• 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

ergo said:
Lol. Do you need closure?
Click to expand...
12 years and you can't explain what melted steel means. Have you told CNN, ABC, NBC, and others about your inability to make progress or express yourself on the biggest inside job since Watergate? Any ideas on why you can't explain what melted steel means?
 
ergo said:
Lol. Do you need closure?
Click to expand...


Troll, we need openness.


Here's the topic again:

Travis said:
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.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Feel free to clue me in.
Click to expand...

I will accept this as tacit admission of your utter failure.

You have now made a de-facto admission that there is nothing important or suspicious about molten steel in the rubble pile at Ground Zero, thus it does not even matter if it existed or not. Thank you for that.

I don't know about the rest of you but I know consider this matter closed. Another Truther chestnut gets smashed. What a surprise.

Time to move on.
 
Mark F said:
I will accept this as tacit admission of your utter failure.

You have now made a de-facto admission that there is nothing important or suspicious about molten steel in the rubble pile at Ground Zero, thus it does not even matter if it existed or not. Thank you for that.

I don't know about the rest of you but I know consider this matter closed. Another Truther chestnut gets smashed. What a surprise.

Time to move on.
Click to expand...

^I'm with the Stig. It is a matter of no consequence, devoid of anything.
 
ergo said:
Feel free to clue me in.
Click to expand...

In the real world, it doesn't exist, and even if it did it wouldn't mean anything.

Inside this thread, we pretend it does exist and ask you what you think it means; but even you admit it's meaningless, so the claim is entirely pointless and you should stop bringing it up.
 
ergo said:
Feel free to clue me in.
Click to expand...

Whaaat? Why are you even here? We've attempted to "clue you in" for 3500+ posts, and you still insist on arguing something the OP handed you on a paper plate with fork and napkin and a cup of lemonaide besides.

Are you just trolling? Or have you an actual point?

to wit:

Why is molten (or melted (different, and if you like we can take that up in another thread)) steel significant? Is there some reason why it couldn't exist after 12 weeks of smelting in the gigantifreakingnormous rototilled pile of extraordinarily enriched ore of the WTC rubble pile?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Bedunkers don't seem to understand their own logic, even though it's been explained to them several times in this now melting pot of a thread which has no official topic because it contains several different threads.

If there is nothing significant about the presence of melted steel in the WTC pile, then no thread needs to exist on this subject. Just like no thread exists on the subject of burnt paper at the WTC. No need to ask further questions about it.

If there is something significant about melted steel at the pile, then it's obvious that no appropriate investigation was done of it, because no credible explanation has yet appeared in the literature as to how temperatures in the pile reached the point at which steel melts. My rough timeline on the official and bedunker responses to the subject of melted steel at the WTC in fact shows that there is much doubt about melted steel, and several different attempts to dismiss it.

Finally, if there was no melted steel at the pile, which I suspect is the true thesis of our dishonest bedunkers here, this has never been properly established. We still see attempts (failed) by bedunkers in this thread to explain away steel folded over itself in a fluid fashion, and a persistent refusal to accept the fact of molten steel at the WTC as anything but a working hypothesis. This tells me you don't accept the fact of molten steel at the pile, so the question of "so what" does not interest me. If it interests you folks so much, WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER IT?

When you can start answering your own questions and make plausible attempts to explain melted steel at the pile, then this thread can continue. Until then, it's just junk posts as usual. I have better things to do.
Click to expand...
You've been given plausible answers and information which shows reports of molten steel is commonplace in fires.

If you can't come up with any reason why molten steel in the case of ground zero would be suspicious, the only conclusion could be that it simply isn't and this red herring has never had a pulse.

Thanks for playing!
 
ergo said:
Bedunkers don't seem to understand their own logic, even though it's been explained to them several times in this now melting pot of a thread which has no official topic because it contains several different threads.

If there is nothing significant about the presence of melted steel in the WTC pile, then no thread needs to exist on this subject. Just like no thread exists on the subject of burnt paper at the WTC. No need to ask further questions about it.
Click to expand...

Well it was something Truthers kept bringing up. But we seem to agree: if there is nothing significant about it then there is no reason to bring it up.

ergo said:
If there is something significant about melted steel at the pile, then it's obvious that no appropriate investigation was done of it, because no credible explanation has yet appeared in the literature as to how temperatures in the pile reached the point at which steel melts.
Click to expand...

Has anyone actually tackled the subject? We've come up with several reasons here in this thread.

ergo said:
My rough timeline on the official and bedunker responses to the subject of melted steel at the WTC in fact shows that there is much doubt about melted steel, and several different attempts to dismiss it.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant. Many people might think Bigfoot doesn't exist. But in a thread where the question is "Bigfoot exists so what does it mean?" that is off topic.
 
With a few exceptions, ergo has been trolling literally since his first post at this forum. I have no idea why anyone expects this to change. Give it a rest. "Someone is wrong on the internet."
 
Okay…

Molten (free flowing) liquid steel…I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence to support this.

Melted (highly plastic) but still solid steel…yeah, I seen some video evidence of this in the debris pile.

Thermite…again, zero evidence of this...besides that, you cannot use thermite to cut steel, in controlled demolition…it burns too slowly.
 
carlitos said:
With a few exceptions, ergo has been trolling literally since his first post at this forum. I have no idea why anyone expects this to change. Give it a rest. "Someone is wrong on the internet."
Click to expand...

This truther blabbery has no effect on professionals or the real world.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
You've been given plausible answers and information which shows reports of molten steel is commonplace in fires.

If you can't come up with any reason why molten steel in the case of ground zero would be suspicious, the only conclusion could be that it simply isn't and this red herring has never had a pulse.

Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

And losing!!!!
 
This is almost boring. Someone needs to go to the actual conspiracy boards and post them a link letting them know here at the JREF we're accepting that molten steel was there if they'll tell us what it is supposed to mean!
 
As ergo has shown, 9/11 cults don't have an explanation for their claims of "molten steel", they just want you to believe what they tell you to believe without question. Cults are only ever in search of, fresh sheeple to fleece.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
As ergo has shown, 9/11 cults don't have an explanation for their claims of "molten steel", they just want you to believe what they tell you to believe without question. Cults are only ever in search of, fresh sheeple to fleece.
Click to expand...

It's always:

"Something I can't understand happened"

Therefore:

"A new investigation is needed!"
 
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