Merged So there was melted steel

[jaydeehess]

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]

hyperbole or less than informed comment most likely, or perhaps, if true, then just as true as media reports of molten steel in other fires and thus hardly unique.

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

A clarification, the informed opinion of an expert.

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

Apparently no reports he knew of. Did anyone report molten steel to NIST?

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

The opinion of many debunkers, not all(see below)

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

A point also made by myself and many others. In fact this very thread was created in order to allow truthers to come forward and explain how it could be otherwise (birds chirping)

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

An opinion but the later part is true, no pictures. You have pictures of FFs looking on red hot material but that could be found in a campfire so that's hardly indicative of anything in particular.

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

Again, there are no pictures of molten (read: liquid state) steel.

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

No, the term has been used repeatedly to refer to red hot steel and other metals but that cannot be construed to refer to steel in a liquid state which is what the truth movement wishes to impart upon these reference.

"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]

Misrepresentation of what I at least have been saying. I have been saying that such reports are either true or untrue. If true then molten steel is not an issue here, if untrue in other fires then likely as untrue in the reports in the WTC rubble fires as well and thus the reports are useless as far as being anything upon which to base any claim.

"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]

See last paragraph above.

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

No it deforms in a plastic manner. Can you quote any debunker using this terminology?

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

YES!, Once again, you are granted, for the purposes of this thread, the existance of molten steel in the WTC rubble fire zone. We may now mover past the debate concerning its existance if you dare. So far you dare not. You are apparently quite content to concede any debate on this topic.

 

[Dcdrac]

I strongly recommend this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fm490

 

[jaydeehess]

I strongly recommend this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fm490

program not currently available on BBC

 

[Snarf]

program not currently available on BBC

Uh-Oh, looks like someone 'pulled it'

(man, I never tire of that joke. Great mileage)

 

[DGM]

program not currently available on BBC

It's not available outside of the UK.

It's all because of that little thing in Massachusetts. Lexington/Concord all over again..........



(Sorry ergo. I couldn't resist, I'm weak.................)

 

[Dcdrac]

The BBC have got it up now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fkc5n

and Theresa bit of it on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phhXy1XgLLs

 

[jaydeehess]

The BBC have got it up now

Isn't the BBC in trouble over Saville doing that?

ba-boom

 

[jaydeehess]

The BBC have got it up now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fkc5n

and Theresa bit of it on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phhXy1XgLLs

The whole show is still a no-go for me so at least in Canuckland all I got was the part about making aluminium stronger.

 

[DGM]

The whole show is still a no-go for me so at least in Canuckland all I got was the part about making aluminium stronger.

Brings us stronger together.

Lexington/Concord truth.

 

[ozeco41]

The pictures are upside down from where I am.

 

[DGM]

The pictures are upside down from where I am.

Do you flap your arm in reverse to stay on the ground (considering your place on earth)?

>logical truth question<.

 

[Mark F]

You know, since we are all happy to concede there was molten metal/steel at Ground Zero it is just too bad nobody has thought to ask "why should we care if molten metal/steel was found at Ground Zero? What does it prove?" It is even more unfortunate nobody has had the foresight to offer up an answer to that after all this time, even without prompting. After all, you would think that such an important point would be leading the discussion by now. Without that, there is nothing to talk about.

So can anyone answer this?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[ergo]

hyperbole or less than informed comment most likely, or perhaps, if true, then just as true as media reports of molten steel in other fires and thus hardly unique.

...

A clarification, the informed opinion of an expert.

Why are the first experts wrong and the second experts right? Why did PBS NOVA get it wrong?

But good to know where you stand on the issue.

Apparently no reports he knew of. Did anyone report molten steel to NIST?

NIST most certainly knew of reports of molten steel, since they address the issue of molten steel later in their timeline by commenting briefly that molten steel in the pile is "plausible". John Gross works for NIST and he made that comment in 2005. There's no way he didn't know of reports of molten steel.

Again, there are no pictures of molten (read: liquid state) steel.

There are no pictures of WTC 7 fully engulfed in flames either. Yet that's what many of you claim. What's your opinion of the extent of fires in WTC 7, and what do you base it on?

No, the term has been used repeatedly to refer to red hot steel and other metals

No, it hasn't. Where do you get this from?

but that cannot be construed to refer to steel in a liquid state which is what the truth movement wishes to impart upon these reference.

Any steel that has been melted has reached the point at which steels melts.

Misrepresentation of what I at least have been saying. I have been saying that such reports are either true or untrue.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

YES!, Once again, you are granted, for the purposes of this thread, the existance of molten steel in the WTC rubble fire zone. We may now mover past the debate concerning its existance if you dare. So far you dare not.

I've already stated my opinion on the matter. You're the ones who keep trying to reverse the conversation. If you agree that building fires cannot melt steel (see your comments above), then don't you want to answer for yourself what created the molten steel in the pile? Have you done that yet? That's what your thread is about.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm confused. Are you asserting that the "melted steel" is a product of the pre-collapse fire or a product of the post-collapse fire?

 

[Justin39640]

I'm confused. Are you asserting that the "melted steel" is a product of the pre-collapse fire or a product of the post-collapse fire?

See post number 2 in this thread. They're using post-collapse observations (of molten metals) to determine pre-collapse conditions.

It took me a while to realize this. It's mind boggling stupid. Hence why it's absolute proof of an "inside job".

 

[ergo]

See post number 2 in this thread. They're using post-collapse observations .... to determine pre-collapse conditions.

You mean like investigators do?

It took me a while to realize this. It's mind boggling stupid.

Tell us all about it, Justin.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

See post number 2 in this thread. They're using post-collapse observations (of molten metals) to determine pre-collapse conditions.

It took me a while to realize this. It's mind boggling stupid. Hence why it's absolute proof of an "inside job".

Wait, really? Now I'm very confused. Does this mean they're ignoring the subsequent period of reduction fire smelting of the rototilled mass of building contents, and assuming that the heat from those fires was somehow a product of the initial pre-collapse conditions?

Weird.

 

[beachnut]

See post number 2 in this thread. They're using post-collapse observations (of molten metals) to determine pre-collapse conditions.

It took me a while to realize this. It's mind boggling stupid. Hence why it's absolute proof of an "inside job".

There are a few logically challenged 911 truth cult followers who fall for the melted steel inside job leap of nonsense. Unable to explain what melted steel means, or where it went, they resort to weak attacks and avoid their no evidence status. Knowledge free followers, fooled by nuts. Lucky no JREF posters are fooled by the delusions of a few liars like Jones and Gage.

 

[carlitos]

Lucky no JREF posters are fooled by the delusions of a few liars like Jones and Gage.

Some JREF posters are fooled.

 

[twinstead]

You mean like investigators do?

Until those investigators realize that the conditions during and post collapse may have, you know, played a part in the post collapse conditions.