Molten Steel

[funk de fino]

I was responding to funk's assertion that NIST had tested for explosives. Part of that answer was the unbearably lame excuse NIST gave for not testing for explosives.

There is evidence that both thermite and explosives were used.

Thats another lie you have been caughtin. I never said NIST tested for explosives. How many times am I going to have to point out those whoppers you tell? I never even said they had tested for exoplosives. I said someone had carried out forensic examinations. I said the inspection process was witnessed by Brent Blanchard and he verifies the chain of custody and the people who carried out the inspection.

You replied about NIST when I had not even mentioned them. You get more dishonest by the day. How sad.

 

[BigAl]

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight.

There is no evidence to support the contention that the falling molten metal was lead. If there was, NIST would have tried that instead of aluminum. What ever it was, it was much hotter than office fires can attain, much less maintain long enough to heat tons of metal to well over 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

No they are not. You are talking thru your hat.

So what? That does not change the fact that there was molten metal in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range falling from WTC 2.

Good grief Griz, can't you get anything right? I said the glob in the crab claw was semi-solid.

How can anyone take you seriously when you obviously have a severe reading comprehention problem?

My god, you have a vision problem too.
The molten steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is off the chart. About 1500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

The source of that color scale image say "PERCEIVED COLORS DEPEND ON LIGHTING"

Type in the URL on the lower right of that jpg and read the text that describes the scale.

I also find that the scape C7 has been posting is significantly different than this one is. I'll let others decide which is best and how it affects C7's allegations.

http://www.smex.net.au/Reference/SteelColours.htm​

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio, They said they saw molten steel/metal years ago because it happened years ago. What makes you think they have changed their minds?

They, unlike you, may well be open to reconsidering their initial opinions, based on the preponderance of the evidence being incompatible with liquid steel. They, unlike you, are not currently complaining that no one believes their stories; perhaps it is because they no longer stand by that story.

Of course, I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong if they stand by those statements.

Why don't you believe them?
If you don't believe them, what's the point in contacting them? You will just think of another reason to deny.
Your response will be:
You are lying!

I never use size 6 fonts, and I only say someone is lying when the evidence supports that assertion.

Actually, I support them, you don't.

This, for example, is a lie.

You disrespect them every time you say they are mistaken.

You are insulting them by doubting their word.

It's not nearly as effective when I just got done saying this; it's also much more effective when it is true, as it was when I said it.

I am quoting them. That is not lying. You are saying the are all wrong. That is disrespectful and insulting.

You are quoting them out of context, and yes, you are using their words to lie. I am saying I respect them enough to ask them.

Stop disrespecting them Mercutio.

The moment I stop beating my wife.

Stop denying.

I have no need to deny something that is self-denying. Your theory fails at square one. There is evidence against each of your contentions, so you place all your confidence in a small handful of witnesses that have made claims that no others did, in contexts which you have had to distort beyond recognition in order to fit your fantasy.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, how do you think bomb-sniffing dogs find bombs?

Bolo, that is a very stupid question.

The point is:

NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residues.

Do you have a government source to back up your claim that dogs were checking the steel for explosive residue or just a lot of stupid pointless questions?

 

[Sunstealer]

They didn't check for space lasers either or nucular radiation.

 

[boloboffin]

Bolo, that is a very stupid question.

The point is:

NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residues.

Do you have a government source to back up your claim that dogs were checking the steel for explosive residue or just a lot of stupid pointless questions?

So "very stupid question" in your lingo means "question I can't answer without demonstrating even to myself that my positions are very stupid."

You are moving the goalposts. Now you're yelling about whether NIST did. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that bomb-sniffing dogs at Ground Zero implies that someone was looking for and would have found explosive residue of bombs exploded or not. That is how bomb-sniffing dogs discover bombs, Christopher7. They are trained to smell the residue of the active ingredient of bombs. That means, they could detect explosive residue.

This is contrary to your adamant assertions. No explosive residue at Ground Zero means you have to relinquish one of your talking points for good.

So you're stalling, evading, moving the goalposts, anything you can dream up to avoid dealing with the import of the question. Now you want a "government" source for this. You've been given the source of this information. If we gave you a government source, you'd say it was from the government and it couldn't be trusted.

You yourself claimed that bomb-sniffing dogs were at the Towers. Why didn't they catch the bombs that were planted?

Christopher7, you are completely lodged into a unfalsifiable position that you can only maintain by chanting your mantras again and again. This is something you are free to do, but why are you here in a place where people will continue to expose your nonsensical behavior for what it is?

 

[Minadin]

Molten aluminum is silver in daylight.

Thermite burns with a sun-like radiance.

My god, you have a vision problem too.
The molten steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is off the chart. About 1500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C

How do you know it's steel, again? Colors are fairly useless for determining temperature unless you're absolutely certain what the material is, and in photographs they are especially dependent on the lighting conditions, among other considerations.

Shouldn't that water boil off well below 1800F? I would think so.

 

[ravdin]

They didn't check for space lasers either or nucular radiation.

They did test for magical elves, however, and the results were negative. So take note: magical elves are not responsible for the molten steel at Ground Zero!

 

[Minadin]

Did they check for magical dwarves or gnomes?

Maybe the pyroclastic flows were caused by Sauron at Mount Doom. He was trying to establish a New World Order.

 

[Christopher7]

They, unlike you, may well be open to reconsidering their initial opinions, based on the preponderance of the evidence being incompatible with liquid steel.

Actually, there is no evidence that the molten metal was not steel, just a lot of speculation by people who don't want to believe the witnesses.

They, unlike you, are not currently complaining that no one believes their stories; perhaps it is because they no longer stand by that story.

In actual fact, you have not a clue what they are thinking.

Of course, I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong if they stand by those statements.

I never use size 6 fonts, and I only say someone is lying when the evidence supports that assertion

You intentionally misinterpret what I say and call me a liar. You call me a liar every time you disagree. You call your opponents a liar so often it has become meaningless.

This, for example, is a lie.

You are lying when you call others liars.

You are quoting them out of context,

That's a lie. Their statements are clear an in context.

you are using their words to lie.

That's another lie. I am quoting what they say and you call that lying.

I am saying I respect them enough to ask them.

I respect them enough to take them at their word and not bother them with insulting questions like "Did you really mean what you said about seeing molten steel?"

You have no respect for the people who were there. Not believing what they said is very disrespectful.

I have no need to deny something that is self-denying.

Self denying. That's a new one.
I'm sure all the witnesses would love to hear that.

Your theory fails at square one.

IYO

There is evidence against each of your contentions

Balderdash!

so you place all your confidence in a small handful of witnesses that have made claims that no others did

Actually there's a couple dozen and I see no reason to doubt them.

in contexts which you have had to distort beyond recognition in order to fit your fantasy.

That's a lie.

Your position is so vacant, all you can do is deny and call people liars. There is little else in your posts.

Have a nice day.

 

[funk de fino]

Bolo, that is a very stupid question.

The point is:

NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residues.

Do you have a government source to back up your claim that dogs were checking the steel for explosive residue or just a lot of stupid pointless questions?

No-one is claiming NIST did this at all. Stop dodging and being dishonest.

Why were they not using drug sniffing dogs? What possible prupose were they using BOMB sniffing dogs for? Looking for lost cats?

 

[Christopher7]

So "very stupid question" in your lingo means "question I can't answer without demonstrating even to myself that my positions are very stupid."

No, I meant this is a very stupid question:

Christopher7, how do you think bomb-sniffing dogs find bombs?

That's an a par with "What color is orange juice?". If you have something to say, say it. Dont waste column space with stupid self answering questions.

You are moving the goalposts. Now you're yelling about whether NIST did.

You joined the game at halftime and you don't know the score.

In response to a statement I noted that:

NIST did not test for explosive residue.

That set off the usual bunch of denial and then misleading statements like yours that try to imply that someone tested for explosive residue.

I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that bomb-sniffing dogs at Ground Zero implies

Key word here is implys. That is dishonest because they were not sniffing for explosive residue or NIST would have known and said so. I asked you for a govt. document to back it up. If you have something verifiable, present it. If you can produce compelling information, I will change my position but until you do, I will go with the information I have which is in the letter NIST sent to Bob McIlviane, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, S911Tj an Frank Legge.

that someone was looking for and would have found explosive residue of bombs exploded or not. That is how bomb-sniffing dogs discover bombs, Christopher7. They are trained to smell the residue of the active ingredient of bombs. That means, they could detect explosive residue.

Bomb sniffing dogs find bombs by sniffing. Will wonders never cease? Did you figure that out all by yourself?

This is contrary to your adamant assertions. No explosive residue at Ground Zero means you have to relinquish one of your talking points for good.

Not on an implication. Do you know the difference between an implication and a document?

So you're stalling, evading, moving the goalposts, anything you can dream up to avoid dealing with the import of the question.

No, I'm pointing out that you are being deceitful.

You yourself claimed that bomb-sniffing dogs were at the Towers. Why didn't they catch the bombs that were planted?

I said they were remove a few days before 9/11, which is more than suspicious. Someone here said they left one dog but offered no documentation.

