Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

And AGAIN:

: MM -No, this thread is; So there was melted steel.

You just typed that.

So answer it.

"So there was melted steel" -
how does that prove CD, while keeping in mind that there is no method of CD that could survive the aircraft impact, explosion, and fire. AND that there are no CD methods that actually melt steel in the manner required to keep up truther's lies?

I'd hate to think being polite is ignored as quickly as being a jerk.

 

[Edx]

You cited a lot of garbage from what I could see Edx.

If you think that crap is comparable to WTC on 9/11 than good luck to you.

No photo evidence, no analysis, no corroborating temperature readings, nothing to suggest the existence of melted structural steel.

Those were the kind of lame stories you accuse 9/11 Truthers of promoting.

At least 9/11 Truth cites people working at WTC Ground Zero.

Uh sorry but its exactly the same as the WTC quotes you guys all use.

People said fire melted the steel, therefore there must have been thermite melting steel in all these times, by your logic. Note also how many times people talk about all the explosions that went off in these fires, therefore there must have been bombs too!!!

Oh, since apparently you don't realize it, softened or weakened steel is not the same as melted steel.

They didn't say the steel was softened or weakened, they said MELTED. I highlighted all the parts that specify MELTING in those quotes but apparently you still missed it. Apparently you decided to pretend they never said that, not sure why you are so dishonest when anyone can read my post and check

Explosions in fires are expected
Molten metal in fire is expected
People reporting molten steel - incorrectly - is expected

 

[A W Smith]

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;



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

yes, We have quotes from people who actually handled the "meteorites"

"My gang cut away a section of a wall. We counted 14 floors compressed into eight feet." –Ironworker Terry Strobel, PBS.org: America Rebuilds

"Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span.

In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” –James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "102 Minutes." 2004, p. 310

 

[jaydeehess]

of this I am quite confident, NO "molten' or even heat weakend soft steel existed within inches of any surviving paper products.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

yes, We have quotes from people who actually handled the "meteorites"

Tried to tell him before that what he called research was effectively the equivalent of extrapolating their opinions while in mid-sentence... now he has his answer... something he could have gotten if he had actually researched it...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The lie is yours.

The pathetic lack of quality in your response says it all.

No further explanation is required.

MM

Keep hand waving, you are fooling no-one. An architect is not professionally trained in metallurgy so his opinion on the "meteorite" is only his personal opinion not a professional one. He was simply mistaken, just like you.

 

[Miragememories]

Tried to tell him before that what he called research was effectively the equivalent of extrapolating their opinions while in mid-sentence... now he has his answer... something he could have gotten if he had actually researched it...

Cough, cough...and nothing in those statements contradicts Bart Vansanger's claim of molten metal.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Cough, cough...and nothing in those statements contradicts Bart Vansanger's claim of molten metal.

MM

A reminder:

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.

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.

[Their] words, and [their] opinion.

[Engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo] were there, seeing and touching it.

[Engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo] got to examine WTC debris specimen with an unimpeded 3D view.

[They] could determine true texture, brittleness, magnetic character, true color, the fine details of its formation etc etc.

MM

Other than the individuals [replacing voorsanger's name in my edits] involved this is eessentially everything you said.

And not only that we have the added benefit of the details of their examination being published as opposed to voorsanger's off handed remark in post#1923

 

[NoahFence]

Keep hand waving, you are fooling no-one.

Formatting mine



That's the kicker. They think they're clever, and from idiots like me to the most educated of us, and everybody in between, they fool nobody. They can't even begin to explain how these explosives would survive - they just assume they would. Everything after is moot. It's retarded.

 

[NoahFence]

Cough, cough...and nothing in those statements contradicts Bart Vansanger's claim of molten metal.

MM

Yes it does.

Pretty clearly, actually. You can't see it?

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"yes, We have quotes from people who actually handled the "meteorites"

And this is what A W Smith provides as 'no melted steel observed' debunking quotes;

"My gang cut away a section of a wall. We counted 14 floors compressed into eight feet." –Ironworker Terry Strobel, PBS.org: America Rebuilds"

Nothing in that statement disagrees with Bart Vansanger's observation of molten steel, though it is evident that Terry Strobel is referring to a different specimen.

"Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span.

In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” –James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "102 Minutes." 2004, p. 310"

The point?

This is hand waving.

This isn't a debunking.

Yet again, nothing in those statements is in disagreement with Bart Vansanger's observation of molten steel, and it is also not clear that they ever refer to the same specimen.

This is really lame research.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

There is zero doubt that they are referring to the same "phenomenon" as the "Meteroites".

To imply otherwise is dishonest.

They described perfectly what they saw, and what your Godlike Architect Bart saw. They were looking at the exact same thing.

Between photographic evidence of paper in these meteorites, to rebar that was clearly never even hot enough to be pliable, to the descriptions that you most likely knew existed but didn't comment on, it's rather obvious.

No molten steel.

Get a new hobby, kiddo. Preferrably one that doesn't involve contradicting yourself.


** I should also mention the fact that even if there were formerly molten steel in there, it would do more to DISPROVE Controlled Demo than it would to prove it.

 

[Miragememories]

"Cough, cough...and nothing in those statements contradicts Bart Vansanger's claim of molten metal."

"Other than the individuals [replacing voorsanger's name in my edits] involved this is eessentially everything you said.

And not only that we have the added benefit of the details of their examination being published as opposed to voorsanger's off handed remark in post#1923"

Read my response to A W Smith.

And I totally disagree with your assessment that a professional architect working for the NYC Port Authority, when asked on camera for his professional opinion about a specific WTC debris specimen, an opinion he knows will be heard by a National TV audience, would give a statement that was intended as an "off handed remark."

Your belief shows a total lack of objectivity and a strong personal bias.

MM

 

[slowsmile]

Nothing in that statement disagrees with Bart Vansanger's observation of molten steel

I few posts back this guy was Bart Voosanger. You've obviously studied this really closely.

 

[DGM]

MM:
Your words are not that profound as you need to quote them in all your posts. We do have the necessary attention span to follow the dialog without you doing this. I know this is not the case in some of the other forums you have posted in.

Just saying.

 

[NoahFence]

You know, I'm watching this video now, that has this meteorite, and Chief Daniel Nigro, at 1:51 says it was like being on another planet.

Did 9/11 happen on another planet?

MM?

Or is he allowed to use "Like" in this case, but not in others?

At any rate, it wasn't molten. Never was. Physically impossible to have paper in there and rebar that was clearly never even pliable.

Get a new hobby.

 

[DGM]

You know, I'm watching this video now, that has this meteorite, and Chief Daniel Nigro, at 1:51 says it was like being on another planet.

Did 9/11 happen on another planet?

MM?

Or is he allowed to use "Like" in this case, but not in others?

At any rate, it wasn't molten. Never was. Physically impossible to have paper in there and rebar that was clearly never even pliable.

Get a new hobby.

I heard (I'm not sure it was the same video) a firefighter say everything was "smashed to atoms". I'm fairly sure this guy is not worried about his "reputation" over this statement.

 

[A W Smith]

the quotes were from workers who saw and handled the compacted floors on site, 6 and 8 foot stacks, So how do you suppose they extracted it? and reduced its size to move it? That's right, Torches, Therefore you would expect to see torched off portions of steel where it was separated, There is no mention of them being molten while they were in place. We have seen truthers try to jump to the same conspiracy conclusion before with the cut columns.

Nothing new here, Just more trolling by conspiradroids trying to wedge a conspiracy where there isn't. My three witnesses who saw the object in place debunk your one who saw it torched and removed off site. , You got to know when to fold em MM.

 

[NoahFence]

I heard (I'm not sure it was the same video) a firefighter say everything was "smashed to atoms". I'm fairly sure this guy is not worried about his "reputation" over this statement.

I noticed that too.

Funny how some comments are ignored, while other comments - exactly as innocuous, are harped on as gospel.

MM - Care to offer some insight into that?

 

[DGM]

I noticed that too.

Funny how some comments are ignored, while other comments - exactly as innocuous, are harped on as gospel.

MM - Care to offer some insight into that?

Are you calling this guy a liar?