Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

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:
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.

The defense can enter evidence can they not?

Ok so we'll have Gross and company on the stand, the lawyer asks well can we see your numbers to back it up. Gross replies "No just trust us" These are the prosecutions experts... it takes an awful lot of nerve to say disparaging remarks about Cole, Jones..etc, when you see the prosecution's experts.

Also I don't care the slightest bit about creationism. I really don't. What went on in that trial or not is of no interest to me.

The truth movement is very far from dying. It is growing, more and more people are asking questions. Also in a general sense more people are getting fed up with the establishment, the occupy Wall Street that has been going etc...while that's not 9/11 of course it does show people are starting to demand some change.

 

[ozeco41]

The defense can enter evidence can they not?

Ok so we'll Gross and company on the stand, the lawyer asks well can we see your numbers to back it up. Gross replies "No just trust us" These are the prosecutions experts it takes an awful lot of nerve to say disparaging remarks about Cole, Jones..etc, when you see the prosecution's experts.

Too confused to respond to.

...Also I don't care the slightest bit about creationism. I really don't. What went on in that trial or not is of no interest to me....

You disputed my claim that the truth movement heros would not prevail in court. I gave you a close analogy. Your denial noted.

...The truth movement is very far from dying. It is growing, more and more people are asking questions. Also in a general sense more people are getting fed up with the establishment, the occupy Wall Street that has been going etc...while that's not 9/11 of course it does show people are starting to demand some change.

In your own words "...that's not 9/11 of course..." Then why raise it as if it was relevant? Actually you are identifying - probably without realising - one central problem of the "truth" movement. There are people with more or less genuine political concerns. Good for them. Good for you if those are your concerns. BUT why tie those genuine concerns to lies about technical facts including the well attested fact that there was no demolition at WTC? Running a political campaign with a dead set lie as the leading point is a sure way to go nowhere. Not politically astute.

I will leave you with your delusions and state of denial.

Cheers.

 

[GlennB]

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.

You've pretty much hand-waved jaydee's post away in order to defend your own ignorance of fundamental scientific principles.

But to continue the domestic chimney comparison, as it's very appropriate - what if you had fire hoses spraying water on the roof. How much of it would go down the chimney? How big, then was GZ and how many hoses were damping it down? What are the odds that signigicant water would get down this GZ "chimney" to a significant fire just below when the area of GZ under discussion was a few square feet in an area something like this :

You have no clue whatsoever of the scale of building fires and the effort it takes to put them out, even the "easy" ones.

 

[Oystein]

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".

I should add that is is plain wrong, in the context of this thread, to present me - and even wronger to present NIST - as prosecutors or prosecution witnesses in a murder case against OBL. In fact, I don't have a full chain of evidence all the way back to OBL, as some of that evidence would of necessity be of the documentary type that accrues over at the more secret services; more importantly, I have no personal interest in proving OBL's persoanl involvement.

If we are thinking "criminal case" in the context of this thread, the prosecution would be prosecuting the pilots of the two planes that hit New York (if it were possible to indict dead people).
The prosecution's case is "pilots crashed planes, this caused fires, this caused collapses and thus all deaths recorded at GZ" - at this point the prosecution's murder case ends! The prosecution is not interested in the conditions of the debris pile!

If the defence wants to introduce conditions in the debris pile as evidence, it needs to make a clear case, with at leat these two basic components:

1. Establish as fact that the alleged condition (molten,liquid steel weeks after the collapses) was indeed present
2. Explain why this evidence puts into doubt the culpability for tower collapses of the indicted pilots - in other words: What is molten steel evidence for, and why?

In this thread, we assume that 1. was satisfied already (although we keep in the back of our minds that of course this is not really so). We are all waiting for the first truther to make a solid case for 2.

 

[ozeco41]

I should add that is is plain wrong, in the context of this thread, to present me - and even wronger to present NIST - as prosecutors or prosecution witnesses in a murder case against OBL.

The whole scenario which tmd2 was putting forward was confused to put it mildly. The same confusion/lack of clear thinking evident in several posts.

The "in court" scenario (which he originated - not me) gave an opportunity to press him to put his thinking clearly. It didn't work. Like a lot of truthers he seems to think that "trutherspeak" would prevail in a court. They are in for a rude shock if ever they are foolish enough to go down that track.

As for who were witnesses for what in his mind I cannot say. He is apparently of the opinion that the same forms of lies by innuendo/inference and half baked logic which Gage et al practice would somehow survive in court. He ran for cover when I gave him access to probably the best analogy available - Behe in Kitzmiller v Dover.

 

[Oystein]

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

tmd did that already, got trashed every which way, and brutally, again and again and again and again and again and again and again, but refused to noticed he stood stark naked on a pedestal, with a smiley and big red arrow pointing south painted on his tummy.

 

[Oystein]

The whole scenario which tmd2 was putting forward was confused to put it mildly. The same confusion/lack of clear thinking evident in several posts.

The "in court" scenario (which he originated - not me) gave an opportunity to press him to put his thinking clearly. It didn't work. Like a lot of truthers he seems to think that "trutherspeak" would prevail in a court. They are in for a rude shock if ever they are foolish enough to go down that track.

As for who were witnesses for what in his mind I cannot say. He is apparently of the opinion that the same forms of lies by innuendo/inference and half baked logic which Gage et al practice would somehow survive in court. He ran for cover when I gave him access to probably the best analogy available - Behe in Kitzmiller v Dover.

Just witness the sad fate of April Gallop - we have a thread on her somewhere. There, we have a team of truther lawyers prosecuting Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers - and getting their arses handed to them every time the court speaks.

 

[Oystein]

The defense can enter evidence can they not?
...

It should at the very least be able to explain (i.e. provide Reasoning, using established facts, laws of science and logic) what the evidence is evidence for, and why it is evidence for that.

That's what you have so far avoided to tell us.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I may be wrong but cannot the prosecution bring rebuttal witnesses if the defense raises something unexpected?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttal

And if it was known that the defense was calling molten steel experts then the prosecution could preempt that by having an expert witness into building collapses cover that as a part of their evidence into no "agent" at work other than the accused.

 

[DGM]

I may be wrong but cannot the prosecution bring rebuttal witnesses if the defense raises something unexpected?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttal

And if it was known that the defense was calling molten steel experts then the prosecution could preempt that by having an expert witness into building collapses cover that as a part of their evidence into no "agent" at work other than the accused.

Considering he is offering this evidence at the start I believe it would fall under "disclosure". He would have to show it's relevance from the beginning (more precisely, before the beginning).

 

[jaydeehess]

So wait let me get this straight (forget about what I can show or can't show for a second)

Sure, why not? After all you haven't demonstrated any ability to do so thus far.

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?

Yes, they have admitted as much and are quite proud of the acheivement. {quote]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.[/QUOTE]

In your ficticious trial they are on trial for mass murder. So far you have been argueing that they were not responsible for thousands of deaths, only hundreds. Does that or does that not still qualify as mass murder tmd?

If you wish to introduce evidence that pins the crime on another organization or person then you'd better be prepared to put the whole thing on them.

Do you really think that you can cast doubt on their guilt for the murder of all the passengers and crew of 4 planes plus the people who died in three buildings upon impact, by casting a small amount of doubt on the cause of the collapses of the towers and thus the killing of those still alive and inside the towers?

Besides this though, you still to this day refuse to outline how the presence of molten steel leads to a conspiracy by an unknown and un-named group and individuals, to bring those towers down. You seem to believe that the mere existance of a substance for which there is only anecdotal evidence and the calculation that temps that would make its presence possible leads inexorably to such a conspiracy.

It has been pointed out many times now that such reports are simply not unusual in many fires, and the ASSE certainly did not seem unnerved by their calcs indicating high temps.

BTW, if you wish to 'ballpark' a temp in an insulated mass by knowing its surface temp and knowing other details about a similar mass there is a way to do that.

You take the delta temp in the known heated mass and the depth at which the fire is. If you now assume a depth at which the heat source is in the larger mass you can work out the delta temp between surface and heat source.

1341F though is most likely the flue temp, not conducted heat from the source. You simply do not know the depth at which the fires were and they were unlikely all at the same depth. You would also be assuming the same insulation effect in both masses.

 

[jaydeehess]

You've pretty much hand-waved jaydee's post away in order to defend your own ignorance of fundamental scientific principles.

But to continue the domestic chimney comparison, as it's very appropriate - what if you had fire hoses spraying water on the roof. How much of it would go down the chimney? How big, then was GZ and how many hoses were damping it down? What are the odds that signigicant water would get down this GZ "chimney" to a significant fire just below when the area of GZ under discussion was a few square feet in an area something like this :

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzerocroppedmassive2.jpg[/qimg]

You have no clue whatsoever of the scale of building fires and the effort it takes to put them out, even the "easy" ones.

The major difference between the domestic chimney and the flues exhausting the underground fires at the WTC would be that the domestic flue is at least a funnel for any water that does enter it, to the fire volume. There may be a smoke shelf above the fire but the appliance itself will fill with water to the lower level of the door. Pretty much ensures putting the fire out.

At the WTC such a straight shot to the fire volume would be highly unlikely and in fact the exhaust gasses might actually rise up through one area then descend again only to rise later. Water will not follow that path in the reverse direction. Only the places were water drains will be affected by the water. Though why we keep having to illustrate this to tmd is quite beyond my understanding.

OTOH tmd has ignored the fact that part of the 911 conspiracy meme concerning why thermite must be responsible for the underground high temps is that the water was being poured on the rubble thus, supposedly, quenching any normal combustion below whereas thermite burning would be unaffected by thus water. Yet tmd and MM argue that the water being poured on the surface suppressed thermite burning on the surface. It certainly suppressed the vehicle and surface rubble fires. However if thermite was present in large quantities (ala bill and MM) and normal combustion can ignite thermite (as explained by those claiming ignition of leftover thermite in the underground) then one would expect many examples of surface thermite burns in the vicinity of the surface rubble fires WHICH , using conspiracy logic, would be unaffected by the water being poured on them.

No FF mentions such impossible to put out surface fires, no one else mentions spot fires demonstrating thermite burn characteristics AND no molten metal is found on the surface, which surely would have been the case had there been such surface thermite burns.

The above, entered into tmd's fictitious court case would put an end to any reasonable person's consideration of the requirement for huge quantities of thermite in the rubble.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

missed it, thank you

reading now

ETA:One would think that I would have learned by now not to take tmd's word on anything.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS'
MEMBERS RECALL MASSIVE DEVASTATION, SORROW WHILE WORKING AT WTC
Relate Developing, Implementing Safety at
U.S.' Most Dangerous Workplace
.............................
Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F to more than 2,800 degrees F due to the ongoing underground fires.

So the ASSE did not actually take any measurements or do any calculations themselves and the article tmd refers to is not a technical article at all. This is the USGS IR readings extrapolated to underground temps I assume. So the highest surface readings of 1341 F would corresspond to the 2800 F internal temp referred to in this article?
tmd's rough estimate of 9000 F then being a mere 6000 degrees F off the mark.

OTOH this thread is not disputing the existance of temps high enough to melt steel anyway.

Still awaiting tmd's outline of how succh temps fit in a conspiracy that used thermite to cause the collapses.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Still awaiting for a good reason why ANYTHING would indicate a controlled demolition. Other than "whoops, somebody didn't mention that, ergo: EVIL!"

 

[jaydeehess]

Its odd that tmd would cite the ASSE article about the temperatures yetfind that this passage is not important to his narritive:

Some of the safety, health and environmental issues the SH&E team addressed quickly included the immense dust which included all types of particles from hair to glass fibers to quartz grains

No mention of thermite!
Of course tmd would prefer to focus his efforts on what was not found because in his world a lack of evidence points to a nefarious cover up.

 

[ozeco41]

Just witness the sad fate of April Gallop - we have a thread on her somewhere. There, we have a team of truther lawyers prosecuting Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers - and getting their arses handed to them every time the court speaks.

Yes I know about Gallop's cases.

The reason I suggested Kitzmiller v Dover is that it provides a very close analogy to the trial situation that tmd2 has been trying to describe.

Specifically two grossly mismatched points of view and a witness who is the hero of the weaker side who gets totally discredited under cross examination. Which I predict would be the fate of Gage, Jones et al if ever they were foolish enough to be put into court as a witness.

 

[tmd2_1]

I should add that is is plain wrong, in the context of this thread, to present me - and even wronger to present NIST - as prosecutors or prosecution witnesses in a murder case against OBL. In fact, I don't have a full chain of evidence all the way back to OBL, as some of that evidence would of necessity be of the documentary type that accrues over at the more secret services; more importantly, I have no personal interest in proving OBL's persoanl involvement.

If we are thinking "criminal case" in the context of this thread, the prosecution would be prosecuting the pilots of the two planes that hit New York (if it were possible to indict dead people).
The prosecution's case is "pilots crashed planes, this caused fires, this caused collapses and thus all deaths recorded at GZ" - at this point the prosecution's murder case ends! The prosecution is not interested in the conditions of the debris pile!

If the defence wants to introduce conditions in the debris pile as evidence, it needs to make a clear case, with at leat these two basic components:

1. Establish as fact that the alleged condition (molten,liquid steel weeks after the collapses) was indeed present
2. Explain why this evidence puts into doubt the culpability for tower collapses of the indicted pilots - in other words: What is molten steel evidence for, and why?

In this thread, we assume that 1. was satisfied already (although we keep in the back of our minds that of course this is not really so). We are all waiting for the first truther to make a solid case for 2.

The prosecution would need witnesses to show there was nothing "added" to make the buildings fall, as the defense would present witnesses to say that there was, and AQ could not have had that type of access.

It's been shown to you many many times, how things could have worked. Believe or don't believe it is up to you, I'm tired of going through this. I told you what I think could have happened many others as well. You say you would have no explanation for molten steel, other then you are sure natural factors must have caused it. I can't really blame you, you are only following NIST's circular reasoning. So in short the defense has theories and you are stuck not being able to explain it.

 

[tmd2_1]

Sure, why not? After all you haven't demonstrated any ability to do so thus far.


Yes, they have admitted as much and are quite proud of the acheivement. {quote]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.

In your ficticious trial they are on trial for mass murder. So far you have been argueing that they were not responsible for thousands of deaths, only hundreds. Does that or does that not still qualify as mass murder tmd?

If you wish to introduce evidence that pins the crime on another organization or person then you'd better be prepared to put the whole thing on them.

Do you really think that you can cast doubt on their guilt for the murder of all the passengers and crew of 4 planes plus the people who died in three buildings upon impact, by casting a small amount of doubt on the cause of the collapses of the towers and thus the killing of those still alive and inside the towers?

Besides this though, you still to this day refuse to outline how the presence of molten steel leads to a conspiracy by an unknown and un-named group and individuals, to bring those towers down. You seem to believe that the mere existance of a substance for which there is only anecdotal evidence and the calculation that temps that would make its presence possible leads inexorably to such a conspiracy.

It has been pointed out many times now that such reports are simply not unusual in many fires, and the ASSE certainly did not seem unnerved by their calcs indicating high temps.

BTW, if you wish to 'ballpark' a temp in an insulated mass by knowing its surface temp and knowing other details about a similar mass there is a way to do that.

You take the delta temp in the known heated mass and the depth at which the fire is. If you now assume a depth at which the heat source is in the larger mass you can work out the delta temp between surface and heat source.

1341F though is most likely the flue temp, not conducted heat from the source. You simply do not know the depth at which the fires were and they were unlikely all at the same depth. You would also be assuming the same insulation effect in both masses.[/QUOTE]

Do you really hear what you are saying. I mean really this is dogma if I have ever heard it. I mean you are really suggesting in someway that AQ/OBL could be held responsible for the deaths of hundereds (ie just the planes and who would have been killed on impact) and not for those who died as the building collapsed? Because perhaps it could not be proven the planes brought the towers down? If it can't be proven how those towers came down, that throws doubt on everything, absolutely everything. Could you imagine the prosecutions case? AQ flew the planes...etc etc...but we can't be sure how the buildings went down. It's totally absurd.

 

[jaydeehess]

The prosecution would need witnesses to show there was nothing "added" to make the buildings fall, as the defense would present witnesses to say that there was, and AQ could not have had that type of access.

Like the NIST scenarios expressed by NIST engineers with qualifications to render such oipions?
Like Bazant's papers, perhaps recounted by Bazant himself who's qualifications far outclass any of those persons you have mentioned on the defense side?
Like examples of reports of molten steel in numerous other fires?

It's been shown to you many many times, how things could have worked.

When did you do that?

I told you what I think could have happened many others as well. You say you would have no explanation for molten steel, other then you are sure natural factors must have caused it. I can't really blame you, you are only following NIST's circular reasoning. So in short the defense has theories and you are stuck not being able to explain it.

What theories, please.

 

[ozeco41]

I may be wrong but cannot the prosecution bring rebuttal witnesses if the defense raises something unexpected?

Under some circumstances. It is a complicated area of law and differs between jurisdictions. Not an area that I can comment on.

...And if it was known that the defense was calling molten steel experts then the prosecution could preempt that by having an expert witness into building collapses cover that as a part of their evidence into no "agent" at work other than the accused.

Yes but don't cross bridges we haven't got to - the legal analysis in court is a serial process we may not even reach the stage where those factors come into consideration . There are at least two hurdles to cross:

1) tmd2 seems to be trying to establish that if collapse was assisted by demolition - therefore molten steel evidence etc. - the accused is not guilty of the murder of the larger proportion of victims. In effect "he was only guilty in the act of flying the plane into the building - somebody else caused the collapse." Whether or not that proposition is supportable technically I say it is wrong in law. Details given previously. If I am right on that bit of law (I give no guarantees ) The whole area of exploring molten steel is an irrelevant exercise.

AND
2) tmd2 has not shown how molten steel is relevant either to prosecution or defence (and he seems confused on what both of them are arguing.) (which is making it difficult to offer any well focussed comments.)