Merged So there was melted steel

[Miragememories]

No melted steel in the piece of multiple WTC floors fused together with rebar and energy of collapse.

There is paper from the offices in the crushed sections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swH1WaIMkNc


It would not matter if there was melted steel in the WTC. 911 was done directly by 19 terrorists. It was a low cost steal your kinetic energy weapon event which exploited our culture.

Amazing how well it transported.

And I thought paper was fragile.

Of course the architect could not have missed those pieces of paper. Yet it did not alter his conclusion that the specimen contained molten steel.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Amazing how well it transported.

And I thought paper was fragile.

Of course the architect could not have missed those pieces of paper. Yet it did not alter his conclusion that the specimen contained molten steel.

MM

Was your architect in charge of making buildings look pretty? Does he wear glasses? Is he blind? He looks old, bet he can't see very well, that happens with people that old. They also think they just went to the eye doctor, but they did not; they need a new prescription. Failure is yours, again, and again ... and ... forever more

Yes, your architect is blind, he can't see... Better find out more about him. His name, and have his eye checked. Sad, he can't see paper in floors crushed in a gravity collapse. Notice there was no thermite in the floor, no thermite products.


Paper has more heat energy than your delusional thermite. Your insane thermite scam failed. What will you do next? The architect never studied the floors crushed together. I can see paper, I know there was paper in the WTC, there was no thermite, Jones lied, he is insane. But you like the insane claim so you support it with nothing. Good job, you are winning.

How many more years will it take you to understand 911?

There was zero melted steel in the sample. You are wrong. Failure. Lie. Big lie. If you tell it often enough, you will only fool a few nuts.

 

[Miragememories]

"Yet you're persistent in trying to misrepresent a single series of sentences as if it draws the details of the full "superior" examination which you continue to lambast me on.

In the absence of the physical sample I work with what I have, if you have a problem with it, then you need more than a petty misrepresentation and appeal to authority to prove your case. As it stands, your argument remains inferior, because you have nothing to let it stand on. The physical examination you claim Voorsanger to have done in one sentence isn't enough to render analysis done on the photographs invalid. Seriously, get more detail from him if you what to use his authority. His one-liner on the history channel is not a conclusion, much less a risk to his professional title."

My primary point to you Grizzly Bear is that your photo investigation of the specimen is inferior when compared to that of the direct, on site investigation of a professional.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

You are suffering from a serious case of denial here.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

My primary point to you Grizzly Bear is that your photo investigation of the specimen is inferior when compared to that of the direct, on site investigation of a professional.

Your opinion only.

The opinions of the rational world differ greatly.

 

[gumboot]

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.

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

00:46:04

00:46:17

00:46:24

00:46:42

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

00:47:19

00:48:28

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


00:49:45

00:49:50


This is what I consider to be indisputable proof gumboot!

MM

Apologies Miragememories, you're quite right, the initial evacuation orders are not captured in the documentary, only the post-collapse reiteration by Chief Pfeifer is. Nonetheless, my point still stands, the Chiefs in command of WTC1 did order an evacuation of WTC1 prior to the collapse of WTC2.

Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building and that was the reason on the handy talky gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.
Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower and we gathered together those of us who were still able to. Chief Pfeifer gave the order for everybody, Mayday for everybody, to leave the north tower and we then proceeded to try to find our way out of the lobby of the north tower.

Assistant Chief Joseph Callan
City Wide Tour Commander

At one point after the second plane hit, I think, I'm not positive of the time line, I know Chief Callen asked over the radio to come down to the lobby.
But with difficulty with communications, that didn't happen. It didn't fully happen. I'm not too sure who heard that or how many people came down. There was no way of really telling at that point.

...

At one point the Fire Safety Director, Mike Hurley, asked us if we wanted the building evacuated. I'm not too sure if he meant both buildings or he was just talking about this. In either case, I believe he was talking about both buildings.
I turned to Chief Hayden and said do you want to evacuate the buildings? He said yes. I turned to Mike and I told him evacuate the buildings.
So there were definite communications back and forth that we wanted the buildings evacuated. I forget what stage that was at that time. Again, I
can't put that on a time line. But it was before the second building collapsed for sure because Mike wasn't in the lobby with us. So it was sometime before that.

Chief Joseph Pfeifer
Battalion Chief, Battalion I
Incident Site Commander for WTC1

Then at some point in time we were told there was another event. We were in the lobby of the north tower. We weren't sure exactly what it was. We were told another plane hit the south tower.
Shortly thereafter we met in a little conference, myself, Chief Callan and Chief Pfeifer. Shortly after that discussion, we started to evacuate the north tower. We started telling everybody come on down. That was repeated a number of times. However, we didn't get a lot of acknowledgment off of the handy talky communications.

...

We were calling people down on a number of occasions, but we weren't getting – except for the lower floors, companies coming down, they weren't coming down. They were being directed north.

...

Then suddenly the -- we didn't know what it was. We found out afterwards. There was a violent impact and the south tower collapsed while we were in the lobby of one. There was a tremendous dust cloud and debris field thrown at us.

Chief Peter Hayden
Deputy Chief, Battalion I

These are the three most senior FDNY officers in WTC1 during the attacks, and all three collaborate the story that they decided to evacuate WTC1 prior to the collapse of WTC2.

 

[ergo]

Hey, it's gumboot! Haven't seen him 'round here for quite some time....

 

[Miragememories]

"My primary point to you Grizzly Bear is that your photo investigation of the specimen is inferior when compared to that of the direct, on site investigation of a professional.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

You are suffering from a serious case of denial here."

"Your opinion only.

The opinions of the rational world differ greatly."

No, that is Grizzly Bear's opinion as well.

"Seeing the real thing rather than a representation of it is always better."

MM

 

[Edx]

Yes, there were an amazing number of those reports from the WTC Ground Zero debris site.

With temperatures recorded as high as 2800F and the scientific discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust, it certainly would not be abnormal to find molten steel.

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

i said that IN OTHER FIRES NOT ON 911 it is normal for people and experts reporting to have seen molten steel and that steel was melted in fires

Therefore it is not abnormal to see the same kind of reports on 911 as well.

I have already given this one example out of so many I already have of a fire in 1984 where a firefighter said fire melted a steel beam "like butter." Firefighters are experts in what metals melt in fires, therefore according to you fire melted steel like butter.

 

[beachnut]

... With temperatures recorded as high as 2800F and the scientific discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust, it certainly would not be abnormal to find molten steel....

MM

Hearsay and a lie - standard effort for 911 truth, with a solid product history of failure.

2800 F is hearsay.
discovery of nano-thermite is a lie - the dust Jones burned does not match thermite (not very scientific, more like fraud)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My primary point to you Grizzly Bear is that your photo investigation of the specimen is inferior when compared to that of the direct, on site investigation of a professional.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

No, you're here attempting to post on his behalf as a proxy without knowing what his or his firm's specific role was in the recovery of said artifacts. In other words our exchange concerns your uninformed opinion about his examination, not the detailed analysis (if any) he did himself; you don't have that information on hand with which to compare.

Since you didn't do it I went through the trouble of researching what exactly his firm did, and the document his firm put together is found here. The "meteorite" is labeled as B-6201 and B-6202, and they're classified as composites. The purpose of his firm's involvement, which you apparently did not verify, was the decontamination and preservation of the steel and other WTC artifacts for future exhibits and memorials. The NIST report analyzed some of these artifacts - specifically the steel - in chapter 2 of NCSTAR 1-3B in the Steel Inventory and Identification.


Regarding you're now use of my own quote: "Seeing the real thing rather than a representation of it is always better."
Well, since you'll gloss over it seeing me posting this quote again I'll just repeat it right here:

• you're here attempting to post on his behalf as a proxy without knowing what his or his firm's specific role was
• our exchange concerns your uninformed opinion about his examination, not the analysis he did himself; you don't have that information

Barring that you actually try and find any relevant material he's covered in detail, you aren't producing anything with which to support your claim that what he's done invalidates what I've posted already.

