Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

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.

This is the single most retarded "discussion" I've ever read on regarding 9/11.

The guy was wrong. Not based on our examination of those pitiful 2D images, but because he was wrong. Period.

Christ on a stick, MM MOVE ON

GET A NEW HOBBY!!!!

 

[NoahFence]

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

You have nothing. Get over it.

Move on with your life - all arguments you and your kind have are fabricated crap designed to have a couple of people make money off the deaths of 3,000 people.

Period.

 

[Edx]

and the blanket denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator.

MM

And I showed you 3 examples of firefighters in other fires saying that fire melted steel.

How did they make the mistake that not only did steel melt AND that fire melted it?

How is that possible? They were there after all and they are experts in what melts in fires.

But of course you also said that you dont need any qualifications to know if steel has melted, which is interesting considering that I showed you an endless list of examples where people have said that steel melted in other fires you hand waved because they were "amateurs", while then also ignoring the fire experts making the same mistake.

How is it that they can all be so very wrong? But when someone on 911 says it, we're meant to think it really happened? Its expected people on 911 would incorrectly say there was melted steel. EXPECTED.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator.

Who's apparent research you've shown an absolute refusal to locate or bring to the table for support (AKA zero research), mind you. Is there a reason you'd like to enlighten us with for keeping everyone in the dark?

 

[twinstead]

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

Seriously? How many on-site observations that DON'T support your position do YOU ignore, MM?

 

[triforcharity]

Im guess more than none, and not less than all of them.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[A W Smith]

MM continues to LIE

and the blanket denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator.

MM

You want to rethink that? You and I both know he was in no way an "investigator."

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] the blanket denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator.

You've already admitted that his profession is irrelevant, Miragememories. You can't keep using the phrase "professional opinion" and expect it to count for anything.

 

[Robrob]

But of course you also said that you dont need any qualifications to know if steel has melted, which is interesting considering that I showed you an endless list of examples where people have said that steel melted in other fires you hand waved because they were "amateurs", while then also ignoring the fire experts making the same mistake.

How is it that they can all be so very wrong? But when someone on 911 says it, we're meant to think it really happened? Its expected people on 911 would incorrectly say there was melted steel. EXPECTED.

In an effort to impress you, people will often repeat things they don't understand or elaborate on what they saw.

During the early 80's when I was in college, there was a rally against US involvement in Nicaragua. One protester claimed he was a Vietnam Vet. I remember him going on about the "horrors of war." According to him, white phosphorous (grenades) burn without oxygen and that even now if we went to Vietnam we could dig one up and it would still be burning.

Ten years later...

 

[The Platypus]

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

Wow... Now there's some big time serious irony there.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

IF you were an engineer you'd know why that makes perfect sense, but you are not are you. How about we substitute Phd in Music for architect.....do you still think that would trump a genuine expert with a clear picture? What exactly is it about architects that makes you wet your pants in excitement and admiration?

 

[Miragememories]

"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 your blanket denial of the professional opinion expressed by an on site investigator."

"Who's apparent research you've shown an absolute refusal to locate or bring to the table for support (AKA zero research), mind you. Is there a reason you'd like to enlighten us with for keeping everyone in the dark?"

I know that following 9/11, the NJ/NY Port Authority wanted a representative collection of artifacts from the 9/11 site and that they awarded the contract to Voorsanger's firm.

I know that there was more than one 'meteorite'-type WTC debris specimen, and from what I can see, the photos you submitted, presumably the ones you have been citing for your personal man-staring-at-pc image investigation, are not photos of the 'meteorite' specimen that Bart Voorsanger described as containing molten steel.

Your submissions;

Which I believe are from this;

But what Bart Voorsanger was referring to;

Was this quite different specimen;

In their NY Times article, Eric Lipton and James Glanz identify two different 'meteorite'-type WTC debris specimens.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2873

from;

WTC Artifacts Saved for Posterity
January 27, 2002
Artifacts of Anguish Saved for Posterity
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ

"And nestled against the Koenig globe is a truly horrible object: a charred and pitted lump of fused concrete, melted steel, carbonized furniture and less recognizable elements, a meteorite-like mass that no human force could have forged, but which was in fact created by the fiery demise of the towers...
And there is another meteorite. Though pitted and fused, the exterior of this one is less completely melted, revealing traces of the steel decking of four separate floors spaced in layer-cake fashion over perhaps two feet.

This stone is the compressed remains of those four floors. With hallucinatory vividness, bits of furniture springs, steel mesh and reinforcing bars from the concrete floors, angle iron and what could be crumpled pieces of desks or filing cabinets seem to be growing from the meteorite..."

MM

 

[NoahFence]

HA HA HA!!!


So now he was looking at something totally different?

Wow.

How can you tell they're different just by looking at photographs?

 

[Robrob]

HA HA HA!!!


So now he was looking at something totally different?

Wow.

How can you tell they're different just by looking at photographs?

On his PC no less!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I know that there was more than one 'meteorite'-type WTC debris specimen, and from what I can see, the photos you submitted, presumably the ones you have been citing for your personal man-staring-at-pc image investigation, are not photos of the 'meteorite' specimen that Bart Voorsanger described as containing molten steel.

Your submissions;

[qimg]http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/8049/wtcmeteorite8ro5.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1060/wtcmeteorite9px5.jpg[/qimg]

Which I believe are from this;

[qimg]http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2650/picture8au.jpg[/qimg]

But what Bart Voorsanger was referring to;

[qimg]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8659/picture3bu.jpg[/qimg]

Was this quite different specimen;

[qimg]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/2503/picture37a.jpg[/qimg]

Voorsanger's firm cataloged both specimens as is made clear by their inclusion into their report. See specimens B-6201 and B-6202. In fact both specimens are elaborated on in the article you linked below.

