Merged So there was melted steel

[ozeco41]

Are you a lawyer? Just wondering?...

Thanks for your response. Retired Civil engineer, Military engineer (Australian Army Reserve), law degree but didn't practice.

It could be interesting to follow through this "Moot Court" scenario but it would be a diversion from the main topic interest of the thread. I'll limit my comments to avoid the derail.

Putting your ideas into a court setting is a great mechanism for forcing clear thinking. It isn't working so far - there are inconsistencies in your posted explanation.

...Anyway, OBL and AQ are on trial for the events of 9/11....

...let that pass for now. You would need to be very specific.

...The defense wants in evidence, and remember in terms of *this* thread it is assumed to have been really there. Maybe represent isn't the best word, I was saying Oystein himself was the prosecution expert witness. You can substitute NIST etc...they would all have close to the same answers. I meant the defense attorney would ask Oystein to elaborate on his furnace...and so far no one in this thread has....

Comments on this.

If the defence wants something in evidence it is almost certainly better for the defence to put the evidence. The only access the defence has to the prosecution witness is via "cross examination". It follows after the prosecution has elicited from the witness the evidence that the prosecution wants put before the court. The prosecution would not elicit evidence to support the defence. At that stage the defence cross examines but can only question what the witness has said in response to prosecution questions. The defence can attempt to disprove or put doubt on what the prosecution has claimed but is very limited in getting any evidence not already put by the prosecution.

...The defense would call them because based on their credentials they have knowledge of the subject matter. They would lay out their theories as to why there was molten steel, and why given the official story, temperatures should not have gotten that hot. They've explained this it many times. Thermite reactions own oxygen supply..etc. You can look them up, and compare them to "we don't know why"

Two comments here. First you were discussing prosecution's expert witnesses. The defence does not call prosecution witnesses. If these same persons were not called as witnesses by the prosecution it is possible for them to be called by the defence. However the evidence they have is prosecution favourable if they were potential prosecution witnesses. You risk having a "hostile witness". They are biased to the "other side". Second comment you are unclear as to what the prosecution case is and what the defence response should be. It needs clarification before we could make more meaningful comments.

 

[tmd2_1]

The above speaks volumes about your utter ignorance of thermodynamics.

I am by no means an expert in it myself.However I am fully aware that multiplication on numbers from a relative scale such as temperature is about as wrong as multiplying distance times time and expecting an answer in terms of mass.

IT DOES NOT matter whether the scale is Celcius or Farenheit, a temperature number that is double that of another number does NOT mean that the heat has doubled nor can it be used as a conversion factor.

What if something is at -10 F tmd? Is -20 twice as hot?

I also recall that thermodynamics was a second year university course in physics. One might wonder why its not taught in first year. Perhaps because it damned complicated? My course was 30+ years ago and I remember little of it, so no, I would not be the one to calculate the interior temperature.
I do know though that you will need a lot more information other than the spot temperatures recorded by the IR scan of the area.

To illustrate: I have a woodstove in my cottage. An IR scan of the roof of the cottage would show a very hot spot at the location of my chimney. If one did not know that it was a chimney one might calculate the interior temperature at that spot by using the insulative ability of a common rooftop and determine an extremely hot fire in the attic, or an even hotter fire in the room below, that is heating up that spot on the roof. However if one knows that this is a chimney then one understands that the heat is that of gasses coming off a fire in a stove. But how hot is the fire? Now you need to know the length of insulated chimney, the type of insulated chimney, is the stove pipe from stove to ceiling single or double walled, the size of the stove pipe and insulated chimney.
Of course in the above example one can easily deduce the existance of a chimney. In the case of the WTC rubble though you seem to desire that these hot spots are not upwelling gasses from fires below. Instead you seem to wish that these are indicative of the temperature of the surface rubble having been heated by conduction from a heat source below. What is your justification of that?

Next in a rooftop we can possibly assume a length of stove pipe and chimney, 6 feet of stove pipe from top of stove to ceiling level and another 8 feet of insulated chimney from there to chimney cap. The most common diameters are 7, 8 and 10 inch so that part can be easily accounted for as well as can the difference single or double wall pipe can be accounted for to arrive at a range of temps for the fire in the stove.

In the case of the WTC you know none of this, you don't know the distance from surface to fire, the distance travelled etc. You might say that you are assuming a center of pile fire, but you are still trying to say that this is a common SURFACE temperature while I am saying its more likely a chimney gas temp. For comparison purposes you are aware of the temperature specs for stainless steel wood stove chimneys though right? I have posted them in the past. Might one expect at the very least, flue temps that are in keeping with those specs.

Yes indeed my ignorance of therodynamics. We have the surface temp, we know the contents, we know it couldn't be right on the surface as the water would have had to affect it somehow, I figured you could make a guess. But fine whatever. Here is something from the american society of safety engineers saying the temperatures got to more than 2800F so hot enough to melt steel. http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm
This may be a little off topic but you know what this tells me (I know it won't tell you anything) We have temperatures hot enough to melt steel established now, we have plenty of steel, yet no molten steel was officially reported? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Well it won't make you wonder but most people it would.

 

[tmd2_1]

Looked it up,,,, again.

Click on catalogue under "product literature"

Continuous operating temp, in a woodstove chimney, of 1200^oF and spec'd to withstand short intervals of 2100^oF
From a residential heating appliance!
But gasses exhausting from the underground fires in the WTC rubble in that range are "suspicious"!

Of course the upper range, 2100 F is for protection against creosote buildi up flue fires. This is the result of unburned gasses condenscing on the inner surface of the flue. When the flue temperature reaches about 1100 F these deposits can ignite and reach 2000 F.

Since flue fire easily last more than three minutes its recommended that the chimney be replaced after a flue fire. Did you get that tmd? A stainless steel woodstove chimney should be replaced after a flue fire and flue fires are quite common if one uses mixed fuels or has serveral smoky fires and does not take care to have the deposits removed properly.

IT IS COMMON then for temperatures up to 2000 F from such basic stove types.
Let's go back again and examine your reasons for wishing that this cannot occur in the rubble of the WTC towers.

What does this have to do with anything? So your telling me there's something out there designed to get to 2100F that actually does? That can't be, say it isn't so. The WTC would have been a naturally occurring event. It's not that important but 2100F isn't even hot enough to melt steel.

 

[tmd2_1]

What temperature , 9000 F? Certainly not but that's basically a number you pulled from a dark, damp, warm, place of ignorance and there is no reason to believe in it at all.



Remember that it was you who stated that thermite must have been involved BECAUSE of all the water poured upon the rubble which , according to you, would have doused any carbon based fuel fire but would not affect thermite fires.
It was also you who pooh-poohs the idea that water would not reach covered carbon based fuel fires in the rubble.

Now you want the water to be able to stop thermite ignition at the surface but allow it in underground rubble that, according to you, must have all been wet from the water being poured upon the rubble.

Make up your mind.

No I'm saying there is no thermite (I mean assuming the official story is correct) if the source of the heat was closer to the surface, the water would have had an affect on it.

 

[tmd2_1]

I was going to respond to this but I just don't have the heart. Its just too much stupid to handle all at once especially just after illustrating quite conclusively that carbon based fuels in mere residential appliance construction can generate temperatures to 2000 F



Actually it seem you base your conclusions more on everthing you do not know, and all things you choose not to know.

Whattayaknow molten 'something-described-as-steel' in an insulated compartment. Much like what is described in numerous other fires.

Thanks for your non answer.

 

[tmd2_1]

Thanks for your response. Retired Civil engineer, Military engineer (Australian Army Reserve), law degree but didn't practice.

It could be interesting to follow through this "Moot Court" scenario but it would be a diversion from the main topic interest of the thread. I'll limit my comments to avoid the derail.

Putting your ideas into a court setting is a great mechanism for forcing clear thinking. It isn't working so far - there are inconsistencies in your posted explanation.
...let that pass for now. You would need to be very specific.
Comments on this.

If the defence wants something in evidence it is almost certainly better for the defence to put the evidence. The only access the defence has to the prosecution witness is via "cross examination". It follows after the prosecution has elicited from the witness the evidence that the prosecution wants put before the court. The prosecution would not elicit evidence to support the defence. At that stage the defence cross examines but can only question what the witness has said in response to prosecution questions. The defence can attempt to disprove or put doubt on what the prosecution has claimed but is very limited in getting any evidence not already put by the prosecution.
Two comments here. First you were discussing prosecution's expert witnesses. The defence does not call prosecution witnesses. If these same persons were not called as witnesses by the prosecution it is possible for them to be called by the defence. However the evidence they have is prosecution favourable if they were potential prosecution witnesses. You risk having a "hostile witness". They are biased to the "other side". Second comment you are unclear as to what the prosecution case is and what the defence response should be. It needs clarification before we could make more meaningful comments.

More specific they are on trial for the mass murder of thousands of people, I don't know what else to say.
Yes I know I was saying Oystein/NIST are the prosecution witnesses. Jones, Ryan, Cole...etc are the defense.

The prosecutions case is whatever evidence they have on OBL and AQ. Defense states there was molten steel, molten should not have been there given the Prosecutions case, and that there is no way the defendants would have been able to put in the necessary agents to cause molten steel.
Prosecution witnesses say something like we don't know how the molten steel got there. Defense witnesses lay out their theories. Which side would you take?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yes indeed my ignorance of therodynamics. We have the surface temp, we know the contents, we know it couldn't be right on the surface as the water would have had to affect it somehow, I figured you could make a guess. But fine whatever. Here is something from the american society of safety engineers saying the temperatures got to more than 2800F so hot enough to melt steel. http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm
This may be a little off topic but you know what this tells me (I know it won't tell you anything) We have temperatures hot enough to melt steel established now, we have plenty of steel, yet no molten steel was officially reported? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Well it won't make you wonder but most people it would.

So why would it be suspicious for unofficial reports of molten steel but also suspicious for there to be no official reports? Answer of course is that no one official cared less about any molten metal seen as thats what they all expected to see at a big fire. It makes a colourful description to the press and in memoirs etc (ie unoffical) but would not be remarked upon in any official report because it was unremarkable.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thanks for your non answer.

Thanks for your non(sensical) question

 

[sheeplesnshills]

More specific they are on trial for the mass murder of thousands of people, I don't know what else to say.
Yes I know I was saying Oystein/NIST are the prosecution witnesses. Jones, Ryan, Cole...etc are the defense.

The prosecutions case is whatever evidence they have on OBL and AQ. Defense states there was molten steel, molten should not have been there given the Prosecutions case, and that there is no way the defendants would have been able to put in the necessary agents to cause molten steel.
Prosecution witnesses say something like we don't know how the molten steel got there. Defense witnesses lay out their theories. Which side would you take?

Judge says to the defense, "wheres your evidence for molten steel?", defense cites the various reports, prosecution brings all the people who made those reports , who say, "no of course I didn't test that it was steel, it was just an expression!". Prosecution then brings on half dozen expert witnesses who report that comments about molten metal and steel are common in fires and nothing surprising at all.
Judge then warns the Defense to stop wasting time and the trial goes on with no more mention of molten steel........

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes indeed my ignorance of therodynamics. We have the surface temp, we know the contents, we know it couldn't be right on the surface as the water would have had to affect it somehow, I figured you could make a guess. But fine whatever. Here is something from the american society of safety engineers saying the temperatures got to more than 2800F so hot enough to melt steel. http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm
This may be a little off topic but you know what this tells me (I know it won't tell you anything) We have temperatures hot enough to melt steel established now, we have plenty of steel, yet no molten steel was officially reported? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Well it won't make you wonder but most people it would.

Well if the ASSE says it then I would accept their assessment. I defer to demonstrated authories.
Did they happen to offer an opinion on how suspicious this would be?

What does this have to do with anything? So your telling me there's something out there designed to get to 2100F that actually does? That can't be, say it isn't so. The WTC would have been a naturally occurring event. It's not that important but 2100F isn't even hot enough to melt steel.

I was addressing your incredulousness at 1341 degrees F and pointing out that in a regular wood stove such temps are far from incredible even in the chimney.

So we have an authority saying temps high enough to melt steel, we know that its not unusual for molten steel to be reported in many fires, we know that 1341 F flue temps is not unusual. Tell me again why molten steel is suspicious?

 

[ozeco41]

More specific they are on trial for the mass murder of thousands of people, I don't know what else to say....

If we were to take this sidetrack discussion further you would need to be far more specific and clear as to what you are trying to achieve and how you are going about it. There is a big difficulty attempting to indict an organisation for murder so lets omit AQ at present. If we take OBL alone what are you alleging that he did that amounts to the criminal offence of murder?

...Yes I know I was saying Oystein/NIST are the prosecution witnesses....

We are going to court with a murder trial. What facts are Oystein/NIST going to put to the court which support the charge of murder? How is molten steel relevant to a charge of murder??

The legal process of a court is not like some game of Internet discussion. You have to be explicitly clear on what you are claiming; what evidence supports it plus all the procedural aspects of putting the case before the Court.

Fumble any of that and you lose. It is not an Internet debate. For all their talk about "new investigations" with "subpoena powers" NONE of the heroes of the truth movement would be credible in court. All of their propagandist tricks of presentation would not last five minutes under cross examination. And no defence lawyer would risk putting them "on the stand".

 

[ozeco41]

Judge says to the defense, "wheres your evidence for molten steel?", defense cites the various reports, prosecution brings all the people who made those reports , who say, "no of course I didn't test that it was steel, it was just an expression!". Prosecution then brings on half dozen expert witnesses who report that comments about molten metal and steel are common in fires and nothing surprising at all.
Judge then warns the Defense to stop wasting time and the trial goes on with no more mention of molten steel........

It would not even get anywhere near that scenario.

Someone would need to establish why the issue of molten steel was relevant. The linkage to a murder trial is tenuous at best.

Just a minor point but a court case is not interactive. Prosecution goes first. Defence goes second. There is no opportunity for prosecution to bring on extra witnesses to counter defence claims. If prosecution didn't put its evidence first time around there is no second chance.

 

[tmd2_1]

Well if the ASSE says it then I would accept their assessment. I defer to demonstrated authories.
Did they happen to offer an opinion on how suspicious this would be?



I was addressing your incredulousness at 1341 degrees F and pointing out that in a regular wood stove such temps are far from incredible even in the chimney.

So we have an authority saying temps high enough to melt steel, we know that its not unusual for molten steel to be reported in many fires, we know that 1341 F flue temps is not unusual. Tell me again why molten steel is suspicious?

Did they offer an opinion? Not really no, but you can read the article. "Reports" of molten steel may have happened in the past, I don't know how many times there actually was molten steel or temperatures got that high.

 

[tmd2_1]

If we were to take this sidetrack discussion further you would need to be far more specific and clear as to what you are trying to achieve and how you are going about it. There is a big difficulty attempting to indict an organisation for murder so lets omit AQ at present. If we take OBL alone what are you alleging that he did that amounts to the criminal offence of murder?
We are going to court with a murder trial. What facts are Oystein/NIST going to put to the court which support the charge of murder? How is molten steel relevant to a charge of murder??

The legal process of a court is not like some game of Internet discussion. You have to be explicitly clear on what you are claiming; what evidence supports it plus all the procedural aspects of putting the case before the Court.

Fumble any of that and you lose. It is not an Internet debate. For all their talk about "new investigations" with "subpoena powers" NONE of the heroes of the truth movement would be credible in court. All of their propagandist tricks of presentation would not last five minutes under cross examination. And no defence lawyer would risk putting them "on the stand".

Oystein/NIST would present evidence of why and how the buildings collapsed. Molten steel isn't relevant at all to the prosecution infact they would want to avoid it at all cost. It's relevant in that OBL and company could not have had access to get the material in that is needed to melt steel, and it was put the there by someone else. The defense would try to establish this through their experts and the prosecution would try to explain why it was caused naturally. Which so far in this thread does not appear like anyone could really do it at least not all that well.

But your last statement really gets me.

"For all their talk about "new investigations" with "subpoena powers" NONE of the heroes of the truth movement would be credible in court. All of their propagandist tricks of presentation would not last five minutes under cross examination. And no defence lawyer would risk putting them "on the stand""

You really have to be kidding, I mean you really do. Just watch the Toronto hearings. I could imagine Gross and company on the stand, something tells me call our public affairs office isn't going to quite cut it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Did they offer an opinion? Not really no, but you can read the article. .

Its customary to provide a link.........Perhaps a title of the article.

 

[jaydeehess]

Someone would need to establish why the issue of molten steel was relevant. The linkage to a murder trial is tenuous at best.

Just a minor point but a court case is not interactive. Prosecution goes first. Defence goes second. There is no opportunity for prosecution to bring on extra witnesses to counter defence claims. If prosecution didn't put its evidence first time around there is no second chance.

If I may;
The only reason to introduce molten steel would be if one were to be trying to prove that OBL/AQ were not responsible for mass deaths. Given that they have admitted to causing a plan to hijack 4 aircraft and fly them into buildings that point is moot.
At best , and so far tmd has not shown how this would be done, they might be able to show that the aircraft did not cause the destruction of the towers. They would go from killing thousands to killing hundreds.That's some win!

 

[ozeco41]

Oystein/NIST would present evidence of why and how the buildings collapsed. Molten steel isn't relevant at all to the prosecution infact they would want to avoid it at all cost. It's relevant in that OBL and company could not have had access to get the material in that is needed to melt steel, and it was put the there by someone else. The defense would try to establish this through their experts and the prosecution would try to explain why it was caused naturally. Which so far in this thread does not appear like anyone could really do it at least not all that well.

Your thinking is very confused. How can molten steel be relevant to defence of a murder charge when the prosecution haven't even introduced it in evidence.

Remember it was your idea to consider this as if a court case. A court case puts facts before the "decider of fact" which is either a jury or the judge if there is no jury. Murder would be a jury trial in any jurisdiction we may be considering.

There are no facts taken into consideration other than the facts put in evidence by prosecution and defence. None. If prosecution hasn't raised the issue of molten steel why would defence need to deal with it? You are missing the point I have stated a couple of times viz "what is the relevance of molten steel?" And, if it is not relevant to prosecution how can it be relevant to defence?

Get rid of any idea you have that the foggy thinking emotive crap that passes for debate on these Internet forums would get into a court case. If you want to relate to a legal argument in a court setting you will have to comprehend that most of these Internet forum discussions are unfocussed illogical bits of game playing. Therefore the next bit:

... But your last statement really gets me.

"For all their talk about "new investigations" with "subpoena powers" NONE of the heroes of the truth movement would be credible in court. All of their propagandist tricks of presentation would not last five minutes under cross examination. And no defence lawyer would risk putting them "on the stand""

You really have to be kidding, I mean you really do. Just watch the Toronto hearings. I could imagine Gross and company on the stand, something tells me call our public affairs office isn't going to quite cut it.

No I am not kidding. I have not watched the Toronto stuff but I doubt it is any different from the utter crap that Gage et al have been putting forward for years. It was a circus setting for the "stars" to parade their usual idiocies before the fan club of the gullibles.

I make no apology for being that blunt. If you cannot process those realities then you are not in a position to comprehend why I say that Gage, Jones et al would not last 5 minutes under cross examination.

If you want to find out what it would really be like in a court trial with "truther canards" as the topic do some reading. No-one has put a truther on trial yet but there is a close analogy in the ongoing US saga of evolutionary biology being confronted by creationism. Evolutionary biology is confirmed accepted fact whereas creationism is pure religion and it's approach to biology is wrong on so many levels. Just as the technical main points of the official 9/11 explanations are confirmed and the truth movement has never put forward any technical argument worthy of consideration. Realities which you need to face if you imagine that the heroes of the truth movement would last in a court of law. Sure I said five minutes. It would take longer but be an embarrassing pain to observe.

Try reading (parts of) the transcript of the trial Kitzmiller v. Dover. The hero of the Creationist movement(AKA "Intelligent Design") is Michael Behe. He holds the same sort of status in Creationism as Gage has in the Truth movement. The difference being that the creationism movement is a rich very well funded pressure group - orders of magnitude more significant than the minuscule and dying truth movement. But the reality is that evolutionary biology is established science and by comparison creationism has nothing to match it. It is a no contest. So the analogy to "trutherism" is strong. The technical main facts of 9/11 well established and accepted as authoritative whilst the truth movement has nothing to compete with.

Try this page: Kitzmiller v. Dover at http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts and look about days 9-10-11 for Behe's testimony. Read what happened to their hero Behe then get realistic about the nonsense that Gage et al carry on with. Lift your objective reading skills so you can see the trickery without needing me or others to explain.

Meanwhile, if you still want to pursue the Court Trial model start a thread and we can take it step by step.

 

[ozeco41]

If I may;
The only reason to introduce molten steel would be if one were to be trying to prove that OBL/AQ were not responsible for mass deaths....

Yes but.... I was trying to make at least a small amount of sense out of the confused picture tmd2 was presenting. And without derailing the thread....much.

...Given that they have admitted to causing a plan to hijack 4 aircraft and fly them into buildings that point is moot....

It may not even reach "moot" - there would be one big legal argument about admissibility.

...At best , and so far tmd has not shown how this would be done,...

...not even in outline - which was the problem I was facing with the undefined scenario.

...they might be able to show that the aircraft did not cause the destruction of the towers....

Only in trutherdom - very unlikely in Court where objective facts legally and logically linked would tend to prevail.
EDIT: The legal arguments would probably go to contribution. Even if there was demolition assistance it assisted the damage caused by the plane therefore the plane damage was an inseparable part of the collapse causation. The pivotal issue for the criminal offence of murder probably when "the accused does an act with intent to kill or with reckless indifference to human life". The actual who was killed by what consequences probably of no concern. (That is straight off the cuff E&OE - don't rely on it in court. )

... They would go from killing thousands to killing hundreds.That's some win!

...understood.

 

[tmd2_1]

Its customary to provide a link.........Perhaps a title of the article.

I did in the first post. http://www.asse.org/newsroom/releases/press206.htm

 

[tmd2_1]

If I may;
The only reason to introduce molten steel would be if one were to be trying to prove that OBL/AQ were not responsible for mass deaths. Given that they have admitted to causing a plan to hijack 4 aircraft and fly them into buildings that point is moot.
At best , and so far tmd has not shown how this would be done, they might be able to show that the aircraft did not cause the destruction of the towers. They would go from killing thousands to killing hundreds.That's some win!

So wait let me get this straight (forget about what I can show or can't show for a second) You are saying that if it can be proven that the molten steel was not the result of the planes flying into the buildings, and therefore something(it doesn't matter at this point) was in the buildings to cause the destruction, access AQ would not have been able to get. That AQ was still guilty of flying the planes in the towers? That these events just happened on the same day someone had some other agent in the building? I mean that is what you are saying. What else could you mean by this "They would go from killing thousands to killing hundreds.That's some win!"

Oh man I really don't even know what to say to this, I really don't, I'm truly at a loss for words.