Molten Steel

[bill smith]

Not semantics. You made a false claim as did Bill. All you need to do is say you made a mistake.

Which mistake did I make ?

 

[Christopher7]

Not semantics. You made a false claim as did Bill. All you need to do is say you made a mistake.

I misunderstood you.
You asked: "They did mention one of the eroded beams. Yes?"

They discussed Sample #2 for 4 pages and mentioned Sample #1 only to say they knew its temperature more accurately than Sample #2.

NCSTAR 1-3C pg xliii [45]
WTC 7 steel was not evaluated in this study of the tower damage and failure modes.

So where is the false claim?

 

[funk de fino]

I misunderstood you.
You asked: "They did mention one of the eroded beams. Yes?"

They discussed Sample #2 for 4 pages and mentioned Sample #1 only to say they knew its temperature more accurately than Sample #2.

NCSTAR 1-3C pg xliii [45]
WTC 7 steel was not evaluated in this study of the tower damage and failure modes.

So where is the false claim?

Here.

NIST has not explained the molten metal or the eroded beam.

 

[funk de fino]

Which mistake did I make ?

You said NIST did not analyse the eroded beams then you backtracked and said they had and you had read it.

Its in the past move on. C7 does not seem to want to admit his mistake and move on.

 

[funk de fino]

C7

Out of interest what do you think eroded this item of steel?

Do you think it was molten at anytime?

 

[bill smith]

You said NIST did not analyse the eroded beams then you backtracked and said they had and you had read it.

Its in the past move on. C7 does not seem to want to admit his mistake and move on.

well I don't recall saying that NIST hd not examined the beams but if you say so who am I to argue ?

 

[funk de fino]

well I don't recall saying that NIST hd not examined the beams but if you say so who am I to argue ?

I apologize, you cut and pasted from a source that suggested the analysing had not been carried out and needed carried out in future.

You added nothing further to the post which is against the MA however.

I retract my accusation.

 

[bill smith]

I apologize, you cut and pasted from a source that suggested the analysing had not been carried out and needed carried out in future.

You added nothing further to the post which is against the MA however.

I retract my accusation.

Much obliged.

 

[Christopher7]

You said NIST did not analyse the eroded beams then you backtracked and said they had and you had read it.

Its in the past move on. C7 does not seem to want to admit his mistake and move on.

OK, now i know what you are talking about. I did not know one of the beam samples had been analyzed until I followed Gravy's link and learned of the NCSTAR 1-3C report. Being wrong is not a mistake until one dose not change their position to fit the knew knowledge. I have changed my position to fit the knew knowledge.

Gravy knew that only one beam had been analyzed but said they both were. That's lying.

 

[Christopher7]

You posted a lie, Robertson said this and the 911Truth site posted it! Irony for you.

In a debate with Jones where Robertson refutes all of 911Truth
Direct quote! You have nothing.

Thank you for bringing this up. Although your approach leaves a great deal to be desired, your efforts did lead to my learning that Leslie Robertson did not see or hear of molten metal.
Gravy, in his round about way, that starts with "you're a liar" or some other insult, eventually me led to what it was he was talking about and I learned that sample #2 had been analyzed.
funk "beats around the bush" a lot before getting to the point too.

We could save a lot of column space if you-all would just state your point, provide your evidence and dispense with the insults.

Peace

Chris

 

[ref]

Gravy knew that only one beam had been analyzed but said they both were. That's lying.

You are lying. He never said both beams were analyzed. He said the pieces are discussed for several pages.

Of course, the discussion and analysis concentrates on the one piece, which came from a column that could be site-identified.

 

[Gravy]

You are lying. He never said both beams were analyzed. He said the pieces are discussed for several pages.

Of course, the discussion and analysis concentrates on the one piece, which came from a column that could be site-identified.

NIST analyzed three pieces from that tower column, K-16, in addition to the one that FEMA had examined.

 

[ref]

NIST analyzed three pieces from that tower column, K-16.

