Merged So there was melted steel

[jaydeehess]

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.

Seems to require repeating. Not that there aren't several dozen posts in this thread saying the very same thing, and which MM ingnores.

 

[triforcharity]

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

MM

Says the one who wouldn't answer a VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION. Instead, you _dipped and ^dodged like a typical truther.

How do you like that formatting there champ?

 

[triforcharity]

What I find amazing MM, is that right after THIS

You might consider proofreading before you post.

you post this line of garbage.

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

MM

BTW, that is a statement, not a question.

People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.....

 

[triforcharity]

MM, you seem to have missed this post.......

I am fully aware, and would certainly agree that it was a debris chunk from the WTC.

I am asking you to simply answer a question and you keep dodging it like a typical truther.

Would you also take him at his word if he claimed it was a meteorite from outer space, because he was able to physically examine such debris?

The answer is, of course, no. Since no evidence supports that conclusion, and the evidence that is available supports the claim that it is compressed debris from the WTC.

But, in typical truther cowardice, you avaid answering a simple question.

And, since your logic agrees that since this architect has examined this piece, and made a conclusion, you're taking it as fact. Fine. Trains brought down the WTC. Since, dozens of people reported that it was like a train coming down, or that they heard sounds like a freight train, then obviously, a freight train plowed through the WTC. Since they were there, and you have only seen pictures, we must logically conclude (using your logic) that trains are in fact responsible for the demise of the WTC.



Do you see the problem with that line of thinking there champ? Yeah, and it was also a train that blew through Moussouri a few months back, since everyone there claimed they heard a train.

But, then again, maybe it was fire, just as the FDNY said. They were there too.

So, which one is right? Is it trains, or fire?

(I'm really just mocking your retarded logic here MM. I hope you've caught on. Please feel free to dodge a little more though. It's fun watching you jump through hoops. You're like a little puppet, and I am the puppetmaster. Dance puppet dance!!! Mwah ha ha !! )

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Seems to require repeating. Not that there aren't several dozen posts in this thread saying the very same thing, and which MM ingnores.

Unfortunately seeing as the basic problem is in the thinking process of what constitutes valid evidence I don't see that solving itself any time soon. Background research gets tossed in the can in favor of believing that an authority's opinion is absolutely unfalsifiable. And this is endemic to the truth movement

 

[gumboot]

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

No. He issued an evacuation order after the collapse.

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.

I take it you have no understanding of how an evacuation order in this sort of situation would actually unfold? The commanders who were physically in the lobby gave an order to the firemen who had gone up to upper floors to evacuate. Obviously they're not going to immediately pack up shop and leave. They sent a team to set up a new command post, and then they focused on trying to get word to their men to get out. What was Pfeifer doing at the time of the collapse?

Trying to communicate with his men.

Those chiefs weren't going anywhere until they were satisfied that their men were on their way out. It was only after the collapse of WTC2 made remaining in the lobby of WTC1 impossible that they left.

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.

See above.

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.

Hayden is Pfeifer's deputy...

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

He didn't. The Chiefs had collectively been working towards evacuation for some time before the collapse. His final evacuation order was a "mayday" evacuation order.

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

They confirm that the three senior chiefs in WTC1 had collectively agreed to evacuate.

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.

I didn't quote the parts of these interviews discussing the danger of collapse because I wanted to focus on the evacuation order, however it's in there too. I would offer to quote it for you, but if you still haven't familiarised yourself with the oral record of the senior firemen in WTC1 after ten years you clearly aren't actually interested in learning the facts of that day, so I'm not going to play your juvenile games.

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.

This is false. But whatever. I'm abundantly familiar with your blind devotion to ignorance.

 

[Ninja R]

Without the steel, the thermitic material has nothing to react with. Is that sufficiently clear?

MM

My sincerest apologies for bringing you guys back to page 8 here, but since I never saw a retraction:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk1np6SCVD1qzmvhdo1_500.gif

That was me.

Again, my apologies. It takes a lot to get me to comment in threads with many people much, much more educated than I am, but yep, that one did it.

