Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
<snip>...proof.

MM
Click to expand...
An architect is educated to be equipped with the skills to design buildings and supervise their construction; he is not educated to possess the prerequisite skills required to "eyeball" the specific identification of a metal that has melted in 5 seconds of commentary.

He is effectively an amateur, who would be speaking outside of his field of study, and would be working outside of his qualifications trying to perform any specialized examination that would be used to confirm the material's identification. In other words you're appeal to his "professional opinion" otherwise known as an appeal to authority, is actually an appeal to false authority.

His education in building design grants him the ability to comment on the qualities of a building's construction, including but not limited to identifying key features of the floor assembly such as rebar used in the reinforcement of the concrete slab, and the corrugated metal paneling which makes up the prefab floor assembly. A skill set you quite obviously lack. He would most certainly be relevant had he commented on that, or if you had asked him for further clarification related to the matter but you feel his unqualified remark is absolute.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
<snip>

If you would learn to read and think before reacting, it would become quite clear to you that I felt his statement had only a single possible interpretation.

That is not the same as saying I think Bart could not be wrong.

<snip>

MM
Click to expand...

This is really blatantly pathetic. I can't believe the extent to which you're attempting to avoid admitting you were wrong on such minutia.

The only way that "his statement had only a single possible interepretation" is because it is based on the premise that he had to be right. If you admit that he could be wrong, you must allow for one or more additional possible interpretations of his statement. I can't believe this even has to be pointed out. This should be beneath even you.
 
Miragememories probably should have stuck to his infrequent posting. "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
 
NoahFence said:
Here's a 2D image:

[qimg]http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacepictures/shuttle_endeavour.jpg[/qimg]

Am I able to determine using that 2D image that the object in question is a Space Shuttle, or would I have to be present in Florida when it launched to be sure?
Click to expand...

I guess that you will forever be unable to make that determination now that the program is ended.
 
MM wrote:
Miragememories said:
No.

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

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 have edited many documentaries and it is my experience that when a professional is speaking to the camera they are particularly careful about the words they choose. They are quite conscious of the permanent record that is being made from their statements and the potentially vast public and professional audience that will be hearing them.


MM
Click to expand...

This leaves little doubt that MM believes that Voorsanger's opinion is as close to infallible as anyone could wish for. How very odd now that MM wants to debate whether or not he actually said that BV is infallible.

Play semantic games much MM?

Yes, of course you do, many of your compartriots do.
 
Miragememories said:
Cite your proof.

MM
Click to expand...

Wow. Also very easy.

ar·chi·tect/ˈärkiˌtekt/

Noun: A person who designs buildings and often supervises their construction.

See anything about metallurgy in there? How about anything related to metallurgy?

Nope. And.......nope.

Citation provided. Now, show me that an architect would have relevant training.
 
triforcharity said:
Wow. Also very easy.

ar·chi·tect/ˈärkiˌtekt/

Noun: A person who designs buildings and often supervises their construction.

See anything about metallurgy in there? How about anything related to metallurgy?

Nope. And.......nope.

Citation provided. Now, show me that an architect would have relevant training.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a troofer show any evidence of training of a person being able to identify molten metals by sight.......or solid metals for that matter.

I won't hold my breath. :rolleyes:
 
I have edited many documentaries and it is my experience that when a professional is speaking to the camera they are particularly careful about the words they choose. They are quite conscious of the permanent record that is being made from their statements and the potentially vast public and professional audience that will be hearing them.
Click to expand...

An opinion based on your experience, which proved to be 100% wrong?

What does that say about the rest of your opinions or experience?
:rolleyes:
 
Bump

edx said:
im not going to bother replying to your latest post and predicted response to it (see my reply to noah) because i dont much care if you want to claim you never meant to say he couldn't be wrong. Whatever. No point going around and around picking on every single word if you want to deny your own argument.

Bottom line is that there are endless examples i showed you before where people (and i also showed you fire experts) incorrectly said there was molten steel in other fires in the same way as voorsanger did. If they can be so easily wrong, why are you so convinced that bart voorsanger is not?

It is common for people and experts to incorrectly say there was molten steel in fires. common. Got that?

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

therefore whatever voorsanger said is entirely uninteresting, because its the kind of thing we expect people to say.

Are you constantly ignoring this issue because you don't like it or is it just for trolling purposes?
Click to expand...
 
Animal said:
I would like to see a troofer show any evidence of training of a person being able to identify molten metals by sight.......or solid metals for that matter.

I won't hold my breath. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well I would like to see some proof that looking at an image on a pc provides sufficient evidence to overrule a direct on site examination.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Well I would like to see some proof that looking at an image on a pc provides sufficient evidence to overrule a direct on site examination.

MM
Click to expand...
I would like to see some proof that casually looking at an exhibit on a stand in a hangar at JFK provides sufficient evidence to overrule the engineers who originally discovered it in place.
 
A W Smith said:
I would like to see some proof that casually looking at an exhibit on a stand in a hangar at JFK provides sufficient evidence to overrule the engineers who originally discovered it in place.
Click to expand...

I would like to see some proof that validates your assertion that Bart Voorsanger only did a casual examination.

And who are these mysterious unheard from engineers of yours?

And what did they have to say?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I would like to see some proof that validates your assertion that Bart Voorsanger only did a casual examination.

And who are these mysterious unheard from engineers of yours?

And what did they have to say?

MM
Click to expand...


When will you learn that even if he really meant it, it doesnt matter because people report melted steel in fires all the time. :rolleyes:
 
A W Smith said:
yes, yes it does.
compressed, compacted, vs molten
Click to expand...

Ironworkers who made a few comments but were never asked the critical question vs an architect who had the sole purpose of of selecting steel artifacts from the WTC site for the NJ/NY Port Authority.

Yes you like to cherry pick your beliefs.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom