Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

Another way to sum up is:

There was no melted steel in the debris pile. But if there WAS (but there wasn't) (but if there WAS) (but there wasn't) but if there WAS, it was likely caused by a furnace effect.

Therefore - uh, we mean BUT - BUT the reports of melted or molten steel by engineers and firefighters were mistaken, because reports of melted steel in fires are common and they're always wrong. Because steel doesn't melt in fires. (Unless there's a furnace effect.)



Are we good?

 

[ergo]

ergo, you have been granted that molten steel existed. Your task is to explain how that is evidence for an inside job.

The thread is as simple as that.

And I answered that question here.

I leave it to bedunkers now to hash it out among themselves. Have fun.

 

[DGM]

And I answered that question here.

I leave it to bedunkers now to hash it out among themselves. Have fun.

So why are you still posting in this thread if.........

I don't have the knowledge to answer that..

So how again is that an answer (or do you consider questions as answers)?

 

[carlitos]

So apparently, the way to "debunk" something here on the JREF 9/11 forum is simply to offer your opinion that

"ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE STOOPID!! I, ANONYMOUS INTERNET POSTER WITH SCATTERED AMATEUR KNOWLEDGE THAT DOESN'T REALLY HELP ME WITH ANYTHING USEFUL IN REAL LIFE, KNOW FAR MORE ABOUT THESE MATTERS THAN ENGINEERS AND FIREFIGHTERS!! LET ME TELL YOU!!"

"LESLIE ROBERTSON IS STOOOPID!!"

"RICHARD GARLOCK IS STOOOPID!!"

"DON CARSON IS STOOOPID!!"

"JONATHAN BARNETT IS STOOOPID!!!"

”ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL IS STOOOPID!!"

"RICHARD RIGGS IS STOOOPID!!"

"MECHANICAL ENGINEERS ARE STOOOPID!!"

"FIRE ENGINEERS ARE STOOOOPID!!"

"IRON WORKERS ARE STOOOPID!!"

"DEMOLITION EXPERTS ARE STOOOPID!!"

"THE A.S.S.E. IS STOOOPID!!"

"THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IS STOOOPID!!!"

"R.J. LEE IS STOOOPID!!!"


...and voila: no molten steel, no pools or rivers of molten anything at Ground Zero. Unless of course it was aluminum.

Well, if that's the way it works around here, then I have my own debunking to do:

Official story supporters are morons.

This sounds suspiciously close to one Jay Reftard, another Canadian truther.


These guys don't sound very bright, do they?

ergo, you have been granted that molten steel existed. Your task is to explain how that is evidence for an inside job.

The thread is as simple as that.

If there was even one truther willing to honestly engage the thread topic, it would have been interesting. Expecting the current crop of trolls to debate honestly is wasted effort. Just ignore, or point and laugh. No other reaction is productive. It only encourages them.

 

[Edx]

So let's sum up the thread so far:

1) The reports of melted steel didn't really mean melted steel. They meant melted other metals or steel that wasn't really melted.

2a) There was no melted steel in the debris pile.

Close enough I guess...

BUT

2b) If there WAS, it was likely created by a furnace effect, which has been documented in other fires.

THEREFORE, we conclude that:

The reports of molten steel were likely erroneous, but it is nevertheless possible for steel to have melted in the debris pile via a furnace effect.

Sounds okay....

SO

The reports of molten steel were

a) correct?

or

b) incorrect?

BUT WAIT! That's off topic!!

Wait... what??? How can you ask that???

How is this so difficult to understand?

1. Melted steel on 911 is - unlikely
2. However - IF - there was melted steel on 911, then it is conceivable that conditions could have been present in the rubble pile that could have melted steel - no thermite required.


Even if Point 2 was correct, and there was melted steel, the very fact that people incorrectly report melted steel in plenty of other fires, we can safely assume that most of the reports about melted steel on 911 are probably STILL incorrect for the same reason. It is SUCH a common occurrence that we should really expect to see these kinds of reports on 911, even if there wasn't any actual melted steel.

