• 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

twinstead said:
It pretty much shows just how ludicrous this entire line of debate is. When "so what?" is all it takes to shut down somebody in a debate, maybe it's time to rethink ones position.....
Click to expand...
When you can legitimately ask "So what?" it is a good indication that the discussion is off track. Either circling in irrelevant nonsense or actively pursuing some topic that is of no importance to significant 9/11 matters.

That usually indicates the a troll is succeeding in the troll goal of preventing progress of relevant discussion.

There is a limit to how much discussion can occur in these derails before the whole sub-thread descends into trivialities. Few of our current trolls can keep up the appearance of relevant discussion - it probably takes more effort to keep a derail active than it takes to hold sensible on topic discussions.

And constant repeating of truther lies becomes tiresome...
 
What the thread shows nicely is that they don't have any concept of the phrase "prove your case." Often times in court you'll run into situations where a suspect has a criminal background and is seen in the vicinity of a crime that renders them less than credible yet the evidence can very easily link someone else totally unexpected to said crime. Pointing out spooky circumstances in other words in the fashion it's always done for 9/11 conspiracies is grasping straws to the extreme, but then, this is old news
 
ergo said:
Fair enough. I'll start a new thread.
Click to expand...

As pointed out there are already threads devoted to whether or not there was molten steel in the towers and whether or not some engineers have stated such to be the case. Please ressurect one of them rather than start a new one.

OTOH you have also been asked to develop the theory that molten steel would fit into a conspiracy by persons unknown to bring the towers down. BY WHAT mechanism do the towers get taken down in such a way as to leave molten steel in the underground (and subsequently NONE on the surface of the debris)?
 
So I start a thread that says "the molten steel was there, so what?" and we now hit 65 pages in and we have a Truther still trying to advocate that the molten steel was there when this thread already assumes this was so.
 
Travis said:
So I start a thread that says "the molten steel was there, so what?" and we now hit 65 pages in and we have a Truther still trying to advocate that the molten steel was there when this thread already assumes this was so.
Click to expand...
Once again commiserations Travis.

It was a good idea to get "them" to explain how CD could have been effected.

But doomed to failure because nobody has ever published anything like a reasoned explanation for a method of CD.

So none of our trolls would be up to the challenge.

Over the years I have tried to construct a "molten steel" explanation of CD for the Twin Towers.

The critical missing element is that it would require fire-suited suicide teams to work in the fire and impact zone setting fire-proof charges/devices and firing them ......and it gets sillier from there.

:)
 
I'm with you guys, for the sake of argument I'll stipulate there were multiple 10' pools of red hot liquid steel under the WTC a month after 9/11. I just want to know what they think that would mean or how it would have happened.
 
Robrob said:
I'm with you guys, for the sake of argument I'll stipulate there were multiple 10' pools of red hot liquid steel under the WTC a month after 9/11. I just want to know what they think that would mean or how it would have happened.
Click to expand...

Safer to say "molten" Robrob. Red hot isn't hot enough to be molten.
 
True, if this was really steel it would be very bright to look at.
 
Travis said:
So I start a thread that says "the molten steel was there, so what?" and we now hit 65 pages in and we have a Truther still trying to advocate that the molten steel was there when this thread already assumes this was so.
Click to expand...

A thread which for the most part you abandoned.

MM
 
Come on, now twoofers. What, other than tightly-contained Class A fires burning for months, could have caused there to be pols of molten steel? THAT is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Come on now. Your brains will not spontaneously combust. What processes do you see at work in the pile that will melt steel? We know that it could not have been melted during the collapse. We know that steel which had melted on the critical floors of the towers would have been dispersed and completely solidified before the dust had settled. What keeps the pile hot enough to melt more?
 
Miragememories said:
A thread which for the most part you abandoned.

MM
Click to expand...

Is that the reasoning that you use to decide to try to debate that topic in a thread that is not concerned with that topic?

In THIS thread you have been granted the existance of molten steel. Why then do you continue to argue a premise that has been granted?
To avoid addressing the actual thread topic, or because you are incapable of arguing the thread topic?
 
Travis said:
True, if this was really steel it would be very bright to look at.
Click to expand...

Don't forget intense radiation heat, far surpassing that of raging fires. Requires special protection, possibly beyond fire fighters gear even, to stand next to.
 
I used to work as a design engineer for a company in Bristol. We were redoing some water pipes for Llanweren steel works in Wales (Not sure if that is the correct spelling) It was a strip steel mill that made long strips of steel plate from huge ingots. I went to the place many times and the overarching memory is the heat.

You stood on a gantry and watched these long strips of red hot steel shoot past. The radiant heat was seriously intense, so much so on the ejection end of the furnace you were not actually allowed to go there without protective clothing.

There is zero chance of standing staring at a a molten pool of steel. Would the steel cool quickly, yes

As I said before I would be amazed if there wasn't molten steel at some point after the impact, would it be liquid months later? Not a chance

So melted steel in WTC... yes I think so. Evidence of foul play.... Naaa.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
By what standard was it abandoned?

What is the relevance?
Click to expand...

Perhaps a link to the exact thread he is referring to would be called for as well. Especially if MM believes there is more to be debated on the topic of whether or not there was molten steel and whether or not various experts are correct in saying that fire "melted' the steel.
 
jaydeehess said:
"Perhaps a link to the exact thread he is referring to would be called for as well. Especially if MM believes there is more to be debated on the topic of whether or not there was molten steel and whether or not various experts are correct in saying that fire "melted' the steel."
Click to expand...

Can you be any more casual when referring to smelting-furnace level temperatures?

A match is fire.

How many buried-in-dust matches do you figure it would take to melt steel over months?

MM
 
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