 |
| This is WTC7 falling? |
When the details are examined, the logical contradictions of 9/11 are so astounding that they are really impossible to dismiss when taken objectively. And, unlike the official September 11 government reports, the principles of logic are trustworthy.
When you challenge people's conceptions of these events, the reaction is often anger and hostility. It as if you are trying to take away their childhood. People become attached to presuppositions such as, "The US government is always good" and it is quite difficult to even allow the possibility of foul play. However, a brief look into "Operation Northwoods" in Wikipedia will reveal that a number of high-ranking US government officials already have attempted false flag operations against their own citizens and were willing to kill their own people in order to begin a war. The question is, "Are you governed by logic or by emotion when it comes to assessing historical events?"
The first official report of the events on September 11, 2001 is so full of problems that even those who created the report do not stand by it. John Farmer, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission has said, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”[1]
This is just a taste of the disgust which grew on the report panel as people witnessed the obstruction of the investigation first hand. So how does the official report hold up when it comes to a little logical analysis? I've prepared a few syllogisms of September 11 and invite you to offer your own in the comments if interested. As part of your memorial to the victims, help elucidate the truth of what happened on 9/11.
I. The Cause of Molten Steel on 9/11 at the WTC.
1. Jet fuel burns at an uncontrolled open air temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F).[2]
2. Steel melts at temperatures of 2,623°C (4,753°F) or higher.[3]
3. Therefore, uncontrolled open-air-burning jet fuel cannot cause molten steel.
Sometimes venn diagrams can help to see information categories as sets of information and this helps to write arguments in more abstract language, as we'll see later in the post. Let's consider another possibility first.
1. Experiments have demonstrated that office fires cannot melt steel.[4]
2. Resource materials indicate that office room fire temperatures are not hot enough to melt steel.[5]
3. Therefore, we can conclude that office fires cannot melt steel.
1. Neither burning jet fuel in uncontrolled open air conditions nor office fires can melt steel.
2. The official government report offers that burning jet fuel and continuous office fires were the causes of all high temperatures at the WTC on September 11, 2001.
3. Yet, at least 10 witnesses observed molten metal at the core of the WTC site and temperatures of 801°F / 427°C at WTC2 and 1341°F / 727°C at WTC7 were recorded days later by USGS.[6]
4. Therefore, the official government report cannot account for the molten steel buried at the core of each building. Though localized building fires cannot melt steel, thermite can melt steel columns, as noted in a video demonstration by Jonathan Cole, P.E.[7] This thermite was found in the dust of the WTC at four locations.[8]
A syllogism regarding the molten steel could read as follows:
1. Conditions X and Y can never achieve temperature Z.
2. Temperature Z is always the minimum temperature for melting W.
3. Therefore, conditions X and Y can never melt W.
As an alternative answer:
1. Thermite can melt structural steel columns.
2. Thermite was discovered at four locations of the site.
3. Thermite has been the only valid proposal so far. (All other proposals for the melted steel have been shown to be inadequate.)
4. Therefore, the explanation of thermite explosives offers the most logical answer for the melted steel.
II. The Collapse of WTC 7
1. According to the final official WTC7 report, WTC7 fell due to a "progressive collapse" - a domino effect originating with the failure of one column-beam connection.[9]
2. The final WTC7 report also acquiesced that WTC7 fell at a free-fall speed on page 607.[10]
3. It is not possible for a building to fall in both a "progressive collapse" and at free fall speed with no resistance.
4. Therefore, the WTC7 "progressive collapse" theory is false.
1. The final WTC7 report relied on a computer model to justify the "progressive collapse" theory.[11]
2. The computer model left out significant structural members, shear studs, in order to mathematically allow for the collapse.[12]
3. Any theory that leaves out critical information is invalid.
4. Therefore, the final WTC7 computer model progressive collapse theory is invalid.
III. Criminal negligence involved in the investigation.
1. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the cause of a fire should not be determined until all the possible causes outlined (including explosives) have been tested.[13]
2. If this protocol is not followed, it would be a case of unprofessional and criminal negligence.
2. The official inquiry into the events of September 11 attacks completely neglected testing the dust for explosives.
3. Therefore, unprofessional and criminal negligence were involved in the official inquiry into the events of September 11. 2001.
The official report states, "We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management."[14] However, the bungling apparently didn't stop when the attacks occurred. Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Commission Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the official report) have charged that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail"[15]. Any child can see that the official computer modelled images of WTC 7 falling are not in keeping with the video-taped collapse of WTC7. Was the official commission more of an official omission? It seems so. Thankfully, the laws and principles of logic can help to cut through the lies and hype and help to clearly discern the truth. Logic doesn't lie or make excuses. Hopefully you won't either.
References
[1] Washington's Blog, High-Level Officials Eager to Spill the Beans About What REALLY Happened on 9/11 … But No One In Washington or the Media Wants to Hear, http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html
[2] ME Petroleum, "Jet Fuel" - http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
[3] Sabbah, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, - http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/
[4] Templestream, Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary, (10 witnesses named) http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/armed-swat-raids-and-news-confirm-911.html, (Jonathan Cole P.E. experiment)
[5] Doctor Fire, Temperatures in flames and fires, http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
[6] Templestream, Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary, (10 witnesses named) http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/armed-swat-raids-and-news-confirm-911.html
[7] YouTube, Jonathan Cole, P.E. demonstrates that thermite can easily cut through and melt large steel columns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00&feature=player_embedded
[8] Niels Holger Harrit, PhD, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, http://nielsharrit.org
[9] NIST, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update), http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
[10] Sabbah, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, - http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/
[11] Rememberbuilding7.org NIST Collapse Model, http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/
[12] Sabbah, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, - http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/
[13] NFPA 921 14.3 “Preservation of the Fire Scene and Physical Evidence” - “the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation." http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=221 - N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6 - "THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…" http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
[14] govinfo.library, official 9/11 report,
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch11.pdf
[15] Yen, Hope (August 4, 2006). "Book: Sept. 11 Panel Doubted Officials". Associated Press (Washington Post). Retrieved October 16, 2010.
(Revised 10/13/12))
Tags: logical contradictions of 9/11, logic versus emotion, logic doesn't lie, simple syllogisms disprove official 9/11 account, basic facts about 9/11, syllogisms of 9/11, official commission or official omission?, 9/11 truth, how hot are office fires? What is maximum temperature of office fires? At what temperature does steel melt?
Logic does not lie, but logic with incorrect premises would often lead to incorrect conclusions 8)
ReplyDeleteI am not going to discuss architecture or physics, since I lack the qualification (as you do, Rick). But I am going to point out to several flows in the logic of conspiracies.
1) No one has been able to provide a convincing reason for the government to lie on the issue. What is the motive?
2) For a false flag, the terrorist acts of September are too complicated and too risky to be taken by the government. Not to mention, there are no vital American interests in the region of Afghanistan, which could justify the cost of a war
>What is the motive?
DeleteFor one, 9/11 was used as the main motivation for rallying public support to attack Iraq, which happened to have vast oil reserves.
Cheney worked for Halliburton as CEO for 5 years before his governmental work as VP.
"One of the major ones concerns the question of why Halliburton was awarded a no-bid, open-ended 7-year contract for their work in Iraq even before the war began."
http://costsofwar.org/article/growth-corporate-power-and-profiteering
"The company's KBR subsidiary is the main government contractor working to restore Iraq's oil industry"
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-575356.html
And Cheney is no Boy Scout. As a Halliburton rep, he had been convicted of bribing Nigerian officials and avoided criminal proceeding through another even larger bribe:
"The company acknowledges it has agreed to pay $35 million to the Nigerian government over "allegations of improper payments to government officials in Nigeria."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156800/dick-cheneys-250-million-get-out-jail-free-card
Just checking, Rick-- ever going to respond to my points, here or elsewhere, or shall I presume you're not going to bother, and just leave them as an unchallenged memorial to your flawed use of logic?
DeleteR:For one, 9/11 was used as the main motivation for rallying public support to attack Iraq, which happened to have vast oil reserves
DeleteWe had to wait for 3 years from the terrorist acts of september 11 till the war in Iraq. And Iraq has never been accused of being the main perpetrator, but only the sponsor. The country was also falselly accused of owning weapons of mass destruction, which "could" have been sold to Al-Qaeda. If Iraq was the aim, then a better false flag should have been used, where Iraq s would have been accused of being the main terrorist state instead of Afghanistan.
Hence, Iraq would definitely not be the main motive for triggering such an incredibly risky and complicated operation. What possible ridiculpous reason do you have next?
>We had to wait for 3 years from the terrorist acts of september 11 till the war in Iraq.
DeleteIn the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract (m 2003-2006 alone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
- Would you be willing to wait three years for $7 billion? A time delay hardly discredits a monetary motive.
As for a second possible motive, view the embedded YouTube video, Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 Fraud:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/hospitals-using-microchip-electronic.html
Question, why wait for three years if the 11 september terrorist acts was organized by halliburton to get the oil?
DeleteAnd I have no intention of watching a who-knows-how-many-hours video about the insane idea that some secret illuminatee/banker/satanist union trying to take over the world. There are much better ways of doing such things
And, unlike the official September 11 government reports, the principles of logic are quite trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteBut not all who use logic are trustworthy.
1. Jet fuel burns at an uncontrolled open air temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F).[2]
2. Steel melts at temperatures of 2,623°C (4,753°F) or higher.[3]
3. Therefore, jet fuel cannot cause molten steel.
And already, in syllogism 1, we see logical flaws.
Premise #1 contains within it several sub-premises:
1) This is the temperature at which jet fuel burns under these conditions.
2) These are the only conditions which matter.
Therefore, your conclusion should be:
3) Jet fuel cannot cause molten steel in an uncontrolled open-air fire.
By omitting part of your premise in your conclusion, you generated a false conclusion.
Now, on to #2:
1. At least 10 witnesses observed molten steel at the WTC site.[4]
2. The official government report offers that jet fuel and local fires were the cause of all heat.
4. Therefore, the official government report is false.
Trying to be charitable in the construction, since there's a step missing, I presume what you're aiming for is:
1) X existed.
2) The assertion A is that B and C caused X.
3) (from syllogism #1) B could not cause X.
4) Therefore Assertion A is flawed.
As you can see, if statement #3 is correctly framed above, it looks like this:
1) X existed.
2) The assertion A is that B and C caused X.
3) (from syllogism #1) B (under specific conditions) did not cause X.
4) The specific conditions of B applied at all times to X
5) Therefore Assertion A is flawed.
Adding 4 is required, in order to support #5. However, we now have both an unsupportable statement (jet fuel burning in the uncontrolled open air) and a logical problem:
5) does not follow, because you ommitted "C"
What you *can* deduce from your premises, even if they were correct (which is not being granted) is:
"Either C caused the melting, or assertion A is incorrect."
Your logical form is flawed.
As I said, logic may not lie, but people do -- this is such a glaring omission I cannot believe it was by accident.
>By omitting part of your premise in your conclusion, you generated a false conclusion.
Delete- I would say it's a bit extreme to claim it is a "false" conclusion. Perhaps Imnotandrei could claim it is not formally airtight. But then this would be most interesting coming from someone who claims arguments in everyday language with no agreed upon summary or premises are perfectly acceptable.
By adding a simple clause it would not change the meaning, simply clarify it:
3) Jet fuel cannot cause molten steel in an uncontrolled open-air fire.
>Trying to be charitable in the construction, since there's a step missing
- Again, what is most interesting here is that Imnotandrei has claimed a "step" missing in a sequence of premises that lead to a logical conclusion. Yet, when Stephen Law offers no "steps" at all, no outline and no logical sequence of premises whatsoever in his "Evil God Challenge" or other arguments, Imnotandei apparently finds this completely satisfactory. This is what as known as a double standard.