 

[Miragememories]

"Apologies Miragememories, you're quite right, the initial evacuation orders are not captured in the documentary, only the post-collapse reiteration by Chief Pfeifer is. Nonetheless, my point still stands, the Chiefs in command of WTC1 did order an evacuation of WTC1 prior to the collapse of WTC2.

These are the three most senior FDNY officers in WTC1 during the attacks, and all three collaborate the story that they decided to evacuate WTC1 prior to the collapse of WTC2."

Well, you have just acknowledged that you agree that Chief Pfiefer issued the evacuation order after the collapse of WTC2.

Now, FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan, City Wide Tour Commander says he gave a WTC1 evacuation order 10 minutes prior to the collapse of WTC2, but apparently no one in the lobby of WTC1 received it.

"There was obvious movement of the building and that was the reason on the handy talky gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Now this seems to be a mistake to put it in the best possible terms. The Naudet camera coverage of the WTC1 lobby revealed no indication what-so-ever of a FDNY general evacuation order prior to the WTC2 collapse. This is particularly odd since Chief Callan was in that exact same lobby with Chief Pfiefer.

In your second quote, we do have Chief Pfeifer indicating that he heard at an unknown time a request by Chief Callan for ? to come to the WTC1 lobby. But it didn't happen due to bad communications. Then Chief Pfeifer indicates that Chief Hayden was asked if he wanted to evacuate the buildings and he received a yes response. Note that Chief Hayden had to be asked and did not issue an evacuation order.

So why, did Chief Pfeifer wait until WTC2 collapsed to send an all units evacuation order?

Chief Hayden's further remarks shed little additional light on what was being communicated other than general confusion.

At the very least, the withdrawal attitude appeared to be precautionary rather than an urgent "we think total collapse is a possibility" kind of viewpoint.

The bottom line here is that, regardless of what the FDNY Chiefs claimed was agreed to, Chief Pfiefer, who was there with them, did not feel compelled to issue an all units evacuation order until after WTC2 collapsed.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Why did you misrepresent what I said? .

No. I took what you said and went with it.

You have a bad habit of stating things without citing any sources.

So since you were so vague, I picked a source that applied to what you said.

So put away all your pretty colors and other formatting tantrum tools and behave like an adult edx.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Hearsay and a lie - standard effort for 911 truth, with a solid product history of failure.

2800 F is hearsay.
discovery of nano-thermite is a lie - the dust Jones burned does not match thermite (not very scientific, more like fraud)

How so beachnut?

"First of all, molten metal could indeed have formed in the rubble piles post collapse. KBR SH&E recorded underground temperature ranges "to more than 2,800F" (Professional Safety, May 2002, "SH&E at Ground Zero). So that's no surprise."

The following quotation from the following source: Spadafora, R. “Firefighter and safety and health issues at the World Trade Center Site.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42, no.6 (2002): p532

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F." [2800F = 1537c and steel melts at 1500c]

MM

 

[Edx]

No. I took what you said and went with it.

You have a bad habit of stating things without citing any sources.

I demand you ask me to provide sources then so I can show them to you. I have shown all of it in the past and even recently in numerous threads, in fact I have done even in this very thread. it just gets ignored completely so get tired of all the cut and paste.

So since you were so vague,

In what way was I vague? I said it is not abnormal for people to report seeing molten steel in fires and that they say fire melted steel. Other fires, not on 911. There are so many examples I cant even possibly cite them all here, but you havent even asked me for any yet, why? Because you're afraid of having to move the goal posts when I do? Go on, claim they dont exists and ask me for some examples, I dare ya.

I picked a source that applied to what you said.

So put away all your pretty colors and other formatting tantrum tools and behave like an adult edx.

MM

UH.

No you pretended I was talking about 911 when I was specifically talking about OTHER FIRES NOT ON 911

I love how you keep avoiding the issue. It is not abnormal for people to report molten steel in fires and that fire melted steel. Therefore it is fully expected to find this on 911 as well. Apparently this concept is too difficult for you to take.

I guess you're right though bolding and colours dont help if you're deliberately ignoring me, which you keep doing. Stop playing stilly games and deal with it.

