Merged So there was melted steel

[Oystein]

...
do you agree or disagree with the yellow highlighted text ? I certainly do not.

You do not agree, or do not disagree?

 

[Oystein]

When an eyewitness says he saw a steel beam dripping molten, how else can you interpret that?

Embers (solid glowing fragments) falling from a red-hot (i.e. many hundreds of degrees cooler than melting temp) piece of steel are a good candidate.

 

[A W Smith]

You do not agree, or do not disagree?

corrected, was interrupted by my wife arriving home or the post would have been longer to begin with.

 

[beachnut]

Yeah like this;

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7287/picture50a.jpg




http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5913/picture22a.jpg

MM

The photo you posted is not melted steel. What is your point?

Not melted.

When an eyewitness says he saw a steel beam dripping molten, how else can you interpret that?

The eyewitness would be dead, burnt to death unless they were wearing protective equipment. Do you have any clue how hot it has to be to melt steel? Do you have some piles of melted steel? Anything? Just false claims? Hearsay? What? 10 years, 2 months, 10 days, No Pulitzer; Why?

 

[tempesta29]

Embers (solid glowing fragments) falling from a red-hot (i.e. many hundreds of degrees cooler than melting temp) piece of steel are a good candidate.

Do solids drip where you come from?

 

[Edx]

I suppose you figure they are all liars like anyone who disagrees with you?

MM

No one is saying they are lying, just that you've taken them all out of context. The person you replied to was asking for context, no insinuation of them being called liars. ALSO: NONE OF THEM BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO. That must really suck for you.

You however have to implicate the FDNY by default because if what you claim is true all of them are covering up the truth about WTC7 and dozens and dozens are specifically lied about it.

 

[Edx]

When an eyewitness says he saw a steel beam dripping molten, how else can you interpret that?

We've been over this before if I recall. But here it is again for you...

fire "Melting steel beams":
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&...&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:2000&authuser=0

"fire "Melted steel girders"
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&....,cf.osb&fp=8c65e6ecd47f0d2c&biw=1440&bih=754


I especially like this one:

"You can see what it did to the steel", said Assistant Fire Chief Stephen Clancy, "when it melts steel girders like butter , then you know what you ve got"
-
Herald Journal - Jul 25, 1984



As Steven Jones says, thermite melts steel like butter! How much more proof do you need?? Thermite must have been used all these other times as well to melt all that steel. What other explanation could there be????

 

[triforcharity]

When an eyewitness says he saw a steel beam dripping molten, how else can you interpret that?

That a molten metal of some unknown makeup is not so easy to identify, especially to an untrained eye.

We've been through this before.

 

[triforcharity]

Do solids drip where you come from?

It could appear that something was dripping, even if in reality it wasn't, and was just sparks, or embers of something else.....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I suppose you figure they are all liars like anyone who disagrees with you?

MM

Not at all, we figure you are simply quote mining, they are being quoted out of context or were simply mistaken.

Given your posting history the only one lying here is you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah like this;

[qimg]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7287/picture50a.jpg[/qimg]

Originally Posted by David Shayt, National Museum of American History
"I had pretty much given up trying to find some sort of intact filing cabinet but while I was at the compound for the Port Authority police, this ball of metal, about the size of a basketball was delivered to them. This one one probably only survived because it was in the basement. It belonged to an ice cream store."

Quite obviously that basket ball sized chunk of solid metal was never a full filing cabinet. I do not believe I know anyone who would be able to lift a full filing cabinet as casually as the person in that picture is doing.
It might be one drawer of a filing cabinet. It seems to have survived only beiung crushed down. I find nothing unusual about that any more than I find it unusual that in a high speed 110 storey rock crusher, that each of the towers was, most of the contents made of plastic, glass, thin metals, or blood and bone, were all torn apart dozens of times. Cannpt for the life of me understand why anyone does.

[qimg]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5913/picture22a.jpg[/qimg]

MM

OMG get a page on Wiki up for this, "Glass Breaks". I saw videos from the earthquake destruction in Turkey. Either Turks eschew glass windows entirely or they all broke in the low storey structures that came down.

Now,,,,,,,,,,, do attempt to tie this little aside into the topic of the thread or drop it.

For instance if your contention is that thermite brought down the towers and thus is responsible for the molten metal in the undergroud, and as evidence of this you point out the great amount of pulverisation that took place, you need to let us know how collapse by thermite would enhance pulverisation over what would be expected in a gravity driven collapse following an initial collapse at the fire floor levels.

 

[Oystein]

Do solids drip where you come from?

Define "drip"!
Is that significantly different from "drop"?

 

[jaydeehess]

Do solids drip where you come from?

It could appear that something was dripping, even if in reality it wasn't, and was just sparks, or embers of something else.....

Hmmmm, well salt "flows" from a box of salt. "pryoclastic flows" are dust, rock and gas.

Yes a staccato rain of embers from a beam could be described as 'dripping'. This of course has to do more with the vagaries of the English language and the common human aspect of using metaphor, simile, and analogy when speaking.

"like a knife through butter"

tornadoes for which the sound is described as that of a locomotive

"oh, buddy, you're killing me"

You are attempting to ascribe distinct, literal and technical accuracy to conversational descriptions of an event fraught with emotion.

 

[jaydeehess]

Define "drip"!
Is that significantly different from "drop"?

ahhh, but only liquids form 'drops' therefore no solid can be described as 'dropping'.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I suppose you figure <snip>

I figure that JREF poster and 9/11 truther, bill smith once posted witness testimony, just as you have done, without linking to a single source where the quotes could be read in context.

My findings are summarized as thus:

Out of 11 firefighter statements [bill smith] used to "prove the existence of explosions" it seems 7 statements, or roughly 63.63% of the statements [bill smith] provided were missing context which when left out, completely changes the meaning of said witness statements.

I figure that you wouldn't repeat bill smith's mistake of believing he could:

...post a series of quotations and not expect someone to be able to find full quotations and context in a few quick google searches...

Getting to your specific suggestion that I believe the witnesses are lying; this is not the case. I suggest that you knowingly posted testimony altered to support what you wanted them to imply, rather than what they actually did, and your reluctance to source them to the originals is telling. The alternative is whatever 9/11 truth movement site/users you copied them from knowingly did it which doesn't make you look any more credible.


http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8092/billsmith.jpg
Side by side comparison, see for yourself...

I also suggest that you'd rather be the one posting the source links than a critic, the latter of which can be devastatingly humiliating to your credibility.

However, I also see a lack of analytical skills in some of the excerpt choices you've made and how you read them. It might well interesting to see which symptom of falsehood - no analytical skill or genuine dishonesty - is dominant.

 

[Robrob]

That would be zero.

I've rarely seen a more dishonest poster to be sure. Thermite can now pulverize the contents?

Twooferism is one giant, massive self-contradiction. It's pathetic.

It exploded, it imploded, it melted, the beams were pre-cut, it was pulverized, space lasers, orbs, etc...!


Yep, nothing was left but a pile of dust...

 

[Animal]

Quite obviously that basket ball sized chunk of solid metal was never a full filing cabinet. I do not believe I know anyone who would be able to lift a full filing cabinet as casually as the person in that picture is doing.
It might be one drawer of a filing cabinet. It seems to have survived only beiung crushed down. I find nothing unusual about that any more than I find it unusual that in a high speed 110 storey rock crusher, that each of the towers was, most of the contents made of plastic, glass, thin metals, or blood and bone, were all torn apart dozens of times. Cannpt for the life of me understand why anyone does.



OMG get a page on Wiki up for this, "Glass Breaks". I saw videos from the earthquake destruction in Turkey. Either Turks eschew glass windows entirely or they all broke in the low storey structures that came down.

Most of the glass in the WTC would have been tempered or laminated. Most people know that tempered glass, when broken does not create shards. (like a side or rear window of a car) Laminated glass for the most part will stay attached to the lamination (like a car windshield)

Now,,,,,,,,,,, do attempt to tie this little aside into the topic of the thread or drop it.

For instance if your contention is that thermite brought down the towers and thus is responsible for the molten metal in the undergroud, and as evidence of this you point out the great amount of pulverisation that took place, you need to let us know how collapse by thermite would enhance pulverisation over what would be expected in a gravity driven collapse following an initial collapse at the fire floor levels.

 

[Miragememories]

Urrr ... just for the record: Do you have doubts that there were crashing aircraft? Or do you doubt there was fire?

Do you have difficulty understanding English?

Why would you ask such a stupid question after I just finished acknowledging that Official Story supporters accept crashing aircraft and fire as the sole explanation for the collapses?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I'm saying nothing you have posted explains how "molten steel" supports your fantasy.

Oh?

I thought you had a major disbelief about the degree of pulverization that occurred?

My theory about the sustained high heat levels and the relationship to melted steel, requires a couple of things.

It requires a very dense, oxygen-depriving dust debris field, and it requires an abundance of the red chips.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Unfortunately these people didnt know that 10 years later conspiracy theorists would be taking them out of context otherwise they may have chose their words more carefully. I wonder if MM can tell us how many of these people think explosives or thermite brought down the towers.

Out of context??

100 years from now the absolute meaning of those statements would still be clear.

And how does their belief, or lack of, in the use of explosives or thermite, have anything to do with the truth of their statements about what they actually saw and experienced regarding the state of the WTC debris?

MM