tmd,
Let me address your first point. My age and for that matter my background is not important. I am an adult..a person...whose opinions and thoughts should be treated with respect, the same as every one else.
Got it.
Thanks very much for revealing your age.
You're a kid who thinks his opinions "deserve respect" … no matter how clueless they are.
Sorry, junior.
You want respect?
EARN it.
Correct answers (and the people who produce them) deserve respect.
Wrong answers deserve disrespect.
The people who produce wrong answers deserve gentle chastisement & correction.
At first.
Clueless punks who adamantly, determinedly refuse to listen to experts, and then loudly, boorishly, insultingly accuse those experts of lying (or fraud, or abetting mass murder & treason, etc), have earned every drop of derision and laughter that sensible people can muster.
It's the only way that society can try to prevent other youngsters from traipsing down the same clueless path.
You see? Pointing fingers and laughing at people like Gage is a solemn civic duty.
You, and only you, decide whether or not you put yourself into the same association of clueless bozos that people like Gage have formed.
Let me try and summarize what you said...tell me if I'm wrong.
OK. You are.
Basically John Gross somehow is still not lying...though he clearly is.
In order to support your accusation that he is lying, as distinct from "being wrong", you must demonstrate that you are able to look into the mind of a stranger on video & discern what that person knows & doesn't know.
Prove it.
You're evidence is basically that he would just laugh at the matter...because it is so stupid. That's some evidence.
The evidence is in the questions that I asked you. That you didn't even try to answer.
It is unmistakeable, unshakable, utterly conclusive.
IF there were a zone that was hot enough to melt steel in the chaotic pile of columns, girders, trusses, etc that was Ground Zero, it is absolutely 100% impossible that the transitions between melted, slumping & solid zones would have jumped back & forth to precisely match the ends of all column.
Therefore, IF there were melt zones, some columns MUST have spanned the melted to slumping zones. Others the slumping to solid zones. Others must have spanned all three zones.
Therefore, IF there were melt zones, they would unquestionably have found many columns where one end was still in its original shape, and the other end slumped to a near puddle shape, and/or clearly melted into a puddle of steel.
NOT ONE single column was pulled out of the debris pile that had this characteristic shape.
Therefore, there was no (or virtually no) melted steel.
Molten steel does exactly what every other liquid does: it flows to the gravitational minimum, pools there and then cools & solidifies.
IF there were "rivers of molten steel, flowing like lava" for any significant time (hours, much less days, weeks or months), then there would have been a small lake steel, that solidified into one huge monolith of steel. This would have required lances to cut them into sections to remove.
No such pieces were removed. There was NO rivers of molten steel, flowing like lava. I don't give a rat's ass what that firefighter said.
Your video shows an architect (who happens to be the curator of the 9/11 museum) claiming that the "meteor" is a hunk of solidified, once molten steel. He doesn't know what he is talking about. There are pieces of READABLE paper sticking out of that hunk of rubble. Steel melts at about 1500°C. Paper IGNITES & burns at about 450°C. YOU explain to me how pieces of thin paper (and wood, and plastic) were immersed in, or right next to, molten steel, but didn't even char.
You cannot explain it.
Ergo, that hunk of material was NEVER "molten steel". It was hot (<400°C), compressed agglomerate of debris that fused under pressure. I don't give a rat's ass what the curator of that museum says.
I would have no problem calling Gross a liar right to his face, in fact I would love to get the chance.
Yup. Punks do stuff like that.
But I would do in a respectful manner,
And really, really Clueless Punks think that they can call someone "a liar, respectfully".
I do everything with respect, like if he was giving a talk, and during the Q&A I would be like "Why did you feel the need to lie about eye witness reports of Molten steel at the University of Texas" …
"… i would be like …"??
Yeah, sure. You're an adult…
Didn't your mom & dad tell you that it's not nice to fib to strangers?
… and then watch him squirm, and avoid the topic.
Yup, tm. Lots of kids have delusions that they'd be able to ambush a professional adult (on a topic within the adult's expertise) like this. It's called "a fantasy". Comes from watching too many kids' movies, where all the adults are clueless & the kids outwit them at every turn.
That's Hollywood. Telling kids what they really, really, really want to hear. So that they can take the kids' money.
One last point, if you look at the Gage video I posted, it also has a quote attributed to Leslie Robertson, fully sourced. But he is same quack as well I'm sure.
Gage lies about what Robertson said. (Gage lies most of the time that he opens his mouth, for that matter. You're just too clueless & politically driven to figure it out. You might, someday. And look back on this Young&Stupid phase with some well-deserved embarrassment.)
A young reporter in Utah CLAIMED that Robertson said that he saw melted steel. But when someone later followed up with Robertson to see if the quote was accurate, Robertson explicitly explained that he never saw molten steel, and that he was never underground in the pile where he MIGHT have seen it.
Gage has been informed REPEATEDLY of this comment by Robertson. Gage continues to willfully lie.
THAT is your hero, Gage.
You might be an honest kid. You might have some sense of honor.
If you do, don't follow (or have anything to do with) liars.
tom
