Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

Yes, how do you do that and what does it mean?

ETA:You seem to be:

We're not talking about me here. Thanks anyway.

We're talking about you. Reports of molten steel in the WTC: true or untrue? Just answer the question. Is it too hard for you?

If untrue, how have you determined this?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Ergo, at the risk of further feeding a needy troll, I notice you're riffing on the "ask Chris Mohr for an answer when he wasn't talking to you and hasn't posted in the thread for weeks" theme:

In fact, I'd like Chris Mohr to answer the question.

Clayton Moore employed this technique in the 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread:

Maybe chrismohr will enlighten me...

No word from chrismohr.

but it bore little fruit


*back on topic*

Were reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble true or untrue? If true, how do you explain its presence? If untrue, how have you determined they were untrue?

Ergo, given that this thread assumes the presence of melted steel, what are the implications?

Feel free to go into as much detail as you like.

 

[dafydd]

We're not talking about me here. Thanks anyway.

We're talking about you. Reports of molten steel in the WTC: true or untrue? Just answer the question. Is it too hard for you?

If untrue, how have you determined this?

True or untrue,why does it matter?

 

[Dcdrac]

still do not see what relevence the presence or absence of some kind of molten metal has to a proved terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

 

[dafydd]

still do not see what relevence the presence or absence of some kind of molten metal has to a proved terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

Nobody does, not even Ergo. Thread over?

 

[abaddon]

Sorry, but we're not going to play "iffys" or hypotheticals in this thread.

Bedunkers need to come out and say what they believe. Either reports of molten steel in the WTC were true or they were untrue. Which is it? Just answer the question.

If you can't answer the question, there's no point having a "discussion" about it.

This whole thread is predicated on the assumption that there was molten steel, so if there was, now what? Reports of such were in fact untrue, but even if they were true, what? What could molten steel possibly indicate? Why are you running away from the next step in your argument?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What part of my numerous answers to this are you not understanding?

Why do you keep saying "if"? Do you doubt there was molten steel? If so, why? What evidence do you have that there wasn't?

Sorry, but we're not going to play "iffys" or hypotheticals in this thread.

Bedunkers need to come out and say what they believe. Either reports of molten steel in the WTC were true or they were untrue. Which is it? Just answer the question.

If you can't answer the question, there's no point having a "discussion" about it.

In fact, I'd like Chris Mohr to answer the question.

Were reports of molten steel in the WTC rubble true or untrue? If true, how do you explain its presence? If untrue, how have you determined they were untrue?

Even I have agreed to concede the point that molten metal was present. The primary question remains, "So what?"

Further, I'd like you to address the reduction atmosphere smelting environment present in the rubble that was smouldering for over 12 weeks and tell us why that alone could not explain the presence of molten metal.

 

[dafydd]

This whole thread is predicated on the assumption that there was molten steel, so if there was, now what? Reports of such were in fact untrue, but even if they were true, what? What could molten steel possibly indicate? Why are you running away from the next step in your argument?

He has an argument? Trolls don't have arguments.

 

[000063]

What is particularly amazing and extrodinary in this thread is the apparent inability of most truthers to take, "yes" for an answer. ...

You mean that in the way people use "literally", right?

 

[LSSBB]

He has an argument? Trolls don't have arguments.

They don't experience them as we do, a debate hopefully with a conclusion. We see an argument as a problematic fire that needs to be put out.

Trolls ignite the fires and stoke them, heaven forbid they go out, for then they no longer get that endorphin rush from the fire continuing.

 

[Travis]

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

YAY someone tried to answer and it only took 3500 posts!


So...why do you think the temperatures couldn't be high enough to melt steel?

 

[Dcdrac]

Just for info

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

 

[ergo]

I too have answered the question "so what?"

Nobody's answering my questions, so I'll leave you again to your own "so what" discussion.

 

[Mark F]

Ergo, you have not answered the question "so what". I defy you to demonstrate on which post you answered that question.

So what is the only question. That there was molten steel has long been conceded for the purposes of this discussion for the precise purpose of getting you (or anyone else) to answer so what.

So please, tell us (even if you have to repeat yourself) why molten steel at Ground Zero is important and why should we care.

 

[NoahFence]

I too have answered the question "so what?"

Nobody's answering my questions, so I'll leave you again to your own discussion.

You have not.

Please link to the post that you think shows you answering this.

 

[Travis]

I too have answered the question "so what?"

Nobody's answering my questions, so I'll leave you again to your own discussion.

Ergo, you have not answered the question "so what". I defy you to demonstrate on which post you answered that question.

So what is the only question. That there was molten steel has long been conceded for the purposes of this discussion for the precise purpose of getting you (or anyone else) to answer so what.

So please, tell us (even if you have to repeat yourself) why molten steel at Ground Zero is important and why should we care.

You have not.

Please link to the post that you think shows you answering this.

The ball is in your court ergo. Just show us where you answered the question.

 

[ergo]

That there was molten steel has long been conceded for the purposes of this discussion for the precise purpose of getting you (or anyone else) to answer so what.

We don't need hypothetical concessions here. We need your actual position on the subject. Otherwise there's no discussion.

So please, tell us (even if you have to repeat yourself) why molten steel at Ground Zero is important and why should we care.

No. Read the thread.

 

[thedopefishlives]

We don't need hypothetical concessions here. We need your actual position on the subject. Otherwise there's no discussion.

Then this thread is over. There is another thread to discuss our "actual position". The entire intent of this thread is to get you to state why you think molten steel is of significance. If you refuse to tell us, well, that answers our question: It isn't.

 

[Dcdrac]

Ergo you are the one that seems to have attached some significance to the presence of melted metals so what is this signifcance.

 

[NoahFence]

Ergo you are the one that seems to have attached some significance to the presence of melted metals so what is this signifcance.

He knows it's insignificant.