Merged So there was melted steel

[LSSBB]

I'd love to see ergo or MM to find what's wrong with my calculation.

Oystein, I believe ergo and MM wouldn't even try, and it probably doesn't matter. You need Harrit, et al. to try to find what is wrong with your calculation.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, I believe ergo and MM wouldn't even try, and it probably doesn't matter. You need Harrit, et al. to try to find what is wrong with your calculation.

I find it hard to imagine that chemists and physicists like Harrit, Farrer, Jones are uanbele to come up with such bacl-of-the-envelope calcs themselves,. I suspect they know very well already that their supposed thermitic material can't do squat.

Also, Harrit e.al. are not here, we only have ergo and MM and the like who are channeling Harrit e.al. as best as they can. They should ask Harrit e.al. what's wrong with my calcs.

 

[DGM]

I suspect they know very well already that their supposed thermitic material can't do squat.

I believe Jones does. Isn't that why he declared that the "chips" were most-likely used as a "fuse" for the tons of explosives?

 

[Robrob]

I believe Jones does. Isn't that why he declared that the "chips" were most-likely used as a "fuse" for the tons of explosives?

Yep, continually moving the goal posts. Saves on having to make sense with a single coherent theory. Eventually they will get around to claiming the aircraft were pre-loaded with C4 and their impact into the WTC sparked off the thermite paint on the support columns like a really big book of matches.

 

[000063]

So here is your question in a nutshell.

Stop quote-mining, Ergo.

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.

Like one where someone asks to be enlightened about the difference between "into" and "onto", and then mocks everyone who does exactly that?

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.

Well, that's ironic; you've been told. Several times over, in fact. The water couldn't reach the fires and put them out. It's really that simple.

Once again, one of your posts avoids making any claims other than passive-aggressive ad hominems.

So let's sum up the thread so far:

[words]

Ah, yes, the patented technique of delivering a "summation" which conveniently avoids the sticky questions and facts people have been giving you. Who's asking questions they don't want the answers to, exactly?

 

[000063]

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

You don't understand the idea of the concept of "for the sake of argument".

 

[twinstead]

You don't understand the idea of the concept of "for the sake of argument".

MM's not an idiot. He know full well what this thread is all about. He also knows he has absolutely NO legitimate answer to, "Ok, let's say there WAS molten steel. Here's a list of reports of molten steel in 50 non-related fires. So what?"

 

[000063]

I had originally phrased it as asking whether he understood the concept, but if I use a statement, he can't respond without admitting whether he does or doesn't understand the statement. Which means he can't answer it without responding, in turn, to the OP. I predict he will respond neither to my statement or the OP.

 

[jaydeehess]

MM could not care less

Good to see that some people get that phrase right.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed? What proof can you provide? How do you determine what steel melting occurred at or before the moment of collapse initiation?

Do you honestly think the OP's acceptance of melted steel automatically entitles you to decree that it was a contributor to the collapses without any additional supporting evidence?

Just some questions worth considering; that is, should you ever return to this thread for discussion.

 

[Miragememories]

"Well. Then find some real experts, and ask them their opinions. Go down to your local university and take a poll. Are you afraid to find out what the rank-and-file real experts think, or have you already rationalized in your mind why the vast majority of them will disagree with you?"

"The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

They have been found.

We know what they think.

It is your masked (nun's habit), non-experts, making unsupported declarations based on their wishful thinking that I have a problem with."

"...Why do you think the authors of the Jones Thermite paper were experts on thermite? They have many degrees, but so do I, and I don't feel qualified to comment on this topic..."

I never said that the authors of the paper were thermite experts.

But they have the related on-record academic qualifications to investigate the presence of thermite.

And, rather than just armchair hypothesizing, they have actually done, and continue to do, a scientific investigation into the thermitic material found in the WTC dust.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Since we're granting you there was molten steel , rivers, lakes and streams of it, what does that prove?"

"You have granted NOTHING."

"...the hell? It was granted in the very first post of this thread. Where have you been?"

From the OP

"Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious."

Travis never said he believed that there was molten steel.

He posed its existence as a 'what if', which necessitated an argument supporting a 'definitely was'.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"MM could not care less"

"Is this true? I talk with many Truthers who really do believe that Steve Jones and his 'paper' are real because they simply lack the education to understand he is not an expert. Loads of Americans who graduated from high school and did not attend university would be impressed with Jones and his PhD.

MM, does it really not matter to you if Steve Jones has no expertise that matters? If you believe he is an expert on thermite, what makes you think this?"

What?

That twinstead can read minds?

Dr. Jones et al who produced the 'paper' were quite qualified to perform the scientific investigation on which the 'paper' is based.

If you are too lazy to Google their credentials, then you clearly have no interest in hearing both sides of the argument.

And I suggest you start your search by examining the credentials and publishing history of Dr. Niels Harrit.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Here is a step by step primer for how this should be done.

1. Provide evidence of melted steel (unnecessary in this thread)
2. Provide evidence that only thermite could have created the molten steel
   1. Demonstrate what physical conditions would allow molten steel
   2. You will need to show that the physical conditions present could not have produced molten steel
3. Provide evidence that thermite was there
   1. Physical evidence would be best
   2. Eyewitness accounts would also be nice
4. Show how thermite could have taken down the towers
   1. Provide collaborating evidence for this activity
   2. Digging up demolition precedent would be nice too
5. Explain how it is that no one saw the thermite doing this

"

Having observed how poorly presented your OP was, 68 pages later you are now trying to re-present it. An extremely late and obvious attempt to control the direction that it has taken.

This situation rarely occurs when authors are active participants in the threads they create.

If, it is unnecessary in this thread to provide evidence of molten steel, why do you then contradict yourself by asking that those members who acknowledge the existence of molten steel, provide evidence that the necessary physical conditions existed for molten steel?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Other than Oystein's argument is based solely on the fact that thermite burns quickly.

Which is not the same as saying all the thermitic material burned at the same time.

Or that it is incapable of creating a steel-melting temperature.

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely."

"A swing and a miss.

The premise of this thread is that there was molten metal.

Question is, what does that prove?

How does molten steel prove that planes + fire didn't cause the towers to fall?"

""planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures."

"How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed? What proof can you provide? How do you determine what steel melting occurred at or before the moment of collapse initiation?

Do you honestly think the OP's acceptance of melted steel automatically entitles you to decree that it was a contributor to the collapses without any additional supporting evidence?

Just some questions worth considering; that is, should you ever return to this thread for discussion."

How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed?

It is a logical deduction drawn from the presence of unspent thermitic residue throughout the WTC dust. Knowing the steel melting temperatures achievable in a thermitic reaction, and given that the unspent thermitic residue logically represented what was once a much larger amount, it is reasonable to accept the existence of steel melting temperatures inside the buildings prior to their collapses.

MM

 

[twinstead]

How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed?

It is a logical deduction drawn from the presence of unspent thermitic residue throughout the WTC dust. Knowing the steel melting temperatures achievable in a thermitic reaction, and given that the unspent thermitic residue logically represented what was once a much larger amount, it is reasonable to accept the existence of steel melting temperatures inside the buildings prior to their collapses.

MM

Just because it's a logical deduction to you doesn't mean that it is for everybody else. As has been mentioned to you over and over and over again, there are documented reports of molten steel and molten metal in dozens of other non-related fires. Using your logic, thermite is a logical conclusion in every single one of them.

 

[tsig]

I never said that the authors of the paper were thermite experts.

But they have the related on-record academic qualifications to investigate the presence of thermite.

And, rather than just armchair hypothesizing, they have actually done, and continue to do, a scientific investigation into the thermitic material found in the WTC dust. MM

Your first two sentences are in direct contradiction. If they have the qualifications then they are experts. So are they or are they not experts.


Odd statement since you are participating in the other thread.

 

[tsig]

Just because it's a logical deduction to you doesn't mean that it is for everybody else. As has been mentioned to you over and over and over again, there are documented reports of molten steel and molten metal in dozens of other non-related fires. Using your logic, thermite is a logical conclusion in every single one of them.

A logical deduction in truthville is "I believe it therefore it happened" this is closely elated to the other one "Looks like it* to me therefore it is"

*'it' can be CD's, no crash in Penn., no fire......

 

[triforcharity]

Wait, MM claims that they are continuing to do scientific research?

Really?

Prove it.

As it sits right now, Kevin Ryan is refusing to even give access to any of his samples.

Can you show us where this work is occurring, and what is being done, and where it might be read about?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How do you prove these temperatures existed anywhere inside the buildings before they collapsed?

It is a logical deduction drawn from the presence of unspent thermitic residue throughout the WTC dust. Knowing the steel melting temperatures achievable in a thermitic reaction, and given that the unspent thermitic residue logically represented what was once a much larger amount, it is reasonable to accept the existence of steel melting temperatures inside the buildings prior to their collapses.

MM

I suppose this needs to be rephrased in a much more simple manner:

• Thermite was present/installed sometime before the events that lead to collapse but not used/responsible for initiating the collapse. It is somehow ignited after collapse leading to the presence of melted steel. You establish a conspiracy was in place but the collapse still initiated and progressed without the assistance of incendiaries and/or explosives.
  
  or
  
  
• Thermite was present and actively responsible for initiating the collapse, and still being spent after the fact during cleanup. The engineering examinations find explicit signs of melting/cutting and can confirm through some method that the thermite was not just ignited in the debris pile, but sometime prior to the collapse.

The OP defaults the the first option; and so does your argument. The question I asked, is how do you make the jump to the second one - the scenario you have determined? Is this easier to understand?