Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

It took extreme heat to create this.

That is patently false and you know it. It takes (took) pressure.

It could not be molten at any point because the STEEL REBAR is clearly visible. You're WRONG.

Why does your pride not allow you to admit this? What is it that makes a person so incapable of learning?

 

[gumboot]

[qimg]http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9756/picture42a.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6939/picture40a.jpg[/qimg]

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

Of course there is no denying the existence of concrete in these objects.

The term meteorite has been applied for good reason.

These are examples of fused molten steel, concrete, rebar, etc into a single object.

It took extreme heat to create this.

These are not chunks of sidewalk or decking.

MM

Extreme heat, or extreme force?

 

[gumboot]

That is patently false and you know it. It takes (took) pressure.

It could not be molten at any point because the STEEL REBAR is clearly visible. You're WRONG.

Why does your pride not allow you to admit this? What is it that makes a person so incapable of learning?

His own image shows recovered firearms from inside the concrete (supposedly). Are we expected to believe the fires were "so hot they melted concrete" but insufficient to melt gun steel?

The melting point of sand is higher than steel, and rock is even higher again, so if concrete were melting, steel would have already melted. It is impossible to have recovered non-melted steel objects from molten concrete.

 

[Dog Town]

Extreme heat, or extreme force?

For MM a Hint: The gun would not still hold it's form, if the concrete was molten!


Actually this has been explained to MM, repeatedly!

ETA:Oops, I see Gumboot beat me! Good ta see ya, old chap!

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9756/picture42a.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6939/picture40a.jpg[/qimg]

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

Of course there is no denying the existence of concrete in these objects.

The term meteorite has been applied for good reason.

These are examples of fused molten steel, concrete, rebar, etc into a single object.

It took extreme heat to create this.

These are not chunks of sidewalk or decking.

MM

How did the rebar remain solid?

 

[Miragememories]

And the peers that reviewed the paper were the same ones who wrote the paper. Guess that cuts down on the email traffic.

Until you have the professional credentials and can produce contradictory test results, you have zero argument that disproves the findings of those accredited scientists.

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

No, the dishonesty of the authors does that quite well on its own.

Now.....

Back to the meteorite. How does rebar melt and solidify back into its original form as you suggest? Is this another property of nanothermite?

 

[LSSBB]

Until you have the professional credentials and can produce contradictory test results, you have zero argument that disproves the findings of those accredited scientists.

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors.

MM

Publishing a work without a rigorous peer review does not prove that it is true.

 

[Miragememories]

"The Official Story is a theory."

"Right. You don't know proper science. A theory is a proven hypothesis. Your hypothesis is the discombobulated Official Truther Myth."

A theory is; "a supposition, or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

A hypothesis is; "also a supposition. Or a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

A supposition is; "an uncertain belief".

So, a theory IS NOT A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS!

It would appear that you don't know science or the english language.

MM

 

[Dog Town]

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors.

MM

Actually in this specific case, that's exactly what it does! Let's see if you can recall why. I know we've explained it to you lots!

AND...GO!

 

[Dog Town]

A theory is; "a supposition, or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

A hypothesis is; "also a supposition. Or a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

A supposition is; "an uncertain belief".

So, a theory IS NOT A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS!

It would appear that you don't know science or the english language.

MM

MASSIVE FAIL AGAIN! No soup for you!

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

[Robrob]

The Official Story is a theory.
MM

Historical reality, as observed by tens of thousands of eye witnesses is not a "theory" official or otherwise.

"Contrary to a widely held misperception, no NYPD helicopter predicted the fall of either tower before the South Tower collapsed, and no NYPD personnel began to evacuate the WTC complex prior to that time. Furthermore, the FDNY, as an institution, was in possession of the knowledge that the South Tower had collapsed as early as the NYPD, as its fall had been immediately reported by an FDNY boat on a dispatch channel."

So because no one anticipated the results of an attack no one anticipated, that proves something to you?