For example, take Chris Wise and Hyman Brown from the article you quoted. They don't actually speak about there being melted steel on 911, what they describe is fire and jet fuel fires melting steel as if that were a common occurrence in fires, when we both agree that it is not. So even if there was melted steel and even if it was produced by a furnace effect in certain parts of the rubble pile, most reports talking about melted steel are probably still not really referring to actual melted steel.

Assuming there was melted steel then, how would we know which reports are accurate and which aren't? We wouldn't. Does it matter to me? No, because neither requires thermite.

The REAL question here is WHY WOULD MOLTEN STEEL IN THE DEBRIS PILE BE UNUSUAL??

Not sure who is meant to be asking this question.... but if there really was melted steel in the rubble pile it would still be "unusual" in the sense that conditions required to melt steel aren't seen too often in regular fires.

What ISN'T unusual is finding reports of melted steel in fires. THAT is EXTREMELY common.

Since you can't possibly be suggesting that thermite really was used hundreds and hundreds of other times in different fires, then that only leaves two options for these other times: Either the people that said there was melted steel probably didn't mean it or were mistaken -- OR -- fire really does regularly melt steel as a common occurrence.

Since we can both accept that fire doesn't regularly melt steel and couldn't possibly help your argument if you said it did, that has to leave one option. They probably didn't mean it or were mistaken. That is why that is the most likely option on 911 as well.

 

[DGM]

Close enough I guess...

You (and ergo) got it wrong! In this thread the molten steel is a given. The object is to explain how it matters (in relation to the "official story). At this point you are as bad as he is.

 

[Edx]

You (and ergo) got it wrong! In this thread the molten steel is a given. The object is to explain how it matters (in relation to the "official story). At this point you are as bad as he is.

No we have to make it clear that its still unlikely that there was melted steel, the point being that even if there was it wouldnt have to point to thermite, which is what this thread IS about. Not pointing this out is giving them to much credit.

And besides, that is what this thread has been about. It may not have been the OP, but that is what this thread has been about.

 

[Robrob]

You (and ergo) got it wrong! In this thread the molten steel is a given. The object is to explain how it matters (in relation to the "official story). At this point you are as bad as he is.

Yep. this is the "for argument's sake" thread. Interesting none of the CT types have been able to follow up on that point. It's almost as if their entire argument is based on claiming things without having a logical explanation for the who/what/when/where/why.

 

[carlitos]

No we have to make it clear that its still unlikely that there was melted steel, the point being that even if there was it wouldnt have to point to thermite, which is what this thread IS about. Not pointing this out is giving them to much credit.

And besides, that is what this thread has been about. It may not have been the OP, but that is what this thread has been about.

 

[ozeco41]

No we have to make it clear that its still unlikely that there was melted steel, the point being that even if there was it wouldnt have to point to thermite, which is what this thread IS about. Not pointing this out is giving them to much credit.

And besides, that is what this thread has been about. It may not have been the OP, but that is what this thread has been about.

A bit patronising towards ergo..

I'm sure that ergo is quite capable of derailing and evading the topic without assistance.

 

[NoahFence]

So let's sum up the thread so far:

No, let ME sum up YOUR thread for a moment:

OP: There was melted steel. So what?

Ergo: Uh....

 

[twinstead]

And I answered that question here.

I leave it to bedunkers now to hash it out among themselves. Have fun.

Do you really consider THAT an answer? You have been shown numerous examples of both reports of "molten steel" in fires unrelated to the WTC, and examples of fires that cannot be put out no matter how much water was poured on them that are also totally unrelated to the WTC.

So what is it about the WTC that is so different? Why the hard on for the WTC?

 

[leftysergeant]

If someone tells you that active thermitic compounds were found in WTC dust, you're just going to say "No they weren't!" and then we're back to a number of other idiotic threads on this forum.

