• 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

dafydd said:
No doubt. It's about trollish attention seeking.
Click to expand...

Well, here is the opportunity for him to prove you wrong.

iirc, there was but one poster in this thread who attempted, partially, to actually carry the truther argument further with a given of the existence of molten steel. That was MirageMemories.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you think thermite was the source of that high temp.
 
Miragememories said:
That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on when the findings where allegedly made? Do you believe any connection can be made to the Collapse mechanisms of the buildings when such findings are allegedly made as long as several months after the initial events? Have any findings been able to empirically link the reports of melted steel/metal to the initation of the collapse of the buildings?
 
Miragememories said:
That temperatures existed at the WTC well above those that could be achieved by the short term aviation fuel fires and burning office furnishings.

MM
Click to expand...

This is barely relevant to how the towers collapsed. So you have, in the past outlines a scenario by which thermite might cause such elevated temperatures over a span of many days. How about now a scenario by which this large amount of 'left over' thermite managed to not exist on the rubble surface, but only under the rubble. Where there any reports of bright white flares on the surface?

Of course then this also begs the question of the amount of thermite placed in the towers to both cause collapse as they were seen to, and still result in having enough 'left over' to supply a continuous injection of heat to the underground hotspots?
 
Again, reports of "molten steel" are common in fires. But does anyone know of a report of "molten steel" from a fire in which the witness reported this as suspicious? Has there ever been any investigation, criminal or otherwise, that resulted from reports of molten steel?

I'd have thought that Truthers, with their keen investigative skills (Google), would have found a few by now. Maybe, they even asked an arson investigator if he personally knew of any, or of one in the literature. ;)

How about explosives? Has there even been a case of a mysterious destruction of a building, and investigators were standing around scratching their heads trying to figure out what happened - when along came Ace Jimcrack, who advised them to start testing for high-explosive residue, and they randomly tested the debris, and sure enough, on the nth test, it came up positive, and solved the case?
 
Redwood said:
Again, reports of "molten steel" are common in fires. But does anyone know of a report of "molten steel" from a fire in which the witness reported this as suspicious? Has there ever been any investigation, criminal or otherwise, that resulted from reports of molten steel?

I'd have thought that Truthers, with their keen investigative skills (Google), would have found a few by now. Maybe, they even asked an arson investigator if he personally knew of any, or of one in the literature. ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed, not that anyone has ever noted.

It has been noted many many times that reports of molten steel are relatively common though. Once again either they are true or untrue.

If true then there is nothing unusual about molten steel in the WTC rubble any more than there is in any other fire.

If untrue, they it offers a distinct reason to doubt the reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble. This negates the idea that we must investigate the reports because they are unusual in any way.
 
ergo said:
No, no, MM. What it says about the collapse is that the columns both missed each other, and "buckled", presumably under the strain of missing each other... ;)
Click to expand...

That's what you were on about???
I never said your mangled columns were in the initiation zones. :rolleyes:

Even if they were "melted" (which they weren't) what does that imply?

Truthers' ideas are so simplistic. No thought about the chaos the collapses were. They think molten steel in the pile = molten steel in the towers = planted thermite, all from the same source. No thought about the collapse snuffing out the original fires and sparking new ones down in the pile. The same way the collapses sparked fires in buildings not hit by planes :rolleyes:

ETA: Ergo... where/when do you believe those parts were "melted"? In the pile or in the buildings prior to collapse?
 
Last edited:
Truthers' ideas are so simplistic. No thought about the chaos the collapses were. They think molten steel in the pile = molten steel in the towers = planted thermite, all from the same source. No thought about the collapse snuffing out the original fires and sparking new ones down in the pile. The same way the collapses sparked fires in buildings not hit by planes
Click to expand...


They never put any thought into any of their stupid theories. They just spit them out and when questioned on the natural consequences of their train of thought they just clam up.

For instance:
No planes!!
Ok, where'd the real planes go?
Crickets.

The Pentagon was a missile!!
What about the plane parts strewn all over the lawn?
Planted!
In the middle of the day?
Crickets.

They're the most intentionally dishonest people I've ever come across.
 
Evolution of bedunker arguments re: WTC molten steel

Some of these arguments, of course, co-evolved, and some have also enjoyed varying returns to vogue. But it runs roughly chronologically since 9/11. Feel free to add your own:


"The steel columns melted." [media reports; expert commentary; PBS NOVA]


"The steel columns didn't melt. Building fires don't melt steel." [expert commentary; PBS NOVA]


"There was no molten steel. There were no reports of molten steel." [Thomas Eagar; NIST; John Gross]


"Reports of molten steel are all in error. There was no molten steel." [internet bedunkers]


"If there was molten steel in the pile it still tells us nothing about the collapses." [9/11 Commission Report]


"There was no molten steel because we have no pictures of it."[internet bedunkers]


"The pictures of molten steel are false/fake/don't show enough."[internet bedunkers]


"People who say they saw molten steel don't understand what 'molten' means." [internet bedunkers]


"There was probably no molten steel. Reports of molten steel are common in other fires. All reports of molten steel in fires are probably erroneous." [internet bedunkers]


"There was probably no molten steel, but even if there was it is plausible/would not be unusual because it is commonly reported in other fires." [internet bedunkers; NIST]


"Structural steel can deform in a highly fluid manner under compression." [JREF bedunkers]


"If there was molten steel: so what?" [JREF bedunkers]

​

;)
 
Oh, and don't forget:


"People who believe in WTC molten steel probably also believe in unicorns and UFOs." [JREF bedunkers]​
 
Doubling down on the duhh. You were asked in the thread you fled for evidence of molten steel--and you posted pictures of crushed steel.

You're awfully smug for somebody who can't tell the difference.
 
With physics like this,
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC.
Click to expand...
, it is not surprising we get threads calling people made up baby names, frustrated they have no evidence, no rational claims.

Waving hands wildly, 911 truth comes up with the famous Titanic Delusion of can't...
Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.
Click to expand...
No math, just talk.

Asked why melted steel supports an inside job, or the insanity of thermite CD; we have a thread making weak attacks on fellow JREF posters because someone can't figure out 911. Given 12 years, real evidence, 911 truth can't connect the dots, 911 truth has complete failure. Constant big talk backed up with special "moon size debris field Physics", or 11.2g special Balsamo math.

Confused by hearsay, simile, quote mining, cherry picking, and failing to have physical evidence, 911 truth perfects eternal fails.

Now making fun of fellow posters using the baby name of bedunker, starting a new thread because she can't answer, "why". Welcome to 911 truth special logic. Can't produce evidence or proof. This is the best of 911 truth; failed logic, no evidence, and weak personal attacks.

911 truth, no clue what is in NIST, as they attack NIST; no clue what truth is as they make up the fantasy inside job based on ignorance and lies.
 
Last edited:
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