Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
lol...pretty heavy-duty parahrasing is that Al. Like I said and I will keep saying it if I have to....110 ACRES...per building. What Glenn and Grady showed is just a miniscule fraction of what would be expected. A drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...

When you say "what would be expected", you mean would be expected by WHOM? You? Exactly who are you to "expect" anything concerning the collapses?
 
bill smith said:
Rebar or wire mesh makes no difference, alhough I suspect it was mostly rebar. If there was 110 ACRES of CHICKENWIRE I know very well that it would be sticking out all over the place.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bill has ever tried to cut the wire that is welded reinforcing mesh. It's tough stuff. It has the added attribute that the mesh mat is flexible. The concrete can dustify and the mesh is left intact.

It's in pictures that have been posted today.

Why "suspect"? Look and ask and learn.
 
I'm trying to figure out how much of that stuff he would "expect" to see no matter HOW the WTC was brought down.
 
bill smith said:
lol...pretty heavy-duty parahrasing is that Al. Like I said and I will keep saying it if I have to....110 ACRES...per building. What Glenn and Grady showed is just a miniscule fraction of what would be expected. A drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...
Like I said to you at Topix Bill, the collapse of the towers was a highly energetic event. My expectation of seeing wire mesh laying all around ground zero is about the same as seeing fully intact urinals.
 
twinstead said:
I'm trying to figure out how much of that stuff he would "expect" to see no matter HOW the WTC was brought down.
Click to expand...

Then you're getting it the wrong way round. However much he sees, the amount he would expect to see is different. His inexpert, untrained eye, backed up by his highly fallible intuition, can detect the exact amount of rebar that should be left lying around after the collapse of a 110 storey building, estimate the exact distance the perimeter columns should be thrown, and gauge the type and extent of the dust clouds that should be generated, and in every case it turns out to be different! How can the Government's scientists have missed the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers didn't progress in exactly the way that an uninformed anonymous Internet poster's wild guesses say that it should have? It's as obvious as the fact that the hole in the ground in Shanksville wasn't exactly the shape it should have been, the hijacks didn't take place at exactly the right number of minutes after the planes took off, the FBI took the wrong number of days to release the names of the hijackers, and every other example of the events of 9/11 not going exactly as one person's guesswork says they should have. After all, this is the truther scientific method in action; make a vague guess how things ought to go, note that they didn't go like that, then throw a tantrum and demand another investigation because the world doesn't correspond to their fantasies.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Then you're getting it the wrong way round. However much he sees, the amount he would expect to see is different. His inexpert, untrained eye,
Click to expand...


I believe that people that never saw WTC before 9/11 are more likely to become obsessed with how the towers fell. We know the place was immense and no wide-angle or distance shot can do the detail justice. Having seen the "pile', it was claims of dustification that started me down the path of learning just how foolish these folks are.
 
bill smith said:
lol...pretty heavy-duty parahrasing is that Al. Like I said and I will keep saying it if I have to....110 ACRES...per building. What Glenn and Grady showed is just a miniscule fraction of what would be expected. A drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...

Er, Bill, hate to break this to you but there's an awful lot of stuff still buried (out of sight) in these photos. Were you expecting it all to be sitting on the surface in one place? Were you expecting photographers to snap every grappler-load of debris that was hauled out of there?

Here's another, with rebar of all sorts in abundance and packed into one small area (don't forget there's more buried, now). Plus plenty of "unpulverised" concrete.

concreteremains2.jpg
 
Bill - please point out where the rebar/wire mesh is in GlennB's photo. If you don't know how to save the picture, open it up with MS paint and add arrows or circles and then reup just ask.

Hint: top right hand corner shows broken concrete held together by wire mesh.


There are alsorts of items in that pile including a car!
 
Dave Rogers said:
Then you're getting it the wrong way round. However much he sees, the amount he would expect to see is different. His inexpert, untrained eye, backed up by his highly fallible intuition, can detect the exact amount of rebar that should be left lying around after the collapse of a 110 storey building, estimate the exact distance the perimeter columns should be thrown, and gauge the type and extent of the dust clouds that should be generated, and in every case it turns out to be different! How can the Government's scientists have missed the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers didn't progress in exactly the way that an uninformed anonymous Internet poster's wild guesses say that it should have? It's as obvious as the fact that the hole in the ground in Shanksville wasn't exactly the shape it should have been, the hijacks didn't take place at exactly the right number of minutes after the planes took off, the FBI took the wrong number of days to release the names of the hijackers, and every other example of the events of 9/11 not going exactly as one person's guesswork says they should have. After all, this is the truther scientific method in action; make a vague guess how things ought to go, note that they didn't go like that, then throw a tantrum and demand another investigation because the world doesn't correspond to their fantasies.

Dave
Click to expand...
The starting point of science is obervation. Taking that as a given I observe very little wire or rebar mesh in the rubble of either WTC Twin Tower. Assuming that 90% of the mesh is buried- which is generous considering how little rubble there appeared to be in total, we are still lookng for 11 visible acres of wire mesh. So rather than throw a tantrum Iwill ask you directly if you find my estimation unreasonable and if so what ballpark percentage of the total wire mesh do you think we ought to be able to see ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
e are talking about 110 ACRES of rebar matting Al. To show a cup of seawater does not explain where the ocean went if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

You are standing in seawater up to your neck wondering where the ocean is.
 
bill smith said:
The starting point of science is obervation. Taking that as a given I observe very little wire or rebar mesh in the rubble of either WTC Twin Tower. Assuming that 90% of the mesh is buried- which is generous considering how little rubble there appeared to be in total, we are still lookng for 11 visible acres of wire mesh. So rather than throw a tantrum Iwill ask you directly if you find my estimation unreasonable and if so what ballpark percentage of the total wire mesh do you think we ought to be able to see ?
Click to expand...