One has to question the intelligence of people who insist on answers they have no intention of accepting.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 should question the intelligence of anyone who claims that thermite would account for the temperatures of the pile two weeks later.

Your time would be better spent answering how a furnace effect could be created in a debris pile which received an estimated 4 million gallons of water in its first 10 days alone.

This is not a mystery to anybody who have ever fought a ground fire.

 

[tsig]

So here is your question in a nutshell.

Why is it more likely that it's a result of some thermitic action than a furnace effect? I don't have the knowledge to answer that. But what answer are you hoping for here? If someone tells you that active thermitic compounds were found in WTC dust, you're just going to say "No they weren't!" and then we're back to a number of other idiotic threads on this forum.

One has to question the intelligence of people who insist on answers they have no intention of accepting.

Your time would be better spent answering how a furnace effect could be created in a debris pile which received an estimated 4 million gallons of water in its first 10 days alone.

And I answered that question here.

I leave it to bedunkers now to hash it out among themselves. Have fun.

I don't see any answer to the question "Given that there was molten steel how does that prove evil doing"?

 

[Montag451]

Did anybody notice?

Jay Reftard is that a spelling mistake?

tee hee I giggled

Back on topic

The conditions existed for steel to melt (Heat, air, insulation)
Steel probably did melt which I believe
Steel probably didn't melt others believe

Aaaand so what? The whole topic was based on the acceptance of melted steel.

Next

Water got sprayed on a pile of building rubble
Some external fires would go out
Some internal fires wouldn't

Hasn't the town Centralia been on fire for over 50 years? Underground mine fire.

Nice quote..

"This was a world where no human could live, hotter than the planet Mercury, its atmosphere as poisonous as Saturn's. At the heart of the fire, temperatures easily exceeded 1,000 degrees fahrenheit. Lethal clouds of carbon monoxide and other gases swirled through the rock chambers. - David DeKok (1986)"

To demonstrate how sad I am I just looked up the average rainfall for Pennsylvania which is approx 40 inches a year. So I'm guessing by truthers logic as this much rain 40 inches on average over 50 years means it was Mighty Thermite powered by MJ12 brain waves.

Or is it very difficult to extinguish fires with water if you cannot get to it? And even if you can get to it is it still very difficult to put it out.

If you sprayed water into a blast furnace it would not go out. The water would flash to steam and even into hydrogen and oxygen and bad things would happen very quickly.

On an aside Mythbusters did a nice episode about what happens when you mix thermite and ice.

 

[tsig]

No we have to make it clear that its still unlikely that there was melted steel, the point being that even if there was it wouldnt have to point to thermite, which is what this thread IS about. Not pointing this out is giving them to much credit.

And besides, that is what this thread has been about. It may not have been the OP, but that is what this thread has been about.

No, we don't.

The premise of the OP is that there Is molten steel, why are you helping derail the thread?

 

[Robrob]

And I answered that question here.

I leave it to bedunkers now to hash it out among themselves. Have fun.

Funny how - melted steel being stipulated - none of the CT wackjobs can explain what it means to them.

Your avoidance noted.

 

[twinstead]

What part of "molten steel is granted" don't you understand ergo?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Did anybody notice?

Jay Reftard is that a spelling mistake?

Nope... it's "supposed" to be an insult... ergo's not here to answer questions stipulated by the OP

 

[plague311]

Ok, I am going to have to plead ignorance on what I am about to post. It seems like it should be a given, but, as stated before, my education stopped after high school heh.

Since, not if, there was melted steel due to extremely hot fires, wouldn't that melted steel also cause other steel to melt? It seems dumb to ask once I read it, but I'm going to anyway.

Not that I am equating wood to steel, but when you throw more wood on a fire it burns and burns quicker. I was just curious if SOME of those characteristics would transfer. If steel was melted, if that steel would retain so much heat it could transfer it on, etc, etc.