Merged So there was melted steel

Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...
So what does Bart say about the controlled demolition? Do you have links? Maybe he's not smart enough to figure that part out, huh?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
And nothing they said disputes what Bart Voorsanger observed.
Click to expand...

And UH, why cant Bart be wrong again? :rolleyes:

People say the same things he did in other fires all the time, you know, that little fact you keep ignoring. So exactly what makes what Bart said special?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
And UH, why cant Bart be wrong again? :rolleyes:

People say the same things he did in other fires all the time, you know, that little fact you keep ignoring. So exactly what makes what Bart said special?
Click to expand...

In this case I'm not sure it's him being wrong as much as it is MM improperly attributing a conclusion to something that is clearly un-elaborated. The statement clearly doesn't reflect a completed examination, conclusion, or otherwise and MM has shown no demonstration of the level of examination Voorsanger himself was able to do on the sample. He catagorized it forr preservation and having seen the document in question there's no such in-depth examination data provided. All MM can quote him on is an unevaluated remark; he has no interest in the conclusions Voorsanger himself would have later determined, and he made that much abundantly clear from saying the word "molten steel" sealed the deal for his quoting the guy in the first place.

The item cataloging was still in-progress at the time the documentary for the history channel was filmed for one...

It's like the "explosion" reports from witnesses. He doesn't discriminate between the circumstances or context of what is said, only that the word explosion was used in the sentence. Same even for every other melted steel remark for the WTC or elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
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...

Where is your proof that Bart V had the qualification to determine a material was melted steel by a casual visual examination?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
In this case I'm not sure it's him being wrong as much as it is MM improperly attributing a conclusion to something that is clearly un-elaborated.
Click to expand...

I agree, but since MM can just deny it forever.... I can just point out that even he really meant to say there was melted steel, he is not an expert in what melts in fires and its common for people to report the exact same things in other fires in exactly the same way he did. Even firefighters have said that fire melted steel, presumably incorrectly, in other fires. If all those people were wrong, why cant Bart? MM doesnt say.

The point being that even if he was saying exactly what MM says he was saying, MM refuses to deal with the fact that its not at all abnormal for people to say things like that in fires. Its so common we should EXPECT people to say things like this on 911.

It's like the "explosion" reports from witnesses. He doesn't discriminate between the circumstances or context of what is said, only that the word explosion was used in the sentence. Same even for every other melted steel remark for the WTC or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Same deal there.

People report explosions even when they know there was no bomb before they used the word, they even say the words "sounding like bombs" to describe things they already know werent actual bombs. We expect people to report explosions in the way they did on 911, its just not at all special in any way shape or form.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I would like to see some proof that validates your assertion that Bart Voorsanger only did a casual examination.
Click to expand...

Identification of previously molten steel would require removal of samples for analysis in a metallurgical laboratory. An eyeballing by a person not qualified in the subject most certainly justifies the use of the word "casual".
 
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...

Odd, your whole case is based on an image as opposed to an on site analysis.
 
GlennB said:
Identification of previously molten steel would require removal of samples for analysis in a metallurgical laboratory. An eyeballing by a person not qualified in the subject most certainly justifies the use of the word "casual".
Click to expand...

And you have proof that this has not occurred?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Hardly.

But all I hear from you guys is how staring at a pc image trumps an architect on site who made a direct examination.

MM
Click to expand...

Tell me MM, why is it Bart cannot be wrong, but the endless examples of other people saying that there was melted steel in other fires, are?
 
Miragememories said:
And you have proof that this has not occurred?

MM
Click to expand...

It was V's claim, one that you support. It's for V or you to provide evidence that samples were analysed.

Meanwhile please don't ask me to prove a negative.

Your posts, MM, are becoming increasingly irrational.
 
Miragememories said:
That is your characterization.

It was never mine.

MM
Click to expand...

You implied it. Whether or not you choose to admit as much, it doesn't change that fact.

The easiest way to end that particular "characterization" is to end it yourself by answering, simply - could he have been wrong? Yes or no?

But you'll of course not answer that yes or no question.
 
Edx said:
Tell me MM, why is it Bart cannot be wrong...
Click to expand...

I never said he cannot be wrong.

All you have to do is show that someone else performed an on site examination of the same WTC debris specimen and declared that they found no evidence of previously molten steel.

That seems like a reasonable request.

I just cannot accept the examination of a 2D image on a home pc as a definitive debunking.

And I'm sure if the situation was reversed, you would made the same argument.

MM
 
Well, if the situation were reversed, I doubt any debunkers here would be using only simple incredulity to dismiss a claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom