Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell…
I get it now, I will practice that more. But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?
But I didn't say that "The steel didn't melt". All that I said was "Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams".
This has two effects:
1. It makes the Conspiracy Theorist more willing to listen to you because you agree to their premise. You have to learn to "pick your battles" so to speak, and "giving your opponent a bone" so that they continue the discussion is rather important.
2. If higher temperatures WERE documented, that doesn't disprove the premise: that the Towers _could_ have collapsed under lower temperatures.