Molten Steel

[funk de fino]

This is a child's game. You know the crab claw photo was taken at night so why not just say so instead of asking sarcastic questions?
Your inference is that a photo taken at night with work lights cannot reproduce a reasonably color correct photo. Such is not the case and you know it so why try infer it?

How is that different than posting a photo of non silver molten aluminium outside in daylight? Or in the workshop under work light? Or the material falling from the towers in shade?

You do not have a base example.

You have still jnot retracted your claim that I said NIST tested for exoplosives. Please do so or you lied earlier.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's use a different analogy...

An astronomer puts out a new theory on black holes. It is a controversial theory and people ask him "well do you have anyone that agrees with you?", and to this he replies "Yes, Jack Black here agrees with me for one", but Jack Black is a co-author of the theory.

Anyone who worked on the NIST report is part of said report and cannot be included in an independent supporter of the "Official" report

But your contention is not that NIST were the conspirators, but that the US Government (or factions within it) were the conspirators. So let's extend your theory further. Your astronomer and Jack Black are asked for independent confirmation, so they say, "Joe White at Western University has carried out an independent review of our results, and his analysis agrees with ours". You then say, "But Joe White's report is part of the official story of your theory, so in effect he too is a co-author of the theory." In other words, you're rejecting evidence not because it originates with the people you're accusing - unless you are accusing the whole of NIST of treason - but because it disagrees with your case. That's called confirmation bias.

But if you're looking for confirmation independent of the US Government, how about Keith Seffen or the Ove Arup report, or the investigations carried out by the insurance companies? How do you explain that every serious engineering investigation, whoever carried it out, finds nothing wrong with the supposition that the collapses were caused by fire and impact damage?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Edit: Seems Dave does not like this light shining on him so he has to make the accusation of plagiarism...as if I could plagiarise this list that has been around and quite popular for 15 years now...

I suspect you look up the definition of plagiarism. Quoting large passages of other people's work without attribution, therefore presenting it as your own, pretty much covers it. The fact that it's well known to a small sub-culture doesn't mean it's universally familiar, and its age is irrelevant.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Have yourself a ball steve. Please let me know when you take this seriously. I know you really think this is just a joke, and ego trip for you because you're here, teasing people on jref about how you can show the "OCT" is a lie, instead of actually doing something. You are, SteveAustin, another CFT - Coward For Truth.

I predict this lie that Steve brings will be Bush saying he saw the first plane hit on TV.

 

[TheRedWorm]

But no physical evidence of molten steel, is there? And please don't counter with your "well it was all destroyed" ********.

Hmm?

 

[GStan]

You just shifted from 'evidence' to 'proof' to justify your denial.

Not so.

This is the case for denial of molten steel in a nut shell.

There was no liquid steel. The evidence does not support it.

1) The destruction of the physical evidence should be used as an argument for no physical evidence of molten steel rather than being seen as evidence of a cover up.

Nope. The steel was adequately examined and catalogued by investigators prior to recycling. They found no evidence of liquid steel at ground zero.

2) All the witness statements should be disregarded because:
a. they are not 'proof'
[They are evidence, not proof.]

Nope. Witness statements are evidence, but this particular tiny collection of witness statements should be disregarded because they are not consistent with all of the other evidence collected and analysed, as well as not consistent with all of the thousands of other witnesses who worked on the rubble pile and made no mention of liquid steel.

b. they haven't been re-confirmed
[The publishing of these statements is conformation that the people made those statements unless the person retracts or says they did not make the statement.]

Yes. Publication is confirmation that the statements were made, unless they have retracted them, but not confirmation that they were certain they were looking at liquid steel, and certainly not confirmation that it was liquid steel.

c. second hand statements are worthless
[This is not a court of law. All statements can be considered based on the reliability of the witness]

They are not worthless simply because they are second-hand statements. They are worthless (these particular statements) because they are just wrong. They are mistakenly describing something that all the evidence shows could not have happened. More critically, they are describing something that you yourself have acknowledged would be impossible to explain.

<snip>

 

[BigAl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhJF_hTJ2Rw&feature=player_embedded

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

...
This confirms that molten metal is semi solid when yellow to orange and fluid when pale yellow to white.
Color charts are used to "approximate" the color of metals. Photos may not have perfect color balance but the crab claw photo is high quality and reasonably accurate. The video is likewise reasonably accurate. The shade of yellow may be off but it is clearly yellow in both.

The steel dripping off the bottom of the glob is pale yellow to white ~1500°C.
The falling molten [liquid] steel is yellow ~1300°C according to the blacksmith chart.
This suggests that it was melted with thermate which lowers the melting point of steel.

The author of the color scale you use warns you that the colors are not reliable unless the lighting is controlled. You can't pick one as"OK". You have no information with which to do that. (For those that don't know what I am referring to, type in the blksmth.com URL seen on the lower right of the color scale.)

It is impossible to tell which one is OK and which is not. They might both be wrong.

 

[GStan]

Actually there's a couple dozen and I see no reason to doubt them.

Twenty-four? Really? Link please.

Christopher, who are these 24 witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel?

 

[tsig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhJF_hTJ2Rw&feature=player_embedded

[qimg]http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you for the slag video.
It is necessary to heat the slag far above the melting point to keep it from solidifying before it can be dumped. The cooling and solidifying slag in the video is consistent with the blacksmith color chart and the glob in the crab claw. As we can see in the video between 2:10 and 2:35, the molten slag is turning from white to yellow and even orange in some areas.

This confirms that molten metal is semi solid when yellow to orange and fluid when pale yellow to white.
Color charts are used to "approximate" the color of metals. Photos may not have perfect color balance but the crab claw photo is high quality and reasonably accurate. The video is likewise reasonably accurate. The shade of yellow may be off but it is clearly yellow in both.

The steel dripping off the bottom of the glob is pale yellow to white ~1500°C.
The falling molten [liquid] steel is yellow ~1300°C according to the blacksmith chart.
This suggests that it was melted with thermate which lowers the melting point of steel.

Can you tell me where you got the crab claw picture. I think it's a fake.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This is a child's game. You know the crab claw photo was taken at night so why not just say so instead of asking sarcastic questions?
Your inference is that a photo taken at night with work lights cannot reproduce a reasonably color correct photo. Such is not the case and you know it so why try infer it?

No try again... what's the difference between the molten steel in the slag video and the material in the grab picture? It ain't the time of day.

The semi solid glob is orange at the top where it is being grabbed.

And it neither conducts heat to the machinery nor casts light onto it. It's emissivity of light doesn't saturate the camera. It's plasticized not melted. Using the temperature color chart on this video has more problems than simply the use of a photograph.

nit-picking deleted

So what is it thios time? All thermite or all Thermate?

 

[GlennB]

Your inference is that a photo taken at night with work lights cannot reproduce a reasonably color correct photo. Such is not the case and you know it so why try infer it?

So this hydrocarbon fire is white-hot in parts and could melt steel. That's interesting ...

 

[BigAl]

I know. As is so often the case, what is posted by a JREFer to support the case for denial actually supports the case for CD.

This is a child's game. You know the crab claw photo was taken at night so why not just say so instead of asking sarcastic questions?
Your inference is that a photo taken at night with work lights cannot reproduce a reasonably color correct photo. Such is not the case and you know it so why try infer it?


The semi solid glob is orange at the top where it is being grabbed.


nit-picking deleted

In a prior post, Christopher invented "Patrick's Law" (???) and pasted text about Plank's law that he googled up and pasted. He clearly doesn't understand what he is pasteing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4568967#post4568967​

Christopher clearly has no business making crap up about color temperature and spectra of "work lights", as if he's measured them and knows what he is talking about.

 

[BigAl]

Can you tell me where you got the crab claw picture. I think it's a fake.

I think it's a screen shot from a short video frequently posted here in which someone in a safety vest and hard hat speaking at length about how hot the fires are.

The problem that Christopher can't address is the guy never says the words, "molten" and "steel" and no information is presented that would indicate temperatures sufficient to support claims of liquid steel.

