Yes, hopefully he will respond and clarify his statement.
But meanwhile, you'll continue to besmirch his name by claiming that he supports your stand. Even tho you've been shown a clear, concise synopsis of his view on the subject.
So, your religious views permit you to lie "until some guy gets around to answering your e-mail"?
Just out of curiosity, what else was in that e-mail. The usual Wall-O-Text Truther Woo that you bring here? Just like this post? The type of nonsense that is guaranteed to get your message sent to the Trash (or Looney) Bin?
How about you cut & paste JUST the text from the Ron Weick letter, send only that to him & ask him if this is a correct encapsulation of his over-all sentiment on the issue.
Or pick up a phone & call him.
This firefighter (and the one behind him agreeing) didn't really mean molten steel running down the channel rails. They really meant something else, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E
No, they meant something.
But it was not "molten steel running down the channels".
What do you get, INEVITABLY, as a result of "molten steel running down {presumably steel) channel rails"?
Well, you get several things.
1. Melted channel rails that can't carry any more molten steel.
2. If his description is intended to be representative of the first 3 months of operations, then the molten steel runs down the rails for three months produces a LAKE of once molten, later solidified steel. That no truck can possibly transport.
Where are the reports of the hundreds of guys that it would have taken, with flame torches, to cut up this lake of steel?
If the molten steel ran for just a week, then you've got a small pond of solidified steel. Or any other metal, for that matter. There are LOTS of pictures of the steel from Fresh Kills. Show me hundreds of pieces with one giant flat cooled top surface, a whole bunch of entrained debris in the opposite very irregular surface, and sides that have been torch cut to allow transport off site. There ought to be many hundreds of these pieces. And hundreds of reports of the laborious work to cut them up & move them.
Instead, we have lots of reports, and photographs, of twisted, mangled (and not so mangled) UN-melted steel beams.
For that matter, show me any PARTIALLY melted steel beams. The Barnett-Biederman-Sassoon beam is NOT melted. It still retains it original shape, while greatly thinned down. This is characteristic of corrosion, not melting.
When something melts, it turns into a liquid & loses it solid shape.
Show mw some steel beams that transition from I beams to puddles. NOT "bent, twisted but still recognizable as mangled I beam" samples.
You show me some several dozen examples of THOSE I beams and THEN I'll start to give credence to "molten steel".
This worker didn't really guess that it was 1500 degrees or that it was red hot almost six weeks later. He really meant something else, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY&NR=1
No, in fact, he did not mean that "it was 1500 degrees".
He meant what he said. Which was "it's probably 1500 degrees".
Now he is probably right. But you don't have the right to drop qualifiers from people's comments, thereby changing the meaning of their words to suit your purposes.
That is dishonest. That is lying.
And you'll note that 1500° is not sufficient to melt steel.
And that 1500° is exactly the kind of temp that you'd expect from burning a huge amount of buried office rubble.
What amount of ordinary research have you done to try to get a handle on the thermodynamics of the burning rubble. What temps it should have achieved, how fast it should have cooled, etc. Have you checked the literature? Have you done any BOTE estimates of your own to see if that length of time to cool is shocking. Or unreasonable. Of perfectly within the realm of "to be expected"?
What keeps these underground fires burning:
http://boingboing.net/2009/06/16/giant-burning-holes.html
Did someone plant thermite down there?
"Bright, bright reddish orange" down there.
Hydrocarbon fire: coal.
In the towers? Hydrocarbon fires: paper, wood, plastics.
And this guy is lying through his teeth, right?
You keep casting the interpretation of eyewitness memory into one of two states: completely true or "lying thru his teeth".
Experienced investigators (of all types) & researchers in memory would say that your understanding of memory is as flawed as, say, your understanding of the speed & forces involved in buckling failure.
I don't believe that he's lying at all.
He's wrong.
But he's not lying.
There was a very well documented stream of molten [something] that came tumbling, perhaps pouring out of the towers.
He's wrong in saying that it came from "at least 3 different places". It came from one place.
He's wrong in saying that it came from an area that was undamaged. It came exactly from the floors where the airplane debris came to rest.
He's wrong in describing explosions & detonations.
How do we know, with absolute certainty, that he is wrong? Because we have hundreds of video tapes, taken from all sides of the towers that prove his statements above to be incorrect.
It seems to me that YOU are the one who is accusing him of lying about those things? Because you've eliminated the possibility of simply
Or is he perhaps, like most honest witnesses, right in overall tenor, but wrong in a couple details.
BTW, he does not say "molten steel". He says "molten metal".
He's probably right about that detail. Not certainly. But probably.
Tom
