

[000063]

He's not interested because he's just trying to keep the wheels spinning, not making a point or an argument.

 

[dafydd]

He's not interested because he's just trying to keep the wheels spinning, not making a point or an argument.

To what purpose? Twooferism is dead and buried.

 

[LSSBB]

To what purpose? Twooferism is dead and buried.

Not in the diehards head, they want to stave off the inevitable. 'twas always thus. And as long as their stuff circulates the internet like a chain letter, gullible folks will keep popping up like a game of whack a mole. This will not be the end for "melted steel", as it hasn't been the end for "pulled" or for "free fall" or bigfoot or creationism or... well, take your pick of woo.

 

[ozeco41]

He has no interest in verifying the reports ...

..he's just trying to keep the wheels spinning...

...This will not be the end for .... well, take your pick of woo.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" (DGM quoting Jay Windley)

 

[ergo]

So, why wouldn't you be interested in physical verification like the rest of us?

Oh, I am. I just assume the evidence is missing or hidden. Like evidence that WTC 7 was ever fully engulfed in flames.

No, there has never been any documented example found. Strange this doesn't seem to phase you.

So, are you now saying there wasn't melted steel at the WTC?? If it's not unusual to find melted steel in fires, and we have multiple reports of it, why would you assume the opposite of common sense?

Does this work for all reports?

Does what work for all reports?

Why are you not interested in verifying these reports? You said it holds no significance.

I trust the testimonials on this, in conjunction with the evidence that there were extreme temperatures in the pile. I assume if there were pictures of molten steel, they are being suppressed, in the same way that pictures of the south side of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames must be.

Unless, of course, you want to concede that WTC 7 was never fully involved. After all, you have no evidence for that.

 

[ergo]

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" (DGM quoting Jay Windley)

Jay Windley clearly hasn't a clue what he's talking about.


Hey look, I can repeat internet wisdom bites endlessly too:

"Remember: the goal of bedunkerism is to bog down discussion, confuse issues, attempt to seed doubt. It is most certainly not to make progress toward factual understanding. Bedunkers are not interested in facts." - ergo

 

[dafydd]

"Remember: the goal of bedunkerism is to bog down discussion, confuse issues, attempt to seed doubt. It is most certainly not to make progress toward factual understanding. Bedunkers are not interested in facts." - ergo

''Complete twoofer tosh''-dafydd

 

[DGM]

I trust the testimonials on this, in conjunction with the evidence that there were extreme temperatures in the pile. I assume if there were pictures of molten steel, they are being suppressed, in the same way that pictures of the south side of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames must be.

That assumes there was something to hide.


Why don't you believe WTC7 was "fully involved""? Witnesses said it was.

 

[Dcdrac]

Jay Windley is a noted engineer and more than likely would have a very good idea if asked, and he is an aeronautical engineer who happens to know a lot about aircraft.

 

[beachnut]

... bedunkerism is ... Bedunkers are not interested in facts." - ergo

Wow, baby talk. How does 911 truth do it; are they writing books for babies? Making up words, making up lies about 911; 911 truth's only product, and they do it well.

911 truth has nothing to offer on 911. 911 truth has no clue what the melting point of steel is, and similes confuse them.

 

[NoahFence]

Hey look, I can repeat internet wisdom bites endlessly too:

"Remember: the goal of bedunkerism is to bog down discussion, confuse issues, attempt to seed doubt. It is most certainly not to make progress toward factual understanding. Bedunkers are not interested in facts." - ergo

One problem...

Truthers consistently run away from facts, and totally ignore the entire day's events. You'll not find one coherent narrative of the entire day from a truther, ever.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh, I am. I just assume the evidence is missing or hidden. Like evidence that WTC 7 was ever fully engulfed in flames.

Why , what reasoning do you utilize to assume malfeasance of this nature?
Wrt WTC7, as noted above several experts in structural fires are on record saying this exact thing. However nist documented where it can be verified that fires occurred illustrating that this is not strictly true.
That said, you would have us believe that expert witness statements are enough to go on to believe they are literally correct. So once again you pick and choose which statements you choose to give great weight to and which you choose to ignore, based it seems strictly on whether or not the statement agrees with a preconceived and ephemeral notion about what happened.

So, are you now saying there wasn't melted steel at the WTC?? If it's not unusual to find melted steel in fires, and we have multiple reports of it, why would you assume the opposite of common sense?

If science depended upon 'common sense' then we would reject the wave/particle theory of light, we would assume rockets would not work in a vacuum with nothing to push against, and w/o Einstein's relativity we would have an unusable GPS system.
You simply do not seem to recognize that the existence of molten steel has not been illustrated as either true or untrue. Nor do you seem to recognize that if it is true in other fires then its existane in WTC rubble fires is unremarkable but that if untrue it points to a common tendency to untrue reports of such which means that witness statements alone are useless.

I trust the testimonials on this, in conjunction with the evidence that there were extreme temperatures in the pile. I assume if there were pictures of molten steel, they are being suppressed, in the same way that pictures of the south side of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames must be.

Again with the assumption of malfeasance.
What evidence of extreme temperatures? ,,, and you mean in the fires in the rubble of structures that had already fallen?

Unless, of course, you want to concede that WTC 7 was never fully involved. After all, you have no evidence for that.

As much evidence as you have for molten steel in fact the exact same style of evidence as you choose to give great weight to on the one hand yet acknowledge its insufficiency wrt wtc7.
Explain this disconnect.

 

[DGM]

Jay Windley clearly hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

You're wrong and I can prove it in this thread with your actions (I can also quote you in other threads).

You stated:

Here's the reality: You folks don't know anything about it. You're making guesses, and trying to pass them off as fact. Some of you are even making **** up.

I replied:

I agree. You also have to admit you can't connect this to anything other than large fires with lots of fuel. Recorded temperatures are not outside what can be found in this situation.

To this you ended the discussion by not answering.

I later asked you a follow-up question:

Why are you not interested in verifying these reports? You said it holds no significance.

To this you suggested a conspiracy and changed the subject:

I trust the testimonials on this, in conjunction with the evidence that there were extreme temperatures in the pile. I assume if there were pictures of molten steel, they are being suppressed, in the same way that pictures of the south side of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames must be.

Unless, of course, you want to concede that WTC 7 was never fully involved. After all, you have no evidence for that.

So, what part of your actions would lead anyone to believe you wanted to discuss this issue to completion?