• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP uses Hearsay; does not tie molten steel to any conclusion

thewholesoul said:
TESTIMONY of MOLTEN STEEL
Click to expand...
thewholesoul said:
...
2. Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

...
Click to expand...
Hearsay. Not testimony. Sorry, your OP is false.

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

Why do you use hearsay to support you molten steel that has no point in the first place.

OP Score card 1. LIE, 2. HEARSAY
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
compare to gravies "meteorite", check out the area where this guy is pointing. if u follow it to the left, it looks as though there are swirles in the "meteorite". maybe it was once molten. this is on ae911truth website.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449ac9f3eb3827.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Looks like a piece of material which adhered to the bottom of the floor sections sometime after it was formed. However, it's not sparking any of my suspicions... the composition of the overall mass is readily apparent and not particularly surprising. That said, AE911truth has already wrongly claimed that the entire mass is steel, I don't find there added attempts to nit pick at the slabs any more convincing.
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
compare to gravies "meteorite", check out the area where this guy is pointing. if u follow it to the left, it looks as though there are swirles in the "meteorite". maybe it was once molten.
Click to expand...
There might be "swirlies" in a low resolution photograph of rubble? Teh inside job is exposed!

Senenmut, don't inflict such silliness on us. Post a photo where details can be resolved and we'll talk. Before you do, though, how much would you like to wager that the guy is pointing at carbonized paper? Oh, and always keep in mind that hot metal ≠ pre-planted incendiaries.

Fair enough?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
This gives the gist though the video has gaphs and so on.

If you spray water from an vapouriser you get a fine mist of droplets. If you look at the droplets under a microscope they show up as tiny spheres as we have all seen on TV at one time or another, If steel is vaporised by extreme temperatures (way above what you need to melt steel) you get exactly the same tiny spheres, except that these harden and stay as tiny spheres. The dust from the WTC has these tiny balls of steel in abundance. Now Professor Stephen jones says he has recovered trace amounts of UNREACTED Thermite from the dust and steel sphere samples. He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source. This really is evidence that Thermite was used at the WTC on 9/11
Click to expand...

1. Have him prove it. Telling us is not proof, especially from him.
2. As I said before, there are any number of possible sources of the spherules. Is that it?

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
What would be the point in that ?
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. Why did he not rule out other possible, MORE PLAUSIBLE causes of the iron spherules or the chips, before declaring they were thermite? Well because that is the SCIENTIFIC thing to do. I know he has a tough time grasping the concept of the scientific method (his first many versions of his thermite paper prove that) but if he wants to be taken seriously (tough after what he has done already) as a scientist, he has to follow certain scientific principles, and one of them is to eliminate other possible causes of your findings, before you declare your hypothesized cause true.

For the love of god, what is with you people?

TAM:rolleyes:
 
alexi_drago said:
hmmm, from his wording and jumping away from thinking it might be paint with no explanation I think he made it clear that he wants others to think it's thermite. What his motives are though are unclear.
Click to expand...

You haven't been at this, or watching his work for long, have you?

His motives are absolutely clear, just not very, if at all, scientific.

TAM:)
 
Not uncommon 9/11 CTist thinking. Adjust thinking to support conclusion.

"I believe 9/11 was a CD"
No sound of explosives, okay, it was thermite
Thermite doesn't work like that, okay it was thermate
Thermate doesn't work like that, okay it was nano-thermite
No plausible way to plant explosives/nano-thermite, okay, it was included during construction.
 
Senenmut said:
compare to gravies "meteorite", check out the area where this guy is pointing. if u follow it to the left, it looks as though there are swirles in the "meteorite". maybe it was once molten. this is on ae911truth website.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449ac9f3eb3827.jpg
Click to expand...
I watched the video again. The guy says molten metal. Obviously it isn't all metal but like you just observed, at least parts of it were or the guy would not have said that.
 
DavidJames said:
Not uncommon 9/11 CTist thinking. Adjust thinking to support conclusion.

"I believe 9/11 was a CD"
No sound of explosives, okay, it was thermite
Thermite doesn't work like that, okay it was thermate
Thermate doesn't work like that, okay it was nano-thermite
No plausible way to plant explosives/nano-thermite, okay, it was included during construction.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how much you-all do that?

You keep backing into CD rather than facing it. You look for reasons to deny the evidence.

Granted, we both are a bit stuck in our ways but . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I am right and you are wrong.:D
 
Christopher7 said:
You keep backing into CD rather than facing it. You look for reasons to deny the evidence.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of molten steel. There's no evidence of explosives. There's no evidence of a CD. There's nothing here to deny.
 
Christopher7 said:
I watched the video again. The guy says molten metal. Obviously it isn't all metal but like you just observed, at least parts of it were or the guy would not have said that.
Click to expand...

I can't find the link to the video you refer to.

Did the speaker say they saw metal in a molten state with their own eyes? If not, then it's second-hand. Given how hard it is to find a confirmable eyewitness for molten metal on the pile at WTC, this is just bad reporting, not evidence of anything.

There was lots of bad reporting on and after 9/11.
 
Gravy said:
There might be "swirlies" in a low resolution photograph of rubble? Teh inside job is exposed!

Senenmut, don't inflict such silliness on us. Post a photo where details can be resolved and we'll talk. Before you do, though, how much would you like to wager that the guy is pointing at carbonized paper? Oh, and always keep in mind that hot metal ≠ pre-planted incendiaries.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
The man says "molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat". Are you going to call him a liar too? Or maybe he's using a simile?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1176644395
 
Christopher7 said:
Do you realize the irony in that statement? :p
Click to expand...

Yes, and hopefully it wasn't lost on you.

Perhaps instead of the evidence you need to consider the sources a little more closely before making any further judgements. Just a thought. GL.
 
T.A.M. said:
1. Have him prove it. Telling us is not proof, especially from him.
2. As I said before, there are any number of possible sources of the spherules. Is that it?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Background sources of the microspheres will have a typical density on other areas of New York unaffected by the attacks. If their density in the dust of ground zero deviates grossly from the mean that will be enough.
 
Last edited:
J. Wellington Wimpy said:
One great advantage of said Journal, admittedly, is the complimentary box of Crayolas accompanying each issue.:D
Click to expand...

Hey, don't knock Crayolas. I have a 12-colour set on my desk, and they're very useful for preliminary design sketches. According to Steven Jones, I ought to burn my fingers whenever I pick up the orange, yellow or white ones, but it hasn't happened yet.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hey, don't knock Crayolas. I have a 12-colour set on my desk, and they're very useful for preliminary design sketches. According to Steven Jones, I ought to burn my fingers whenever I pick up the orange, yellow or white ones, but it hasn't happened yet.

Dave
Click to expand...

Excellent point, and I stand corrected. ;) I hereby amend my previous snark to read:

"The Journal for 9/11 Retards: from the joint editorial desks of CARtoons Magazine and Cricket."
 
bill smith said:
Maybe you know that a lawyer filed a case against Bush in 004 on behalf of 400 of the 9/11 famiy members and the American taxpayer. A murder suit. The case was properly filed and all defendents including Bush were served. The case was later squashed by a tame judge on the grounds of 'sovereign immunity' yu know....like a king gets. That means he charges were never answered and Bush walked away.

Did you know that Bush was accused of rape in 2002 ? The charges are filed with a sherriffs dept. Unfortunately the woman in question committeed suicide several months later by gunshot wound to the head.

You must have read about all this in the mainstream media ???
Click to expand...

So now you have to shift into overdrive on the political lies and biased fantasy because you have been called on the NIST explanation of the beam.

Off topic and reported.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom