Metatheory and the NIST report

[jay howard]

The article or the paper?

From this article published by the Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

Do you have reason to believe the article concludes that the WPI steel isn't evidence of melted steel?

Please give me a quote or something to substantiate that.

 

[Par]

And had you bothered to read the paper, you'd know that it concludes the steel samples didn't get nearly hot enough to be molten. Oops.

So, you think the article concludes that the WPI steel isn't evidence of melted steel?

The article or the paper?

...

 

[beachnut]

How are those two links in any way, shape, or form evidence of CD of the WTC, or of an inside job on 911?

Jones and thermite, it is his faith to believe in the junk science of Jones. He has latched on to Jones like a moray ell on your last good hook, he will not let go.

 

[beachnut]

From this article published by the Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

Do you have reason to believe the article concludes that the WPI steel isn't evidence of melted steel?

Please give me a quote or something to substantiate that.

The web article says not a think about it. You need to explain line by line so the engineers can understand why you see thermite and CD, and no one but Jones can see it with you.

 

[beachnut]

Jay, may I suggest the "ignore function"?

Also, please stop pointing out that NIST has false claims, conflicting claims and failed logical dependencies. It's making these guys look bad.

Ignore logic and rational thinking and latch on to the misinformation of 9/11 truth. How does one loose the ability to think logically?
You and Jay are being taken to the cleaners. I think the ignore button is a good idea, you guys ignore the evidence anyway, stick those head deeper in the desert sands of 9/11 truth.

 

[GlennB]

So, Glenn, what's your take on the article? Do you think eutectic reactions are either normal office fire events or can be easily explained by "acid rain"?

False dichotomy.

Spending weeks in a smouldering rubble pile, in the presence of sulphur-containing compounds is neither of the choices you offer.

 

[jay howard]

Jones and thermite, it is his faith to believe in the junk science of Jones. He has latched on to Jones like a moray ell on your last good hook, he will not let go.

I take it, you have no substantive counterarguments to present. If you do, please share and let's put them to the test.

 

[jay howard]

The web article says not a think about it. You need to explain line by line so the engineers can understand why you see thermite and CD, and no one but Jones can see it with you.

You are again, trying to put words in my mouth. I've yet to make an explanatory reference to thermite. All I ask is that we come up with a theory that best explains all the known evidence.

Are you willing to do that?

 

[jay howard]

...

So you cannot substantiate your insinuations. I didn't really expect you could.

Seriously, can anyone tell me why the evidence I've repeatedly linked is NOT evidence of molten steel?

The strategy seems to be to either ignore/dismiss it, or to somehow pretend (without any substantive justification) that it is easily explained.

Those are the only options if one would rather cling to the conclusions of the NIST report. But again, the issue is obviously not an evidentiary one--it is a psychological one. To take the undeniable evidence of molten steel into account, one must re-evaluate a whole set of preconceptions about the WTC collapses.

Can you take this evidence into account, or is the desire to sweep it under the carpet overwhelming?

 

[T.A.M.]

Truther: Through the use of the deconfabulator, a xenon beam is produced, which ripped a hole in the space time continuum, forcing the collapse of the towers...

Debunker:...ummm.....No.

Truther: I take it, you have no substantive counterarguments to present. I win.

TAM

 

[jay howard]

False dichotomy.

Spending weeks in a smouldering rubble pile, in the presence of sulphur-containing compounds is neither of the choices you offer.

O.k., is that your explanation, or is this just an ad hoc theory to try an maintain your original position?

Is this a good explanation? Can we repeat it? Do we see it anywhere else?

 

[Par]

So you cannot substantiate your insinuations. I didn't really expect you could.

Do you mean in the paper or do you mean in the article?!

 

[beachnut]

You are again, trying to put words in my mouth. I've yet to make an explanatory reference to thermite. All I ask is that we come up with a theory that best explains all the known evidence.

Are you willing to do that?

I know you use Jones's work as your base, or do you? Just fess up to the end game at the beginning. You use the work of Jones, and do not even care if he made it all up. You know he did in 2005, made up thermite, he did not even know how it really works. I mean the use of thermite, to destroy weapons, and put holes in things. He picked the most far out CD method never used for CD, and he had to back in the RDX and other methods as he learned his attempt to smear the government was not working. I do not know why you cling to his work. Why? (is this your original theory?)

 

[jay howard]

Truther: Through the use of the deconfabulator, a xenon beam is produced, which ripped a hole in the space time continuum, forcing the collapse of the towers...

Debunker:...ummm.....No.

Truther: I take it, you have no substantive counterarguments to present. I win.

TAM

If you have to completely make things up in order give the appearance of a counterargument, you probably don't have one. If you'd like to make an analogy to my argument, then please demonstrate the similarity you infer.

Where have I said something completely unsubstantiatable and then put the burden of proof on you?

 

[beachnut]

I take it, you have no substantive counterarguments to present. If you do, please share and let's put them to the test.

Impact, fire, collapse. No explosives, no thermite, not extra help by some evil doers you have failed to find or provide evidence of them or their methods. Simple, and true, now you?

 

[T.A.M.]

The lack of plausibility in the big picture isn't enough???

TAM

 

[jay howard]

Do you mean in the paper or do you mean in the article?!

To THIS ARTICLE.

Can you substantiate your insinuation that the article (CITED ABOUT 1/4 inch ABOVE) does not conclude the WPI steel is evidence of melted steel?

 

[jay howard]

Impact, fire, collapse. No explosives, no thermite, not extra help by some evil doers you have failed to find or provide evidence of them or their methods. Simple, and true, now you?

If you do not understand the nature of my argument, please read the post #1.

Now, do you or do you not have a counterargument to any that I have made in this thread?

 

[jay howard]

The lack of plausibility in the big picture isn't enough???

TAM

Plausibility. Right. That's part of the reason I defined metatheoretical adequacy criteria from the OP--so there would be no confusion as to what counts as "plausible."

It seems you have either not read or not understood the arguments I've made.

So what part of my arguments do you deem "implausible." Keep in mind, that I have not referenced S. Jones nor thermite/thermate in this thread except to say that I am not using them to explain anything.

What now, is implausible?

 

[Gravy]

If they didn't find ferrous microspheres, you wouldn't have to say "they don't count as evidence of molten steel." But since they do in fact exist, you have to find some way to account for them. Momentary flashovers simply do not provide the energy to melt steel. These particles are positive evidence of molten steel.

If you have an argument to the contrary, please present it. This is the place for it. I haven't asked you to take my word for anything here. Nor should you ask me to take yours--not if you have an argument of any substance.

As I said, search this forum. There are at least two threads about this issue. That the particles are expected in a hot fire is not my opinion. Researchers testing dust samples were looking to use such particles as markers, and they say these iron spherules were expected to be found.

Strange how the title of the article is "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel." Did the author misunderstand his own writing? Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean here?

Jay, the article is about the results of a study. The study is cited. The study says the steel in question did not nearly get hot enough to melt. Read it before making a further fool of yourself. Is that too much to ask?