Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

You want relevant facts? Fine.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on US soil were planned by al Qaida under the leadership of Osama bin Laden.

This is NOT relevant but since you brought it up;

The FBI has not charged Bin Laden with the attacks on 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. The "confession" video is a fake. If it were valid, it would be enough for a indictment.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

You must have a lot of perseverance to make it this long, but after 85 pages you have not given me one reason to doubt these facts.

Nothing will make you doubt the OCT.

The assumption that the OCT is true has nothing to do with the molten metal or any aspect of the collapse of the three WTC buildings.

 

[Christopher7]

Cannot see images from that site over here.

That does make things difficult. Next time I will ask if someone here can post a JREF version of what I post for you and others who can't view ImageShack.

The graphic I posted of the path of the engine, landing gear and fuselage section, is moot now anyway. I studied the photos of the area closely and there is no exit hole in the place where the molten metal was falling from. The hypothesis that the 81st floor collapsed and dumped a built up quantity of liquid metal is probably correct. If it can be proven that there were lead-acid batteries that contained enough lead to account for the volume of falling molten metal then that must be considered a possibility. So far, all we have is inference and no documentation.

If this were a possibility, NIST would have suggested lead rather than aluminum.
Whatever the molten metal was, it was in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just the opposite. It is a statement of fact.

No, it's an argument from ignorance, and hence a classic fallacy in formal logic. And by mis-identifying it as a statement of fact, you've proven that you don't know the difference between the two.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Is that like the "It can't be anything but thermite because I can't think of anything else" denial tactic?

Just the opposite. It is a statement of fact.

No, it's an argument from ignorance, Dave

Do you know of another possibility?

Are you claiming your ignorance of another possibility is an argument against thermite?

Think about it. Thermite is the only known possibility.

[FONT=&quot]When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.[/FONT]

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you know of another possibility?

As usual, you're missing the point. I phrased the sentence as an argument from ignorance. You saw the same sentence as a statement of fact. You appear unable to tell the difference between the two.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

You know that is not true. When given conclusive information, I change my position. You have seen me do this.

So that reply to when I said you say things are faked and also remind you of doing this with photographs later.

You then come out with this corker?

This is NOT relevant but since you brought it up;

The FBI has not charged Bin Laden with the attacks on 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. The "confession" video is a fake. If it were valid, it would be enough for a indictment.

What a piece of work you are Christopher. You have no shame and a brass neck.

 

[funk de fino]

That does make things difficult. Next time I will ask if someone here can post a JREF version of what I post for you and others who can't view ImageShack.

Why dont you put it in your JREF album? I can see them

The graphic I posted of the path of the engine, landing gear and fuselage section, is moot now anyway. I studied the photos of the area closely and there is no exit hole in the place where the molten metal was falling from. The hypothesis that the 81st floor collapsed and dumped a built up quantity of liquid metal is probably correct. If it can be proven that there were lead-acid batteries that contained enough lead to account for the volume of falling molten metal then that must be considered a possibility. So far, all we have is inference and no documentation.

The Italian guy provides plenty of back for his claims and documentation. You dont have an amount for the falling metal. You need a source for that or it is a moot point.

What other type of batteries would they have been C7? You're just dodging now.

If this were a possibility, NIST would have suggested lead rather than aluminum.
Whatever the molten metal was, it was in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

When did NIST make the claim and have they been asked about the batteries since? You cannot use NIST because you have called them liars and frauds. Someone who is really interested in the truth might check back with them or confirm claims with witness'. You will never do that because you are not interested in the truth. And everyone can see the charade.

 

[Disbelief]

I assumed it was a joke, an intentional mixed metaphor. Rocket science + brain surgery.

You are giving C7 way more credit than I am. Intentional or not, it did make me laugh.

 

[GStan]

<snip>

If this were a possibility, NIST would have suggested lead rather than aluminum.Whatever the molten metal was, it was in the 1000-1400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

This is a non-sequitor. NIST is not omniscient, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily validated by your premises. (This is not to say that this rules out your NiCad argument, only that it is a fallacious reason for dismissing the lead argument.)

 

[BigAl]

You know that is not true. When given conclusive information, I change my position. You have seen me do this.

I read somewhere that the molten steel ran out thru a hole made by a landing gear or something. I'll see if i can find it.

ETA:

[qimg]http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3366/bonefragmentsms9.jpg[/qimg]

You're not likely find airplane parts here. You are looking at a picture who's URL says it's about bone fragments. Click on it and then look at the title bar in your browser.

 

[GStan]

Do you know of another possibility?

One possibility you haven't considered is that your small minority of eyewitnesses (who as a rule are notoriously unreliable in comparison to other forms of evidence) who you claim as your material witnesses for liquid steel were incorrect about seeing liquid steel. That is another possibility.

Are you claiming your ignorance of another possibility is an argument against thermite?

Think about it. Thermite is the only known possibility.

[FONT=&quot]When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.[/FONT]

That's right. Thermite has been eliminated because it is impossible for thermite to have kept steel in a liquid state for days/weeks/months. We're left with the improbability that the small minority of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen molten/melted/flowing/liquid metal/steel/girders/columns/beams were not actually looking at liquid steel.

 

[GStan]

Bump…

<snip>

There is no reason to doubt them.

Are you at least minimally aware of the fact that you are on a skeptic's board?

<snip>

Please. Do you want their mother's maiden names too?

Nope, just their names and the date of the interview. I'll find out the rest of what I want to know myself. I have contacts in the FDNY who will help me do your homework.

The statements do NOT need to be re-verified. That is a BS denial tactic to eliminate all witness statements.

What an arse! Are you afraid of what your MATERIAL WITNESSES might say?!?! These are your MATERIAL WITNESSES for your mass murder fantasy! You don't even know their names yet you're using their statements to support your allegations of mass murder? What are their names? For all you know, they could be truthers dressed up like firefighters who made the video clip for other dolts like Steven Jones to sell retarded DVDs about thermite. For all you know, the video could be clipped out of a fictional TV show.

What are their names?

Get out of town!
Who the hell are you to say he dosen't know what he is talking about? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your disrespect.

Perfect straw man. I have not said he does know what he is talking about. He simply made a mistake about a detail of what he saw. Its an honest mistake and pointing it out need not be insulting or disrespectful. But don't worry I am going to contact him too. We'll get to the bottom of this minor anomaly in the witness statements.

The rest is just more of the same.

DenialStuff that I can't rationally refute.

Fixed that for you.

Also, don't forget to list the other 18 witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel. Or at least have the decency to retract your claim that there were "two dozen" witnesses to molten steel at ground zero. Thanks.

 

[BigAl]

Bump…

<snip>

Also, don't forget to list the other 18 witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel. Or at least have the decency to retract your claim that there were "two dozen" witnesses to molten steel at ground zero. Thanks.

I say that second-hand witnesses count for zero, or as leads to first-hand witnesses if they can remember.

If C7 reduces the list to people that said something like "I saw' I think he is down to about two, and one of them, Loizeaux says he was misquoted and only heard second-hand.

Without physical evidence, eyewitness reports are weak evidence.

There is no physical evidence.

 

[lapman]

I have repeatedly asked you for another explanation for the molten steel and you subject shift because the is no other possibility.

Every single time you're given one, you automatically reject it because it doesn't fit your fantasy. Instead, you give the "It can only be.. because I said so" denial tactic.

 

[bje]

Now you are lying. I noticed my mistake and rephrased it in my next post.

This on going personal attack is typical and indicative of this forum.

No, you didn't, Chris. You repeated it multiple times. When I asked repeatedly who the "government scientists" were, you evaded the question entirely.

It's all on the record, in this thread. Now, are you going to apologize for having lied that you repeatedly claimed there were "government scientists" or continue to lie about it, Chris?

 

[GStan]

I say that second-hand witnesses count for zero, or as leads to first-hand witnesses if they can remember.

If C7 reduces the list to people that said something like "I saw' I think he is down to about two, and one of them, Loizeaux says he was misquoted and only heard second-hand.
<snip>

I have no objections to second-hand statements. I'd rather tackle all of his "evidence" at one time.

 

[Mercutio]

This "Debunking" video says it was about 30 tons.
@ 2:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

Ah, thanks. I stand corrected. May we take this to mean that you accept this video as an authoritative source? (I only ask, cos, y'know, they mention 70 tons of aluminum being available at that location--I think that might qualify as being a metal, other than steel, available in sufficient quantities to explain this particular claim. It also has the benefit of having the lower melting point than steel--if there were molten steel in the area, there would necessarily have been molten aluminum, as the molten steel would have melted it! We know that hydrocarbon fires are sufficient to melt aluminum alloys, so there would be no requirement of molten steel, but one cannot deny that if there were molten steel, there must also be molten aluminum.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Chris says it was too hot to be molten aluminium, because any molten aluminium would have flowed away from the heat source before it got that hot. The concept of a liquid being contained in a hollow vessel wasn't valid on 9/11, for some reason.

Dave

 

[Mercutio]

Chris says it was too hot to be molten aluminium, because any molten aluminium would have flowed away from the heat source before it got that hot. The concept of a liquid being contained in a hollow vessel wasn't valid on 9/11, for some reason.

Dave

So... wait. Molten steel pools enough to fill bucketloads, even near the top of the pile, but aluminum flows away? Is this still April Fools Day?

 

[ravdin]

Nothing will make you doubt the OCT.

Not true. There are many things that would make me doubt the official theory. It's just that you haven't presented nearly enough prima facie evidence to convince me that I should change my mind.