Merged So there was melted steel

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Hilite mine.

Do you see the problem with the sentence that you posted?

He ordered the evacuation of ALL units IN the BUILDING. Not all units in the LOBBY.

You're quotmining again.

Suprise suprise......"

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

Let me break it down for you.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

"Despite his lack of knowledge of what had happened to the South Tower" {that it had just collapsed}, "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." {a single chief evacuating civilians from the lobby of WTC1, sent out an order about a minute after the collapse of WTC2, to all units in WTC1 to evacuate.}. A short time later, another chief from the North Tower lobby followed with an additional evacuation order issued on tactical.

Further confirmation of the post WTC2 evacuation order can be determined here;

"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."

MM

 

[DGM]

With that knowledge, the FDNY Chiefs in their 9:20 a.m. meeting, believed a total collapse of either tower was not possible.

So, if those two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires) are eliminated, and you rule out a pre-planned controlled demolition, what logical possibilities remain for what at that time, 9:20 a.m., would have been a hypothetical total collapse scenario?


MM

Why would they be eliminated. An "open mind" would consider "reconsidered".

 

[ozeco41]

Why would they be eliminated. An "open mind" would consider "reconsidered".

They cannot be "eliminated" because the "aircraft impacts and subsequent fires" occurred and must be part of any explanation of collapse - including one claiming CD.

Therefore:

No it is a valid conclusion based on logic....

Not so.

Accepting MM's last proviso:

I am assuming you have ruled out things like, space invaders, nukes, beam weapons, pixie dust etc etc??...

Then the first leg of MM's "false trichotomy" counter claim is wrong:

So, if those two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires) are eliminated, and you rule out a pre-planned controlled demolition, what logical possibilities remain for what at that time, 9:20 a.m., would have been a hypothetical total collapse scenario?

The "two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires)" cannot be eliminated. They happened. So the logically correct setting for any "pre-planned controlled demolition" is that said CD acted in conjunction with and as a supplement to the "aircraft impacts and subsequent fires".

There is no option of "CD standing alone" without "aircraft impacts and subsequent fires".

 

[twinstead]

There is no option of "CD standing alone without "aircraft impacts and subsequent fires".

I guess unless one is a no planer, and I suspect MM isn't that stupid.

 

[ozeco41]

I guess unless one is a no planer, and I suspect MM isn't that stupid.

He isn't stupid - but I would include "no planes" in the etceteras of things he assumed were excluded.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am less concerned about the reputation of the packager than I am about the contents of the package!

The contributing authors to the paper have excellent academic credentials and experience. They have placed their professional as well as personal integrity at stake by publishing such a controversial paper.

Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry, Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977, Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
http://nielsharrit.org/

Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota, Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU

Dr. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D, Physics, S&J Scientific Co, Professor Emeritus of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and Journal of Physical Chemistry, 
B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining the Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship.
Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, 
** retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).
Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.* 
Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Kevin R. Ryan, Chemist, former Underwriters Laboratories manager

Frank M. Legge, Ph.D, Chemist, Logical Systems Consulting

Daniel Farnsworth, Ph.D candidate, Physics, Brigham Young University

Gregg Roberts, BA Psychology, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

James R. Gourley, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, graduated with Special Distinction

Bradley R. Larsen, M.S. Geology

Until the contents of the package, the paper; Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe has been debunked by comparable research by equally qualified scientists, you and the other Official Story hand wavers really have nothing credible to say.

MM

You believe that this is how scientific papers get treated? That one publishes a paper with no peer review and then looks around and says "well no one is publishing a paper countering mine so I win!".

NO!!
You submit your paper to be published in a true peer review journal. Your paper will then be reviewed by others with equal or better credentials and it will be determined whether or not you need a rewrite, more data, further investigation, to support your conclusions, OR your paper will be accepted and published as is.

Bentham has no such peer review and thus anything published in it carries no particular relevence in the first place and will likely be ignored by the scientific community.

Odd that Harrit et al wish to be taken seriously yet refuse to submit their paper to a serious , peer review, journal and process.

That said, it has been pointed out that one of the most important tests one should do to make a determination of thermite would be to show that the material is self oxidizing. That Harrit et al choose deliberately not to conduct that test says to lil 'ol me that this is one big reason they chose not to submit their paper to proper peer review. They knew it would be rejected as not supporting their conclusion.

 

[twinstead]

I'm curious as to why MM thinks that Harrit's paper has been ignored by the scientific community, if it's not because it's a pile of crap?

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite. This means everyone.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jaydeehess]

No it is a valid conclusion based on logic.

Prior to the first collapse, WTC2, the known physical issues with that building were the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires.

With that knowledge, the FDNY Chiefs in their 9:20 a.m. meeting, believed a total collapse of either tower was not possible.

So, if those two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires) are eliminated, and you rule out a pre-planned controlled demolition, what logical possibilities remain for what at that time, 9:20 a.m., would have been a hypothetical total collapse scenario?

I am assuming you have ruled out things like, space invaders, nukes, beam weapons, pixie dust etc etc??

MM

You wish to equate the opinion at 9:20 am of the gathered fire cheifs to a detailed technical engineering assesment? Yes, it was their opinion that morning that a total collapse was not probable. (though at least one believed that top floor collapses would occur within a few hours)

May I remind you however of a truly technical assessment quite a while ago that came to the conclusion that the ship the Titanic was unsinkable.

Apparently even when the engineering (as opposed to the opinion of experienced fire chiefs) reaches a conclusion, that conclusion can still be in error.

Upon graphic proof of the contrary they immediately tossed their original assessment (quite prudent would you not agree?). At that time did any of them doubt that the aircraft impacts and fires were the cause of WTC 2 failure?

