Merged So there was melted steel

DGM said:
You should look through Dr. Judy Wood's site. She's got pictures of all kinds of melted stuff, (none of it steel). She's nuts but, her pictures are real.
Click to expand...

Yeah? It has solidified pools of aluminum?
 
ergo said:
:eye-poppi

"No melted girders" where? Did you even look at the link? No, you didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes I read it, you however only read one sentence.

Its written in the quote you posted, I even bolded it in RED for you.

He is explaining to the interviewer that the steel likely reached 1,000 to 1,500 degrees and this was sufficient to collapse them. He then says that the word "melting" should NOT be used for girders BECAUSE he says that "there was no melting of girders".

His interviewer then askes him... "But they got soft, though, didn't they?". He is asking... So they did not melt, but they got soft, right? Then Astaneh says yes, when steel reaches 1,000 degrees it looses its strength. So even the interviewer knows that he was saying that no steel melted. Whoever transcribed this interview did not write the last sentence correctly and forgot to include the word "no" ie. It should have read... "I saw [no] melting of girders in World Trade Center." If not, then the entire point makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

He cant be saying that there was no melting girders and that there was melting girders at the same time.

The whole quote, please actually read it this time.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

SPENCER MICHELS: But they got soft, though, didn't they?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.
Click to expand...


What you're trying to use as evidence is an obvious and simple typo. We also know he doesnt agree with you. He cant be an expert one second and an idiot incompetent the next just because you want him to say things he never said.
 
Last edited:
Holy crap. Ed, you are completely misunderstanding what Astaneh-Asl is saying. He is pointing out that the girders on the overpass were not melted, even though they were reported as being melted. He is saying, essentially, that he knows what melted girders look like because he saw them at the WTC.

So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders.
Click to expand...

Then he said,
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
Click to expand...


You're saying that he really said "I saw no melting of girders in World Trade Center"? Why would he suddenly bring up the irrelevant topic of the WTC when discussing the overpass? Especially when he is quoted in several other locations on the abnormality of WTC steel?

I can't believe your sole strategy is to run around saying, "Everybody's wrong! They all said the wrong things! They don't what they're saying! I know what they're saying!"

This is going in the Stundies.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Holy crap. Ed, you are completely misunderstanding what Astaneh-Asl is saying. He is pointing out that the girders on the overpass were not melted, even though they were reported as being melted. He is saying, essentially, that he knows what melted girders look like because he saw them at the WTC.
Click to expand...

Ergo please look at the quote:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

SPENCER MICHELS: But they got soft, though, didn't they?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.
Click to expand...

How does this response make sense to you? It only makes sense if ASTANEH actually said "I saw NO melting of girders in World Trade Center." Even that is badly written. Shouldn't it be IN the World Trade Centre? Or AT Ground Zero? That is why it is followed by the question... "But they got soft, though, didn't they?". Ie. Ok so they didnt melt, but they did get soft right?

He didnt just randomly bring up the WTC, look back in the article.

If you don't agree then maybe you can answer the following for me...

Ive asked you several times now..
  • How he can be such an expert and yet not think something is suspicious about melted steel?

  • Tell me how he can be an expert and incompetent at the same time?
 
Last edited:
Ergo:

Where's the solidified pools? You're the one claiming there was molten steel (or metals for that matter). What happened to them? Is this another reason we need an "independent investigation"?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
How does this make sense to you? It only makes sense if ASTANEH actually said "I saw NO melting of girders in World Trade Center." That is why it is followed by "But they got soft, though, didn't they?"
Click to expand...

He is pointing out that the girders on the overpass were not melted, even though they were reported as being melted - a point you like to make a lot. He is saying, essentially, that he knows what melted girders look like because he saw them at the WTC.

This meaning is very clear. You don't have to assume typos here. Holy crap.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
He is pointing out that the girders on the overpass were not melted, even though they were reported as being melted - a point you like to make a lot. He is saying, essentially, that he knows what melted girders look like because he saw them at the WTC.

This meaning is very clear. You don't have to assume typos here. Holy crap.
Click to expand...

If its not a typo ergo, then you have to deal with this...


  • How he can be such an expert and yet not think something is suspicious about melted steel?

  • Tell me how he can be an expert and incompetent at the same time?
 
Here's more of what Astaneh-Asl said in the same interview:
After 9/11, we realized that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has sent all this steel that we need to study. That's why I'm here to study steel. To send steel to a recycling plant to go to China for recycling, for what? For 15 cents a pound. That's nothing. And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot.
Click to expand...
 
Edx said:
Tell me how he can be an expert and incompetent at the same time?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking this question? I'm not saying this. If anything, you are.

The meaning of what he said is perfectly clear to any moron.
 
ergo said:
Here's more of what Astaneh-Asl said in the same interview:
Click to expand...

Lol, what are you reading???The bit where he said... " And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot."

Its bad broken English, just like the other quote you used. What exactly do you think this means?

He is talking about the recycling effort of the WTC debris and that the steel was MELTED DOWN. Not sure why you think... " And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot.". .,. especially in context of recycling actually means "all steel was melted" or some other weird interpretation before or in the rubble pile.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Lol, what are you reading???The bit where he said... " And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot."

Its bad broken English. What exactly do you think this means?
Click to expand...

I'm merely pointing out that he is critical of how the WTC steel was handled prior to a proper investigation.
 
ergo said:
Why are you asking this question? I'm not saying this. If anything, you are.

The meaning of what he said is perfectly clear to any moron.
Click to expand...

You are saying that he is an expert to know that there was melted steel. Right?

However I am pointing out since he doesn't agree with you it means doesn't know what melted steel means (ie that its suspicious) so therefore he must be incompetent, according to you.

Tell me how thats possible.

  • Why doesnt he know that melted steel points to thermite?
  • Why are all these "experts" apparently so blasé about saying that there was melted steel?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I'm merely pointing out that he is critical of how the WTC steel was handled prior to a proper investigation.
Click to expand...

So critical means inside job? Critical means thermite melting steel? Sorry ergo, but if you think melted steel obviously has to point to thermite then all these "experts" have to be incompetent since none of them actually think that and Robertson cant even remember saying it. Maybe they dont mean what you think they mean.

Whatever the case, you can't have it both ways, they cant be experts one second and incompetent the next.
 
Last edited:
EdX, you're really, really reaching here to insist that a quote that is obvious in its meaning to anybody, was actually a "typo". You can't see that?

According to EdX, EVERYBODY is wrong. Absolutely EVERYBODY. EdX knows what they really meant.

I mean seriously, this is what your argument boils down to. :D
 
ergo said:
EdX, you're really, really reaching here to insist that a quote that is obvious in its meaning to anybody, was actually a "typo". You can't see that?

According to EdX, EVERYBODY is wrong. Absolutely EVERYBODY. EdX knows what they really meant.

I mean seriously, this is what your argument boils down to. :D
Click to expand...

I never said he was wrong, just that he EVIDENTLY does not mean what you think he does.

Ergo I asked you some more questions, why cant you answer them?

  • Why doesnt he know that melted steel points to thermite?

  • Why doesnt he even think its suspicious?


    [*]Why are all these "experts" apparently so blasé about saying that there was melted steel?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Whatever the case, you can't have it both ways, they cant be experts one second and incompetent the next.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I'm not saying that.

The quote of Robertson's that you keep saying he "can't remember saying" was the wrong quote. His quote on molten steel is found here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom