Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

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.

EdX, he was voluntarily speaking at a university engagement that had requested and funded his presence there. Do you really think he's in a position to be "flippant" or "pissed off"? He's the lead investigator for NIST, a taxpayer-funded federal body. He cannot afford to be "pissed off" or flippant. So, no, your theory doesn't hold.

 

[Edx]

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

So all those quotes I showed you and the endless examples available if you search for them, was caused by thermite? Were they an inside job by the government?

Have you even read a single one of those quotes in context? This is about people reporting that FIRE did these things, they incorrectly say that FIRE melted it many times in many occasions. You seriously telling me that thermite was involved al those times? I can show you pages and pages of quotes from other fires where people reported melted steel.

I strongly suggest you go and read my post properly. I can find many more for you if you'd like.

 

[Edx]

EdX, he was voluntarily speaking at a university engagement that had requested and funded his presence there. Do you really think he's in a position to be "flippant" or "pissed off"? He's the lead investigator for NIST, a taxpayer-funded federal body. He cannot afford to be "pissed off" or flippant. So, no, your theory doesn't hold.

Enough Ergo, you have failed to answer my question about Robertson and you have failed to address the same question about Gross.

Why so resistant to answering the question? IF GROSS IS LYING and IF ROBERTSON IS LYING..... then WHY would they be doing that?

I'll tell you why you cant answer it, its because you know the answer has to be absurd if what you are saying is true and you cant defend your own theory. You require these conspirators to be complete idiots that can easily defend themselves but decide to say things instead that conspiracy theorists claim prove they are in on the conspiracy, or they admit there was melted steel which according to conspiracy theorists points to thermite but somehow they decided to blab about seeing it anyway. Why would they do that unless they are total morons?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

From AE911's own presentation... Notice the plural use of "meteorites" and the 2nd sample on the bottom right with captions ("aluminum does not rust)". Though it is not discussed at length in the history channel video, Voorsanger's firm did catalog it, and AE911 saw it relevant enough to juxtapose it with the 1st you've emphasized.

The problem has never been the actual samples per se, but rather just the mere mention of melted steel as is apparent by the fact that the issue of which sample we were dealing with didn't come up at all until after more than 10 pages of ongoing arguments...

 

[ergo]

So all those quotes I showed you and the endless examples available if you search for them, DID contain thermite?

The question asked was, how do you know they were wrong?

 

[ergo]

Why so resistant to answering the question? IF GROSS IS LYING and IF ROBERTSON IS LYING..... then WHY would they be doing that?

I don't know why. I could ask you the very same question. In fact, I think I have.

 

[ergo]

And you still haven't answered my question of what the "little river" of molten metal that Robertson saw could have been. What do you think it was?

 

[Edx]

The question asked was, how do you know they were wrong?

Because it is unlikely under the circumstances in the cases reported you can read about, that steel would be melted. Many times you can even find people saying that fire melted the steel, would you say that fire melted steel if someone said that? What if they said melted steel, but then said the steel was softened? Yes we have an example of that as well that I gave you. This all shows that people say melted when they dont really mean it and it shows that people say steel when they dont really mean it.

There are some reports of melted steel in fires which involved a refinery, in this case it is expected that there would be melted steel because a refinery deals with melting steel. This case however is not what Im talking about.

Not sure what you think you are arguing. Either all those other fires involved thermite and thats what melted all the steel they reported. OR fire can really cause melted steel quite regularly.

Any other option here?

So not sure how you really see this helps your case...

 

[Edx]

And you still haven't answered my question of what the "little river" of molten metal that Robertson saw could have been. What do you think it was?

Melted metal (but not steel) and yes I already answered that.

i already showed you that steel is mistaken for being melted all the time and that firefighters are even taught not to assume steel has melted because it can appear melted when it hasn't in certain situations.

Why wont you answer MY question?

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]

I don't know why. I could ask you the very same question. In fact, I think I have.

I have already answered it.

Gross was being flippant and Robertson didnt mean steel and didnt care about being specific (just like all those other people I showed you) and thats why he doesnt remember.

Now, your turn.

 

[ergo]

Melted metal (but not steel) and yes I already answered that several times.

The question asked was, "What kind of molten metal did Leslie Robertson see flowing in a little river?" and EdX answers "melted metal". Okey dokey....

EdX, why do you think the firefighter who showed Robertson this trickle of molten metal under the concrete found it remarkable enough to show him, and why did Robertson find it remarkable enough to comment on at his address at Stanford?

 

[DGM]

And you still haven't answered my question of what the "little river" of molten metal that Robertson saw could have been. What do you think it was?

Yes we did (you just didn't like it).

What do you think about the fact your high priest of "truth" Richard Gage had to be told the events were suspicious and obvious by a professor of religious studies (DRG)? Wouldn't you think an architect would figure this out for himself? Maybe he looked at the bucks DRG was making, "follow the money".

 

[Edx]

The question asked was, "What kind of molten metal did Leslie Robertson see flowing in a little river?" and EdX answers "melted metal". Okey dokey....

Uh yes.... because theres plenty of metals that look like that. Molten metal is expected in fires, I showed you that as well. Its reported in endless other fires and even described in firefighting training manuals.

Why do I need to be specific what metals melted when so many possible metals could have been there?

EdX, why do you think the firefighter who showed Robertson this trickle of molten metal under the concrete found it remarkable enough to show him, and why did Robertson find it remarkable enough to comment on at his address at Stanford?

Why would Robertson then tell the group being video taped there was melted steel when you claim he is in on the conspiracy and therefore had to know this was a byproduct of thermite and so prove that thermite had been used? Ah yes, you think he is an idiot and cant keep his lying mouth shut.

To answer your question though, maybe its because 911 was a huge fire that lasted for weeks, so everything was exaggerated as to what you'd expect in a normal fire. Its always reported like this in big fires though, go read the damn reports. That the fire was so severe it melted steel, etc. Big surprise we find the same reports on 911? No. Nothing special about what he said at all. If you found the same reports I showed you on 911 you'd claim they have to mean that steel really melted.

So tell me, are all those other fires inside jobs by the government or does fire create melted steel regularly? Please do tell me an alternative if you can think of one.

 

[ergo]

Gross was being flippant and Robertson didnt mean steel and thats why he doesnt remember.

But you're just guessing here. And the facts actually suggest otherwise. So why should we take your, an anonymous Internet poster's, word for it? Why would we do that, against all the other evidence?

Oh and hey, bedunkers: Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't! Right?? There were a lot of "firsts" on 9/11, weren't there? You say so all the time yourselves!

 

[ergo]

Ah yes, you think he is an idiot and cant keep his lying mouth shut.

I would ask you to please stop ascribing statements to me that I've never made. If anything, you're the one casting aspersions on Robertson's intelligence.

To answer your question though, maybe its because 911 was a huge fire that lasted for weeks, so everything was exaggerated as to what you'd expect in a normal fire. Its always reported like this in big fires though, go read the damn reports. That the fire was so severe it melted steel, etc. Big surprise we find the same reports on 911? No.

No, I don't think this is correct. There have been many much more severe structural and highrise fires where melted steel is not, and never was, reported.

 

[NoahFence]

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" ?




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?

Enough with the dishonesty.

Not found. Reported. (Mistakenly)

 

[NoahFence]

But you're just guessing here. And the facts actually suggest otherwise. So why should we take your, an anonymous Internet poster's, word for it? Why would we do that, against all the other evidence?

Oh and hey, bedunkers: Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't! Right?? There were a lot of "firsts" on 9/11, weren't there? You say so all the time yourselves!

Yea you're right. First time for molten steel. There was TONS of it. Enough to fill 10,000,000 olympic sized pools.

Enough to build an escalator to the top of Mount Everest.

Still doesn't prove controlled demo.

keep reaching, kiddo.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not found. Reported. (Mistakenly)

Speaking of which, from earlier in the year

The actual composition of a metal part and its
melting temperature should be determined before any conclusions
are drawn from the fact that it has melted. Accidental
alloying may occur during a fire.

And where I suspect EDX was getting some of his earlier excerpts (It was a thread he started)...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7245579&postcount=13

As was noted in the very thread byt tfk (2nd page):

The part of your story that I think is right on the mark is the fact that there are lots of reports of molten metal in fires. And, in general, there IS lots of molten metal in fires.

and reports of steel are part of those... if the mere mention of the word is grounds for controversy with the WTC and as is part of the thread's purpose... one could ask why it isn't getting the same scrutiny in other places where the reports are nearly identical. It would appear that the presence of metals alone is not enough to make an argument that any nefarious plot was executed.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/500/numerousmultitonmeteori.jpg[/qimg]
From AE911's own presentation... Notice the plural use of "meteorites" and the 2nd sample on the bottom right with captions ("aluminum does not rust)". Though it is not discussed at length in the history channel video, Voorsanger's firm did catalog it, and AE911 saw it relevant enough to juxtapose it with the 1st you've emphasized.

The problem has never been the actual samples per se, but rather just the mere mention of melted steel as is apparent by the fact that the issue of which sample we were dealing with didn't come up at all until after more than 10 pages of ongoing arguments...

That is quite a lame response even for you Grizzly Bear.

No statement from Bart Voorsanger.

No mention of melted steel.

No contradiction.

All I see is someone else using a screen capture from the documentary that Bart Voorsanger was in and applying their own comments.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

Even if there was melted steel, SO WHAT?