Molten steel proves the government's/media's story is invalid.

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 7, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    glad u agree this is impossible
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me summarize the discussion so far as I see it.

    1. I agreed it's not possible several times (depending on what some claim they saw - see #3 below) but I did not say what you claim I said, you just made that up. Not all eyewitnesses saw "molten material from 50 feet away". In fact, post a link where an eyewitness said that if you can, otherwise you made up that claim. But even if you know of one or two, it's still only one or two, there were many eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel.

    2. It's irrelevant what you claim and whether I agree it's possible or not. It doesn't change any of the eyewitness claims.

    3. Your (likely) invented premise deliberately ignores or tries to distract from the fact that specific eyewitnesses claim they saw the "melting of girders" and "beams dripping", which are of course made of steel. And I say deliberately because it's quite obvious you would rather focus on what you see as questionable and avoid what is quite specific.

    4. I have posted that I totally agree that all eyewitness claims require a detailed investigation, in this case, a forensic chemical analysis of what they claim they saw, even those who saw the "melting of girders" and "beams dripping". Perhaps these were really made of plastic and not steel, you never know.

    5. We know that #5 was never done because John Gross falsely claimed to have never heard of any eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel.

    6. There is not even one claim of seeing anything other than molten metal or molten steel. So IMO those who argue it could have been aluminum or another metal are mostly indulging in wishful thinking and desperately trying to dismiss what numerous eyewitnesses claim they saw, which are all corroborative. But those arguments are all irrelevant to the actual eyewitness claims.

    7. Because of #5, the only evidence we have are in the form of corroborating eyewitness claims. However, given #3 above, these are specifically STEEL and not any other material.

    8. Given all the above, that eyewitnesses saw molten steel it is THE material in consideration unless and until proven otherwise, which is likely impossible to prove otherwise at this point.

    If I missed anything above, please let me know.
     
  3. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page