Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

Wait wait, so therefore you accept the state of WTC7 as described by the firefighters then? Right? Just so we can see you're being consistent (we know you refuse to be)
 
Edx said:
Wait wait, so therefore you accept the state of WTC7 as described by the firefighters then? Right? Just so we can see you're being consistent (we know you refuse to be)
Click to expand...

Based on Grizzly Bear's reasoning a good photograph would trump those firefighters.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

whats this fascination with architects? What training do you imagine an architect would get that would make his opinion any more worthwhile than that say of a restroom cleaner or a TV reporter? Is it because Gage is one and since he is a demigod to twoofers then all other architects (other than apparently the one that actually designed the WTC towers...........) must be as well?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
whats this fascination with architects? What training do you imagine an architect would get that would make his opinion any more worthwhile than that say of a restroom cleaner or a TV reporter? Is it because Gage is one and since he is a demigod to twoofers then all other architects (other than apparently the one that actually designed the WTC towers...........) must be as well?
Click to expand...

So I should be impressed by an anonymous person claiming superior understanding after studying a photograph?

What a joke that.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Based on Grizzly Bear's reasoning a good photograph would trump those firefighters.

MM
Click to expand...

We can deal with Grizzly reasoning in a bit if you want, I want to know if you are going to admit that you will refuse to be consistent here.

You do not accept the views of the dozens and dozens and dozens of firefighters on 911 that talked about the state of WTC7, right? With not a single dissenting opinion from any of them in over 10 years. You will refuse to accept what they say, but you will believe that steel definitely melted based on this 30 second clip?

And why will you not reply to my claim that PLENTY of experts and people have reported that steel melted in OTHER fires. ?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Oh really?

Must I drag out all the statements again?

MM
Click to expand...

Huh? We're talking about WTC7, can you focus a moment or is this intentional with you?


Therefore you will need to show me a 911 firefighter/s that has said something along the lines of the following about WTC7..."the fires werent that big" ... or ... "we were really surprised it collapsed"... or..." it didnt seem that damaged" ... or.... "some said that it had a huge gash in it, but it didnt!"... or ... " we only pulled back and made the collapse zone because we were told to, we didnt think it would collapse!"... or maybe... "we only thought it would collapse because we saw WTC1 and 2 collapse and then we thought anything was possible!" ....or possibly... "we were getting orders about what to do about 7, but some of the guys didnt agree with it and thought something strange was going on with the management of that fire"... You know, something along those lines, or ANYTHING that supports what truthers claim about the state of WTC7, which is that there was only small irrelevant fires, minor damage and that no one would think it would collapse.

Got it now?

So now you know what we're talking about, care to take a stab at the question again?

And remember, I asked you 2 questions. People and experts in what melts in fires reporting that the fire melted steel/beams/girders etc is COMMON.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
So I should be impressed by an anonymous person claiming superior understanding after studying a photograph?
MM
Click to expand...
Seeing the real thing rather than a representation of it is always better. However the conclusions drawn by the observer are only as good as his ability to analyze the details he's looking at, and you in particular only have a 30 second clip of him speaking and thus must project your own conclusions (ones that have absolutely no research behind them). 30 seconds is not enough speaking time to go into detail so I have to work with the information and experience I have available to me, and you've offered no basis to contend the photos lack the level of detail necessary to make a judgment call.

It's interesting actually that you would be casting such doubt on my using a photograph since the entire premise of your exchange with me is on your personal, nondescript interpretation of his words, much less a photograph and time spent analyzing,


The accuracy of taking a statement from someone whose seen the artifact in real life depends on how the person handles the information. Ideally photos would complement seeing the real thing and vice versa. but you've yet to support any notion that the information in the photos is insufficient to make a judgment call. . Voorsanger wasn't their to give you a 2 hour lecture about his findings. He had 30 seconds of solid screen time. If you so vehemently believe I'm being arrogant in calling your interpretation of his statements wrong, you should take my statements directly to him and see what he has to say,


EDIT: since this edit took a bit of time I've left the original content redacted slashed out
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

So you're saying the woman in my photo is correct. That's not a convertible we're looking at.

How could I have guessed.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The accuracy of taking a statement from someone whose seen the artifact in real life depends on how the person handles the information. Ideally photos would complement seeing the real thing, but you've yet to support any notion that the information in the photos is insufficient to make a judgment call. . Voorsanger wasn't their to give you a 2 hour lecture about his findings. He had 30 seconds of solid screen time. If you so vehemently believe I'm being arrogant in calling your interpretation of his statements wrong, you should take my statements directly to him and see what he has to say,

It's interesting actually that you would be casting such doubt on my using a photograph since the entire premise of your exchange with me is on your personal, nondescript interpretation of his words, much less a photograph and time spent analyzing,
Click to expand...

Where do you come off claiming he only had 30 seconds to make his examination!

He could have been there all day for all you know.

So in other words, if the architect agreed with your photo investigation he was right on the money.

But because his physical examination disagreed with your image scrutiny, he was somehow wrong?

Hmm..somehow I don't think the jury will be on your side Grizzly Bear.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So I should be impressed by an anonymous person claiming superior understanding after studying a photograph?

What a joke that.

MM
Click to expand...

There's PAPER in that photo.

It was never molten. I don't care if you have whatever union represents the molten steel industry sitting there saying it was. It's irrelevant.

There's PAPER in there.
 
NoahFence said:
There's PAPER in that photo.

It was never molten. I don't care if you have whatever union represents the molten steel industry sitting there saying it was. It's irrelevant.

There's PAPER in there.
Click to expand...

Yeah. So there was paper?

Are you suggesting the architect was blind?

Who knows at what point paper or anything else became part of that conglomeration?

How do you determine things like texture, brittleness, sheen, precise color, etc. from a photo image?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Yeah. So there was paper?

Are you suggesting the architect was blind?

Who knows at what point paper or anything else became part of that conglomeration?

How do you determine things like texture, brittleness, sheen, precise color, etc. from a photo image?

MM
Click to expand...
So in your world the "conglomeration" formed at less than 451 f? :boggled:
 
Miragememories said:
Where do you come off claiming he only had 30 seconds to make his examination!

He could have been there all day for all you know.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt he spent considerable time on site, but the documentary only gave him at most 30 seconds to a minute to speak. You do realize that the documentary he was quoted in was about much more than the one meteorite, don't you?

He didn't have the luxury of time required to say the level of analysis I gave. I've done interviews before, and I've provided footage and photographs for a documentary. They only use a fraction of what they get from you in the final production. Why do you think I suggested you contact him? You keep arguing that his personal evaluation trumps my ability to use the photographs; your using you interpretation of his statements to represent him, you should then verify with him. There's no penalty in at least asking.

Miragememories said:
So in other words, if the architect agreed with your photo investigation he was right on the money.

But because his physical examination disagreed with your image scrutiny, he was somehow wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't know how to make it any more clear than I did above. Look, if you think the photograph lacks the detail to make a judgment call, then explain why. If you think his physical examination reveals something contrary to my interpretation of the photographic information, then don't project your personal interpretation of his words, ask him if he'd be willing to comment, and if necessary, ask him to critique what I've done, or ask him if your interpretations are accurate. I have no idea what else to suggest for you on that one since you clearly don't seem willing to share any analysis of your own, on the photographs or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I have no doubt he spent considerable time on site, but the documentary only gave him at most 30 seconds to a minute to speak. You do realize that the documentary he was quoted in was about much more than the one meteorite, don't you?

He didn't have the luxury of time required to say the level of analysis I gave. I've done interviews before, and I've provided footage and photographs for a documentary. They only use a fraction of what they get from you in the final production. Why do you think I suggested you contact him? You keep arguing that his personal evaluation trumps my ability to use the photographs; your using you interpretation of his statements to represent him, you should then verify with him. There's no penalty in at least asking.



I don't know how to make it any more clear than I did above. Look, if you think the photograph lacks the detail to make a judgment call, then explain why. If you think his physical examination reveals something contrary to my interpretation of the photographic information, then don't project your personal interpretation of his words, ask him if he'd be willing to comment, and if necessary, ask him to critique what I've done, or ask him if your interpretations are accurate
Click to expand...

I am a documentary editor so what you are telling me is nothing new Grizzly Bear.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Yeah. So there was paper?

Are you suggesting the architect was blind?

Who knows at what point paper or anything else became part of that conglomeration?

How do you determine things like texture, brittleness, sheen, precise color, etc. from a photo image?

MM
Click to expand...

Just stop it.

I'm suggesting the architect was WRONG. Like you.

Who knows at what point the paper became part of it?

I do.

During its creation. At which point no molten anything occured. You and your little architect buddy are suggesting that paper survived during this period. It did not. You're also suggesting that rebar melted, then retained its original shape after it had cooled.

It did not.

Nothing in that photo even suggests that it was ever molten at any point in time. It's obvious.

So - is that car a convertible or not?
 
Miragememories said:
I am a documentary editor so what you are telling me is nothing new Grizzly Bear.

MM
Click to expand...

Then I fail to see why you're having difficulty with the critiques I've provided. The suggestions I provided are fairly straight forward...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom