Quotes from Dr. Quintiere and Dr. Astaneh-Asl = EVIDENCE

deep44 said:
As I stated in the OP - nothing. His comments corroborate the numerous other reports of molten steel at GZ - that's all. I'm not implying that molten steel is indicative of a therm*te reaction, controlled demolition, or anything else.
Click to expand...

I still do not see how it corroborates "molten" steel. There is an enormous difference between "vaporized" and "molten."
 
lee5 said:
Deep44, you didn't answer my last post so will you please try this time. I will keep is smaller.

Suppose I give you what your looking for which is conceding that NIST had some questionable procedures. Or whatever it is your trying to get across.

Please answer this question.....

Does that make the conclusion incorrect?

A simple yes or no will do.
Click to expand...


Yes or no? No.

The full answer? Not necessarily. If you give me a math problem, and I take a wild guess that the answer is 114, am I wrong? Not necessarily, but I would have to solve the equation properly in order to know for sure.

Before you hit 'reply' and start typing, I'm not implying that NIST took any wild guesses. Their conclusion may very well be correct, but according to Dr. Quintiere, they need to go back and solve the problem properly (metaphorically speaking).
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
No, he has not. You have, indeed, taken quotes out of context and bastardized them for your own purposes and beyond their legitimate meaning. It is not an insult to point out this reality.
Click to expand...


Do me a favor and actually read the thread. If that's all he did, I wouldn't say he insulted me.

As for your claim that I'm taking quotes out of context, why do you think I provided so many quotes? It's to show that the statements were not isolated.

Unless you can point out the original context of these quotes, some of which are from a presentation you've probably never even seen before, you have no argument.
 
leftysergeant said:
Uh...yeah.

How does it corroborate "molten" steel? Did he find ingots that are not mentioned in your quotations?
Click to expand...


"I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Do you understand the relation between "melting" and "molten"?
 
deep44 said:
"I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Do you understand the relation between "melting" and "molten"?
Click to expand...

Yes, "molten" is the past tense of the verb. Referring to a substance that has fully assumed a liquid state.

"Melting" is the present tense of the verb and refers to a substance that is in the process of transitioning from solid to liquid.

Describing a substance as "melting" does not rule out a later event which arrests the process prior to the substance in question achieving a fully liquid state.

May I assume that you attended the Dylan Avery school of grammar? :p
 
I have heard recordings of Dr Astineh, and I have to listen very carefully to understand him sometimes. He may be a brilliant engineer, but I have heard a lot less brilliant people talk more clearly. I say this even allowing for the fact that Astineh is speaking in his second language. He talks of melting and bending columns, but is not shown in any still or moving picture I have seen next to steel that has actually reached melting point.

BTW, is English you primary language?
 
deep44 said:
Yes or no? No.

The full answer? Not necessarily. If you give me a math problem, and I take a wild guess that the answer is 114, am I wrong? Not necessarily, but I would have to solve the equation properly in order to know for sure.

Before you hit 'reply' and start typing, I'm not implying that NIST took any wild guesses. Their conclusion may very well be correct, but according to Dr. Quintiere, they need to go back and solve the problem properly (metaphorically speaking).
Click to expand...

Ok... so... you want them to go back and do everything over again even though they will arrive to the same conclusion?

Whats the point?

Using a math problem (like you did) for an analogy, if my methods for finding an answer are different than yours (we all know there are a few different ways to solve an equation) but we both arrive at the same answer what is the big deal?

BTW, none of this gets you one step closer to winning anything for "twoof". You know that right.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Yes, "molten" is the past tense of the verb. Referring to a substance that has fully assumed a liquid state.

"Melting" is the present tense of the verb and refers to a substance that is in the process of transitioning from solid to liquid.

Describing a substance as "melting" does not rule out a later event which arrests the process prior to the substance in question achieving a fully liquid state.

May I assume that you attended the Dylan Avery school of grammar? :p
Click to expand...


You may assume whatever you like, but the only thing I asked was whether he knew the relation between the words. Believe it or not, it was a rhetorical question.