 

[Edx]

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

MM

I demand, once again, that you state a source you wish me to provide. Which part of my post do you want to see evidence for?

I have already provided so many examples of what I have said, even in this very thread.

I want you to admit that you believe what I said about how normal it is to find people reporting that fire melted steel is not true, that way when I show you the sources it will be hard for you to move the goal posts.

So....

• Do you claim that there are not plenty of examples of other fires where people and experts say that fire melted steel?
  
• Do you claim that the example I gave of a fire in 1984 where a firefighter said the fire melted a steel beam "like butter", does not exist?

Just be honest and answer the questions properly for once.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"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."

You evade the point every time Grizzly Bear.

Plain and simple, either he determined there was molten steel or there wasn't.

Unless you can demonstrate why he needs to further qualify molten steel with a more detailed evaluation, I see no need.

molten steel is unambiguous.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You evade the point every time Grizzly Bear.

Plain and simple, either he determined there was molten steel or there wasn't.

Not evading the point... you do this with every piece of eye witness testimony you lay your hands on. The problem with brief statements is that eye witnesses have a propensity to misperceive or over simplify in situations where there's no opportunity for detailed commentary.

Unless you can demonstrate why he needs to further qualify molten steel with a more detailed evaluation, I see no need.

And you never will, no matter what kind of reality check is provided regarding the citation of statements people make.

"The accuracy of eyewitness identification depends on numerous variables. Principal among the factors personal to the witness are the following; (1) Perception; (2) Memory; (3) Communication; and (4) Candor. Even trained observers, e.g., law enforcement officers, can make erroneous identifications in exigencies of the moment."

(3) and (4) are the items of interest for you here. They deal specifically with the issue of your insistence on the absolute unfalsifiability of anyone you draw statement from.

Communication in the verbal sense could be described as the ability of an eyewitness to describe an event or person he has seen in a manner that converts his memory's image into language that is converted into an image in the receptor's mind. There can be an honest distortion at this stage of the eyewitness identification process, depending on the ability of the eyewitness to articulate descriptive facts. This may provide a fertile area for cross-examination.

Eyewitness identification depends on witness candor. Most faulty identification evidence is the result of honest mistake , rather than deliberate misidentification. The danger in such good faith mistaken identification evidence is that it is sincere. Unless, the cross-examiner can demonstrate the likelihood of misidentification based on limited perception and/or improperly conditioned recollection, it can be risky to cross-examine the honestly mistaken identification witness. Indeed, if the honestly mistaken witness stands her ground, unstructured cross-examination can backfire by strengthening the apparent certainty of the identification.

Source article for anyone who thinks it may be useful

 

[Miragememories]

"

"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]"

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)

I really wish you would attempt backing up your rhetoric with some actual proof beachnut.

This wasn't a mistake, hearsay or otherwise.

The KBR SH&E Report was derived from professionally obtained observations.

Even the staunch Official Story supporter, ElMondoHummus accepts their temperature findings.

If you cannot prove that the temperature readings were illegitimate, than you are doing nothing more than ranting hot air.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"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.

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]

Thank you for the support Edx."

"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."

superfluous crayoning (formatting) removed by me.

"Seems to require repeating. Not that there aren't several dozen posts in this thread saying the very same thing, and which MM ingnores."

Hey you can say the moon is made of green cheese if you want to.

"...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?.."

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

Edx keeps claiming; "there are so many examples I cant even possibly cite them all here", but he hasn't 'properly' presented a single one.

He says he has a 1984 firefighter claiming "fire melted a steel beam "like butter.", but he provides no corroborative link. The firefighter could have been in a steel smelter for all I can tell from that pathetic example.

So tell me, jaydeehess, what is it that I am ignoring?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"We are talking about a specific architect who has examined a large specimen known to come from the WTC debris pile.

He accepted as fact, and Grizzly Bear has accepted as fact, that the specimen was WTC debris.

With that in mind, there is no credible basis for posing your hypothetical question."

"I am fully aware, and would certainly agree that it was a debris chunk from the WTC.

I am asking you to simply answer a question and you keep dodging it like a typical truther.

Would you also take him at his word if he claimed it was a meteorite from outer space, because he was able to physically examine such debris?..."

MM, you seem to have missed this post.......

This sounds like the old "and when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

The question has been answered but obviously not to your satisfaction. I can't please everyone.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Seems to require repeating. Not that there aren't several dozen posts in this thread saying the very same thing, and which MM ingnores."

"Unfortunately seeing as the basic problem is in the thinking process of what constitutes valid evidence I don't see that solving itself any time soon. Background research gets tossed in the can in favor of believing that an authority's opinion is absolutely unfalsifiable. And this is endemic to the truth movement"

formatting change is mine

Valid evidence.

A photo image of a WTC physical debris specimen examined by an anonymous pro-Official Story supporter vs. the actual WTC physical debris specimen examined by a named architect giving his professional opinion for International Television.

And what do you mean by; "believing that an authority's opinion is absolutely unfalsifiable"?

Are you suggesting that architect Bart Voorsanger is lying when he stated there was molten steel in the WTC debris specimen?

What is endemic is your inability to admit that you can be wrong about molten steel in the WTC debris specimen.

Even though you admit that;

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

You have provided absolutely N O T H I N G to contest architect Bart Voorsanger's professional opinion that the WTC debris specimen contained molten steel.

Your disingenuous response to his opinion comes down to your overall refusal to accept that molten steel existed at WTC Ground Zero.

MM

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

superfluous crayoning (formatting) removed by me.



Hey you can say the moon is made of green cheese if you want to.




Edx keeps claiming; "there are so many examples I cant even possibly cite them all here", but he hasn't 'properly' presented a single one.

He says he has a 1984 firefighter claiming "fire melted a steel beam "like butter.", but he provides no corroborative link. The firefighter could have been in a steel smelter for all I can tell from that pathetic example.

So tell me, jaydeehess, what is it that I am ignoring?

MM

What you are ignoring, MM, is that Edx DID provide the very citation you falsely claim he has not.

Your research skills are horrible. I had to go back all of 8 pages to find the exact citation you could not.

Here it is.

I especially like this one:

"You can see what it did to the steel", said Assistant Fire Chief Stephen Clancy, "when it melts steel girders like butter , then you know what you've got"
-
Herald Journal - Jul 25, 1984

Did you see the citation this time? If not,
HERE IT IS.

 

[GlennB]

molten steel is unambiguous.

Yes it is. It means the steel is currently in a liquid state.

So, at the very least, he's guilty of inaccuracy. What (I presume) he meant was that there were solidified remains of what had previously been molten steel.

Meanwhile - why would an architect be qualified to judge such matters?

And how could the rebar sticking out of this object be so unaffected if there were also the residues of solidified molten steel on the object's surface? Those are mutually exclusive - the rebar projections would have melted too and fallen off.

Or could Voorsanger look into the 'meteorite' and see what was in there?

Nah - he's just doing what people so often do; he's using loose, inaccurate and somewhat flamboyant language.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"No. He issued an evacuation order after the collapse."

re-formatting is mine

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."

That sounds like more than a partial or limited evacuation. It was a total evacuation order made after WTC2 collapsed.

Your insistence on characterizing the evacuation order as "an" instead of "the" is a pathetic attempt to discount its totality.

We already know that your insistence that the Naudet documentary showed clearly the total evacuation order before WTC2's collapse was absolutely wrong.

Jules Naudet appeared to be totally oblivious to any full evacuation order and as a civilian, it would be expected that if they were evacuating out of fear of total collapse, they would have ordered his evacuation right away. His camera was right in Chief Pfiefer's face so such an order would have been easy.

No where is there any indication of a fear of collapse or a mayday type full evacuation order. Even after the collapse Naudet indicated that his understanding as he stood by Chief Pfiefer, was that the full evacuation was "precautionary". Clearly, not only did they not realize that WTC2 had collapsed but Chief Pfiefer wasn't reacting as he might if such a total collapse was something he was anticipating or in fear of.

