Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Actually, C7, calling someone a liar when they are demonstrated to have lied is no violation. You have lied, both with your own words and with the words of others. You have lied repeatedly; you have lied knowingly; you have lied maliciously. You are a liar.

You have lied about what your witnesses saw, and what they believe.
You have lied about the metals available. You have lied about virtually everything you have said in this thread. The evidence is here to support calling you a liar, and so the "mod acquiescence" is merely evidence that they are able to read and comprehend English.

Is it "misinterpreting what [you] said" to put your verbal gymnastics back into the context of reality? I suggest that it is "deciphering" what you have said. As a general rule, the one thing we can be certain of is that what you said bears little relation to what your witnesses, the evidence, or the physical laws of the universe suggest actually happened.

And there is a word that describes that relationship between your claims and those of your witnesses, the evidence, and the physical laws of the universe. We call it "lying", C7. And we call you a liar. Because it is, and because you are.

This entire post is a personal attack. There is no attempt to address the subject. You are showing utter contempt for rule 12 and adult forum behavior.
The fact that it has not been deleted by the mods lays waste any claim of impartiality along with James Randi's credibility as a sponsor of a serious discussion forum.

I wonder if he knows what is being perpetrated in his name.

 

[bonavada]

This entire post is a personal attack. There is no attempt to address the subject. You are showing utter contempt for rule 12 and adult forum behavior.
The fact that it has not been deleted by the mods lays waste any claim of impartiality along with James Randi's credibility as a sponsor of a serious discussion forum.
I wonder if he knows what is being perpetrated in his name.

Have you even looked at the FM thread HERE?

The forum policy on your complaint is explained there.

Stop sidetracking.

BV

 

[ravdin]

The only explanation for continuing to keep the public from seeing this evidence is a cover up. Please don't claim copyright problems. Given the choice some would publish and some would not. The public has a right to know what happened.

Who do you believe is behind this cover up? Who benefited from the attacks?

 

[Sunstealer]

You are being disingenuous. You know that Mark Loizeaux said that steel was being scooped out by the buckets of the excavators. There were many reports of molten steel at different times during the weeks and months after 9/11.

So are you saying that there wasn't enough aluminium or lead/tin in the debris pile to fill an excavator bucket or two?

Make it absolutely clear what you are saying.

 

[bonavada]

steel was being scooped out by the buckets of the excavators

That must have been some ube-bucket there. Was it made of asbestos?


BV

 

[Christopher7]

So what? Aluminium cladding was found at distance from the origin. How is this relevant to this argument? We all know that significant amounts of aluminium cladding was also present at more central areas of the collapse zones. There are many images available showing it's presence there.

The aluminum was spread out over a wide area. There were no considerations.

Is it so improbable that some of this might have subjected to enough heat to melt it?

Not in quantity under all 3 buildings.

The desire to deny the existence of molten steel even though several witnesses said they saw steel beams dripping is just the inability of some people to accept that the Official Collapse Theory is a lie.

You all follow Gravy's playbook of denial and double talk.

You-all refuse to accept the word of qualified people like Mark Loizeaux and Richard Riggs. You just quote from Gravy's book of reasons to doubt anybody.

One team runs thru the BS and retires, only to be replaced by another bunch who proceed to read from the same script.

Toke's response is my post on the govt. withholding the photos and videos is standard. Don't acknowledge what you can't dispute, just ignore it and ask a question.

It has become very predictable and very transparent.

 

[Mercutio]

This entire post is a personal attack. There is no attempt to address the subject. You are showing utter contempt for rule 12 and adult forum behavior.
The fact that it has not been deleted by the mods lays waste any claim of impartiality along with James Randi's credibility as a sponsor of a serious discussion forum.

I wonder if he knows what is being perpetrated in his name.

It is not a personal attack, unless telling the truth about you constitutes an attack. It was and is a reply to your attempt to silence one of your critics by claiming a rule 12 violation. You cannot deflect comments about you by claiming they are attacks, if they are in fact describing your behavior accurately.

This post is also not an attack, but a response to your post which I quoted. Your attempt to silence an opponent and question the motives of the JREF moderation team and James Randi himself shows you to be a concern troll as well as the liar your previous posts showed you to be.

There is a cure, of course, C7. Simply start telling the truth. Contact your witnesses and ask whether they stand by the statements you are making in their names, and post their responses here to show us all up. Good luck with that.

 

[Christopher7]

Have you even looked at the FM thread HERE?

The forum policy on your complaint is explained there.

BV

Forum policy is to let the faithful ignore the rules while holding the opposition to them strictly.

My digressions were deleted and my list of infractions by others was quickly moved but Mercutio's lengthy personal attack was left alone.

No worries. The purpose and tactics of this forum are becoming more transparent with each transgression.

 

[Christopher7]

It is not a personal attack,

Yes it is.

There is a cure, of course, C7. Simply start telling the truth. Contact your witnesses and ask whether they stand by the statements you are making in their names, and post their responses here to show us all up. Good luck with that.

This absurd request is getting old. You refuse to accept the numerous witness accounts and use this lame excuse to question and deny them.

Gravy has peen pulling the same crap for years. You are just reading from his denial playbook. Give it up!

The numerous witness statement are valid. Deal with it.

 

[bonavada]

The aluminum was spread out over a wide area.

So was the steel.

There were no considerations.

HUH?

Not in quantity under all 3 buildings.

It's there in quantity in the picture I showed you.......

several witnesses said they saw steel beams dripping.

I'm a newcomer to this thread. Please give me a source for this.

You just quote from Gravy's book of reasons to doubt anybody

I didn't quote from "Gravy's book" of anything. I merely followed a link from Gravy's work. In fact what I showed you was from a Truther site.

One team runs thru the BS and retires, only to be replaced by another bunch who proceed to read from the same script.

Stop whining. If you present yourself as an arse you will get it handed back.

withholding the photos and videos is standard.

Again please provide a source.

It has become very predictable and very transparent.

Yes it has, hasn't it?

BV

 

[Christopher7]

So was the steel.

Please There was a thousand times more steel. 80,000 tons per building [i believe]

HUH?

Oops. Concentrations.

It's there in quantity in the picture I showed you.......

It's spread out. The were pools of molten steel were in the basements and under WTC 7.
If you check Gravy's denial book you will find this reply: "It could have been the aluminum wheels and engines of the cars in the garages."

Aluminum wheels and engines are the exception, not the rule.

Aluminum glows silver in daylight. No one could mistake it for molten steel.

several witnesses said they saw steel beams dripping

I'm a newcomer to this thread. Please give me a source for this.

If you consult Gravy's denial book you will find reasons to doubt most if not all these witnesses. They were mistaken or they were just using a simile etc. All his denial drivel ignores the fact that there are just too many credible witnesses to wave off.

Abolhassan Astaneh: Professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

The History Channel's "World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon"
Richard Riggs a Debris Removal Specialist that was doing the clean up.
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI&feature=related

Firefighters
"You get down below and you'd see molten steel - molten steel running down the channel rail, like you're in a foundry, like lava."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

[FONT=&quot]6 weeks later [/FONT]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY

[FONT=&quot]Fuchek[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the end of the beam would be dripping[/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot],”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Firefighter Joe O'Toole[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole [/FONT][FONT=&quot]saw a steel beam being lifted[/FONT][FONT=&quot] from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]was dripping from the[/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot]."[/FONT]
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html

Lee Turner: Paramedic
Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

Alison Geyh, PhD. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

[FONT=&quot]Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]steel[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is brought up it is [/FONT]molten[FONT=&quot] and takes two or three days to cool down."[/FONT]

Ron Burger: Public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,”
http://www.neha.org/9-11 report/index-The.html

Sarah Atlas New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue.
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

William Langewiesche correspondent for the Atlantic
He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/77nwash


A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw
"streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Unbuilding-World-Center/dp/0865476756


New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [FONT=&quot][New York Post, 3/3/2004]*[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Peter Tully: President of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris.[/FONT]
http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Mark Loizeaux:
[FONT=&quot]"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape [/FONT]

Again please provide a source.

It's in a NIST report but i don't know exactly where.
Ask Gravy, he knows.

 

[TjW]

You are being disingenuous. You know that Mark Loizeaux said that steel was being scooped out by the buckets of the excavators. There were many reports of molten steel at different times during the weeks and months after 9/11.

No.

He said that he was told that this happened.

