Merged So there was melted steel

[Robrob]

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

And yet you make all kinds of claims based on 2D images on a home PC.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

MM

Not necessarily true. The whole point that was being made is whether:
A) his examination was detailed enough to actually provide more information that the photos didn't already provide.
B) whether the scope of his work led to him doing such an investigation at all, or how much
and C) whether had the qualifications to determine things like a metallurgist

You're asking us to prove a negative at this point... there's no proof in what you're already using that he went beyond the scope of his tasks. If you can show he did more than the preservation cataloging called for, then be my guest, you'll actually have an argument, but raising points of an incomplete process isn't earning you anything. For example, we know the rock is a series of floor slabs compacted together because the photos clearly show it, whereas Voorsanger's singular statement has not elaborated on this information himself. The fact that he is there is irrelevant without the information telling us what he garnish... something that needs to be reasonably complete to be of value

 

[NoahFence]

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

Someone looking at a photo of the item in question has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was wrong. Thousands of people could never even see the image, and Bart will still be wrong.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Not necessarily true. The whole point that was being made is whether:
A) his examination was detailed enough to actually provide more information that the photos didn't already provide..."

Why do you persist in repeating this question, when you have already agreed that a 2D image examination is inferior to an actual examination?

MM

 

[NoahFence]

You just don't get it do you?

Don't answer that. We already know.

If NOBODY on the planet saw those pictures, he'd still be wrong.

 

[DGM]

You just don't get it do you?

Don't answer that. We already know.

If NOBODY on the planet saw those pictures, he'd still be wrong.

It's worse than that. Even if he's right it still doesn't point to anything sinister.

 

[Edx]

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

hey MM, you snipped the rest my post.


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?

Its the point you keep ignoring. I know its annoyong that so many people incorrectly report melted steel in fires which makes what Bart said EXPECTED. And expectedly wrong. Lets put this another way, why should we think he is right, when people make the same mistake so often?

 

[NoahFence]

It's worse than that. Even if he's right it still doesn't point to anything sinister.

Good point.

 

[triforcharity]

So, since 99.9% of the truthers on the internet have only seen PICTURES of the WTC on fire, and FDNY et al. have seen it first hand, then we'll have to say the FDNY is correct about it being hot.

Also, since 99.9% of truthers didn't see the planes crash into the WTC, and hundreds of people witnessed it live, we will default to the witnesses. Truthers are wrong again.

MM, do you get my point? Do you get that claiming that because a person has examined something first hand means he is right, is a huge leap into stupidity?

So, since I have seen Ground Zero, and there is no melted steel, that means that I am right. You're wrong. See how that works? It's going to backfire on you. Time and time again. It's an appeal to authority that you're trying. It's failing miserably.

Go back to Square Fail, and try again.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why do you persist in repeating this question, when you have already agreed that a 2D image examination is inferior to an actual examination?

MM

You've provided no answer for:
B) whether the scope of his work led to him doing such an investigation at all, or how much, and C) whether had the qualifications to determine things like a metallurgist would be expected to.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's an appeal to authority that you're trying.

It's not even that anymore. Miragememories has essentially conceded that Voorsanger's profession is irrelevant. Miragemeories is now simply using the argument that "he was there and you weren't".

 

[triforcharity]

Ok, so basically, since nobody but ASCE and NIST, FEMA, and FDNY et al. we're there, anyone who questions their findings, are wrong.

Perfect.

MM, you're wrong. You weren't there. So, CD=wrong. Hot fires as you claim, is Wrong. So, go back to square fail there MM. You're wrong.

 

[twinstead]

To me MM needs to go UP quite a few squares to even get to square 1.

 

[Miragememories]

"Not necessarily true. The whole point that was being made is whether:
A) his examination was detailed enough to actually provide more information that the photos didn't already provide..."

"Why do you persist in repeating this question, when you have already agreed that a 2D image examination is inferior to an actual examination?"