No evidence that they felt something else must have been involved. Still no evidence that they felt something else must be involved when WTC 1 went down and still none when WTC 7 went down.

Now a conspiracist might suggest that the Chiefs knew that the structures were coming down by CD and were covering up by waiting for WTC 2 to fail before publically assessing that the other two were going to also fail. Of course that means that all of them, not one or two - ALL, knew of the CD plan and allowed their own men to enter knowing full well that they were sending these men to their deaths and that the CDs would condemn thousands of others to death as well.

Logically then you must then conclude that the NYFD fire chiefs are all evil monsters.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm curious as to why MM thinks that Harrit's paper has been ignored by the scientific community, if it's not because it's a pile of crap?

Cue the
"science and engineering organizations and journals are bought off and infiltratred by political masters and no one can get a truly unbiased review by 'mainstream' science routes"
arguement.

 

[twinstead]

Cue the
"science and engineering organizations and journals are bought off and infiltratred by political masters and no one can get a truly unbiased review by 'mainstream' science routes"
arguement.

Imagine the hole one has to dig ones self to resort to arguments like that.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

decided to be polite

 

[Miragememories]

Another troofer fail. The towers did not have precast concrete planks used for flooring. Once again proof that troofers do not have a clue what they are talking about.

Never said they did.

Just grabbed the only generic slab images I could locate for further discussion purposes.

Once again it shows that Official Story supporters see what they want to see.

MM

 

[gumboot]

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.

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

Watch the documentary. The evacuation order is given before WTC2 collapsed. It's a fact. It's an undeniable and irrefutable fact. The evacuation order is also recorded on the Transponder channel. The evidence is all there, clear and plain as day.

 

[Animal]

Never said they did.

Just grabbed the only generic slab images I could locate for further discussion purposes.

Once again it shows that Official Story supporters see what they want to see.

MM

BS.....you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You grabbed the first image you saw. You didn't know the difference. And ow the tap dancing. Pitiful.

 

[Miragememories]

"So you are saying this;

Is actually this before the Towers collapsed and somehow did not pulverize these slabs."

Well I possibly see some of those elements but it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to see the "meteorite" (for lack of a better word) as 'just' a crushed version of the WTC floor slab.

"That is a rather interesting hypothesis."

"A given that that is a piece of floor slab. And for the record, the steel is already embedded in the concrete during construction. That's why it's it's called a composite slab.

It's the same with this one. Or do you need another graphic to point it out?

And beachnut, Animal... from this:"

"Sorry I didn't have any pics with rebar but the idea is there."

"It seems to me that he wasn't trying to make a wrong comparison in this case... he just didn't look hard enough for the relevant image so that it'd be more immediately apparent. Just my .02.

There are plenty of images that diagram the floor section adequately though, so using something "abstracted" that much shouldn't have been needed"

Well you can believe what you will (no doubts about that), but in case you hadn't noticed, I replied to a large number of posts yesterday and yours was the last before I had to exit.

At least I offered a note of explanation.

At any rate, the description of the meteorite as;"fused molten steel, concrete, rebar, etc into a single object" came from a professional on site, who made a firsthand examination of it.

Bart Voorsanger, Architect

"This is fused element of molten steel, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element."

"And almost like a chunk of lava from Kilauea Volcano or Iceland, where there are very sharp but breakable shards on the ends here"

Have you examined it Grizzly Bear?

Have you examined it beachnut?

Have you examined it Animal?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"False conclusion logical fallacy. Not ONE of those chiefs believe that the ONLY way for those towers to collapse was through controlled demolition. Not one. You're welcome to contact them if you want. Most of them are still employed with the FDNY.

Don't attribute an opinion to them, that you have NO way of backing up. This is called lying."

"No it is a valid conclusion based on logic.

Prior to the first collapse, WTC2, the known physical issues with that building were the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires.

With that knowledge, the FDNY Chiefs in their 9:20 a.m. meeting, believed a total collapse of either tower was not possible.

So, if those two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires) are eliminated, and you rule out a pre-planned controlled demolition, what logical possibilities remain for what at that time, 9:20 a.m., would have been a hypothetical total collapse scenario?

I am assuming you have ruled out things like, space invaders, nukes, beam weapons, pixie dust etc etc??"

"Why would they be eliminated. An "open mind" would consider "reconsidered".

Read much?

I was addressing the professional opinion of the FDNY Chiefs at their 9:20 a.m. meeting on the morning of 9/11.

Unquestionably they re-considered after their forecast failed with the collapse of WTC2 at 9:59 a.m.

So tell me DGM, at their 9:20 a.m. meeting when the FDNY Chiefs decided that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires would not lead to a total collapse of the WTC Twin Towers, what credible hypothetical collapse scenario do you think remained as a possibility should the unexpected happen?

Keep in mind, the record does not show the FDNY Chiefs of the NYPD having a "re-consideration" prior to the collapse of WTC2.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Did MM just show us images of reinforced concrete with the rebar only bent but still very much in rebar shape, so obviously never molten, and then quote-mine someone to insinuate an expert thinks the stuff actually melted at some point?

Does MM ever look at the images he posts? Or does he not know the semantics of "molten"? Or does he not know that "molten" iron is liquid and will puddle and not retain its original shape? Which kind of stupid did I just witness?

 

[GlennB]

Bart Voorsanger, Architect "This is fused element of molten steel, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element."

If indeed that's what he said, and truly meant, then he's an arse.

There are no remains of molten steel there.

Meanwhile, crushed concrete residues exposed to moisture will reset. No heat required, just cementitious dust and dampness.

 

[Edx]

Apparently the fact that people talk about molten and melted steel in innumerable normal fires just isn't getting through to MM, big surprise.