Merged So there was melted steel

[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".

"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:"

Read much?

I was talking about the FDNY Chief's pre-collapse analysis based on their professional training and experience. Prior to the collapse of WTC2, when considering the possibility of the WTC Twin Towers totally collapsing, after evaluating the risk from aircraft impacts and subsequent fires, they ruled them out.

So hypothetically, what other potential risks could possibly be considered as viable causes of total collapse? Well controlled demolition would appear to be the only logical and realistic potential risk.

You are talking about a post-collapse analysis. Of course any post-collapse examination would consider the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. We know that.

" 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:"

You are using a fool's logic ozeco41.

Considering your previous claim that no matter how much thermite was discovered at the WTC site post collapse, you would never accept the possibility of controlled demolition, your credibility is virtually zero.

"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"

I never suggested that the FDNY Chiefs considered the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires to be non-damaging to the WTC Twin Towers.

The total damage in a controlled demolition would certainly include the damage that occurred before the controlled demolition was initiated.

BUT.

Based on FDNY Chiefs pre-collapse assessment, a controlled demolition would not be dependent on the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires to succeed in creating a total collapse.

Based on FDNY Chiefs pre-collapse assessment, aircraft impacts and subsequent fires would be dependent on a controlled demolition in order to succeed in creating a total collapse.

MM

 

[twinstead]

so MM why do you discount the post collapse analyses?

 

[Edx]

Experts are human like everyone else, they make mistakes, and their expectations aren't always in line with the truth. Likewise, just as they didn't "expect" collapse, other professionals did.

Im interested in the video Gumboot talked about, showing that no matter what the 911 Commission wrote, they are evidently wrong about this.

I do find it amazing that MM obviously thinks the 911 Commission are in on a conspiracy to coverup the twoof of 911, yet somehow decided to make their story worse by apparently admitting some part of it. As always, the conspirators have to remain complete morons. Amazing to think that MM apparently thinks the 911 Commission wouldnt and couldn't ever be wrong about this point, yet thinks they are wrong about virtually everything else AND that they were intentionally wrong to coverup the conspiracy.

 

[Robrob]

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?

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Too many to list.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Have you examined it Grizzly Bear?

Yes I have, the original photograph is high resolution; enough to where I've seen little pieces of paper stuck to the exterior of the slabs. It provides more than enough information for me to go back and compare with the detail diagrams I've seen in the past along with actual documentation of how the floors are manufactured. Bart Voorsanger (Architect) is incorrect, which is particularly notable because of his opportunity to see the actual artifacts.

If nothing else, the rebar is what gives it away for me. Concrete's weak tensile strength almost always means it will use steel reinforcement to compensate unless the structure is designed purely for compressive loads (in such cases where tensile forces aren't a concern), and there aren't many places in the WTC where concrete is used structurally other than for the flooring and mechanical floors.

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.

^^ See 2nd paragraph above.

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.

I'm aware, and my criticism unlike to your other posts here is minor. Visuals however need to communicate clearly if they're to be used at all, because well... look what happened when people rushed through it... Personally, I don't expect everyone to spend their entire day straight writing a long essay. Split the time and spread it out if it helps...

 

[NoahFence]

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

So "generic slab images" are ok in one post, but in others we need to be specific to the point of electron microsope images.

Typical.

 

[NoahFence]

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?

I've asked him that like 5 times the last two days. It gets ignored.

 

[NoahFence]

Read much?

I was talking about the FDNY Chief's pre-collapse analysis based on their professional training and experience.

How many times have the FDNY Chief's been exposed to the instances on 9/11 prior to it?

 

[NoahFence]

Based on FDNY Chiefs pre-collapse assessment, aircraft impacts and subsequent fires would be dependent on a controlled demolition in order to succeed in creating a total collapse.

Words just escape me.

wow.

 

[triforcharity]

Useless drivel and baseless, uneducated, speculation snipped by Tri

MM

My point is, that you're attributing an opinion to them that they never had, and never have since.

You're pulling nuggets out of your underware. And they stink.

 

[Miragememories]

"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?"

Yes I have, the original photograph is high resolution;...

Oh high resolution.

And you have the mendacity to claim a superior opinion over an architect who was able examine it firsthand!

MM

 

[Edx]

Oh high resolution.

And you have the mendacity to claim a superior opinion over an architect who was able examine it firsthand!

MM

Once again ...

• It is not abnormal to have people report - incorrectly - that there was molten steel in fires.
  
• It is not abnormal for people to report -incorrectly - that fire melted steel.
  
• It is not abnormal for experts in what melts in fires (such as firefighters) to - incorrectly - report that fire melted steel.

• Therefore it is not abnormal for the same thing to happen on 911.

None of the people you quote actually hold your position, so quit trying to claim they support you.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.

.....
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

Have you examined it Grizzly Bear?

Have you examined it beachnut?

Have you examined it Animal?

MM

They've seen what I've seen. Video of pieces of paper trapped in the crushed, not molten "meteorite". One piece of paper reads "expenses".


Are these CT people ever ashamed of being so wrong so often?
I wouldn't do it for free.
The Official Truther Myths Society is paying them to say things that reason can't believe.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

You're suggesting that it takes imagination to see less than what's allegedly there...?

 

[jaydeehess]

I ask again;

How did concrete melt and cover a hand gun without melting the hand gun into a blob?

Answer of course is it cannot do that. What can happen though is that a gun gets coated in gravel and smaller pieces of concrete and is then subject to great pressure and relatively high heat. This fuses the concrete at much less than the melting point of steel.

But MM would like to glom onto reports of concrete melted like lava.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh high resolution.

And you have the mendacity to claim a superior opinion over an architect who was able examine it firsthand!

MM

I trust you will now show us "a chunk of lava from Kilauea Volcano or Iceland, where " a piece of paper is sticking out of the rock with readable typeface. You know, like this superior architect is implying can occur.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh high resolution.

And you have the mendacity to claim a superior opinion over an architect who was able examine it firsthand!

MM

What to believe? The analysis which actually spends time to identify parts that make it clear what the "meteor" is through high resolution photography and an education, or the guy who visited the artifacts first hand but only spent 30 seconds making glossing comments and having his opinions misrepresented by third party bias?

 

[DGM]

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

That they underestimated the extent of damage and the intensity of the fires? At that time there was no reports from the impact area.

What use is this "hypothetical" anyway?

 

[triforcharity]

MM's knowledge of how firefighters think and operate is non-existant. Much like his education on really....anything else he tries to discuss here.

 

[Animal]

So "generic slab images" are ok in one post, but in others we need to be specific to the point of electron microsope images.

Typical.

Yeah, imagine the hysteria by troofers and the reverse happened.