Merged So there was melted steel

[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.

His theory assumes the red chips are verified thermitic; he obviously doesn't feel the need to prove anything.

Unlike you, I at least have a published paper backed up by reputable scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

You have nothing but heavily biased, amateur opinions to act in rebuttal.

When professionals publish a paper that specifically refutes the claim made in Dr. Harriet et Al's paper, then you have a basis for questioning my proof.

Primer paint is just not cutting it!

MM

 

[Edx]

Unlike you, I at least have a published paper backed up by reputable scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

Excuse me MM but what exactly makes Bentham a legitimate respected journal? The editor quit saying she had not seen it. Numerous editors have from other Bentham journals such as when a fake paper was accepted for publication, the editor said he had no control over his journal and had not seen the paper either, which also caused another Bentham editor to also quit. Bentham are well known to have pissed off a lot of scientists by spamming them to become editors, worse than that they asked them to become editors of journals in subjects they arent even qualified in.

So if Bentham not only doesn't care about letting editors do their jobs, not only doesnt care about the credentials of the editors that are supposed to be qualified in relevant fields, then how exactly do you know the quality of the peer review? How do you know it was even reviewed by relevant professional experts at all?

Peer review actually means something. It doesnt tell you if something is true, but it does give an indication of what is a baseline quality you should be able to expect.

As WIKI says about peer review:

" Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility.... Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification."

What good is saying the Bentham paper is peer reviewed if the standards of Bentham are clearly so low as to be non-existent? You therefore have no way of knowing the paper was even peer reviewed at all and even if it was if it was reviewed by anyone qualified in the relevant field or those who were impartial. The point is, if we allow the Bentham paper to be considered just as "peer reviewed" and legitimate as any other journal like Nature or something, then reason for peer review as a baseline standard for quality just no longer exists and "peer review" would tell us nothing.

Lastly, which again shows your complete lack of being able to put your perspective up against reality...

If you're also going to latch onto peer review papers and claim that until someone publishes an official rebuttal you win, then what about all the papers published about the collapses already in actually respected journals like Journal of Engineering? I guess by your logic impact and fire caused the buildings to collapse and truthers have no basis for questioning it until they publish a refutation of those papers themselves. Can't have it both ways MM.

Add to the fact that there is no benefit in publishing an official refutation of the Bentham paper. You know why? Because no one in the professional world cares about it. You really don't know how fringe you guys are, do you?

 

[slowsmile]

Unlike you, I at least have a published paper backed up by reputable scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

And we are all aware of the "standards" in operation at Bentham at the time aren't we?

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2009/06/phony_paper_tes.html

 

[GlennB]

Excuse me MM but what exactly makes Bentham a legitimate respected journal? ...

It was written by some "PhDs" and published in "a journal" and MM has "a theory". This is a potent cocktail for any totally determined CTist and MM is drunk on it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

A steel beam is identifiable.



This method could be applied to any eyewitness account:

"It could be appear that <blank> but it could have just been <blank>."

But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.

Dripping what from the end? did you or anyone else check that it was not glass for instance? Why do you assume what was dripping from the beam was ever part of that beam. If you stir gravy and it drips off the spoon does that mean the spoon has melted?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Unlike you, I at least have a published paper backed up by reputable scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

No you don't. You have a shoddy piece of work by one or two of those named on the paper, signed by several others, all of whom the work is outside their fields, none of whom could be described a "reputable" and then "published" in a pay to play vanity journal. The extra irony is that their testing proves it wasn't thermite but they were either too dumb to know that or thought twoofers like you would be too dumb to notice or care.

You have nothing but heavily biased, amateur opinions to act in rebuttal.

Jones et al are amateurs as well.....no one is paying them to check dust and only one of them is remotely qualified to do so. One was fired for using his employers name on a personal opinion and another was given the choice to resign after bring the name of his University into disrepute.

When professionals publish a paper that specifically refutes the claim made in Dr. Harriet et Al's paper, then you have a basis for questioning my proof.

You are expecting real professionals to waste time and money answering the "work" of insane incompetents? Why would they do that? no-one other than a few CT nuts care less what is in Bentham. It has no status.

Primer paint is just not cutting it!

Thanks for your opinion, see above comment on insane nuts.

 

[NoahFence]

unlike you, i at least have a published paper backed up by reputableidiot scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

You have nothing but heavily biased, amateur opinions to act in rebuttal.

When professionals publish a paper that specifically refutes the claim made in dr. Harriet et al's paper, then you have a basis for questioning my proof.

Primer paint is just not cutting it!

Mm

ftfy

 

[NoahFence]

And we are all aware of the "standards" in operation at Bentham at the time aren't we?

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2009/06/phony_paper_tes.html

So basically the twoofer's failsafe, "peer review" is in actuality a complete fraud.

Why am I not surprised.

MM - get a new hobby.

 

[Miragememories]

"And even though he exempts himself from such common requirments of "making sense" and "having evidence", even though he is totally free to spin his yarn to any direction and length he could wish for he still falls short of even addressing the core of this thread: Is there a method demolition that at the same time accounts for all observations before and during collapse, and explains molten steel a long time after collapse? MM is ominously silent on the demolition part."

underlining and bolding are mine

There is no shortage of evidence, but it is useless as argument when facing religion-level denial.

Oystein, you have been spinning a yarn about primer paint with absolutely no evidence other than conjecture.

Ah, the core of this thread, OP;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7591502&postcount=1

I do not see anything about demolition? Make stuff up much?

What I see are questions about melted steel;
-was thermite used?
-what kind of quantity of thermite allowed for its continuing ignition 6 weeks post 9/11?
-why can other steel melting possibilities be dismissed?
-what happened to the pooled steel?

"Why would such humongous amounts of the thermite that was, it seems, intended to be burned befoire the demolition, be still around keep burning weeks later? Every pound of thermite that burned weeks later did not do anything at all to help with the demolition. Are we to believe that the perpetrators were spectacularly wasteful? With nano-thermite supposedly being high-tech stuff, who would afford to pack tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds of it in total vain and leave it unreacted and do nothing useful?"

You apparently continue to kneejerk at the keyboard without taking an appropriate amount of time to comprehend exactly what it is your anti-9/11 Truth reflexes are reacting to.

Regarding the "humongous amounts of the thermite", I explained that in this post;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7781137&postcount=1593

"... It is also logical to assume that during the collapse, which was shown to exhibit an incredible amount of pulverization, a great deal of thermitic material did not get ignited and was also pulverized into dust.

The overkill pulverization would also have the added advantage of hiding the thermitic material from any post-collapse investigations that were not forensically looking for it..."

In addition, redundant use of thermitic material compensated for the risk of unexpected, localized ignition failures.

I will agree that the long lasting fires served no useful purpose other than a constant reminder of what occurred. But, they would have been an unavoidable result of so much thermitic overkill and the pulverization that it caused.

As the many at-the-scene experts reported, each one acre floor in the Twin Towers represented thousands, if not millions of objects that failed to survive the pulverization in any recognizable form.

Sure, we have rebar, structural steel, aluminum cladding, wiring...but, other than a few small trays of recognizable objects, there were extremely few identifable pieces from thousands of office cubicles;

No identifiable phones, computers, pens, pencils, door knobs, shelving, books (yeah lots of fluttering papers), chairs, desks, coat racks, desk lamps, radios, personal objects, filing cabinets, tables, shoes, clothing, office supplies etc. etc.

"..in Oklahoma City you could see pieces of desks and chairs. There was something that told you that this was an office building. At the World Trade Center site, it seems like everything was pulverized."

And I can't believe you actually raised the question of the perpetrators being unnecessarily wasteful? How ridiculous to think they would be concerned about cost overruns.

The fact that nanothermite is most definitely high-tech stuff points the finger away from Al Qaeda and re-directs to those who would have access to such exotic demolition material. The fact that it was ignitable at an easily achieved temperature of 430 C meant there was virtually no risk of a large amount failing to ignite. With the intention of a pulverizing total demolition, unspent nanothermite riddled in the dust was not a major concern as subsequent Official investigations have proven.

Regarding the question of the pooled steel?

Well here are some of the possibilities;

IMG]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5685/picture10ac.jpg[/IMG]

Regarding the continued question of the existence of molten steel;

"You get down below and you see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channel rails. Like you are in a foundry. Like lava from a volcano."

"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel being dug up."

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Regarding the question of the pooled steel?

Well here are some of the possibilities;

You ARE aware that those photos prove the steel DIDN'T melt, right?

 

[NoahFence]

So we're here.

Truthers show video of planes striking the WTC to prove there were no planes.

Truthers show photos of intact steel rebar to prove that steel melted.

Truthers insert "nano" in front of thermite which makes it do whatever they need it to do, and don't need to prove it.

Truthers still ignore the Pentagon and Shanksville because they've yet to figure out how to connect the dots better than what the rest of us refer to as "what actually happened".

 

[Oystein]

Peer review? This would be the first case in science history where the peer reviewer was picked by the authors and acknowledged in the paper under peer-review itself, but unbeknownst to the editor-in-chief.

Or is MM unaware of the fact that David L. Griscom, a buddy of Jones and 9/11 truther himself, outet himself as a peer-reviewer of that sham?

 

[Oystein]

Would MM please explain first how nanothermite pulverizes stuff. Thanks.
Would MM please explain secondly how nanothermite melts stuff. Thanks.
Methinks the two modes of destruction rule each other out.

 

[GlennB]

No identifiable phones, computers, pens, pencils, door knobs, shelving, books (yeah lots of fluttering papers), chairs, desks, coat racks, desk lamps, radios, personal objects, filing cabinets, tables, shoes, clothing, office supplies etc. etc.

Totally wrong. For example:

look here

"Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses"

and so on ....

Do you realise, MM, that you're only lying to yourself?

 

[DGM]

Would MM please explain first how nanothermite pulverizes stuff. Thanks.
Would MM please explain secondly how nanothermite melts stuff. Thanks.
Methinks the two modes of destruction rule each other out.

You would have loved this forum a couple years before you joined. MM reminds me of 8-track tapes (I don't know if they had those in Germany).

 

[Miragememories]

My bolding. This just about sums it up.

For MM, the mere existence of "a theory" is good enough. It's some comfort to him maybe? That "the theory" should contain a grain of sense is not a requirement.

The Official Story is a theory.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

A "steel beam, glowing red hot" is many hundreds of degrees below the melting temperature of steel - in degrees Fahrenheit even more than a thousand degrees too cool to be "dripping molten at its end".

Do you understand that?

With inner WTC debris pile temperature readings of 2800F there is validation for molten steel.

If you pull a steel girder, or column, which has one end subjected to such a hotspot, would not dripping steel off a red hot end not be a reasonable expectation?

Do you understand that?

MM

 

[DGM]

With inner WTC debris pile temperature readings of 2800F there is validation for molten steel.

If you pull a steel girder, or column, which has one end subjected to such a hotspot, would not dripping steel off a red hot end not be a reasonable expectation?

Do you understand that?

MM

So what could support such temps and suggest a demolition conspiracy?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you pull a steel girder, or column, which has one end subjected to such a hotspot, would not dripping steel off a red hot end not be a reasonable expectation?

No, it would be an utterly bizarre expectation that disagreed with everything that's known about heat conduction. A red hot end would be nowhere near hot enough for steel to be dripping off it. The only informed conclusion to reach, if the end that liquid was dripping from was red hot, would be that the material dripping from it was something other than steel. Of course, observers at the scene probably didn't have a good grasp of colour temperatures or the melting point of steel, so it's understandable that they should be mistaken; but what you suggest, and what they concluded, is physically impossible.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

Totally wrong. For example:

look here

"Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses"

and so on ....

Do you realise, MM, that you're only lying to yourself?

Bolding mine.

I just thought the question bears repeating.

MM?