You never explained to me why you would expect the wire to survive when little else did.

As examples

  1. there should have been at least enough office paper to cover every floor twice, so Incredulous bill. wheres the 440 acres of office paper?
  2. there should have been at the very least 40 printer/fax/copiers on every floor, So incredulous bill. Where is even one printer/fax/copier out of the 8800 in the rubble?
  3. every floor has a ceiling, So incredulous bill. Where are the 220 acres of steel ceiling grid in the rubble pile?
  4. lets say only half the office area was carpeted. we all know that not all floors had fire. So incredulous bill. Where did the 110 acres of carpeting go? Shipped off the china perhaps?
  5. desks, workstations, reception desks, conference tables, filing cabinets. You would need a container ship to transport them overseas, So incredulous bill. I haven't seen much if any recognizable office furniture in the rubble pile. Did some space beam vaporise it?
You see incredulous bill. There wasn't much of anything "you would expect" to see in the rubble pile. To continue seeking through a child's eye and then call it "the starting point of science" is not only laughable. it is ignorant
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
So rather than throw a tantrum Iwill ask you directly if you find my estimation unreasonable and if so what ballpark percentage of the total wire mesh do you think we ought to be able to see ?
Click to expand...

I find your estimation, as usual, irrelevant. What you're committing is what I like to refer to as the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You haven't made any serious attempt to quantify the amount of rebar visible in the photographs of the site. Neither have you made any serious attempt to estimate the amount of rebar that should be visible. Without any quantitative appreciation of these two numbers, you have nevertheless declared that the former is so much greater than the latter that it constitutes a suspicious circumstance. This is a complete non sequitur. And, as usual, you're asking everyone else to do your homework. Tough; we're not interested. You figure out how much rebar should be visible. You figure out how much is visible. Present your numbers here. Otherwise you'll continue to be seen as a prattling child making up fantasies to amuse himself.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
e are talking about 110 ACRES of rebar matting Al. To show a cup of seawater does not explain where the ocean went if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

You might as well ask where all the bolts or all the electrical wire or all the window glass went.

So expletive what?​
​

(I feel better now.)
 
Dave Rogers said:
I find your estimation, as usual, irrelevant. What you're committing is what I like to refer to as the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You haven't made any serious attempt to quantify the amount of rebar visible in the photographs of the site. Neither have you made any serious attempt to estimate the amount of rebar that should be visible. Without any quantitative appreciation of these two numbers, you have nevertheless declared that the former is so much greater than the latter that it constitutes a suspicious circumstance. This is a complete non sequitur. And, as usual, you're asking everyone else to do your homework. Tough; we're not interested. You figure out how much rebar should be visible. You figure out how much is visible. Present your numbers here. Otherwise you'll continue to be seen as a prattling child making up fantasies to amuse himself.

Dave
Click to expand...

That's clear in a waspish kind of way. I think we know where we stand Dave. That's a good thing.
 
I see he ignored my post. Not surprised though. Why bother with actually looking and showing people you have looked when you can hand wave and makes things up on the hoof.

"I see no ships rebar!"* - Nelson only had one eye. What's your excuse Bill?

*Nelson never wore an eye patch. He added an eye shade to his Admiral's hat, like a peak.
He didn't say 'I see no ships'. Instead he said, during the Battle of Copenhagen, '...I have only one eye. I have a right to be blind sometimes', and, raising his telescope to his blind eye, 'I really do not see the signal'.
21 October 2005 is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.
 
funk de fino said:
That is a bonafide classic!!

Care to attempt to answer my question C7? What do you think eroded that steel posted?
Click to expand...
I posted a URL of the video about the "Meteorite" where the narrator says:

0:08
"molten steel and concrete and all these things all fused by the heat into one single element"

0:48
"I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the towers that it was not melted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWwsuoE9Z4&feature=related

He is aware of the intense heat capable of melting steel in the debris pile.

Your question doesn't seem to relate to the video confirming the existence of molten metal and the extreme heat in the debris pile.

Please clarify your question.
Be specific.
 
bill smith said:
That's clear in a waspish kind of way. I think we know where we stand Dave. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Although here you totally ignore the key word quantitative from Dave's post. Your argument revolves around amounts, yet you propose no amount yourself.

Here's another quantitative question ... you often mention "pulverisation" of WTC concrete and yet - despite repeated requests - you have never quantified what you mean. I.e. the amount and the degree of "pulverisation" that occurred. Pulverisation seems to be a key concept in your "nano-thermite" meanderings, yet you haven't actually explained why such exotic substances might even be needed to explain the dust produced.
 
GlennB said:
Although here you totally ignore the key word quantitative from Dave's post. Your argument revolves around amounts, yet you propose no amount yourself.

Here's another quantitative question ... you often mention "pulverisation" of WTC concrete and yet - despite repeated requests - you have never quantified what you mean. I.e. the amount and the degree of "pulverisation" that occurred. Pulverisation seems to be a key concept in your "nano-thermite" meanderings, yet you haven't actually explained why such exotic substances might even be needed to explain the dust produced.
Click to expand...

I am content to work in ballpark figures if he difference between expected and actual is gross enough... When I look for the rebar/wire mesh for instance and I estimate quite reasonably that I should see 10 acres or more of that material but I only actually see , say half an acre than I can say that something does not add up in a big way. Some is visibly missing. In this case most is missing.

The same with your ringed piece of concrete . How many million pieces like that would there be in 110 acres of floor ? There should be mountains of the stuff so I can say that most of the concrete is missing- pulverised in other words. It's not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom