Merged So there was melted steel

jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this case, the defense is also claiming that the court cannot be certain that the wife did not die as a result of some other cause than the stab wound, even though the pathologist's report has identified the stab wound as the cause of death and the defense can't suggest any other cause.

Dave
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that part is easy to do, prosecution has NIST, PURDUE etc as expert witnesses, which together with the video evidence of planes, fire, buildind start to fail, eye witness testimonies etc that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that plane hit building, buildings burn, buildings fail.

And the twoofer counter...."well someone said they saw molten steel weeks after 911 and that proves.......nothing....OK Gov. its a fair cop!" The twoofer religion has no preacher that would last 5 minutes against a real expert in court.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Contradictory assumptions detected. Out of cheese error, redo from start.

If it could be proven that the buildings fell due to something other than the planes, then logically it couldn't also be proven that the planes brought them down, nor would it be necessary. It would cast no doubt on al-Qaeda's guilt for the deaths caused directly by the plane crashes and whatever events were caused by them (which, since we're in cloud cuckoo land here, might be or not be just about anything), but only exonerate them of the deaths caused specifically by the collapses.

If it couldn't be proven that the buildings fell due to something other than the planes, then we're left with the existing conclusion that they fell due to the planes. So your attempt to shift the burden of proof turns out to be dependent on you already having proven your case. Since you haven't, then the burden of proof is still against you.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In this case, the defense is also claiming that the court cannot be certain that the wife did not die as a result of some other cause than the stab wound, even though the pathologist's report has identified the stab wound as the cause of death and the defense can't suggest any other cause.

Dave
Click to expand...
But this does not matter. Its been PROVEN the husband can't cook and therefor would not know where to find the knives.

:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
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.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To extend the analogy to what the 911 conspiracists would work on:
"Your honour, the prosecution says that she was killed by the kitchen knife found at the scene but there was also a sewing set next to the body and 6 needles were scattered about on the floor near the body. The defendant never did any sewing. The knife wounds were not enough to cause death. We contend that the sewing needles were used in such a way, by persons unknown, as to cause the death of this woman."
 
jaydeehess said:
To extend the analogy to what the 911 conspiracists would work on:
"Your honour, the prosecution says that she was killed by the kitchen knife found at the scene but there was also a sewing set next to the body and 6 needles were scattered about on the floor near the body. The defendant never did any sewing. The knife wounds were not enough to cause death. We contend that the sewing needles were used in such a way, by persons unknown, as to cause the death of this woman."
Click to expand...
In the set was red, white and blue thread, READ BETWEEN THE LINES!

(naturally the perps would leave these cryptic clues)
:D
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
But that part is easy to do, prosecution has NIST, PURDUE etc as expert witnesses, which together with the video evidence of planes, fire, building start to fail, eye witness testimonies etc that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that plane hit building, buildings burn, buildings fail.

And the twoofer counter...."well someone said they saw molten steel weeks after 911 and that proves.......nothing.....
Click to expand...

You highlight the problem here. tmd believes that as long as his defense can submit an alternative scenario, no matter how vague, or illustrate a small detail that has not been fully examined, this alone constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. The molten steel is not however a 'if-the-glove-don't-fit-you-must-acquit' item by any stretch.

It it were, and if this fictitious trial was occuring then the prosecution would know in advance that the defense would be taking this tact and counter it. tmd might get the experiments he wants that show that the WTC rubble fires could produce temperatures in some parts of the volume , which could melt steel.

,,,,,and his clients get to be the stars of a barbituate and potassium chloride party
 
Last edited:
Starting later today I will be on vacation and away from a computer for the most part. My prediction is that tmd (noting that bill , MM and others have now abandoned this thread) will still not have explained how the presence of molten steel follows from a non-AQ conspiracy to bring the towers down.

See you on the 11th or 12th.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well...during my absence I see that other members have let you get away with this bit of idiocy.

Sure they have mostly ridiculed what you claim but still let you get away with this specific nonsense. Get serious tmd2. There are two ruddy great holes in your ridiculous claims.

The first hole in your case is a matter of fact. Guilt for ramming the planes into the tower is independent of whatever resulted in the collapse. And that act resulted in the first batch of mass deaths. (ignoring the earlier death of the pilots.) Lack of proof for some aspect of a later event cannot weaken the case for this earlier event provided both are properly put before a jury. End of that nonsense.

The second hole in your case is a matter of law. Given that the aircraft impact was a contributory cause of the collapse the perpetrators of that first act - the impact of the aircraft - are at law guilty of murder for those killed in the collapse. Stop making claims where you are ignoring the law - I have told you what the relevant law is. Stop pretending otherwise.

I advised you to stop confusing yourself by trying to put this claim of yours into a Moot Court setting. You don't know what you are talking about in court so the court legal setting does not help you.

