Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

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.

Answer me one question. How do you think Gross and company would do, with not releasing their numbers? I could see it now "Mr. Gross how did you come up with that model?" Gross "Oh we don't release numbers just trust us."

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

I am saying that you have not provided any reason to disbelieve that AQ/OBL orchestrated the flight of those aircraft and the deaths of those people. That being given they are guilty of mass murder. An inability to explain a small detail of the aftermath of the collapses is NOT going to destroy the evidence against them for all deaths.

All you have done is tried to cast doubt on what exactly brought down the towers by trying to show that an unknown substance must have been involved because no one has explained the molten steel. That is absurd! In order to have that claim accepted you will have to PROVE that an incindiary capable of melting steel was indeed present. The prosecution will attack all claims that it was found using experts with better qualifications than the ones claiming it existance.

In short you will have to fight the FACT that molten steel is reported in numerous other fires, the FACT that there was ample fuels in the rubble to continue burning and adding heat to the rubble, and the FACT that planes did hit the buildings causing uncontrolled multilevel fires instantly in structures built with long span lightweight trusses. You would have to counter Bazant and NIST and several others who's calculations and/or experiments indicate that the towers went down as a result of aircraft/fire damage.
You propose to do all of this by merely stating that the molten steel found in apparently small quantities under the rubble has not been fully explained. Given that the prosecution will know of this tact in advance they will in all liklihood produce expert witnesses who will present plausible explanations for high heat in the WTC rubble thus at the very least casting severe doubt on your premise in the first place.


I really do want to see such a trial occur. Perhaps the 911 conspiracy believers will at some time get a trial going , albeit one in which there are living defendants.

 

[ozeco41]

Answer me one question. How do you think Gross and company would do, with not releasing their numbers? I could see it now "Mr. Gross how did you come up with that model?" Gross "Oh we don't release numbers just trust us."

You are confusing the whole situation by attempting to put it in a court setting whilst you refuse to follow the processes that would apply in a court.

Then your questions are ambiguous as to context. One example only:

"How do you think Gross and company would do, with not releasing their numbers?"

What do you mean by the vague word "do"? Do you mean "What would be the consequences of not providing numbers in court whilst acting as a witness?"

If it is what you mean - that is we are in court - then we need to know where this refusal by Gross occurs in the court process.

And you have not specified the indictment nor outlined the prosecution case nor outlined the defence.....nor been very clear as to where Gross's evidence fits into that scene.

My advice is forget trying to fit it into court. You seem to be trying to use the court scenario to prove something about molten steel. Simplify your objective. Focus on your interest in molten steel.

What are you trying to prove about "molten steel"?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.)

As I see it tmd is saying that the defense would be claiming it is relevent in that if something else caused the tower's collapse, something that must have been introduced by someone other than the defendants, that this would cast serious doubt on whether or not they orchestrated the flights of the aircraft as well.

As far as I can see the prosecution need only show that the detail of the molten steel is irrellevent in that molten steel is reported in other fires thus destroying the premise that molten steel is unigue to the WTC situation thus destroying the entire defense line of arguement. It is quite possible that this would cause the entire line of reasoning to be excluded from the trial by pre-trial motions. If they choose to though they may well put an expert on the stand who would propose plausible scenarios by which the underground enviroment could have reached spot temperatures high enough to melt small amounts of steel.

 

[ozeco41]

As I see it tmd is saying that the defense would be claiming it is relevent in that if something else caused the tower's collapse, something that must have been introduced by someone other than the defendants, that this would cast serious doubt on whether or not they orchestrated the flights of the aircraft as well....

That would be an heroic line of defense. Better to plead insanity.

IMO the real problem here is that tmd cannot or will not specify clearly what he is trying to show. Then complicating it by putting it into a court setting which he doesn't comprehend and refuses to follow court procedures.

...As far as I can see the prosecution need only show that the detail of the molten steel is irrellevent in that molten steel is reported in other fires thus destroying the premise that molten steel is unigue to the WTC situation thus destroying the entire defense line of arguement. It is quite possible that this would cause the entire line of reasoning to be excluded from the trial by pre-trial motions. If they choose to though they may well put an expert on the stand who would propose plausible scenarios by which the underground enviroment could have reached spot temperatures high enough to melt small amounts of steel.

I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to be specific given we do not know the indictment. "mass murder" doesn't specify.

One suggestion - it is common for charges to be pressed with alternate framings. F'rinstance if there were two indictments:

Indictment 1) Fly plane into a building causing "X" deaths as the direct consequence
Indictment 2) Contribute to collapse causing "Y" deaths
...then the tmd2 defence only applies to the second charge.

...and being a party to an act which causes death and had "reckless indifference to human life" is still murder - no matter what the other parties did. (And that is stated simply - it would be a three page effort to make it pedantically legal )

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I said the 9700 was a very rough calculation [...]

Very rough? Good lord, man. That's like saying this is a "very rough" bowling ball.

 

[NoahFence]

Orginally Posted by tmd2_1
Answer me one question.

You've got some sort of audacity demanding someone answer one of your questions, kiddo. After completely ignoring ours.

Pathetic and cowardly. Intellectually cowardly.

 

[jaydeehess]

One suggestion - it is common for charges to be pressed with alternate framings. F'rinstance if there were two indictments:

Indictment 1) Fly plane into a building causing "X" deaths as the direct consequence
Indictment 2) Contribute to collapse causing "Y" deaths
...then the tmd2 defence only applies to the second charge.

...and being a party to an act which causes death and had "reckless indifference to human life" is still murder - no matter what the other parties did. (And that is stated simply - it would be a three page effort to make it pedantically legal )

Indictment 1 would certainly qualify as 1st degree murder while it juuuuust might be possible to argue that indictment 2 is 2nd degree murder in that the defendant did not orchestrate actions specifically designed to cause building collapse. Not that it matters since tmd's defense attorneys are trying to argue that the defendants didn't cause the collapses at all.

ETA: I take it back. The indifference to human life as a consequence of a premeditated felony act=1st degree murder. Though I am not sure 1st and 2nd degree are even applicable in the USA

 

[ozeco41]

...ETA: I take it back. The indifference to human life as a consequence of a premeditated felony act=1st degree murder. Though I am not sure 1st and 2nd degree are even applicable in the USA

Yes but it may differ across state jurisdictions - my knowledge of US law is limited. There is no 1st v 2nd degree distinction here in NSW.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The prosecution would need witnesses to show there was nothing "added" to make the buildings fall,

No they wouldn't.

as the defense would present witnesses to say that there was

Witnesses need to have credability. twoofers have none.

, and AQ could not have had that type of access.

prove it

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

speculation is not admissible evidence.

Believe or don't believe it is up to you

I don't believe the unbelievable. I leave that to the religious.

, I'm tired of going through this.

go away then, you won't be missed.

I told you what I think could have happened many others as well

.

do you want to try that in English?

You say you would have no explanation for molten steel, other then you are sure natural factors must have caused it.

There was no molten steel, you can't prove there was, we can prove that its a common mistake made by people at fires, we win, you lose, again

I can't really blame you,

ditto re your illness.

you are only following NIST's circular reasoning.

NIST never once mention molten steel so what are you drooling on about now?

So in short the defense has theories and you are stuck not being able to explain it.

Nope, everything completely explained and there would be expert witnesses to back it up...........the fact that you chose to believe otherwise just shows that you are delusional.

 

[WildCat]

Could you please answer the question in the OP? I'll simplify it for you:

1. Molten steel
2.
3. Inside job!

What, exactly, is #2?

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Pouring water on the surface would cool whatever is going on there and might conceivably succeed in keeping things below the ignition point of whatever type of thermite truther choose to flaunt at the moment.

Of course, citing the "NASA" data that shows "extremely" hot pockets on the surface is then not a good idea - but have truthers every shyed away from wanting to have things both ways?


I'd like to stress here that MM does NOT really suggest that there was thermite in large quantities. He believes that Harrit's dust samples are representative of the thermite density in the rubble, and believes thermtie fires were fed by just such dust. Of course, it can be shown that this dust, if Harrit did indeed find thermite in it, contained only 0.005% by weight thermite, so that one ton of this "thermitic dust" would only have the thermitic energy to boil a cup of water. Of course it could never ever even warm a cup of water by even one degree, for it could raise the temperature of the dust itself by only a small fraction of a degree.
He implicitly claims 50g thermite per ton of dust.
The towers had a total mass of about 600,000 tons, so there'd be 30,000 kg of thermite total.
About 2500 human bodies were mixed with the debris and the thermitic dust. Let each person weigh an average 70 kg, that's 175,000kg of human tissue. Human tissue has about 6 times the energy density of nanothermity (yes, that's including the 65% of inert water in a body), so the human body tissue alone provided more then 35 times the heat to the debris smoulders than MM's "large quantities" of nanothermitic dust.

 

[Oystein]

The prosecution would need witnesses to show there was nothing "added" to make the buildings fall,

No. Why? What os your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) for this assertion?

Please read your entire post and point out specifically
- which established facts do you present that are part of your Reasoning?
- which laws of science do you employ as part of yourt Reasoning?
- which logic do you use as part of your Reasoning?
You will find that your post contained no such facts, no such laws, and no such logic, hence no such Reasoning.

You should at some point try to focus your attention on this Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) part of your argument, pal.

as the defense would present witnesses to say that there was,

That there was what added? In previous posts, you refused to commit yourself to "thermite", so we know already that you, the Defense, are not convinced that thermite was "added" to make the building fall. This can only construed as you, the Defense, considering the statements of your witnesses to be unconvincing. If you are not convinced of thermite, how do you expect to convince the court and the jury?

and AQ could not have had that type of access.

No one on the prosecution side claims that AQ needed that kind of access. If you want to make that argument, you must explain, i.e. provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic)for, your assertion that whatever party needed what kind of access to add whatever to the buildings. Since you refuse to inform us who that may have been, what was added, and where it was added, the court might well conclude that you don't know yourself what the hell you are talking about and what it all means.

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

No, not at all!
You haven't even tried!
You have told us how thermite could have melted steel BEFORE the collapses, but you have utterly failed - no, wrong, you haven't even started to try - to explain how thermite could have been responsible for molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. You see, steel does not stay molten this long; molten steel does not stay together in one bulk blob during a building collapse, thermite would get very much dispersed and diluted (as your witnesses will readily attest to, if they are honest: Harrit and Jones for example have presented the data that shows that the unreacted thermite constituted only 0.005% of the dust after the collapse, which is by 4 orders of magnitude too little to melt anything; it doesn't even suffice to warm a cup of tea anywhere).

Believe or don't believe it is up to you, I'm tired of going through this.

You haven't answered the damned question: By what Reasoning do you conclude that molten steel AFTER the collapse means Thermite (or whatever) added to the building BEFORE the collapse to make it fall?
So there is nothing to be believed or not - you fail by default.

I told you what I think could have happened many others as well.

Please do not repeat this falsehood. Thanks. I don't dig being lied to.

You say you would have no explanation for molten steel, other then you are sure natural factors must have caused it.

Why should we have to explain it? It's not us who make a claim that needs explanation.

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.

No, the defense hasn't even started to present their theories. That's a pervasive problem for all of the truth movement since 2001: 10 years have gone by, and you don't even have a theory - not even one that other truthers disagree with.

 

[dafydd]

If I were a juror at this trial I would still have no idea why melted steel equals a CD. Tmd?

 

[ozeco41]

If I were a juror at this trial I would still have no idea why melted steel equals a CD. Tmd?

I cannot see how you as a juror would need to consider molten steel.

tmd2 is a long way from showing that it has any relevance to the indictment(s).

 

[tmd2_1]

Indictment 1 would certainly qualify as 1st degree murder while it juuuuust might be possible to argue that indictment 2 is 2nd degree murder in that the defendant did not orchestrate actions specifically designed to cause building collapse. Not that it matters since tmd's defense attorneys are trying to argue that the defendants didn't cause the collapses at all.

ETA: I take it back. The indifference to human life as a consequence of a premeditated felony act=1st degree murder. Though I am not sure 1st and 2nd degree are even applicable in the USA

Right the problem is the lack of being able to prove indictment 2, casts serious doubt on indictment 1. If the buildings fell due to something other then the planes, and it can't be proven the planes brought them down, it casts huge doubt on AQ's guilt. As a side note in a completely fair system, this would never get to trial, the only "evidence" is those tapes. Tapes in which there is no way to establish a chain of custody.

 

[tmd2_1]

No. Why? What os your Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) for this assertion?

Please read your entire post and point out specifically
- which established facts do you present that are part of your Reasoning?
- which laws of science do you employ as part of yourt Reasoning?
- which logic do you use as part of your Reasoning?
You will find that your post contained no such facts, no such laws, and no such logic, hence no such Reasoning.

You should at some point try to focus your attention on this Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) part of your argument, pal.


That there was what added? In previous posts, you refused to commit yourself to "thermite", so we know already that you, the Defense, are not convinced that thermite was "added" to make the building fall. This can only construed as you, the Defense, considering the statements of your witnesses to be unconvincing. If you are not convinced of thermite, how do you expect to convince the court and the jury?


No one on the prosecution side claims that AQ needed that kind of access. If you want to make that argument, you must explain, i.e. provide Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic)for, your assertion that whatever party needed what kind of access to add whatever to the buildings. Since you refuse to inform us who that may have been, what was added, and where it was added, the court might well conclude that you don't know yourself what the hell you are talking about and what it all means.


No, not at all!
You haven't even tried!
You have told us how thermite could have melted steel BEFORE the collapses, but you have utterly failed - no, wrong, you haven't even started to try - to explain how thermite could have been responsible for molten steel WEEKS AFTER the collapses. You see, steel does not stay molten this long; molten steel does not stay together in one bulk blob during a building collapse, thermite would get very much dispersed and diluted (as your witnesses will readily attest to, if they are honest: Harrit and Jones for example have presented the data that shows that the unreacted thermite constituted only 0.005% of the dust after the collapse, which is by 4 orders of magnitude too little to melt anything; it doesn't even suffice to warm a cup of tea anywhere).