Christopher7, you are completely lodged into a unfalsifiable position that you can only maintain by chanting your mantras again and again.

My mantra is:
"There are numerous credible witnesses that saw molten steel at the WTC." That happens to be true.

Your mantra is "They are all mistaken because that just can't be." That happens to be personal incredulity.

This is something you are free to do, but why are you here in a place where people will continue to expose your nonsensical behavior for what it is?

People here lie a lot and call other people liars based on those lies. If nothing else, you guys have a wonderful sense of irony.

 

[funk de fino]

I was responding to funk's assertion that NIST had tested for explosives

Are you going to retract that lie or not?

 

[BigAl]

No, I meant this is a very stupid question:
That's an a par with "What color is orange juice?". If you have something to say, say it. Dont waste column space with stupid self answering questions.

You joined the game at halftime and you don't know the score.

In response to a statement I noted that:

NIST did not test for explosive residue.

What does explosives have to do with allegation of liquid steel on the pile?

Nothing.

 

[boloboffin]

Bomb sniffing dogs find bombs by sniffing. Will wonders never cease? Did you figure that out all by yourself?

By sniffing what? What is used to train bomb-sniffing dogs? What is it about a bomb that has an aroma? WHAT SUBSTANCE ARE BOMB-SNIFFING DOGS TESTING THE ATMOSPHERE FOR?

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite burns with a sun-like radiance.

Correct, however, the thermite had burned up before the molten steel was uncovered.

How do you know it's steel, again? Colors are fairly useless for determining temperature unless you're absolutely certain what the material is,

Incorrect
All metals glow at the same colors at the same temperatures. Aluminum will appear silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity but in a dark room it will glow the same color as other metals.
This is Patrick's law on black bodies:
[FONT=&quot]Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf[/FONT][/FONT]

and in photographs they are especially dependent on the lighting conditions, among other considerations.

Correct

Here are two color charts. There is a huge discrepancy.
I favor the blacksmith chart [on the right] because it is consistent with the molten steel in the crab claw. The metal dripping off the bottom is a off the chart and about 1500 [FONT=&quot]°C[/FONT] which is the melting point of steel. This is admittedly biased but moot because debris pile fires would be oxygen starved and just smoldering at around 300-400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]. When I talk about how hot the falling metal is, I use the range 1000-1400 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C[/FONT] which covers both charts. Office fires burn at about 1000[FONT=&quot]°C. [/FONT]1200[FONT=&quot]°C [/FONT]are possible but only in extreme conditions. The hotter a fire burns, the faster it consumes the fuel so in the end the same amount of heat is released whether the fire burns fast or slow.

If you wish to continue this discussion in adult manner, I will be happy to do so but if you call me a liar or such, will not respond.

 

[Christopher7]

By sniffing what? What is used to train bomb-sniffing dogs? What is it about a bomb that has an aroma? WHAT SUBSTANCE ARE BOMB-SNIFFING DOGS TESTING THE ATMOSPHERE FOR?

Did it occur to you that the dogs might have been checking for bombs and not inspecting the steel as it was loaded up and hauled away?
Terrorists like to set off secondary bombs to get emergency workers. It would take a lot of dogs working 24/7 to keep up with the 800 trucks a day. Implication is insufficient. Unless you have something compelling or preferably conclusive, then there is no reason to doubt what NIST stated in a formal letter on September 27, 2007.

pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.
NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

No-one is claiming NIST did this at all. Stop dodging and being dishonest.

Why were they not using drug sniffing dogs? What possible prupose were they using BOMB sniffing dogs for? Looking for lost cats?

Dear funk
I'm responding to this because of the nice little piece of sarcasm.

I do not lie. I screw up occasionally but as you know, when you prove me wrong, I admit it and change my position accordingly. You have a good mind but your decorum leaves a lot to be desired. If you want engage in dialogue fine, but if you are going to be insulting, you can go take a long walk on a short pier.

Chris

 

[funk de fino]

Dear funk
I'm responding to this because of the nice little piece of sarcasm.

I do not lie. I screw up occasionally but as you know, when you prove me wrong, I admit it and change my position accordingly. You have a good mind but your decorum leaves a lot to be desired. If you want engage in dialogue fine, but if you are going to be insulting, you can go take a long walk on a short pier.

Chris

If that's the case then retract this screw up or be called a liar again.

I was responding to funk's assertion that NIST had tested for explosives

Then answer the question you avoided.

 

[funk de fino]

Unless you have something compelling or preferably conclusive, then there is no reason to doubt what NIST stated in a formal letter on September 27, 2007.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

Except that in FAQ's dated December 2007 they explained the collapse progression. Because of some idiots who could not understand basic concepts.