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

"He didn't. The Chiefs had collectively been working towards evacuation for some time before the collapse. His final evacuation order was a "mayday" evacuation order."

Which amounts to a low urgency, contingency-type evacuation plan without a mayday quality.

Watching those FDNY members in the WTC1 lobby, it was clear they were not acting under a sense that collapse was a pending possibility, which is the whole point of this part of the thread discussion.

They even marked the name of the WTC Tower on the front desk to help incoming firefighters to know which building they were in.

"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."

"I didn't quote the parts of these interviews discussing the danger of collapse because I wanted to focus on the evacuation order, however it's in there too. I would offer to quote it for you, but if you still haven't familiarised yourself with the oral record of the senior firemen in WTC1 after ten years you clearly aren't actually interested in learning the facts of that day, so I'm not going to play your juvenile games."

Feel free to provide those parts of the interviews "discussing the danger of collapse".

And don't lecture me on not wanting to learn the facts of the day. Need I remind you, that you were the one adamantly claiming the Naudet film proved you to be absolutely right about the evacuation order?

"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."

"This is false. But whatever. I'm abundantly familiar with your blind devotion to ignorance."

The film and Jules Naudet's eyewitness testimony shows that the only time Chief Pfiefer issued an all units immediate evacuation order, came after the collapse of WTC2, and that even then, Jules Naudet who was right beside the Chief saw it as a precautionary evacuation and that Chief Pfiefer and his men were still unaware that WTC2 had collapsed.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

This sounds like the old "and when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

The question has been answered but obviously not to your satisfaction. I can't please everyone.

MM

No, the question has not been answered my little puppet. Please feel free to do so at any time.

This isn't dodgeball. It's ok to answer a simple question. It is really simple. It only requires a total of 2 or 3 keystrokes, and two clicks of the mouse.

You could even copy and paste if the words are too complicated....

 

[NoahFence]

Why do you ignore so much, MM?

You actually think you're pulling something over on the people here?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A photo image of a WTC physical debris specimen

Well I possibly see some of those elements...

Good, it looks like you agreed that there's viable information in it. We can continue.

examined by an anonymous pro-official story supporter

Well poisoning is not addressing the integrity of my opinions or arguments. You appear more concerned with the fact that I use an alias than whether or not my arguments are ground in fact, no wonder there's no progress here.

vs. the actual WTC physical debris specimen examined by a named architect giving his professional opinion for International Television.

Appealing to his authority is not addressing his opinion.

Are you suggesting that architect Bart Voorsanger is lying when he stated there was molten steel in the WTC debris specimen?

I answered your question a few pages ago:

I'm suggesting that you are using a cursory statement to represent a conclusion to which there's no indication he's agreed to.

This is not a false dichotomy choice between him either lying or being right. Your citation is an incomplete representation that is too broad to draw a conclusion from without further clarification from him.

you admit that;

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

Well, remember MM, you also admitted:

Well I possibly see some of those elements...

So you agreed that there's relevant information in it. And well,

...you've offered no basis to contend the photos lack the level of detail necessary to make a judgment call.

or that the supplemental research myself and others provided is insufficient to provide a viable analysis.

Your disingenuous response to his opinion comes down to your overall refusal to accept that molten steel existed at WTC Ground Zero.

MM

You base my credibility exclusively on the perception that I'm "pro-official story supporter" and that I use an "anonymous alias" when posting my arguments. Not once in this long exchange have you addressed the means through which Voorsangers incomplete/inaccurate statements falsify the research I've already provided.

And you want to discuss disingenuous now?

Your arguments rest on an unresearched interpretation of someone's incomplete examination and a flagrant lack of comprehension of the arguments that I've along with other have presented.

You only quote what you want; like your continued misrepresentation of this:

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

which leaves out the following, which has been the core point of interest in your case:

However the conclusions drawn by the observer are only as good as his ability to analyze the details he's looking at,

I mean god forbid that you've just been extrapolating his words beyond their capable means.