What is your real problem? The fact that there was no molten steel and you desperately want there to be some molten steel? Tough. There was no molten steel.

There - that problem is solved. Do you have another one?
 
jaydeehess said:
Starting later today I will be on vacation and away from a computer for the most part. My prediction is that tmd (noting that bill , MM and others have now abandoned this thread) will still not have explained how the presence of molten steel follows from a non-AQ conspiracy to bring the towers down.

See you on the 11th or 12th.
Click to expand...
Have a good break. We will keep the shop open.
 
jaydeehess said:
To extend the analogy to what the 911 conspiracists would work on:
"Your honour, the prosecution says that she was killed by the kitchen knife found at the scene but there was also a sewing set next to the body and 6 needles were scattered about on the floor near the body. The defendant never did any sewing. The knife wounds were not enough to cause death. We contend that the sewing needles were used in such a way, by persons unknown, as to cause the death of this woman."
Click to expand...

Your analogy is absurd at best. It would be more like a body is found, there was a gun found nearby and it was recently fired. However ballistic tests show the bullet that was inside the body did not come from that recently fired gun, excluding that gun as the murder weapon. That gun was somehow tied to a suspect. Eventually they find the real murder weapon, and the suspect could not possibly have had access to that weapon. Exonerating the suspect.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Your analogy is absurd at best. It would be more like a body is found, there was a gun found nearby and it was recently fired. However ballistic tests show the bullet that was inside the body did not come from that recently fired gun, excluding that gun as the murder weapon. That gun was somehow tied to a suspect. Eventually they find the real murder weapon, and the suspect could not possibly have had access to that weapon. Exonerating the suspect.
Click to expand...
...........except the victim was stabbed to death. There was no bullet found.

Another example of "truther" poor research skills



:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Your analogy is absurd at best. It would be more like a body is found, there was a gun found nearby and it was recently fired. However ballistic tests show the bullet that was inside the body did not come from that recently fired gun, excluding that gun as the murder weapon. That gun was somehow tied to a suspect. Eventually they find the real murder weapon, and the suspect could not possibly have had access to that weapon. Exonerating the suspect.
Click to expand...

....so how does molten steel prove controlled demo?
 
ozeco41 said:
Well...during my absence I see that other members have let you get away with this bit of idiocy.

Sure they have mostly ridiculed what you claim but still let you get away with this specific nonsense. Get serious tmd2. There are two ruddy great holes in your ridiculous claims.

The first hole in your case is a matter of fact. Guilt for ramming the planes into the tower is independent of whatever resulted in the collapse. And that act resulted in the first batch of mass deaths. (ignoring the earlier death of the pilots.) Lack of proof for some aspect of a later event cannot weaken the case for this earlier event provided both are properly put before a jury. End of that nonsense.

The second hole in your case is a matter of law. Given that the aircraft impact was a contributory cause of the collapse the perpetrators of that first act - the impact of the aircraft - are at law guilty of murder for those killed in the collapse. Stop making claims where you are ignoring the law - I have told you what the relevant law is. Stop pretending otherwise.

I advised you to stop confusing yourself by trying to put this claim of yours into a Moot Court setting. You don't know what you are talking about in court so the court legal setting does not help you.

What is your real problem? The fact that there was no molten steel and you desperately want there to be some molten steel? Tough. There was no molten steel.

There - that problem is solved. Do you have another one?
Click to expand...

No it is clearly you who do not know what you are talking about, and like a few to many posters here are clearly playing games. Did you find out the meaning of "do" yet? As in how Gross would do on the stand. This reminds of Bill Clinton 12 or so years ago. Asking for the definition of "is". The same type of thing, same kind of tactics. My concern is not with you, nothing will change you, but those who may find this forum and are "raw" That is the only reason I respond to these types of posts.

It's simple if there is doubt as to how those buildings fell, and therefore something was in those buildings that shouldn't have been, it casts great doubt to the guilt of AQ. But you are right about one thing the court case is a moot point. If it a fair system the case would never get to trial as there is no evidence against OBL/AQ. Couldn't even get an indictment on him.

My problem? Oh there most assurdely was molten steel, that's not my problem. My problem is with people like you, and the tactis you clearly use, to try and deceive others.
 
jaydeehess said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

This is the exact quote "· The immense heat. 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."

Let me know where it says anything about being extapolated.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Your analogy is absurd at best. It would be more like a body is found, there was a gun found nearby and it was recently fired. However ballistic tests show the bullet that was inside the body did not come from that recently fired gun, excluding that gun as the murder weapon. That gun was somehow tied to a suspect. Eventually they find the real murder weapon, and the suspect could not possibly have had access to that weapon. Exonerating the suspect.
Click to expand...
As evidence of the gun the witness refers to a facebook posting of a woman down the street saying she heard a loud noise that night. When asked what it sounded like she said " my boyfriend recently fired a gun and it sounded like that, I think he was firing bullets".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom