Merged So there was melted steel

[Edx]

His comment stated opinion that the WTC debris sample contained molten steel can only mean one thing, no matter how many ways you attempt to spin it.

I love how you keep saying that yet ignore all the other times where people - incorrectly - said fire melted steel

 

[NoahFence]

No. "Won't" would indicate that there actually is an explanation, "can't" means there is none.


Do you think there is an explanation?

I don't think I said it right... sorry!

What I mean is that he already knows^* the fact that it wasn't molten, never was.

Therefore he can explain the circumstances surrounding the item. He won't because he knows it'll out him as nothing more than a particularly adept troll.


^* I base that on the fact that nobody with an IQ above toe cheese can look at that item and suggest that it's been molten yet didn't burn the paper or melt the rebar.


I also base this on the fact that he steadfastly refuses to answer this:

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?

He KNOWS that there are no explosives that can survive that. He further knows that any and all other theories are dependent on the explosives surviving it. Since they can't, all other theories are moot. Molten steel meteorites? Nothing more than curiosity. WTC 7? Irrelevant victim of the day. Acknowledging any of these things kill the entire (already dead) 9/11 twoof movement. He knows this, all truthers know this, which is why they ignore it. They ignore the most basic things, instead waiting impatiently for the next quote that can be modified to suit their needs.

 

[DGM]

I don't think I said it right... sorry!

What I mean is that he already knows^* the fact that it wasn't molten, never was.

Therefore he can explain the circumstances surrounding the item. He won't because he knows it'll out him as nothing more than a particularly adept troll.


^* I base that on the fact that nobody with an IQ above toe cheese can look at that item and suggest that it's been molten yet didn't burn the paper or melt the rebar.

Funny thing. I really have no problem with molten steel (most likely some other metal) at ground zero. It still doesn't indicate an intentional demolition.

 

[A W Smith]

No.

I reasonably requested that if you wanted to debunk his professional opinion, than all you had to do was find a comparable professional who had also done a close-up examination of that WTC debris specimen.


MM

We did!! The three quotes i posted all say compaction. Do you expect them to prove a negative and say "there was no molten steel"? Your argument is ridiculous. There is no mention while the specimen was on site, closely examined and undisturbed that it contained molten steel. if there was they certainly would have made mention of such an extraordinary phenomena. Wouldn't the presence of molten steel be extraordinary? if not and it is expected than its presence is a non issue. They examined it closely, end of story, non negotiable. Your evidence is lacking beyond a single hyperbolic off hand remark.

 

[A W Smith]

MM:

I just looked for Bart Vansanger on the AE 9/11 list. I didn't see it. Why is this? Maybe you should contact him so he can sign ASAP. He does support what you're saying, right?

http://voorsanger.com/contact

 

[DGM]

http://voorsanger.com/contact

Something tells me he wont take the hint.

 

[NoahFence]

Funny thing. I really have no problem with molten steel (most likely some other metal) at ground zero. It still doesn't indicate an intentional demolition.

I don't think any rational person would be surprised by it. We saw innumerable things that day that we've never seen, and likely won't see again. From start to finish, it was unprecedented.

Seeing strange things during an unprecedented day would be expected as far as I know...

 

[DGM]

I don't think any rational person would be surprised by it. We saw innumerable things that day that we've never seen, and likely won't see again. From start to finish, it was unprecedented.

Seeing strange things during an unprecedented day would be expected as far as I know...

I'm not sure I'd use the word "surprised". On the day of the event, anything goes. I've seen large AC transformers arc out and it looked like the surface of the sun. For molten steel many days later would be "surprising". So far, I've seen no evidence this happened at GZ.

 

[LSSBB]

I reasonably requested that if you wanted to debunk his professional opinion, than all you had to do was find a comparable professional who had also done a close-up examination of that WTC debris specimen.

MM, his Profession has nothing directly to do with what he is giving an Opinion about. Therefore using the phrase professional opinion is misleading, and I would say deliberately so since this has been repeatedly pointed out.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think any rational person would be surprised by it. We saw innumerable things that day that we've never seen, and likely won't see again. From start to finish, it was unprecedented.

Seeing strange things during an unprecedented day would be expected as far as I know...

I'm not sure I'd use the word "surprised". On the day of the event, anything goes. I've seen large AC transformers arc out and it looked like the surface of the sun. For molten steel many days later would be "surprising". So far, I've seen no evidence this happened at GZ.

I would be "intrigued" if there had been molten steel on ground zero.

Let me be clearer. The established facts we start with include:
There was no molten steel. (So where has this newly found molten steel come from???)
There was no "CD" involved in the collapses.
There is no evidence of incendiary material which could reasonably be the source of heat to melt steel.

So if there had been molten steel I would be intrigued to work out the mechanism which caused it.

BUT even then there are still several quantum leaps to overcome before CD even gets on the agenda for consideration.

 

[beachnut]

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

MM

Not steel? Does Bart believe in your idiotic claims of CD?

Someone saw melted steel! Sounds like Bigfoot believers. Someone said so, so you say it is the "truth". You are gullible.

Now you need evidence and a rational story, to tie together your delusions on 911 of CD, the big inside job fantasy.

 

[jaydeehess]

MM:

I just looked for Bart Vansanger on the AE 9/11 list. I didn't see it. Why is this? Maybe you should contact him so he can sign ASAP. He does support what you're saying, right?