"You've provided no answer for:
B) whether the scope of his work led to him doing such an investigation at all, or how much, and C) whether had the qualifications to determine things like a metallurgist would be expected to."

Your persistence is down right neurotic.

How does the scope of your Googling and screen staring, lead you to the conclusion that it is not necessary for you to physically examine the evidence to have a better opinion than someone who has?

I have never stated that the Bart Voorsanger's observation could not be overruled by a superior physical examination of the same specimen.

But you haven't produced such an examination, you have never performed any kind of physical examination yourself, and instead of just shutting up until you can, you continue to pretend that your Google efforts outweigh the contracted on site work of Voorsanger Architects PC.

MM

 

[Edx]

Your persistence is down right neurotic.

How does the scope of your Googling and screen staring, lead you to the conclusion that it is not necessary for you to physically examine the evidence to have a better opinion than someone who has?

I have never stated that the Bart Voorsanger's observation could not be overruled by a superior physical examination of the same specimen.

But you haven't produced such an examination, you have never performed any kind of physical examination yourself, and instead of just shutting up until you can, you continue to pretend that your Google efforts outweigh the contracted on site work of Voorsanger Architects PC.

MM

You JUST said that you don't need to be qualified in anything to tell if steel has melted or not.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that nothing he says is unexpected? If SO MANY PEOPLE including fire experts can be wrong, why do you keep saying this quote from Voorsanger means anything?

You've been avoiding this ever since I mentioned it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your persistence is down right neurotic.

Of course it is. You need research to back up your interpretation, as I've reminded you repeatedly. I examined a photograph, I provided sourced research to explain my findings. If you wanted to discuss the merits of my research, by comparing it with Voorsanger's, then you should find his research and support your argument.

But you haven't produced such an examination, you have never performed any kind of physical examination yourself <snip>

Where have you provided Voorsangers' research? No where. Interpreting a single sentence from someone without the titular expertise to examine and identify previously molten metals is not research, Miragememories. It is your unsupported interpretation.

<snipped> lead you to the conclusion that it is not necessary for you to physically examine the evidence to have a better opinion than someone who has?

You have no idea what his tasks were, and you certainly haven't produced anything of value that would expand on what he did do. If you want to explain why my own analysis is wrong go right ahead, but don't waste my time telling me Voorsanger's opinion matters more when you won't even research what he did or what conclusions he came to.

I have never stated that the Bart Voorsanger's observation could not be overruled by a superior physical examination of the same specimen.

I never claimed you did. What I actually said is that you're not discussing his research or the basis on which he's formed any opinion. The sentence you keep glued on the stage is useless without supporting explanations; explanations you've thus far failed to provide.

<snip> you continue to pretend that your Google efforts outweigh the contracted on site work of Voorsanger Architects PC.

MM

This is merely a case of you pretending that you've seen the details of his research. You haven't. Again, you should be more than capable of doing the same thing I did and demonstrating why you think my conclusions are wrong by your own research, but no, instead you're pinning you're entire argument on the single sentence of a man whose examination tasks you actively refuse to research and cite yourself.

I supported my argument, you need to do the same.

 

[Edx]

I also find it amazing that MM thinks Voorsanger is an expert enough to tell if its melted steel, yet not enough to know what that must mean.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Like I said, if he's going to rely on another guy's opinion to tell me I'm wrong I expect him to do more than tell me "he was there and I wasn't". The depths to which he's willing to ignore such a single point is a waste of energy and time.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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".

Indeed, for even a visual inspection by a REAL expert on a similar subject matter turned out to be wrong.

Quintere and the "Swiss cheese" steel ring a bell??

 

[Miragememories]

"...I supported my argument, you need to do the same..."

You can research the dust in every crevice Grizzly Bear but when the dust clears all you have presented is BS research.

What you call argument support, was zero physical investigation of your own, a reliance solely on empty-handed Google research combined with an apparent belief that your opinion is infallible, and the blanket denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator.

MM