Originally posted by TheStev
So it's to be a game of nit-picking semantics is it. I apologise for my exaggeration. It seems only 99% of the steel was shipped off and melted. 80%
as of 2002, when the article I quoted was written, and the other 19% since, leaving 1% for the exhibits listed on the page I supplied. Unless you know
of some hidden WTC steel that you care to tell me about?
No it's not nitpicking. You are trying to mislead people into this notion that almost all of the steel was wisked away and hindered any kind of
investigation. That is 100% completely untrue. And it's dishonest to make such implications. For one thing it took them many months to remove the
steel. For another thing, they couldn't just leave the steel there, it HAD to be removed. You are trying to mislead people by taking this fact and
implying that it was all melted down. This of course is simply not true.
The recycling did not happen before the investigation. And even after the fact, they are not going to just let that much steel sit around taking up
space and serving no purpose but to appease conspiracy theorists.
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has
subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to
obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a
significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
The problem is websites such as the one you refer to are not reliable source. Their goal is simply to present a conspiracy theory and only present a
conspiracy theory. This is not to be confused with a source that is honestly being objective and is weighing all evidence. They cherry pick and twist
information to mislead you.
And you've completely avoided the main point. Regardless of how much steel was melted down and how quickly it was melted - none of it was examined
for thermite. So the steel wasn't examined for thermite, therefore there was no evidence of thermite, therefore no thermite. Bit of a
self-referential argument don't you think?
You keep using the word melted down. This again is very misleading. It was removed from the site, and some of it was recycled, as it should have
been. And it was not done quickly. And of course it wasn't examined for thermite because there was no evidence to suggest any. Not to mention there
would be no way to conclusively test for it since there are many thing that could cause the saem results. No, not by any means a self-referential
argument. The reason you think it is is because you have started your reseach with the assumption of bombs. If one were to look at all the evidence,
they would see that this is pretty far fetched. The fact of the matter is that there is no physical evidence to warrant it. The collapse started from
the points of impact and no floor collapsed until the floor above collapsed into it. So if they were to plant thermite, they would have had to do it
between the time of impacts and the collapse. The planes would have destroyed any existing planted explosives, therefore ruling out pre-planted ones.
And what is the likely hood of people going in while the building is collapsing, planting explosives, cutting into the columns, without being seen,
without being burned alive, etc. It's a pretty far fetched claim. And if you don't start from the premise that it was an inside job, it's easier to
realize this.
I think perhaps you're a little confused as to the meaning of 'predetermined conclusion'. Perhaps you can explain to me how 'The government was
complicit on 911' is a predetermined conclusion, but 'The government was not complicit on 911' is not a predetermined conclusion.
A pre-determined conclusion. It means that instead of starting with a blank slate, taking in ALL the evidence and making a conclusion based on that,
you and others start with the conclusion that it was an inside job and try to find evidence to back that conclusion up. Saying that anything that
sounds like an explosion must be a bomb is NOT saying the government is complicit on 911. And the difference between the two views is that one is
based on assumptions that have no evidence to back them up.
For example, you hear explosions. Instead of considering all the many possible causes of explosion sounds, you simply conclude that it must be bombs.
And then you make assumptions to back that conclusion by hypothesizing that people who you think witnessed explosive devices are just being quiet and
not informing the rest of the world of it because they don't want to be ridiculed.
