So even though Dr. Astaneh-Asl's observations appear to corroborate the many eye-witness reports of molten steel at GZ, we should just ignore that because Dr. Astaneh-Asl doesn't believe there was a government conspiracy?
Is that your idea of an "overall picture of evidence"?
You read what Ryan wrote:
The key word is "appear." To you, they may "appear" to corroborate the idiotic idea that there were masses of molten steel everywhere... but they don't.
Just talk to the man, he'll set you straight. And quick.
And then go do a forum search for the term "eutectic". Yes, my idea of an "overall picture of evidence" includes his observations, as well as Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's. And
ALL of that put together doesn't corroborate the supposed reports of molten steel, it
negates it.
This is where you fail, Deep. You did exactly what I said above and in previous posts: You concentrated on only a single aspect of Astaneh-Asl's observation, you failed to include the followups that Worchester did, and you delved into unrelated eyewitness accounts about molten
metal to make the charge that molten steel was present. If you had truly understood Astaneh-Asl's observation as well as the Biederman, Sisson, Barnett research afterwards, you would not have made that post.
Then again, had you understood all those men, you wouldn't be defending the conspiracy fantasy. So I guess this is no surprise you try to make that argument.
-------
For others who are unfamiliar with the background: Astahen-Asl had made a few observations about the WTC steel debris, some of which conspiracy peddlers latch on to as a supposed anomaly indicating a collapse narrative at odds with the one NIST published. You can bet that where someone's talking about molten steel, they're leading to thermite and intentional destruction of the Twin Towers. Problem is, they're wrong. They correctly cite Astaneh-Asl's observation about "vaporized" steel, but they
fail to follow up and understand that:
- He made that observation without studying the actual nature of the "vaporization", given that he observed it during the cleanup of Ground Zero, and could not give much more than a visual description of what he saw. And,
- That other researchers had looked into it at a later dat - the professors Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett that I mentioned above - and discovered that the "vaporized" steel was in reality eroded via a chemical sulfidation attack that resulted in the formation of a liquid species that could have either evaporated or - more likely - simply run off(any chemists or metallurgists here can give the proper answer). Astaneh-Asl's observation was the preliminary one, and the Worchester investigation was the deeper one. But you never, ever hear a truther bring that one up, because it lops off the direction he wants you to go in.
In short, Deep here has - once again;
yes, this isn't the first time he's tried this - misrepresented the findings as well as the significance that Dr. Astaneh-Asl produced. This is why I encourage others to do a search for his name, as well as others for the words "eutectic", "Worchester", "Sisson", and so on. This charge has been disproven already; none of Astaneh-Asl's observations lead to molten steel (something that should be obvious if truthers realize there's a discrepancy between the supposed flows of molten
metal some first responders claim to have seen and the less-than-one-inch erosion of the column Astaneh-Asl reported).
The irony here is that Deep is trying to nail me for my statement about the "overall picture", yet it is
he who's withholding crucial elements of the picture, those elements leading away from conspiratorial fantasies. Go figure. Typical truther distortion.