He may also have been told that Santa brings presents to good girls and boys at Christmas. I was certainly told that.

Is my saying that I was told that evidence that Santa exists?

 

[Toke]

Toke's response is my post on the govt. withholding the photos and videos is standard. Don't acknowledge what you can't dispute, just ignore it and ask a question.

No it was more like
"even if photos of this big lumb of metal is suppressed what happened to the people taking the photos, why are they quiet"

You were suggesting a scenario where a huge lumb of metal were removed and photos of it suppressed. So why no witnesses?

 

[Christopher7]

No.

He said that he was told that this happened.

So what? He trusted the contractors he had worked with and he reiterated that there was molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind. Why is there any doubt in yours?

He may also have been told that Santa brings presents to good girls and boys at Christmas. I was certainly told that.

Is my saying that I was told that evidence that Santa exists?

Cool I haven't heard that one before.

 

[Christopher7]

No it was more like
"even if photos of this big lumb of metal is suppressed what happened to the people taking the photos, why are they quiet"

Tired denial question. Deal with the evidence that exists. It is enough to establish the existence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt.

You were suggesting a scenario where a huge lumb of metal were removed and photos of it suppressed. So why no witnesses?

There were no doubt witnesses. The government and media are not telling us. The govt. withheld the 500 first responder statements, including about 100 that heard explosions, until family members and the NY Times filed a FoIA request and forced them to release the incriminating evidence. Other than the NY Times, the media did not report this incriminating evidence. This is clearly a cover up on the part of the govt. and the MSM [main stream media].

The MSM will not show the implosion of WTC 7 because too many people will see that it is a CD.

 

[TjW]

So what? He trusted the contractors he had worked with and he reiterated that there was molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind. Why is there any doubt in yours?

Cool I haven't heard that one before.

His trust is not evidence for molten steel. Molten metal weeks later in the rubble pile is not evidence for a thermite CD weeks earlier.

He is also on record as believing that the fire and damage was enough to cause the collapse. He is a professional in the CD business.
There is no doubt in his mind. Why is there any doubt in yours?

 

[BigAl]

Yes it would. The government collected and is still withholding over 7,000 video clips and nearly 7,000 photos.

The videos and photos are not in the public domain and the "governemnt: isn;t hiding them. The people that took them own them.

This book gives an overview of just how massive the inventory of photography is. Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend


Joel Meyerowitz took a bunch and has published one huge collection of them in this book. The website has a sample.

AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive
By Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/book_aftermath.asp
(images on web site)


Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/

...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.


The Internet Archive has all the TV coverage archived for your viewing enjoyment. I can't watch. I saw it live.
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

 

[Mercutio]

Forum policy is to let the faithful ignore the rules while holding the opposition to them strictly.

My digressions were deleted and my list of infractions by others was quickly moved but Mercutio's lengthy personal attack was left alone.

No worries. The purpose and tactics of this forum are becoming more transparent with each transgression.

Mine was not a "lengthy personal attack", but a detailed explanation of your actions. It is my obligation, if I am to call you a liar, to demonstrate that you have, in fact, lied. Fortunately, evidence is abundant.

Your list was moved to FM, where it was more appropriate. It was treated with far more respect than it merited; the moderators are clearly taking the time to see that evidence was brought to bear when you were called out on your lying. They did not offer a knee-jerk agreement, but a considered opinion.

You will find, if you care to look for evidence (irony intended), that I do not always agree with forum management. There is no reason that they would choose to take my side over yours.

 

[BigAl]

The aluminum cladding was blown up to 600 feet in all directions. There were no concentrations of the aluminum cladding.

Aluminum "burns" in any fire and turns to a little white dust. There would be little cladding found in the pile where the fires burned.

The light weight and large size of the panels meant that they wouldn't be thrown far from the towers except in the odd chance that one caught a wind just right.

 

[BigAl]

Since the subject is there were no concentrations of aluminum, the amount of aluminum furniture is not significant. Calling me a liar again is just another unjustified personal attack.

There were NO concentrations of aluminum in the debris pile.

Steel was the only metal in concentration in the debris piles.

Where there was fire in the pile, lots of aluminum would have been oxidized and turned into white dust. Short of an open fire, I don't know at what temps this process begins.