It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?