Regarding your description of "melting" - the definition is to become liquefied by heat. That means something that is melting has already become liquefied, at least partially. If it had not become liquefied yet, it would just be hot, as opposed to melting (a distinction that is clearly made in his other quotes, saying the steel was "white hot", etc).

If I stick a piece of cheese in the microwave, and set the timer for 5:00, does it start melting as soon as I hit start? Or does it start melting when it begins to liquefy? (also rhetorical)
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you can't see how melting of steel girders doesn't imply the presence of molten steel, then no, you don't.
Click to expand...


We've already been over the definition of "melt" - it means to "turn from a solid into a liquid using heat".

So tell me, how could there be liquid steel, but no molten steel?
 
deep44 said:
We've already been over the definition of "melt" - it means to "turn from a solid into a liquid using heat".

So tell me, how could there be liquid steel, but no molten steel?
Click to expand...

Eutectic melting. A sulfur-rich atmosphere attacks and corrodes the steel, converting it from solid steel to liquid iron-sulfur eutectic. Steel is therefore turned from a solid to a liquid, but at no time is there either (a) molten steel or (b) a sufficiently high temperature to produce molten steel. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the distinction between molten steel and iron-sulfur eutectic. And note that this is not sophistry or hypothetical argument; it is the exact process which one of your sources has identified as the melting process that took place. On the other hand, your argument is based on the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "melting" so as to exclude eutectic melting, despite the fact that your own sources make it clear that eutectic melting was the phenomenon observed. Therefore, either you're deliberately lying when you say that Astaneh-Asl's use of the word "melting" implies the presence of molten steel, or you don't understand the sources you're quoting. Neither of these positions makes your argument in any way credible.

Dave
 
deep:

The molten steel argument is a weak one through lack of quality evidence. The "investigators" of the truth movement have not been able to produce a single piece of steel that can be shown to have been turned "molten" pre-collapse on 9/11. They have been unable to provide one witness qualified to determine VISUALLY ALONE, if a molten metal is steel or some other metal.

You can post all the quotes from first responders, etc...the fact is that they either said "molten metal" or simply labeled the metal "steel".

The smart thing for truther "researchers" to do would be to track down the witnesses that gave the "molten steel" quotes, and ask them how they knew the metal in question was STEEL.

YOu know none of the truther googlescientists will do this, however, as (A) most are too lazy, and (B) they know that the answer will be...

"I didn't know it was Steel, I just assumed, as the building was full of it."

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
despite the fact that your own sources make it clear that eutectic melting was the phenomenon observed.
Click to expand...


Provide me with evidence of that. Give me a quote, or a link to some material that was not created by someone in this forum (i.e., I'm not interested in a link to some paper written by Gravy titled, "Dr. Astaneh-Asl's Observations of Eutectic Melting").
 
you have a problem with a list of other people's work created by members of this forum?

TAM:)
 
deep44 said:
Provide me with evidence of that. Give me a quote, or a link to some material that was not created by someone in this forum (i.e., I'm not interested in a link to some paper written by Gravy titled, "Dr. Astaneh-Asl's Observations of Eutectic Melting").
Click to expand...

What Astineh describes is eutectic melting. That is caused by sulphuric acid. Thermite does not vaporise much of anything. The only thing I have ever seen thermite vaporize was the electrical tape someone used to secure a block of cast thermite to a steel post. He didn't apply the fireproofing properly and his charge failed.

Thermite would leave identifiable residues. No one, to include Dr Astineh, has shown us thermite residue or damage on any of the steel.
 
leftysergeant said:
What Astineh describes is eutectic melting. That is caused by sulphuric acid. Thermite does not vaporise much of anything. The only thing I have ever seen thermite vaporize was the electrical tape someone used to secure a block of cast thermite to a steel post. He didn't apply the fireproofing properly and his charge failed.

Thermite would leave identifiable residues. No one, to include Dr Astineh, has shown us thermite residue or damage on any of the steel.
Click to expand...

what residues exactly? and what thermite do you mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom