"Merely pointing out that you have the advantage of being able to say whatever you like without putting your reputation at any kind of real risk.
You can pretend to be God if you like."
"This isn't about risk, or professional title; it's about whether the research or the third party interpretations of them are factual. And pretending to be God doesn't protect me or anyone else from being wrong. Nor should his professional title, or the appeals that a third party tries to make of him."
No you are wrong.
The risk to his professional and personal reputation is quite real.
When Bart Voorsanger appeared on Network TV, using his own name and profession, and gave his professional opinion;
"This is fused element of molten steel, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element.", he took a serious risk to his professional credibility, if his opinion about
molten steel was proven to be wrong.
Regarding you, or anyone else safely hidden behind an anonymous internet persona, the only risk to be faced, is to a facade and a temporary blemish in a single public online forum.
You are indeed protected because you remain hidden in the closet.
"Bart Voorsanger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion to the whole world. Big fracking difference even if you fail to acknowledge it."
"The big difference is your once again not giving me his opinion. You're not giving me his research. You are expressing your opinion about one of his brief statements. This isn't his lie, this is your misrepresentation. His statement was not an official conclusion on his part, and as long as he's not being intentionally inaccurate, or incompetent he faces little if any issues with the AIA code of ethics and conduct on this stuff."
No you are wrong.
I am only the messenger, whom you are trying to kill with your continuous obfuscation.
Molten steel; Bart Voorsanger's words, and his opinion.
They are not my words interpreting or misrepresenting him.
He succinctly speaks for himself.
The History Channel did not record his opinion on camera because they wanted the unsubstantiated opinion of a private citizen.
No, the History Channel chose Bart Voorsanger, because he was an architect in good standing, hired by the New York City Port Authority to collect valuable WTC relics, and they wanted the credibility of his opinion with regard to the WTC debris sample.
"I never said, and Bart Voorsanger certainly never said, that it was all molten steel."
"a combination of steel and concrete fused by the heat into one" as if the heat was so intense it literally melted whatever steel was in the mass enough to liquefy it... well... I see nothing that was "melted" and the pieces are clearly identifiable with the visual information provided. Until you explain what it means by "it takes a stretch of the imagination" to see them as formerly floor slabs, we're left at the moment with no substance from you."
reformatting is mine
Well he did say
molten steel, so obviously he observed areas in the specimen that contained steel that had melted and re-solidified.
You say that you
see;
"nothing that was "melted" and the pieces are clearly identifiable with the visual information provided."
Like the rest of us, you were confined to a study of a 2D photographic image shot with questionable lighting, and that is
all you could see.
But why do you keep attempting to argue against your own belief?
"Seeing the real thing rather than a representation of it is always better."
Bart Voorsanger was there, seeing and touching it.
He got to examine WTC debris specimen with an unimpeded 3D view.
He could determine true texture, brittleness, magnetic character, true color, the fine details of its formation etc etc.
MM
