Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

A W Smith, you have your quotes mixed up.

I am referring to Robertson's address to a structural engineering seminar at Stanford University in April of 2002, not the SEAU publication in October 2001.

The video, and background info I linked to, identifies Robertson recounting the story of having a firefighter tell him, in the B1 level of Ground Zero, "I think you might be interested in this..", pulling off "a big block of concrete" under which Robertson saw "a little river of steel flowing."

I am aware that the quote you refer to was possibly mistakenly ascribed to Robertson. However, it's worth noting that that editor of SEAU did indeed comment that, 21 days after the events, "molten steel was still running." Do you think he also was lying?

 

[A W Smith]

A W Smith, you have your quotes mixed up.

I am referring to Robertson's address to a structural engineering seminar at Stanford University in April of 2002, not the SEAU publication in October 2001.

The video, and background info I linked to, identifies Robertson recounting the story of having a firefighter tell him, in the B1 level of Ground Zero, "I think you might be interested in this..", pulling off "a big block of concrete" under which Robertson saw "a little river of steel flowing."

I am aware that the quote you refer to was possibly mistakenly ascribed to Robertson. However, it's worth noting that that editor of SEAU did indeed comment that, 21 days after the events, "molten steel was still running." Do you think he also was lying?

I highlighted your false choice logical fallacy for you.

 

[NoahFence]

A W Smith, you have your quotes mixed up.

I am referring to Robertson's address to a structural engineering seminar at Stanford University in April of 2002, not the SEAU publication in October 2001.

The video, and background info I linked to, identifies Robertson recounting the story of having a firefighter tell him, in the B1 level of Ground Zero, "I think you might be interested in this..", pulling off "a big block of concrete" under which Robertson saw "a little river of steel flowing."

I am aware that the quote you refer to was possibly mistakenly ascribed to Robertson. However, it's worth noting that that editor of SEAU did indeed comment that, 21 days after the events, "molten steel was still running." Do you think he also was lying?

Bolding mine


Question:

WHO CARES?
It does not prove controlled demo. As a matter of fact, it virtually DISproves controlled demo.

I think it's pretty damn dishonest to say this is proof of controlled demo, when the fact of the matter is, not a single controlled demo has ever - EVER - had molten anything.

 

[ergo]

I highlighted your false choice logical fallacy for you.

I would have preferred you just answer the question.

 

[Edx]

What do you think, EdX? Which statement of his should we take as true? The one he made to an audience of structural engineers at Stanford University? Or the one that you haven't sourced?

What does your "skepticality" tell you is right?

I think ergo that it makes sense that he simply forgot he said it because when people say melted steel most of the time they dont mean melted steel.

We know this because - as I showed you - people make the mistake of calling melted metal, and even softened steel, "melted steel" - all the time. No ifs or buts, its demonstrable that people incorrectly call steel melted when it hasnt, even fire professionals who should know already that fire doesnt actually melt steel have said that fire melted steel before 911.

But lets just assume you're right for a second, and he is lying about saying that. Why would he lie? He must be lying because he's in on the coverup, he has to be I mean after all he doesn't agree with truthers and the towers were obviously a demolition, right? So if he is in on the conspiracy, why would he have admitted to the world that there was melted steel when according to you this is such a smoking gun that proves thermite? He has be a complete idiot, right?

I wonder if you're actually going to answer the question this time.

 

[A W Smith]

I would have preferred you just answer the question.

your answer to the "question" you posed is in the hyperlink.. here, I shall quote it for you.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)

 

[ergo]

We know this because - as I showed you - people make the mistake of calling melted metal, and even softened steel, "melted steel" - all the time. No ifs or buts, its demonstrable that people incorrectly call steel melted when it hasnt,

So "a little river of steel flowing" is not molten steel? What do you think it is? What do you think the SEAU editor meant when he said that "21 days after the events, molten steel was still running" ?

even fire professionals who should know already that fire doesnt actually melt steel have said that fire melted steel.

Oh, so fire doesn't melt steel?

Weren't you the one who, just a few pages ago, was trying to assert that molten steel is found in fires all the time? Or was that someone else?

 

[ergo]

Weren't you the one who, just a few pages ago, was trying to assert that molten steel is found in fires all the time? Or was that someone else?

Oh no, that's right. You are the one saying that molten steel is impossible in fires, and that any reports of molten steel, even by engineering or firefighting professionals, are always wrong. Correct?

 

[Edx]

So "a little river of steel flowing" is not molten steel? What do you think it is? What do you think the SEAU editor meant when he said that "21 days after the events, molten steel was still running" ?

He could have meant molten metal, the same way all those other people I quoted for you probably didn't see actual steel melted they saw melted METALS.

Melted and molten metals are expected in fires and steel can also appear melted when it isnt and that is what firefighters are taught. I showed you all this. It makes more sense that Robertson simply doesnt recall saying it because he didnt put thought into what he was saying at the time, because it wasnt until truthers decided to claim melted steel means thermite did people incorrectly saying that fire melted steel become a thing. Before 911 people said steel when they really meant metal. You however require him to be lying and also stupid enough to admit the conspiracy, sorry I find that very unlikely.

even fire professionals who should know already that fire doesnt actually melt steel have said that fire melted steel.

Oh, so fire doesn't melt steel?

Not usually no, but under extreme conditions sure? A furnace is just a really well insulated fire.

The point I was making here is that fire professionals are trained in what metals melt in fires, yet they not only said that there was melted steel when there probably wasnt they also said that fire melted it. It is unlikely that there was any melted steel on those fires either, and far more likely that they simply misspoke and meant metals when they said steel. Unless you think thermite was used in all those other fires somehow as well.

Weren't you the one who, just a few pages ago, was trying to assert that molten steel is found in fires all the time? Or was that someone else?

No one has said that anywhere.

Will you please address my actual question to you? Here it is again. WHY WOULD HE LIE?

But lets just assume you're right for a second, and he is lying about saying that. Why would he lie? He must be lying because he's in on the coverup, he has to be I mean after all he doesn't agree with truthers and the towers were obviously a demolition, right? So if he is in on the conspiracy, why would he have admitted to the world that there was melted steel when according to you this is such a smoking gun that proves thermite? He has be a complete idiot, right?

 

[Edx]

Oh no, that's right. You are the one saying that molten steel is impossible in fires, and that any reports of molten steel, even by engineering or firefighting professionals, are always wrong. Correct?

Wrong again.

I never said it was impossible, I think its very unlikely because we dont see those conditions very often in a fire that could melt steel. However as I said above, a furnace is simply a well insulated fire.

What i am saying is that it is far MORE likely that on 911, like all the endless other examples of fires I can find, when someone said melted steel they either didnt mean steel when they said it, or they incorrectly identified some other metal as steel. We can find plenty of other examples before 911 of the same kind of quotes about melted steel. Again, I showed you all that.

You require people like Robertson to be experts and morons at the same time in order to be in on the conspiracy and yet admit key aspects like an idiot at the same time. Thats why we consider your theory absurd.

 

[ergo]

Before 911 people said steel when they really meant metal.

I'm sorry, EdX. I don't think so.

Here's the reality: We have the testimony of many witnesses, including professionals who know the difference between molten steel and other metals, and who had plenty of opportunities to choose their words or correct their quotes, against the word of a handful of anonymous Internet posters saying that the witnesses were all "mistaken." I mean, come on. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[Edx]

I'm sorry, EdX. I don't think so.

Here's the reality: We have the testimony of many witnesses, including professionals who know the difference between molten steel and other metals, against the word of a handful of anonymous Internet posters saying that the witnesses were all "mistaken." I mean, come on. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And yet I can find all those same sort of quotes in other fires. So big deal. If they can be wrong all those times, I dont see why they cant be on 911 as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7845108&postcount=2277

So you keep on believin' that such quotes are special on 911 when they aren't. Its SO common we should expect to see those quotes on 911. Get it? EXPECTED. Ie. Not abnormal, not remarkable. Expected.



Also not sure what you mean by anonymous internet posters, even Robertson says you're wrong and he didn't mean it. But that brings me to my question, can you try answering this? You've been ignoring it for a long time:

But lets just assume you're right for a second, and he is lying about saying that. Why would he lie? He must be lying because he's in on the coverup, he has to be I mean after all he doesn't agree with truthers and the towers were obviously a demolition, right? So if he is in on the conspiracy, why would he have admitted to the world that there was melted steel when according to you this is such a smoking gun that proves thermite? He has be a complete idiot, right?

 

[ergo]

It also begs the question, why didn't John Gross take this opportunity to correct the record? Instead of denying that there had been any reports of molten steel, why not just say "Yes, there were reports of molten steel, but these were all referring to another kind of molten metal that was there." He could have gone on and said, "We investigated this molten metal and found it to be .... X....."

Why did he just pretend that the issue of molten anything was a complete fabrication?

 

[twinstead]

I'm sorry, EdX. I don't think so.

Here's the reality: We have the testimony of many witnesses, including professionals who know the difference between molten steel and other metals, and who had plenty of opportunities to choose their words or correct their quotes, against the word of a handful of anonymous Internet posters saying that the witnesses were all "mistaken." I mean, come on. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

You don't get it. You have been shown quite a few quotes from other fires by people every bit as qualified who wrongly claimed that molten steel existed.

What I also find odd is that I've seen your reaction on other 9-11 topics when given testimony of many witnesses, including professionals, that contradicts your position that 9-11 was an inside job. Why all the sudden are you lecturing US? Why make this ill-advised stand on something that has been shown to you 100 times is irrelevant?

 

[ergo]

And yet I can find all those same sort of quotes in other fires. So big deal. If they can be wrong all those times, I dont see why they cant be on 911 as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2277

How do you know they're wrong? Did you investigate?

 

[twinstead]

It also begs the question, why didn't John Gross take this opportunity to correct the record? Instead of denying that there had been any reports of molten steel, why not just say "Yes, there were reports of molten steel, but these were all referring to another kind of molten metal that was there." He could have gone on and said, "We investigated this molten metal and found it to be .... X....."

Why did he just pretend that the issue of molten anything was a complete fabrication?

Why don't you ask him?

 

[Edx]

It also begs the question, why didn't John Gross take this opportunity to correct the record? Instead of denying that there had been any reports of molten steel, why not just say "Yes, there were reports of molten steel, but these were all referring to another kind of molten metal that was there." He could have gone on and said, "We investigated this molten metal and found it to be .... X....."

Why did he just pretend that the issue of molten anything was a complete fabrication?

You have still not answered the question, here it is again:

But lets just assume you're right for a second, and he is lying about saying that. Why would he lie? He must be lying because he's in on the coverup, he has to be I mean after all he doesn't agree with truthers and the towers were obviously a demolition, right? So if he is in on the conspiracy, why would he have admitted to the world that there was melted steel when according to you this is such a smoking gun that proves thermite? He has be a complete idiot, right?

Regarding Gross, I think he was being flippant on purpose because he knew that he was speaking to a conspiracy theorist and thats why he looks so pissed off. You on the other hand require him to be another expert IDIOT just like you do with Robertson. Not sure why you find the idea that all these people who are in on the conspiracy are such moronic incompetents a likely theory.

 

[Miragememories]

"You have provided absolutely N O T H I N G to contest architect Bart Voorsanger's professional opinion that the WTC debris specimen contained molten steel."

"yes, We have quotes from people who actually handled the "meteorites"

""Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span.

In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.”

Quote actually came from the book City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, published on August 1, 2004.

A W Smith then corrected this in a later post.

"Go ahead. Search for the word "molten",, surprise me. I got you beat three to zero. http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287#reader_0805074287"

"I reasonably requested that if you wanted to debunk his [architect, Bart Voorsanger's] 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."

"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."

Well the interesting thing is, while writing for the NY Times, the same James Glanz and Eric Lipton did a much earlier story on the two WTC debris "meteorite" specimens.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2873
WTC Artifacts Saved for Posterity, January 27, 2002
Artifacts of Anguish Saved for Posterity
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ

In that story, published just a few months after 9/11, when melted steel was not yet a controversial subject, they wrote; "...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..."

The same debris specimen (shown below) that architect, Bart Voorsanger also described as containing melted steel.

Of course Official Story supporters like yourself and Grizzly Bear hand wave and try and focus attention on the second "meteorite" WTC specimen (shown above) that to my knowledge, no one has said contained melted steel.

MM

 

[DGM]

It also begs the question, why didn't John Gross take this opportunity to correct the record? Instead of denying that there had been any reports of molten steel, why not just say "Yes, there were reports of molten steel, but these were all referring to another kind of molten metal that was there." He could have gone on and said, "We investigated this molten metal and found it to be .... X....."

Why did he just pretend that the issue of molten anything was a complete fabrication?

Who really cares? I don't think you notices but, no one really cares what you think about this.

This begs the question. Are the vast majority of worlds engineering professionals "in on it" or just stupid?

Even you can see this as an obvious fact you chose to ignore. How do you explain this?

 

[twinstead]

How do you know they're wrong? Did you investigate?

Unless you are claiming that all those fires were an inside job too, what the hell difference does it make? Which brings us back to the subject of the thread...