 

[Miragememories]

"My primary point to you Grizzly Bear is that your photo investigation of the specimen is inferior when compared to that of the direct, on site investigation of a professional.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

You are suffering from a serious case of denial here."

"No, you're here attempting to post on his behalf as a proxy without knowing what his or his firm's specific role was in the recovery of said artifacts. In other words our exchange concerns your uninformed opinion about his examination, not the detailed analysis (if any) he did himself; you don't have that information on hand with which to compare.

Since you didn't do it I went through the trouble of researching what exactly his firm did, and the document his firm put together is found here. The "meteorite" is labeled as B-6201 and B-6202, and they're classified as composites. The purpose of his firm's involvement, which you apparently did not verify, was the decontamination and preservation of the steel and other WTC artifacts for future exhibits and memorials. The NIST report analyzed some of these artifacts - specifically the steel - in chapter 2 of NCSTAR 1-3B in the Steel Inventory and Identification.


Regarding you're now use of my own quote: "Seeing the real thing rather than a representation of it is always better."
Well, since you'll gloss over it seeing me posting this quote again I'll just repeat it right here:

• you're here attempting to post on his behalf as a proxy without knowing what his or his firm's specific role was
• our exchange concerns your uninformed opinion about his examination, not the analysis he did himself; you don't have that information

Barring that you actually try and find any relevant material he's covered in detail, you aren't producing anything with which to support your claim that what he's done invalidates what I've posted already."

I am not representing the architect in question. I'm merely citing him.

If you can show me how his specific wording "molten steel" can be taken out of context, then you might have a case.

So far all I have seen from you is a one man filibuster.

You are reading everything you can lay your hands on into the record but none of it addresses that key point.

It is rather pathetic to observe but I guess denial does that to a person.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I demand you ask me to provide sources them so I can show them to you. I have shown all of it in the past and even recently in numerous threads, in fact I have done even in this very thread.

In what way was I vague? I said it is not abnormal for people to report seeing molten steel in fires and that fire melted steel. Other fires, not on 911. There are so many examples I cant even possibly cite them all here, but you havent even asked me for any yet, why? Because you're afraid of having to move the goal posts when I do? Go on, claim they dont exists and ask me for some examples, I dare ya.

UH.

No you pretended I was talking about 911 when I was specifically talking about OTHER FIRES NOT ON 911

I love how you keep avoiding the issue. It is not abnormal for people to report molten steel in fires and that fire melted steel. Therefore it is fully expected to find this on 911 as well. Apparently this concept is too difficult for you to take.

I guess you're right though bolding and colours dont help if you're deliberately ignoring me, which you keep doing. Stop playing stilly games and deal with it.

You might consider proofreading before you post.

In spite of all your bluster, none of your recent posts have cited a single link to material which backs up your claims?

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you can show me how his specific wording "molten steel" can be taken out of context, then you might have a case.

It's a simple matter of showing whether or not his statements were qualified with more detailed evaluation; Something you're not attempting to locate or obtain. Calling this denial may be to your standard, but that's an entirely wrong characterization of asking you to to provide more researched information.

 

[slowsmile]

the scientific discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust

Which scientific peer reviewed paper was this?

 

[NoahFence]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of MA.

 

[beachnut]

How so beachnut?



The following quotation from the following source: Spadafora, R. “Firefighter and safety and health issues at the World Trade Center Site.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42, no.6 (2002): p532

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F." [2800F = 1537c and steel melts at 1500c]

MM

I find it not a surprise you have no clue the 2800 F is a mistake, hearsay mistake. You act like (you) are of science, but you are not. You spew nonsense, you have no knowledge that you use hearsay, and you can't spot hearsay after the big clue it is hearsay. You are evidence free, the best kind of Follower who freely accepts lies and hearsay as evidence. You don't care.

The sensor in the Helo does not go to 2800 F, but feel free to spread lies without checking the facts, it what 911 truth does for 10 failed years, why stop now, why should you join reality, fantasy is better.

I know you have nothing when you base your failed support on hearsay, and you have no clue it is hearsay. Double failure, and you don't care, you repeat the lie and keep repeating your lies. You need a course on what is hearsay, and what is real evidence.
(this post is, PUI)