Imnotandrei has stated, "Your logical form is flawed." However, he explicitly claims that no structural form at all, pure everyday language, is OK for his own atheist defenders:
"Right -- he made a logical argument,"
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347195874729#c778912207962519998
Apparently, ambiguity is preferable to an outline with a "step missing" in his mind. How does Imnotandrei know that Stephen Law is not missing two steps or three or four in his logic? Does Stephen Law offer outlines of his arguments? No, apparently not. And Stephen Law has admitted such. Law claims that outlines of his arguments would either be too simple or too complicated. That sounds like a poor excuse to me:
"The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't. I could do you your own textbook version, set out as a deductively valid argument, but that would either leave various important stuff out, or else be very complicated in which case I don't have time." (April 19, 2012 11:53 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html#comment-form
Though I disagree that not fully clarifying a point renders the conclusion "false" I do agree that the conclusion in the first syllogism could use an additional 4 words: "in an uncontrolled fire" and I will modify the text.
Delete- I would say it's a bit extreme to claim it is a "false" conclusion.
DeleteHow about an "invalid" conclusion, as your logical form is incorrect.
But then this would be most interesting coming from someone who claims arguments in everyday language with no agreed upon summary or premises are perfectly acceptable.
You're the one who's trying to argue that "logic doesn't lie" as a reason to believe you rather than the weight of evidence and opinion against you. If you're going to use that argument, you had best make sure your logic is tight, and valid.
- Again, what is most interesting here is that Imnotandrei has claimed a "step" missing in a sequence of premises that lead to a logical conclusion.
Considering that you went "1, 2, 4", I think it not unlikely a step is missing -- and, indeed, your argument isn't valid without some connective.
This is what as known as a double standard.
Stephen Law doesn't insist that because his proof is logical, you should believe him rather than a wide range of experts. Different claims require different levels of rigor. Again, Rick -- you're trying to claim that your "logic" makes your claims true -- if so, then your logic had best be right.
Imnotandrei has stated, "Your logical form is flawed."
Because it is.
However, he explicitly claims that no structural form at all, pure everyday language, is OK for his own atheist defenders:
Hey, Rick -- let's try a metaphor here. See if this clarifies things for you.
Person X says they're going to build a shelter. They put up a tent.
Person Y says they're going to build a two-story house. They put up one story, and then some scaffolding on the second floor.
Person Z comes by and says "Hey, you didn't build a two-story house! That's one story and some scaffolding!"
Person Y says "Well, you didn't tell person X they didn't have a second story."
Person Z: "THat's because they said they were building a tent, not a two-story house."
No double standard; different goals using different methods, and I'm pointing out that your methods are flawed. Someone else not using the same methods because they aren't aiming at the same goals doesn't invalidate that.
or else be very complicated in which case I don't have time."
Well, considering that you regularly lay out shoddy logical arguments, perhaps you should take this to heart; it's not as easy as you seem to think it is.
I notice that you haven't addressed the actual *problems* in your argument, Rick, just complained that I'm engaging in a "double standard".
Your arguments don't support your conclusions, Rick, because even independent of the truth of your premises, your logic is invalid, just as in the comments to the Teesdale thread, as demonstrated here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947
Perhaps you should learn from Stephen Law's reticence, and stop trying to claim the truth-value of logic without either learning how to use it properly or being unwilling to take the time to do so.
>Perhaps you should learn from Stephen Law's reticence, and stop trying to claim the truth-value of logic without either learning how to use it properly or being unwilling to take the time to do so.
DeleteAs noted, I have made some minor adjustments to the premises in the above article.
As noted, Imnotandrei seems to actually believe that small changes in premises and additional premises have an effect on whether or not an argument may be considered valid.
However, instead of acknowledging that summarized arguments with accurate logical consequence are the most effective form of presenting the truth of claims, he senses a need to call people liars based on his own flawed examples and analogies:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347446260067#c4372925356179266994
There really is no excuse for such behavior.
Funny, I don't ever recall Imnotandrei offering an apology when he finally acknowledged on September 10th that his claim that one of my articles was "discredited" was shown to be a false claim.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347288260354#c8522167946886754493
Perhaps an apology would be in order after holding to such a false claim for such an amount of time and causing me the grief of taking the time necessary to disprove it and then taking the additional time to convince Imnotandrei that it was actually disproved.
As noted, Imnotandrei seems to actually believe that small changes in premises and additional premises have an effect on whether or not an argument may be considered valid.
DeleteThat's because imnotandrei was trained as a logician, and knows it to be true.
To put it formally:
If A an B, then C
If C and D, then E
if F and G, then H
Therefore, H.
is, simply, *not* valid logical argument. If it seems reasonable, that's because the natural-language parts of the premises are vaguely constructed -- but it's not valid argument because the premises are missing.
If A and B, then C.
A' is true.
B is true.
C is true.
Is similarly simply *not* valid logical argument, since A' is not A.
So, yes, Rick, small changes and additional premises can make a huge difference, especially when you're trying to use logic as an assertion of the "Truth" of your arguments.
However, instead of acknowledging that summarized arguments with accurate logical consequence are the most effective form of presenting the truth of claims,
I notice you've gone to "effective" rather than "valid" -- and this is not a claim that I see any reason to acknowledge, since your "summaries" often hide your logical flaws and unexamined premises.
he senses a need to call people liars based on his own flawed examples and analogies:
I have responded to you at the link, Rick; my point remains valid there, and you are once again in the position of using logic the way the drunk uses the lamppost -- for support, not illumination.
There really is no excuse for such behavior.
Yes, there is, Rick; it's called being right and calling you out on your errors.
Perhaps an apology would be in order after holding to such a false claim for such an amount of time and causing me the grief of taking the time necessary to disprove it and then taking the additional time to convince Imnotandrei that it was actually disproved.
You know what, Rick? I'd apologize to you for it if I had any reason to believe that you would do the same under similar circumstances. Since you have repeatedly shown that you will do anything rather than admit to an error, I feel no need to apologize to you; why should I apologize for the 1 time on a technicality I call you a liar by mistake (your article has been discredited, but no one had done the work to do it *formally* at the time I complained) when it's so hard to tell from the many, many other times you've been one?
(Oh, and Rick? Going "He didn't apologize to me" at the end of an article here is stepping perilously close to "his argument is invalid because he didn't apologize to me", which is an argument ad hominem, which you specifically ask people not to engage in in your footer; I suggest you consider carefully the path you're going down. You're not there yet, but you're getting close.)
And to show you how tricky logic can be, I got my example slightly wrong. ;) Instead of:
DeleteIf A an B, then C
If C and D, then E
if F and G, then H
Therefore, H
try:
1) If A and B, then C.
2) If C and D, then E.
3) A.
4) B.
5) C.
6) Therefore E.
Without premise D, this is not a valid demonstration of E. So, missing premises do matter.
Imnotandrei has been trained as a logician:
Delete>That's because imnotandrei was trained as a logician, and knows it to be true.
This implies that he believes there are objective advantages to using formal logic. Under the circumstance, He helps to confirm premise 1 of the following argument:
1) L>C = S
2) If R then V
3) If A then S
4) R
5) A
6) Therefore, S
5)
1) Logical laws and principles are greater than normal language for clarifying sound reasoning.
2) If 1 is true, then L and S should be acknowledged and desired by those seeking sound reasoning and C should be taken more lightly.
3) If top atheist apologists claim they have S in their boasting but avoid L in their formal arguments, then they are acting illogically and perhaps deceitfully.
4) Because 1, 2, and 3 are true, then S is true, top atheist apologists are acting illogically and perhaps deceitfully.
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers were attendees and speakers at a Reason Rally, implying that they believe atheism is more reasonable than other beliefs.
>I have responded to you at the link, Rick
Actually, you have not adequately responded to my points at all. Your bird analogy is flawed.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347534336989#c5890597917003881728
Rick, posting the same thing in two different places is not really helpful.
DeleteI've responded to your ...flawed, to put it mildly, attempt to claim formal logical status for your deduction here, in the other thread:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347547971375#c1414134735751233224
This implies that he believes there are objective advantages to using formal logic.
In the right circumstances, yes. I also believe that there are advantages to understanding the limits of formal logic, and especially of formal logical presentation. Anyone who's tried to read Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica will understand both its strengths and weaknesses, compared to, say, Russell's Principles of Mathematics.
And, for hopefully the last time, Rick -- my bird example was not an analogy -- it was a demonstration of the flaws in your original logical structure. I took true premises, plugged them into the logic you used for your argument, and demonstrated that you got a false result, thus invalidating your logic. Try and recognize the use of logical principles and laws when they actually happen, Rick, instead of your shoddy arguments in natural language dressed up as "logic".
Just FYI, Rick, your repair of syllogism #2 still doesn't work:
ReplyDelete1. At least 10 witnesses observed molten steel at the WTC site and temperatures of 801°F / 427°C at WTC2 and 1341°F / 727°C at WTC7 were recorded by USGS.[4]
2. The official government report offers that jet fuel and local fires were the cause of all high temperatures.
3. Based on the previous syllogism, mere jet fuel could not have caused these temperatures.
4. Therefore, the official government report is false.
(Again, not granting the truth of any of your premises, as that's a whole different argument that *none* of us here, are, I suspect, really qualified to have other than by posting links back and forth.)
Restated to show the logical framework:
1:"Condition A existed."
2:"Report B claims that only Y or Z could cause condition A"
3:"Syllogism 1 demonstrates Y is invalid"
4:"Therefore, Report B is inaccurate."
This leaves out the second half of part 4: "Or Z caused condition A."
You haven't even addressed that issue, and this is the second time it's being pointed out to you.
I prefer this more detailed outline, as noted in the article:
Delete1. Jet fuel burns at an uncontrolled open air temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F).[2]
2. Steel melts at temperatures of 2,623°C (4,753°F) or higher.[3]
3. Therefore, uncontrolled open-air-burning jet fuel cannot cause molten steel.
1. Experiments have demonstrated that office fires cannot melt steel.[4]
2. Resource materials indicate that office room fire temperatures are not hot enough to melt steel.[5]
3. Therefore, we can conclude that office fires cannot melt steel.
1. Neither burning jet fuel in uncontrolled open air conditions nor office fires can melt steel.
2. The official government report offers that burning jet fuel and local fires were the causes of all high temperatures at the WTC on September 11, 2001.
3. Yet, at least 10 witnesses observed molten metal at the core of the WTC site and temperatures of 801°F / 427°C at WTC2 and 1341°F / 727°C at WTC7 were recorded days later by USGS.[6]
4. Therefore, the official government report cannot account for the molten metal buried at the core of each building.
At least you're getting your logic right, though I'll note that this is an edit after being called on it twice -- and please do note in your article that you've edited it now twice?
DeleteNow -- "office fires" and "local fires" are not the same thing, Rick, unless you can provide a citation saying they are -- a citation from the official report, that is, because there is no reason to believe that a 9/11 skeptic might not be making the conflation in error.
Keep at it, Rick, and eventually we'll be able to discuss your premises rather than fix your logic.
(For example, your premise #1 in syllogism #6 is not supported by the link; the term "high-order damage" does not appear in the linked page, and section 18-3.2 (as per your footnote) is about fires caused by household appliances. This is a large part of why people don't trust your premises.)
(For reference: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp and http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92118-34.asp, which was reached by searching on 18-3 from the first link, in an effort to follow and find your quotes.)
Delete