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

The only kind of thermite useable in this scenario would leave a residue of aluminum oxide and some sort of calcium salts baked onto the steel, as well as glubules of iron. On a horizontal surface, the iron would puddle or burn completely through, On a vertical surface, it would flow like candle wax, and harden almost as quickly.
 
leftysergeant said:
The only kind of thermite useable in this scenario would leave a residue of aluminum oxide and some sort of calcium salts baked onto the steel, as well as glubules of iron. On a horizontal surface, the iron would puddle or burn completely through, On a vertical surface, it would flow like candle wax, and harden almost as quickly.
Click to expand...

oh, so there would be only one thermite useable un this scenario? what kind exactly? what is its composition?

and some sort of calcium salts? some sort? i thought you would know exactly........

on a vertical surface, what would happen if you only use the hot gasses from the reaction and direct it on the steel?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
oh, so there would be only one thermite useable un this scenario? what kind exactly? what is its composition?
Click to expand...

I SO do not want anyone here to have my recipe. Some of them are dangerous enough without it. It is enough to tell you that it would be cast with a seemingly inert substance.

on a vertical surface, what would happen if you only use the hot gasses from the reaction and direct it on the steel?
Click to expand...

It has to be in contact or it will not work. The gases are not hot enough. You can secure the block to the steel with duck tape, but you have to be sure the fireproofing is thick enough, and make sure that the liquid iron does not run down across the duck tape.
 
deep44 said:
Nice try, but there's no mention of Dr. Astaneh-Asl on that page. Just as a reminder, I'm looking for the evidence where my source "make it clear that eutectic melting was the phenomenon observed".
Click to expand...


I admit my error; it's not your source that makes it clear. However, the source I've quoted describes the same observation as Dr. Astaneh-Asl made, and demonstrates it to be eutectic melting. The point still stands that eutectic melting is a way in which steel can melt without producing molten steel.

Dave
 
leftysergeant said:
I SO do not want anyone here to have my recipe. Some of them are dangerous enough without it. It is enough to tell you that it would be cast with a seemingly inert substance.



It has to be in contact or it will not work. The gases are not hot enough. You can secure the block to the steel with duck tape, but you have to be sure the fireproofing is thick enough, and make sure that the liquid iron does not run down across the duck tape.
Click to expand...

so all those Thermite cuting devices dont work according to leftysergant. interesting, can you backup that claim?

only 1 thermite could do it according to leftysergant, but he is not able to tell which one that would be, interesting.....
 
Sizzler said:
I support Deep on this issue. The "no evidence" line is completely at odds with reasonable insight.

I think you made a good attempt here! Good luck with this. I suppose Mackey won't be back. I think we had a discussion a few months back about the molten steel quotes. The word "melted" only means "melted" when he sees fit.
Click to expand...

Now that's just plain rude. I should just challenge you to prove the above, or be branded a liar, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt given your frequent confusion on the issue.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl was describing eutectic melting. The "melted beams" he mentions in that quote are in fact the exact same ones in NCSTAR1-3. Take a look at it yourself. He was recovering steel for the NIST Report. This form of melting is 100% consistent with NIST, 100% inconsistent with the Truth Movement, and not something any of us ignore. In fact, I was the one who brought it up to deep44 last week, who after stewing about it for a few days decided to start his own thread, and his own stilted view of history.

I already explained this to you, RedIbis, and deep44 several times.

I have also already explained that, if you don't understand what Dr. Astaneh-Asl meant, contact him. Read his papers. Read NIST. It appears none of you even want to understand.
 
Pardalis said:
Has any of the clowns ever bothered to contact M. Quintere and M. Astaneh-Asl?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, wait a minute... I think these are the last people I want to send to Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl. Instead of bothering those poor gentlemen, the conspiracy believers should instead study the entirety of both gentlemen's statements and take into consideration the full context before drawing conclusions.
 
Pardalis said:
Has any of the clowns ever bothered to contact M. Quintere and M. Astaneh-Asl?
Click to expand...

Sizzler has. Dr. Astaneh-Asl basically told him that the conspiracy theories were all crazy, and please don't bug me again if you're one of those people.

deep44 refuses to, on the grounds that he accepts Dr. Astaneh-Asl will verify what we're saying, but that it'll be part of the cover-up:

deep44 said:
Regarding your suggestion that I "contact them" - there's no reason to. If they suffered any negative backlash as a result of what they said, of course they're going to come up with some kind of excuse. I'm sure if we contact Michael Richards and ask him about his "N-word" rant while doing stand-up, he'll tell us we're misinterpreting what he said.
Click to expand...

It's really quite disgusting. These are people who researched the issue professionally, sinking their own time, laboratories, and effort into it. They are infinitely more qualified than these jokers. If what they found was proof of suspicious molten steel or Inside Jerb, trust me, they'd be able to figure it out without the "help" of quote-mining conspiracy theorists. When faced with this reality, some (Sizzler) ignore it, and others (deep44) assume they really agree, but they're just going to cover their own hides.

Just disgusting.
 
Denialism at its best. They don't want to get to the truth, they just want to keep the illusion that something fishy is going on. That's why they never are going to get this new investigation off the ground, but they'll keep asking for one.
 
R.Mackey said:
It's really quite disgusting. These are people who researched the issue professionally, sinking their own time, laboratories, and effort into it. They are infinitely more qualified than these jokers. If what they found was proof of suspicious molten steel or Inside Jerb, trust me, they'd be able to figure it out without the "help" of quote-mining conspiracy theorists. When faced with this reality, some (Sizzler) ignore it, and others (deep44) assume they really agree, but they're just going to cover their own hides.
Click to expand...


More accusations of quote mining, demands that I contact people, and even an assertion that what I'm doing is 'disgusting'. Yet R. Mackey still can't provide a specific example of how I'm "quote mining", taking quotes out of context, or anything that would validate his baseless argument.

This is why there is "no evidence" - because people like R. Mackey think they can bend reality whenever its convenient. Any quote that supports an argument R. Mackey doesn't agree with is "taken out of context", or "quote mined". Eyewitnesses must be confused about what they saw, because their observations don't fit into R. Mackey's worldview.

We know that R. Mackey's claim that Dr. Astaneh-Asl observed "eutectic melting" is entirely fabricated (if not, feel free to provide evidence). I also have serious doubts that he's ever even listened to Dr. Quintiere's presentation - the one he so furiously claims that I'm "quote mining" from. That tells you everything you need to know about his argument.

----

Oh, R. Mackey, one last thing- if I did contact them, you do understand that I wouldn't even mention conspiracy theories, right? As I've said at least six times, my claims are not specific to any larger theory - so your argument is resting on the chance that they will provide me with information that contradicts their previous public comments..? The only way to describe that is desperation.
 
deep44 said:
you do understand that I wouldn't even mention conspiracy theories, right? As I've said at least six times, my claims are not specific to any larger theory - so your argument is resting on the chance that they will provide me with information that contradicts their previous public comments..? The only way to describe that is desperation.
Click to expand...
And the only way to describe you would be disingenuous if not an outright liar.
 
deep44 said:
More accusations of quote mining, demands that I contact people, and even an assertion that what I'm doing is 'disgusting'. Yet R. Mackey still can't provide a specific example of how I'm "quote mining", taking quotes out of context, or anything that would validate his baseless argument.
Click to expand...

So when you quote Astaneh-Asl's statement that he observed melting of steel, state that this proves there was molten steel at Ground Zero despite the explanation of eutectic melting that has repeatedly been explained to you and that you claim to understand, and imply that this proves that there were temperatures far higher at GZ than can be explained by a normal fire despite the fact that eutectic melting can be observed below 1000ºC, you claim you're not doing anything to remove context from Astaneh-Asl's statement? That's very dishonest of you.

deep44 said:
We know that R. Mackey's claim that Dr. Astaneh-Asl observed "eutectic melting" is entirely fabricated (if not, feel free to provide evidence).
Click to expand...

And that is a deliberate, blatant lie. Astaneh-Asl observed a phenomenon, and that phenomenon was shown by further research by Jonathan Barnett and co-workers to have been eutectic melting. The evidence has already been presented.

You're lying, deep44, and you know you are.

Dave
 
There's desperation here but I think deep44 is misplacing the use. Who is trying to use two people that don't support their core believes to some how bolster their position? Now that's desperation.
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
As I've said at least six times, my claims are not specific to any larger theory
Click to expand...

And yet you said this:

deep44 said:
I'm not claiming that they support any of the theories put forward by the 9/11 truth movement, but they do support individual pieces of the puzzle. Dr. Quintere supports the truth movement's assertion that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. Dr. Astaneh-Asl corroborates the dozens of other reports of molten steel at GZ.
Click to expand...

(boldings mine)

So what "puzzle" are you referring to here, if it's not the TM's theory of controlled demolition?
 
R.Mackey said:
Dr. Astaneh-Asl was describing eutectic melting. The "melted beams" he mentions in that quote are in fact the exact same ones in NCSTAR1-3. Take a look at it yourself. He was recovering steel for the NIST Report. This form of melting is 100% consistent with NIST, 100% inconsistent with the Truth Movement, and not something any of us ignore. In fact, I was the one who brought it up to deep44 last week, who after stewing about it for a few days decided to start his own thread, and his own stilted view of history.
Click to expand...


If you have proof that Dr. Astaneh-Asl observed eutectic melting, please provide it. If not, I'll file it away with the rest of your desperate attempts to discredit me.

Just to be clear, I have looked for the evidence myself, and although I didn't find anything, I'm not absolutely certain that it doesn't exist. Perhaps I just didn't look in the right places - I doubt it, but we'll see.
 
deep44 said:
If you have proof that Dr. Astaneh-Asl observed eutectic melting, please provide it. If not, I'll file it away with the rest of your desperate attempts to discredit me.

Just to be clear, I have looked for the evidence myself, and although I didn't find anything, I'm not absolutely certain that it doesn't exist. Perhaps I just didn't look in the right places - I doubt it, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

I already did. The steel he is talking about is in NCSTAR1-3. There's a PICTURE OF IT in NCSTAR1-3 (1-3B, I think, can't really be bothered). Look at it. See that it refers to eutectic melting. Ask him if that's what he's talking about if you don't believe me. Ask Dr. Barnett at WPI as well, one of the forensic examiners who worked on the steel chemically.

As for "desperate attempts to discredit you," there are none. You do that admirably yourself.
 
Pardalis said:
So what "puzzle" are you referring to here, if it's not the TM's theory of controlled demolition?
Click to expand...


You actually quoted the answers to your own question.

The quotes from Dr. Quintiere support the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. The quotes from Dr. Astaneh-Asl corroborate the numerous other sightings of molten steel at GZ.

That's it. No controlled demolition, no (fill in the blank) argument. I also said that I'm not even sure if molten steel is even indicative of a large scale therm*te reaction or controlled demolition - it's entirely outside the scope of this discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom