Merged So there was melted steel

[Animal]

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.







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.

[qimg]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4379/picture38a.jpg[/qimg]
Bart Voorsanger, Architect

[qimg]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8659/picture3bu.jpg[/qimg]




Have you examined it Grizzly Bear?

Have you examined it beachnut?

Have you examined it Animal?

MM

Seen the photographs countless times. Nothing "molten" about the concrete or steel rebar and various other pieces of metal sticking out of it. You know about as much about what pressure can do to objects as you do about concrete slabs........which is nothing.

BTW, I wish I had a nickel for every time I have pointed out to another architect that he/she was wrong. I could have retired years ago.

 

[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.

It's notable that Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer, who was the first commander on site, ordered his own men down, and as a result Battalion 1 didn't lose a single firefighter, despite being the very first firefighters to arrive on the scene and start climbing WTC1. This raises the question of whether the firemen climbing WTC1 didn't hear the evacuation order, or simply ignored it. Certainly some of Pfeifer's own men report passing other firemen in WTC1 who were making no effort to evacuate, so we know some of them knew of the evacuation order and chose to ignore it.

Although to be fair, Pfeifer's men had actually witnessed AA11's impact so probably had a better idea of what was actually happening than most of the firefighters.

I was mistaken about the NYPD aviation unit; they indeed didn't report on an imminent collapse until after WTC2 collapsed. Apologies."

"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."

"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."

re-formatting is mine

Well gumboot, I re-watched the Naudet Brothers documentary since you insisted that;

"The evacuation order is given before WTC2 collapsed. It's a fact. It's an undeniable and irrefutable fact."

Well, it is not a fact. It is a lie.

I'll go over the more pertinent reference points in the documentary.

Chronological sequence in Naudet Film:
Times are referenced to start of the film.

00:33:05

"Now, the FDNY Chiefs would have to set up a whole new other operation over at WTC 2"

00:46:04

There were just a few of us in the lobby and we were discussing tactics."

00:46:17

Some of the outlying companies didn't know which was Tower 1 and which was Tower 1? So we were just trying to help them out by writing it on the desk to make it obvious to people."

00:46:24

"It was just before 10 a.m. A little over an hour since the first plane hit. Firefighters from all over the city were inside those towers. Hundreds of them."

00:46:42

"I remember filming Chief Pfeifer and he's on the radio."

00:46:51 Firefighters in the WTC1 lobby turn to the windows as the sound of the WTC2 collapse is heard.

00:47:19

"Ah. A situation that started bad, just gets worse and worse and worse. The World trade Center, South Tower (WTC2), which was hit by a plane and wracked by an explosion, approximately an hour ago, has totally collapsed. "

00:48:28

"I waited. Time slowed down and everything became pitch black."

Jules Naudet cleans debris from in front of his camera lens, turns on his cam light and follows the firefighters as they attempt to find their way through the blinding dust cloud in the WTC1 lobby.

00:49:10

"How's the way out of here? I'm right here. Okay, come on down this way. Yeah lets figure out the way we came in."

"Inside WTC1, all that Jules Naudet and Chief Pfeifer knew, all anyone knew, was that something had gone terribly wrong."

00:49:45

"I remember seeing Chief Pfiefer."

00:49:50

"Command Post to Tower 1. All units, evacuate the building. Command post to all units."

"He gave it right away. Very calm. Didn't wait. And for him it was a precaution because something wrong is happening. Let's get everybody out."

This is what I consider to be indisputable proof gumboot!

MM

 

[NoahFence]

and that proves CD...how?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oh high resolution.

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

MM

Why do you think an architect would have any relevant expertise to determine its makeup from a cursory external examination? We can do as much from the photos available and I for example do have relevant expertise. That "meteorite" was never molten. Period.

 

[DGM]

Why do you think an architect would have any relevant expertise to determine its makeup from a cursory external examination? We can do as much from the photos available and I for example do have relevant expertise. That "meteorite" was never molten. Period.

But, in order to be properly ignored you need to disclose your identity Mr Sheeples N Shills.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

re-formatting is mine

Well gumboot, I re-watched the Naudet Brothers documentary since you insisted that;

Well, it is not a fact. It is a lie.

So when you make errors you are also a liar?

 

[Animal]

Why do you think an architect would have any relevant expertise to determine its makeup from a cursory external examination? We can do as much from the photos available and I for example do have relevant expertise. That "meteorite" was never molten. Period.

There are more incompetent architects than doctors. And of course My Gage heads the list.

 

[NoahFence]

MM:

This is what you're saying regarding hi-res pics not being good enough....


You're saying that if the woman next to the car says it's a hard-top, she's right based on the fact that she's standing next to it.

In reality, she's wrong. It's a convertible. We all know that.

That's EXACTLY what you're saying about this silly meteorite. That because someone is standing next to it, they're more an authority than us about it being previously molten. He's wrong. There is PAPER in there.

Paper!!!

Why can't truthers just admit they could possibly be wrong?

 

[INRM]

They said "post collapse" not pre-collapse...

 

[DGM]

You're saying that if the woman next to the car says it's a hard-top, .

I don't think the definition is good enough to determine if she is a "hard top" or not. She looks pretty firm..................

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think the definition is good enough to determine if she is a "hard top" or not. She looks pretty firm..................

I wouldn't know what to do with it if it was mine.

 

[DGM]

I wouldn't know what to do with it if it was mine.

I know I'd get a beating if I brought it home.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As I recall AE911truth made the strawman that aluminum doesn't "rust" to counter any argument that the meteorites weren't big chunks of steel. Putting aside that nobody claimed the meteorites were aluminum <snip>

Just to expand on this point I made before:

This was the slide in question. The "iron content" they mention in their header is based solely on the amount of rust staining on the concrete, without any mention that these artififacts were recovered from the debris pile of a steel building, whose materials were in the process of corroding.

And for the record, to make a further comment on the little strawman of "aluminum doesn't rust." First of all, if this were aluminum to begin with we would have seen signs of galvanic corrosion, due to the dissimilar properties of two metals in direct contact. Secondly, the rust is simply transferred to the concrete which is semi-porous on the surface much like the oxidized iron has done to this glacier in Antarctica:

So on this matter I'm qualified to call whoever in AE911truth came up with this slide an absolute idiot.

As far as Voorsanger is concerned I rewatched his commentary in the Relics From the Rouble history channel documentary, but I can't find any additional commentary by him on anything else; Only on one of the so-called meteorites. Maybe before questioning my basis for calling his statements incorrect, MM should focus on finding out what his final findings were in his apparent examination of the one he did see in person, because the history channel documentary doesn't offer much from him other than the vague commentary. He seems more intent of assuming what his opinions represent, taking them at an absolute face value rather than doing any of his own analysis with the information he can immediately access on his own.

 

[Miragememories]

Just to expand on this point I made before:

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/500/numerousmultitonmeteori.jpg[/qimg]

This was the slide in question. The "iron content" they mention in their header is based solely on the amount of rust staining on the concrete, without any mention that these artififacts were recovered from the debris pile of a steel building, whose materials were in the process of corroding.

And for the record, to make a further comment on the little strawman of "aluminum doesn't rust." First of all, if this were aluminum to begin with we would have seen signs of galvanic corrosion, due to the dissimilar properties of two metals in direct contact. Secondly, the rust is simply transferred to the concrete which is semi-porous on the surface much like the oxidized iron has done to this glacier in Antarctica:
[qimg]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9769/bloodfalls.jpg[/qimg]

So on this matter I'm qualified to call whoever in AE911truth came up with this slide an absolute idiot.

As far as Voorsanger is concerned I rewatched his commentary in the Relics From the Rouble history channel documentary, but I can't find any additional commentary by him on anything else; Only on one of the so-called meteorites. Maybe before questioning my basis for calling his statements incorrect, MM should focus on finding out what his final findings were in his apparent examination of the one he did see in person, because the history channel documentary doesn't offer much from him other than the vague commentary. He seems more intent of assuming what his opinions represent, taking them at an absolute face value rather than doing any of his own analysis with the information he can immediately access on his own.

There is nothing vague about an architect claiming molten steel.

MM

 

[TJM]

There is nothing vague about an architect claiming molten steel.

MM

Even when he's wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There is nothing vague about an architect claiming molten steel.

MM

Like I said before, you base your opinion of my conclusions solely on the face value of a 30 second commentary. You've done no analysis of your own with the information you have in front of you, and your posting history on parallel topics indicates that you have not been competent in doing your own analyses. You are however free to contact him citing my statements to get his opinion if you really wish.

 

[Edx]

There is nothing vague about an architect claiming molten steel.

MM

Neither is there when a firefighter in 1984 said fire melted steel beams like butter, except factually fire would not have melted the steel like butter.

This is not all special that it happened on 911 as well. Stop pretending things are abnormal when they arent.

 

[Miragememories]

Like I said before, you base your opinion of my conclusions solely on the face value of a 30 second commentary. You've done no analysis of your own with the information you have in front of you, and your posting history on parallel topics indicates that you have not been competent in doing your own analyses. You are however free to contact him citing my statements to get his opinion if you wish.

When given a choice between an architect who was on the scene, for an undermined length of time, examining the building debris firsthand, vs. some unknown individual over-ruling the architect's assessment based on an examination of a photograph, I have to go with the architect.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

When given a choice between an architect who was on the scene, for an undermined length of time, examining the building debris firsthand, vs. some unknown individual over-ruling the architect's assessment based on an examination of a photograph, I have to go with the architect.

MM

Given the same choice I'll choose the person whose claims are the best supported and analyzed. As a matter of example, it's telling that you care more about my anonymity than the integrity of the commentary provided. Exactly the reason for my previous post.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

There is nothing vague about an architect claiming molten steel.

MM

So not being vague means you are correct?
I mean we know architects can be utterly wrong about things don't we