How about Bart Voorsanger?

 

[jaydeehess]

MM, his Profession has nothing directly to do with what he is giving an Opinion about. Therefore using the phrase professional opinion is misleading, and I would say deliberately so since this has been repeatedly pointed out.

In the 911 truth world a degree in theology also makes you an expert in engineering so its not that big of a stretch here for MM.

what is amazing is that MM has presented a couple of instances of shoddy research and claims they are magnificent.

First we have Harrit proclaiming thermite with his greatest evidence to support that claim being his preconceived notion that it was thermite.

Now we have MM taking the remark of an architect as an expert metalurgical analysis.

I am surprised that MM is not a no-planer.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not steel? Does Bart believe in your idiotic claims of CD?

Someone saw melted steel! Sounds like Bigfoot believers. Someone said so, so you say it is the "truth". You are gullible.

Now you need evidence and a rational story, to tie together your delusions on 911 of CD, the big inside job fantasy.

Well Beachnut, hunters have seen Bigfoot and they should be experts in distinguishing the animals they encounter therefore Bigfoot must exist.

 

[Miragememories]

"No.

It is your [Grizzly Bear] attitude to a succinctly stated professional opinion as being effectively meaningless, that I find to be biased, lacking in objectivity, adherence to a preconceived belief, and abject denial.

And as for all that great research of yours that you keep trumpeting, you have not made a single discovery that would suggest that Bart Voorsanger gave his professional opinion offhandedly.

You have no proof that his opinion was cursory. That in itself is clear evidence of your lack of objectivity, bias and denial.

And then you have the gall to raise the issue of close up examination.

A close up examination which you could only do staring at a photo image on your pc.

I reasonably requested that if you wanted to debunk his professional opinion, than all you had to do was find a comparable professional who had also done a close-up examination of that WTC debris specimen.

Voorsanger was clearly in position to do the close-up examination he based his professional opinion on."

"We did!! The three quotes i posted all say compaction. Do you expect them to prove a negative and say "there was no molten steel"? Your argument is ridiculous. There is no mention while the specimen was on site, closely examined and undisturbed that it contained molten steel. if there was they certainly would have made mention of such an extraordinary phenomena. Wouldn't the presence of molten steel be extraordinary? if not and it is expected than its presence is a non issue. They examined it closely, end of story, non negotiable. Your evidence is lacking beyond a single hyperbolic off hand remark."

I have never said there was no compaction.

You never established that any of your observers were talking about the same WTC debris specimen that was examined by Bart Voorsanger.

Secondly, I cannot find your James Glanz and Eric Lipton reference in the book location you specified.

Which leaves you with;

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

I can easily counter that with a few ironworker molten steel quotes from WTC Ground Zero.

Getting back to your comments though, molten steel was apparently only considered extraordinary by those who found it still in a red hot or molten state.

With so much acceptance of melting steel at the time of 9/11, seeing previously molten steel in its re-solidified state was not likely to raise much interest or curiosity.

Obviously architect Bart Voorsanger thought it was of interest (he was collecting special artifacts for the NYC Port Authority), but apparently he had no idea how extraordinary his discovery was.

So either it was extraordinary, or it wasn't, at that time?

Which kind of undermines your belief about re-solidified molten steel that; "There is no mention while the specimen was on site, closely examined and undisturbed that it contained molten steel. if there was they certainly would have made mention of such an extraordinary phenomena."

It really wasn't until much later, when everyone was denying molten steel that such a discovery took on its special significance.

The NIST showed no interest in the report of still existing molten steel, claiming it never existed. This raises a good question as to why, in their 10,000+ page WTC Twin Towers Report, does the NIST not show some sort of report on this debris specimen?

For the NIST, surely a finding of molten steel should have aroused their interest?

Or was this another report for which the NIST turned a deaf ear?

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You never established that any of your observers were talking about the same WTC debris specimen that was examined by Bart Voorsanger.

Next goalpost: "The BBC coached him... inside job"

 

[The Platypus]

For the NIST, surely a finding of molten steel should have aroused their interest?

Or was this another report for which the NIST turned a deaf ear?

MM

You left out option 3, that this is crap that has been debunked for years, and explained countless times, but it's you 911 CTers that are turning a deaf ear to all else except what your cult websites and youtube videos spoon feed you...


I'm going with option 3.

 

[A W Smith]

I have never said there was no compaction.

You never established that any of your observers were talking about the same WTC debris specimen that was examined by Bart Voorsanger.

Secondly, I cannot find your James Glanz and Eric Lipton reference in the book location you specified.

they were the authors of the book you were searching through, They were quoting engineers Pablo V Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo from the firm Mueser Rutledge, Do another search for "compressed" or "compacted"

Which leaves you with;

lopez, Pontecorvo, Quinlan, Kirby and Doyle

I can easily counter that with a few ironworker molten steel quotes from WTC Ground Zero.

none of whom describe anything resembling the specimen

 

[triforcharity]

Hey MM, since it seems that you believe that the WTC was brought down with CD of some sort, how about you show us another known CD that had evidence of some kind of molten steel that comes from a reliable source.

We'll wait.

*I know you won't, but it will be fun to see what your Dodge looks like.

 

[The Platypus]

How does molten steel prove a massive gov't plot?