Evolution of bedunker arguments re: WTC molten steel

Some of these arguments, of course, co-evolved, and some have also enjoyed varying returns to vogue. But it runs roughly chronologically since 9/11. Feel free to add your own:

"The steel columns melted." [media reports; expert commentary; PBS NOVA]





"The steel columns didn't melt. Building fires don't melt steel." [expert commentary; PBS NOVA]





"There was no molten steel. There were no reports of molten steel." [Thomas Eagar; NIST; John Gross]





"Reports of molten steel are all in error. There was no molten steel." [internet bedunkers]





"If there was molten steel in the pile it still tells us nothing about the collapses." [9/11 Commission Report]





"There was no molten steel because we have no pictures of it."[internet bedunkers]





"The pictures of molten steel are false/fake/don't show enough."[internet bedunkers]





"People who say they saw molten steel don't understand what 'molten' means." [internet bedunkers]





"There was probably no molten steel. Reports of molten steel are common in other fires. All reports of molten steel in fires are probably erroneous." [internet bedunkers]





"There was probably no molten steel, but even if there was it is plausible/would not be unusual because it is commonly reported in other fires." [internet bedunkers; NIST]





"Structural steel can deform in a highly fluid manner under compression." [JREF bedunkers]





"If there was molten steel: so what?" [JREF bedunkers]

;)

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=263653&goto=newpost