 

[SteveAustin]

Ok my post is up, sorry I couldnt put it up last night like I had wanted...life happened and I was too busy

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4573657#post4573657

Now as to people saying that they still have not seen any evidence of molten steel...you are all either lying or playing word games. There has been a lot of evidence put forward on this thread for molten steel, just nothing any of you are willing to accept as "proof". Please stop confusing "evidence" with "proof" in your replies

 

[TheRedWorm]

Present the physical evidence then, SA.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now as to people saying that they still have not seen any evidence of molten steel...you are all either lying or playing word games. There has been a lot of evidence put forward on this thread for molten steel, just nothing any of you are willing to accept as "proof". Please stop confusing "evidence" with "proof" in your replies

There is anecdotal evidence for molten steel, I think most of us would agree. The value of this anecdotal evidence is negligible in the absence of any supporting accounts of re-solidified steel or any sample analysis of molten material. Christopher7 claims photographic evidence as well, but of his photographs, one is evidence of something that, when analysed using his own approach, turns out not to be molten steel, and the other requires materials to behave in a physically unreasonable manner in order to involve molten steel. Overall, therefore, there is a small amount of highly inconclusive evidence that merely suggests the presence of molten steel, and other more convincing evidence that tends to suggest its absence.

Happy now?

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Ok my post is up, sorry I couldnt put it up last night like I had wanted...life happened and I was too busy

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4573657#post4573657

Now as to people saying that they still have not seen any evidence of molten steel...you are all either lying or playing word games. There has been a lot of evidence put forward on this thread for molten steel, just nothing any of you are willing to accept as "proof". Please stop confusing "evidence" with "proof" in your replies

There is no physical evidence. None. Without any physical evidence, all anecdotes have to be considered for the use of metaphore, simile and hyperbole. Most of the stories of liquid steel are second-hand. Given the fuzziness of the words "molten" and the fact that incandescent steel existed, it's easy to see how the stories of the story grew in the retelling.

There is not a single strong eyewitness for liquid steel, one that has been cross-examined, for example.

There is many reports of steel that is to some degree incandescent being pulled from the pile. According to this scale could be as low as 1200F/650C.

http://www.smex.net.au/Reference/SteelColours.htm​

Because the science to show how 650C is possible is obvious, the anecdotal stories have credibility.

There is no science to show how temperatures sufficient to liquefy steel are possible, therefore the anecdotal stories are insufficient by themselves to establish liquid steel on the

 

[TheRedWorm]

Present the physical evidence then, SA.

Well?

 

[tsig]

I think it's a screen shot from a short video frequently posted here in which someone in a safety vest and hard hat speaking at length about how hot the fires are.

The problem that Christopher can't address is the guy never says the words, "molten" and "steel" and no information is presented that would indicate temperatures sufficient to support claims of liquid steel.

Tnx;

I found this but it really doesn't say where the pic came from.

"This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?"


http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=2&t=771

 

[TjW]

You just shifted from 'evidence' to 'proof' to justify your denial.

Not so.

This is the case for denial of molten steel in a nut shell.

1) The destruction of the physical evidence should be used as an argument for no physical evidence of molten steel rather than being seen as evidence of a cover up.

2) All the witness statements should be disregarded because:
a. they are not 'proof'
[They are evidence, not proof.]

b. they haven't been re-confirmed
[The publishing of these statements is conformation that the people made those statements unless the person retracts or says they did not make the statement.]

c. second hand statements are worthless
[This is not a court of law. All statements can be considered based on the reliability of the witness]


Long story made short:
The abject denial of the witness statements amounts to:

Don't confuse me with the facts.

The witness statements are not evidence. They are worthless until you can prove them in a court of law.

There is no need for a court to convene because there is no evidence.


This the circular logic that drives the denier circular debate.

1) No. I don't believe anyone but you has contended that the destruction of evidence is being used as evidence of anything.

The lack of physical evidence has been cited, but that does not necessarily imply it existed and was destroyed.

Your arguments convince you, but if you really want an investigation, you need to have better arguments that will convince more people than have so far been convinced.
What you've been doing is simply repeating the same arguments over and over. To accomplish your goal, you need to improve them, not simply parrot them. The people who are going to be convinced by the arguments you are using I'm pretty sure are already convinced, whether by your arguments or their own biases.

The totality of the existing evidence fits into my world view quite easily.
I know that fires like those in the debris piles can get very hot, for a very long time.
I know that there were materials other than steel with lower melting points in the towers.
I know that people describing dramatic events tend to use dramatic terms, even if they're not the most accurately descriptive of what they saw.