In their NY Times article, Eric Lipton and James Glanz identify two different 'meteorite'-type WTC debris specimens.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2873

from;

WTC Artifacts Saved for Posterity
January 27, 2002
Artifacts of Anguish Saved for Posterity
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ

"And nestled against the Koenig globe is a truly horrible object: a charred and pitted lump of fused concrete, melted steel, carbonized furniture and less recognizable elements, a meteorite-like mass that no human force could have forged, but which was in fact created by the fiery demise of the towers...

And there is another meteorite. Though pitted and fused, the exterior of this one is less completely melted, revealing traces of the steel decking of four separate floors spaced in layer-cake fashion over perhaps two feet.

This stone is the compressed remains of those four floors. With hallucinatory vividness, bits of furniture springs, steel mesh and reinforcing bars from the concrete floors, angle iron and what could be crumpled pieces of desks or filing cabinets seem to be growing from the meteorite..."

MM

Now we're finally getting somewhere. This is a significant improvement compared to you're previous input, and I dare say the article even confirms my response to the doubts you previously expressed to my "inferior" photographic assessment.

It's quite apparent to me that whatever statements they make regarding melted steel, the physical evidence they examined themselves, as you've shown not only doesn't support temperatures of the sort that you claim proves thermxte, but also their lack of apparent curiosity to such an important anomaly must mean they don't agree with your interpretation for some reason. Maybe you should finally look into the possibly of asking them yourself now to satisfy your remaining curiosity about what they believe their findings represent.

*Bookmarks article*
Many thanks for the reference nevertheless, it looks quite interesting

 

[Miragememories]

"I know that following 9/11, the NJ/NY Port Authority wanted a representative collection of artifacts from the 9/11 site and that they awarded the contract to Voorsanger's firm.

I know that there was more than one 'meteorite'-type WTC debris specimen, and from what I can see, the photos you submitted, presumably the ones you have been citing for your personal man-staring-at-pc image investigation, are not photos of the 'meteorite' specimen that Bart Voorsanger described as containing molten steel."

"Voorsanger's firm cataloged both specimens as is made clear by their inclusion into their report. See specimens B-6201 and B-6202. In fact both specimens are elaborated on in the article you linked below."

Is there an echo in here?

In my last post I clearly pointed out that there were two specimens and that they were "elaborated on".

I've looked at the B-6201 and B-6202 in the catalog you referred to previously, and it contains little useful information to aid our discussion.

"It's quite apparent to me that whatever statements they make regarding melted steel, the physical evidence they examined themselves, as you've shown not only doesn't support temperatures of the sort that you claim proves thermxte, but also their lack of apparent curiosity to such an important anomaly must mean they don't agree with your interpretation for some reason..."

In other words Grizzly Bear, because you have nothing to contradict my point that you photo analyzed and presented as your evidence, the wrong photo specimen, you are waving it all off.

Why?

Because Eric Lipton and James Glanz who agree with architect Bart Voorsanger that the one specimen contained molten steel, were not curious enough when they wrote their story back in January of 2002, to investigate that presence further.

Just four months after 9/11, when the existence of molten steel was still a commonly accepted belief, and the general public was unaware of theories about thermite or any other unusual possible causes.

All your hand waving and dodging fails to change the point that you have nothing but hot air to back up your feeble investigation and unsubstantiated conclusions.

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

That wholly depends on who is doing the examination. If you did it it would have no value at all and if a metallurgist did with the specific intention to determine the objects make up then I agree then that examination would be better than mine or others from pictures alone.
architecture is not an science degree so I see no particular reason that an architects opinion on the subject would be of much greater value than yours, ie close to worthless.

 

[Edx]

MM,

Why do YOU persist in making a big deal out of this quote about melted steel, when we see that its common for people and experts to incorrectly say that there was melted steel in fires?

Why are we to think this wouldnt happen on 911?

The "experts" you're using dont even agree with your interpretation, but you dont even care why.

But I know, you just love your special pleading.

 

[Animal]

That wholly depends on who is doing the examination. If you did it it would have no value at all and if a metallurgist did with the specific intention to determine the objects make up then I agree then that examination would be better than mine or others from pictures alone.
architecture is not an science degree so I see no particular reason that an architects opinion on the subject would be of much greater value than yours, ie close to worthless.

I beg to differ.....I have a B. of Science in Architecture.
But, even with that, there is no special training in metallurgy, ( the closest you come is mechanics of materials and building strucutres) and no troofer has ever show that anyone can be trained to identify metals just by eyeballing it.

Another point, an expert will certainly be able to gain greater information through a photograph than an non expert will by person observation. MM applies a false authority to an architect as being an expert in metallurgy.

 

[ergo]

Wow. The first few posts on this thread are unbelievable. Insulated debris piles full of dust produce hotter fires? No, wait, it's hotter-than-natural debris pile fires fed by air and/or hotter-than-natural air through the crushed, blocked, not-in-use subway system?

Rather than read 56 pages of ridiculous conjecture, can someone just fill me in?

9/11 idiots, including John Gross, spend how many years saying there was no molten steel, there was no molten metal. Now they admit (sort of, pending official acknowledgement) that there was but that it's common to find molten steel/molten metal in highrise fires? And/or that the molten metal is actually molten aluminum. (The stories change a fair bit )

1) Why didn't they just investigate it in the first place? Take pictures even?

2) Why does this sound so much like the "There was no free fall, dammit!!1!" argument?

3) Where is the evidence/reports of molten steel/metal in the most significant highrise fires of the last century?

4) If it's so common, why would 9/11 idiots spend X-many years denying that it happened on 9/11? (see question 2).

It's a real laugh sometimes reading the antics the Terrists-Done-It theorists have to put themselves through.