Looking at just the WTC Twin Towers, we have extremely few recognizable artifacts from those two gigantic buildings.

110 stories each, with each floor covering one acre.

MM

Yes, very few recognizable objects from the grinding down of 110 stories of burning skyscraper.

 

[Dog Town]

Historical reality, as observed by tens of thousands of eye witnesses is not a "theory" official or otherwise.

Actually, as I just posted above your quote, it is.

 

[Oystein]

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
​

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.​

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition

 

[Miragememories]

"They were wrong. The buildings did fall .I hope you're aware of that."

The important point that you are missing, is that in their combined professional opinion, based on what they had observed, the FDNY Chiefs had no expectation that the WTC Twin Towers were in danger of collapse.

In a nutshell, they did not believe that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were sufficient to bring about a collapse.

Translation: In their professional opinion, It would take a pre-planned demolition for such collapses to be possible.

Or I guess several more aircraft impacts.

MM

 

[Dog Town]

Translation: In their professional opinion, It would take a pre-planned demolition for such collapses to be possible.

What language are you translating with? Sure as hell ain't English!
Since you already FAILED , on this very page with English!

 

[Edx]

Until you have the professional credentials and can produce contradictory test results, you have zero argument that disproves the findings of those accredited scientists.

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors.

MM

Uh sorry but it does prove that it cannot be said to be legitimately peer reviewed and cannot be called as such.

We also have over a hundred papers published about the collapses in proper peer reviewed journals about various aspects of the collapses and absolutely none of them at all support truthers. Funny how you latch onto your one terrible publication in a terrible journal Bentham that likes to hire people that aren't even qualified in the fields they're meant to be be working in, and yet you arent prepared to accept that you're still a fringe 1%, and thats being VERY generous.

 

[Miragememories]

"Yes. Watch the Naudet brother's 9/11 documentary if you don't believe me. The evacuation order for WTC1 is on video. The evacuation was underway at the time that WTC2 collapsed. These are indisputable facts."

reformatting is mine

Well gumboot, if you had bothered to read my post carefully you would see that your so-called facts are quite disputable.

Read again.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
"Despite his lack of knowledge of what had happened to the South Tower, a chief in the process of evacuating the North Tower lobby sent out an order within a minute of the collapse: "Command to all units in Tower 1, evacuate the building." Another chief from the North Tower lobby soon followed with an additional evacuation order issued on tactical."

"Contrary to a widely held misperception, no NYPD helicopter predicted the fall of either tower before the South Tower collapsed, and no NYPD personnel began to evacuate the WTC complex prior to that time. Furthermore, the FDNY, as an institution, was in possession of the knowledge that the South Tower had collapsed as early as the NYPD, as its fall had been immediately reported by an FDNY boat on a dispatch channel."

"A separate matter is the varied success at conveying evacuation instructions to personnel in the North Tower after the South Tower's collapse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_and_recovery_effort_after_the_September_11_attacks
"When the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., firefighters in the North Tower were not aware of exactly what had happened. The battalion chief in the North Tower lobby immediately issued an order over the radio for firefighters in the tower to evacuate, but many did not hear the order, due to the faulty radios."

Maybe the 9/11 Commission should have gotten their facts from the Naudet brothers?

As much as I dislike the outcome of their investigation, I see no reason for the 9/11 Commission to be dishonest about their FDNY evacuation findings.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Extreme heat, or extreme force?

So you would expect that using extreme force on concrete would make it fuse rather than pulverize?

Interesting.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

His own image shows recovered firearms from inside the concrete (supposedly). Are we expected to believe the fires were "so hot they melted concrete" but insufficient to melt gun steel?

The melting point of sand is higher than steel, and rock is even higher again, so if concrete were melting, steel would have already melted. It is impossible to have recovered non-melted steel objects from molten concrete.

We know they are embedded. Unless you have xray vision, you can only assume no melting has occurred.

MM