I could have been more specific. By "one piece" I meant the FEMA report sample 2, to differentiate from the "other FEMA sample" that was presumably from WTC 7. And the analysis concentrated on the column that the sample 2 came from. But of course, NIST analyzed 3 pieces from that column.

But hey, I was talking to Chris. I don't blame myself for that little inaccuracy

 

[Christopher7]

He never said both beams were analyzed. He said the pieces are discussed for several pages.

He did and they were not. Sample #2 was discussed, Sample #1 was mentioned.

"[FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples." [plural]

and

[/FONT]Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces [plural] discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis.


NCSTAR 1-3C pg xliii [45]
WTC 7 steel was not evaluated in this study of the tower damage and failure modes.

 

[Gravy]

I could have been more specific. By "one piece" I meant the FEMA report sample 2, to differentiate from the "other FEMA sample" that was presumably from WTC 7. And the analysis concentrated on the column that the sample 2 came from. But of course, NIST analyzed 3 pieces from that column.

But hey, I was talking to Chris. I don't blame myself for that little inaccuracy

I will make one more small correction, which is that the WTC column couldn't be site-identified. It's only known that it came from the 53rd story or below in either tower.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST analyzed three pieces from that tower column, K-16, in addition to the one that FEMA had examined.

You said both FEMA Samples were analyzed. Only one was,

ETA:
They cut 3 pieces out of Sample #2. Only one piece, Sample #2, arrived from FEMA.

They did not "concentrate on the column Sample #2 came from", the did not analyze sample #1 at all.

Richard Gage was clearly referring to the 2 Samples from the FEMA C report. Your clear indication was that both those Samples were analyzed.

 

[bje]

I just said how it was possible.

And I asked you for the source of your claim. So, you have no source for your opinion?

I'm not going to argue the point.

It's now clear you are unable to argue the point, Chris. Gosh...

Also, the meteorite was partly concrete with rebar. The molten metal didn't necessarily come in contact with the rebar we see in this photo.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2983/meteriorite2.jpg

But, my friend, this is the very piece that Steven Jones refers to in his paper, the very piece that Steven Jones has refused to acknowledge has any concrete in it whatsoever.

Let me point you to his three-year old claim again:


Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

See page 9:

Quote:
The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:

Are you going to continue to evade the issue like Steven Jones has done for 3 years, Chris, or provide us with the source for your claims?

Step up to the plate, Chris, and stop playing games.

 

[Sunstealer]

Not semantics. You made a false claim as did Bill. All you need to do is say you made a mistake.

This seems to be the truth movement's level. They make fundamental errors and when picked up on it call it arrogant and condescending.

If someone says 2+2=76.45931, I have a duty to correct that person. It just goes to show how slack people in the truth movement are. They use terms that are not applicable and misuse terms that are. Language in science is important because you need to get precise meaning across to the reader. In a failure investigation there shouldn't be any room for interpretation or misinterpretation. That's why it's wrong to say eroded, corrosion and melted all mean the same thing. Everyone here recognizes the fact, but some how C7 is speshul. It's him that is being arrogant, because he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes and what's more, continues to make them which makes him wilfully ignorant to boot. It's sad.

Secondly by posting a correction and expanding on the terms it gives other readers more information and knowledge. I would never expect people to use terms perfectly because it's not their field, but they are capable of learning what they mean and applying them if willing to learn.

 

[funk de fino]

OK, now i know what you are talking about. I did not know one of the beam samples had been analyzed until I followed Gravy's link and learned of the NCSTAR 1-3C report. Being wrong is not a mistake until one dose not change their position to fit the knew knowledge. I have changed my position to fit the knew knowledge.

No, you made a mistake. You were corrected. Everyone makes them.

However some will cling on for dear life rather than admit one eh?

 

[T.A.M.]

It is sad, but have you noticed that apart from the two or three PFT goons, Christopher7 is the only truther on this forum actually debating an actual 9/11 CT issue.

TAM