You haven't answered the damned question: By what Reasoning do you conclude that molten steel AFTER the collapse means Thermite (or whatever) added to the building BEFORE the collapse to make it fall?
So there is nothing to be believed or not - you fail by default.


Please do not repeat this falsehood. Thanks. I don't dig being lied to.


Why should we have to explain it? It's not us who make a claim that needs explanation.


No, the defense hasn't even started to present their theories. That's a pervasive problem for all of the truth movement since 2001: 10 years have gone by, and you don't even have a theory - not even one that other truthers disagree with.

Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe something other then the official story was involved in melting the steel. I really would like to hear it. You've been presented so much, yet none of it works for you. If you don't mind can you lay out a somewhat full theory assume molten steel before and after. Also introduce evidence as you see fit...what I mean is you would need to see this, to believe molten steel's presence was not the result of the official story. I would really love to hear it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Pouring water on the surface would cool whatever is going on there and might conceivably succeed in keeping things below the ignition point of whatever type of thermite truther choose to flaunt at the moment.

My point though was to note that there were normal combustion fires on the surface prior to water being applied and that these fires should have ignited the supposedly vast quantities of leftover thermite in the dust.(MM's implicit quantities aside) This should have been quite obvious as FFs began trying to extinguish the surface fires only to discover that some of them were highly resistant to water never mind that they sputtered and spat and burned white hot. Furthermore any surface thermite burn would ignite nearby thermite containing dust as the spatter contacts it. It is a wonder that most of lower Manhattan did not go up in a firestorm!

Of course, citing the "NASA" data that shows "extremely" hot pockets on the surface is then not a good idea - but have truthers every shyed away from wanting to have things both ways?

Indeed, if a surface temp of 1341 F is true as per tmd's beliefs then MM's thermite should be flaring off in those areas. It doesn't happen.

I'd like to stress here that MM does NOT really suggest that there was thermite in large quantities. He believes that Harrit's dust samples are representative of the thermite density in the rubble, and believes thermtie fires were fed by just such dust. Of course, it can be shown that this dust, if Harrit did indeed find thermite in it, contained only 0.005% by weight thermite, so that one ton of this "thermitic dust" would only have the thermitic energy to boil a cup of water. Of course it could never ever even warm a cup of water by even one degree, for it could raise the temperature of the dust itself by only a small fraction of a degree.
He implicitly claims 50g thermite per ton of dust.

Just as this thread is assuming the existence of molten steel I am giving the conspiracists such as bill smith vast quantities of leftover thermite.
You are doing to MM what often sinks a conspiracy contention - mathematically showing that their position does not hold water. In this case that the maximum amount of thermitic material in the dust is barely enough to warm the area much less melt large quantities of steel.

 

[jaydeehess]

Right the problem is the lack of being able to prove indictment 2, casts serious doubt on indictment 1. If the buildings fell due to something other then the planes, and it can't be proven the planes brought them down, it casts huge doubt on AQ's guilt. As a side note in a completely fair system, this would never get to trial, the only "evidence" is those tapes. Tapes in which there is no way to establish a chain of custody.

Your 'clients' are quite proud of the acheivement of ramming planes into buildings. You are assuming that they will say nothing more in public. That would be an ideal situation for the defense but unlikely.

The 'tapes' go back to years before 2001 showing AQ and Bin Laden quite willing and prepared to wage war on the USA including interviews with major US networks in which OBL and others specifically declare that they are at war with the USA.

Then aircraft fly into the towers and the Pentagon and there are tapes of OBL taking credit for AQ having orchestrated these attacks.

Now, if you will, imagine a situation in which a man states to his friend that he often imagines killing his wife. Later, someone phones 911 claiming to have stabbed his wife to death and claiming to be the husband. Police go to the house and find the bloody body of the wife.
The defense now attempts to say that the 911 tapes are fakes, that its someone else's voice claiming to be the husband. Jury does not believe this partly because of the evidence that the husband acknowledged having thoughts of murdering his wife in the past.

Your clients are goinmg to have a date with a needle!

 

[DGM]

Now, if you will, imagine a situation in which a man states to his friend that he often imagines killing his wife. Later, someone phones 911 claiming to have stabbed his wife to death and claiming to be the husband. Police go to the house and find the bloody body of the wife.
The defense now attempts to say that the 911 tapes are fakes, that its someone else's voice claiming to be the husband. Jury does not believe this partly because of the evidence that the husband acknowledged having thoughts of murdering his wife in the past.

Your clients are goinmg to have a date with a needle!

I can picture his defense.

Your honor, It has been shown that the victim was killed with a kitchen knife. You must consider the fact my client does not cook so there is no way he would know where the knives were kept. Therefor he could not have killed his wife.