Molten Steel

[BigAl]

So if I can come up with proof that one of the top "officials" lied about 9/11 will all of you admit there is reason to suspect all the rest of the evidence? After all in a trial when a witness is proven to have lied about one thing all their other statements are viewed as suspect.

Which would mean a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation is required?

Are we all agreed? If I can prove one lie?

I can't imagine what kind of "lie" made by any individual would change the basic story of 9/11; 19 Islamist hijackers grabbed 4 civilian 757/767 jets and crashed them and that this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

There is more cross-checking physical evidence, data, eyewitness evidence, and forensic analysis and engineering analysis than you could possibly imagine that shows the basic story is correct. Just showing that one person misspoke or that there is something about a corroded piece of steel that we can't explain doesn't discredit the standard story or even large parts of it.

There is no "theory B" that also fits some of the evidence as there sometimes is for other events such as the sinking of the Titanic.

Any lawyer will tell you that to shoot down a story in court, you have to know the evidence for the story even better than the other guy. This puts the Twoofers at an immediate disadvantage since the Web pages and YouTube vidoes you watch don't describe our evidence and then shoot it down, they just make ◊◊◊◊ up and shout "inside job!".

The "Truth Movement" has to come up with a theory that fits at least some of the evidence. You could start with paying some demolition expert to show had man-made explosives would be places in a WTC tower in a way that matches all or most of the evidence we have. If nobody can do that, then man-made demolition is a non-starter. In 8 years, you've done nothing.

You are welcome to bring up any alleged lie you care to. It's already been discussed here. Someone will point you to a old thread for your reading pleasure and you can see your "lie" hashed out from every possible angle.

Christopher, is that you?

 

[SteveAustin]

I'll be anxiously waiting.

I'm leaving work shortly so it will have to wait until I get home.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I can accept that if it is proven that a witness has lied, any testimony that witness has given should be viewed accordingly.

That is exactly what I am saying, and I knew you agreed with that as does everyone else here, I just needed it to be stated out loud.

However, the prevailing narrative of 911 is built upon the testimony of hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses, as well as analysis of physical evidence by hundreds, if not thousands of relevant professionals and law enforcement officers. You don't get to just dismiss all of that because one guy, or ten guys, or however many you have, lied. As I already stated, that is not how science or logical reasoning works.

And if some of the major testimony is shown to be a proven lie and this testimony is testimony that is backed up by hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and relevant professionals then the testimony and/or credibility of those hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and/or relevant professionals is also suspect

 

[DavidJames]

I'm leaving work shortly so it will have to wait until I get home.



That is exactly what I am saying, and I knew you agreed with that as does everyone else here, I just needed it to be stated out loud.




And if some of the major testimony is shown to be a proven lie and this testimony is testimony that is backed up by hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and relevant professionals then the testimony and/or credibility of those hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and/or relevant professionals is also suspect

Have yourself a ball steve. Please let me know when you take this seriously. I know you really think this is just a joke, and ego trip for you because you're here, teasing people on jref about how you can show the "OCT" is a lie, instead of actually doing something. You are, SteveAustin, another CFT - Coward For Truth.

 

[GStan]

I'm leaving work shortly so it will have to wait until I get home.

You've been getting paid to post here all day! Does your boss know of this?

That is exactly what I am saying, and I knew you agreed with that as does everyone else here, I just needed it to be stated out loud.

And if some of the major testimony is shown to be a proven lie and this testimony is testimony that is backed up by hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and relevant professionals then the testimony and/or credibility of those hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and/or relevant professionals is also suspect

I suspect we're going to have a major disagreement about what qualifies as major testimony, but have at it. If you are able to produce something beyond a minor anomaly, sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prevailing narrative, you'll be the first truth movement supporter to do so here in almost eight years. Good luck.

 

[Thunder]

Oh don't sulk Mercutio. I like you too.

You're very funny.

Can you tell a couple of jokes and juggle something for me?

I'm bored.

Masochism is very emotionally unhealthy.

 

[Christopher7]

Logically, it could be any metal that melts at a lower temperature,
There is no evidence that the alleged molten metal was steel.

There were no other metals in concentration in the debris piles.
The 2 alternatives suggested are aluminum and copper.
Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight would not be mistaken for molten steel.
Copper melts at 1083[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C [1981[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F] which is far above what fires in a debris pile can attain. Even if it was copper, What melted it?

or it could be a mistake on the part of an honest witness. After all, each of your witnesses was there with other people, people who have not confirmed the statements.

This blissfully simple denial tactic eliminates all witness statements.
Those who use it are not serious people, much less serious debaters. They are just denying that which they don't want to accept.

 

[TheRedWorm]

And STILL no evidence of molten steel...

 

[Mercutio]

This blissfully simple denial tactic eliminates all witness statements.

No, C7, just those that are in clear contradiction of the preponderance of the physical evidence.

Those who use it are not serious people, much less serious debaters. They are just denying that which they don't want to accept.

Some of those who use it are experimental psychologists, well-versed in the literature on eyewitness testimony.

Care to guess which I am?

 

[Christopher7]

And STILL no evidence of molten steel...

The witness statements are evidence of molten steel. Deniers dismiss this evidence and claim there is no evidence.

 

[Mercutio]

The witness statements are evidence of molten steel.

No, they are witness statements. Ask your local prosecuting attorney what they think of witness statements that disagree with the physical evidence. Hell, watch My Cousin Vinny.

Deniers dismiss this evidence and claim there is no evidence.

No. Realists accept the eyewitness statements as eyewitness statements, and search for evidence to confirm or disconfirm these statements. This is the case with eyewitness testimony across topics, C7--9/11 lunatics have no monopoly here.

 

[TheRedWorm]

But no physical evidence of molten steel, is there? And please don't counter with your "well it was all destroyed" ********.

 

[BigAl]

The witness statements are evidence of molten steel. Deniers dismiss this evidence and claim there is no evidence.

In the complete absence of any physical evidence and no theory in science that would explain the existence of the liquid steel, no, eyewitness statements are not proof of anything.

Second hand stories are worthless. Anonymous statements are worthless.

How many names do you have of people that said "I Saw ..."?

Two?

How many people saw the pile? 10s of thousands.

 

[X]

IIRC, that one of glowing stuff in the claw is thought by some to be glass, reflecting the work lights.

So if "you recall correctly" .... what if you do not?

and it is "thought to be"

So no one can say that it is glass, but it is enough simply to say that to cast doubt in the minds of some

Tnx;

I've seen that picture many times and it always bothers me much like the one with the firefighters around a hole looking at "molten" metal did. That turned out to be fake and I'm wondering about this one since I don't remember ever seeing a provenance of the pic.

As I said, this depends on my recollection.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
It would not prove thermite, despite the desperate hopes of a few souls.

The post and discussion about this is elsewhere in the forum. I can't remember the thread or the topic of the discussion (which is not always the same as the thread, as evidenced by the sideline here into explosive noises).

I posted my comment partly to inform, but largely in the jope that someone who did remember that thread (or threads?) would be able to link to it.

Personally, I can't be bothered. It's not important, and the therm?te/molten steel argument has been beaten to death, buried, dug up, beaten again and then buried again more times than is probably healthy. I do find this thread to be a fascinating case-study of choosing evidence based on preconceived notions. "Colour-temperature chart A is preferred over B because it aligns with what I think it should be." "Explosives noises could have been something other than explosives, but I like to think they were explosives."

There are far too many discrepancies, holes, twists, complications, implications, and outright impossibilities in any conspiracy theory I've yet seen for any of them to be true. Which is why conspiracy junkies attack tiny details and twist words and never finish a line of inquiry.

For a badly damaged building to collapse after a sustained fire, however, is very possible.

 

[GStan]

No, they are witness statements. Ask your local prosecuting attorney what they think of witness statements that disagree with the physical evidence. Hell, watch My Cousin Vinny.
<snip>

I'm sorry. Did you say yutes?

 

[Mercutio]

I'm sorry. Did you say yutes?

Excuse me. The Yyyyooooouuuuuuthes....

 

[George 152]

The witness statements are evidence of molten steel. Deniers dismiss this evidence and claim there is no evidence.

So produce the evidence !

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhJF_hTJ2Rw&feature=player_embedded

I would be more worried about why that glob isn't completely viscous at the height of that temperature scale, particularly when you have it side by side with a claimed image of flowing molten metal dripping from the trade center. Are you sure that color scale is sufficient for comparison for a picture?

Thank you for the slag video.
It is necessary to heat the slag far above the melting point to keep it from solidifying before it can be dumped. The cooling and solidifying slag in the video is consistent with the blacksmith color chart and the glob in the crab claw. As we can see in the video between 2:10 and 2:35, the molten slag is turning from white to yellow and even orange in some areas.

This confirms that molten metal is semi solid when yellow to orange and fluid when pale yellow to white.
Color charts are used to "approximate" the color of metals. Photos may not have perfect color balance but the crab claw photo is high quality and reasonably accurate. The video is likewise reasonably accurate. The shade of yellow may be off but it is clearly yellow in both.

The steel dripping off the bottom of the glob is pale yellow to white ~1500°C.
The falling molten [liquid] steel is yellow ~1300°C according to the blacksmith chart.
This suggests that it was melted with thermate which lowers the melting point of steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Color charts are used to "approximate" the color of metals.

Yes but that is not the purpose behind posting the video... sorry...

Photos may not have perfect color balance but the crab claw photo is high quality and reasonably accurate. The video is likewise reasonably accurate.

What is the difference between the steel poured in the video and that which you purport is being picked up by machinery?

The shade of yellow may be off but it is clearly yellow in both.

And again I repeat the question from above:
What is the difference between the steel poured in the video and that which you purport is being picked up by machinery

This should be very easy to answer

The steel dripping off the bottom of the glob is pale yellow to white ~1500°C.
The falling molten [liquid] steel is yellow ~1300°C according to the blacksmith chart.

At or well above the melting point and still grabable by machinery... I liek where this is going. Tell me moar about this special quality of melted [liquefied sic] steel...

This suggests that it was melted with thermate which lowers the melting point of steel.

Ah so now we move to thermate as a culprit. [mit-pick] You said thermite was the ONLY possibility. I do enjoy the performance, please continue coming up with these as you go

 

[Christopher7]

In the complete absence of any physical evidence and no theory in science that would explain the existence of the liquid steel, no, eyewitness statements are not proof of anything.

You just shifted from 'evidence' to 'proof' to justify your denial.

Second hand stories are worthless.

Not so.

This is the case for denial of molten steel in a nut shell.

1) The destruction of the physical evidence should be used as an argument for no physical evidence of molten steel rather than being seen as evidence of a cover up.

2) All the witness statements should be disregarded because:
a. they are not 'proof'
[They are evidence, not proof.]

b. they haven't been re-confirmed
[The publishing of these statements is conformation that the people made those statements unless the person retracts or says they did not make the statement.]

c. second hand statements are worthless
[This is not a court of law. All statements can be considered based on the reliability of the witness]


Long story made short:
The abject denial of the witness statements amounts to:

Don't confuse me with the facts.

The witness statements are not evidence. They are worthless until you can prove them in a court of law.

There is no need for a court to convene because there is no evidence.


This the circular logic that drives the denier circular debate.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes but that is not the purpose behind posting the video... sorry...

I know. As is so often the case, what is posted by a JREFer to support the case for denial actually supports the case for CD.

What is the difference between the steel poured in the video and that which you purport is being picked up by machinery?
And again I repeat the question from above:
What is the difference between the steel poured in the video and that which you purport is being picked up by machinery
This should be very easy to answer

This is a child's game. You know the crab claw photo was taken at night so why not just say so instead of asking sarcastic questions?
Your inference is that a photo taken at night with work lights cannot reproduce a reasonably color correct photo. Such is not the case and you know it so why try infer it?

The steel dripping off the bottom of the glob is pale yellow to white ~1500°C.

At or well above the melting point and still grabable by machinery

The semi solid glob is orange at the top where it is being grabbed.


nit-picking deleted