Molten Steel

[beachnut]

Not true. There are many things that would make me doubt the official theory. It's just that you haven't presented nearly enough prima facie evidence to convince me that I should change my mind.

The truth is too simple for the complex plot needed for conspiracy theorists looking for the next Bigfoot or Watergate.

 

[Christopher7]

As usual, you're missing the point. I phrased the sentence as an argument from ignorance. You saw the same sentence as a statement of fact. You appear unable to tell the difference between the two.

Dave

As usual, you are ignoring the point.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Why dont you put it in your JREF album? I can see them

I don't have a JREF album.

If it can be proven that there were lead-acid batteries that contained enough lead to account for the volume of falling molten metal then that must be considered a possibility. So far, all we have is inference and no documentation.

The Italian guy provides plenty of back for his claims and documentation.

No documentation has been posted here.

You dont have an amount for the falling metal. You need a source for that or it is a moot point.

The 'debunking' video said 30 tons. I think that is a bit high but 'tons' is a reasonable description.

What other type of batteries would they have been C7?

Nickel-cadmium. This has been discussed recently on this thread.

When did NIST make the claim and have they been asked about the batteries since?

They did not so far as I know.

 

[Christopher7]

You are giving C7 way more credit than I am. Intentional or not, it did make me laugh.

It was a joke and I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

I got a kick out of this reply-in-kind:

"Maybe he means open hearth rocket surgery."

 

[Toke]

It was a joke and I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

I got a kick out of this reply-in-kind:

"Maybe he means open hearth rocket surgery."

I can´t help thinking of a picture of a guy who fired a new year rocket, and used his clenced butchecks a launch ramp. Nasty burns.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I can´t help thinking of a picture of a guy who fired a new year rocket, and used his clenced butchecks a launch ramp. Nasty burns.

EDIT: You wouldn't happen to be talking about the "Butt rocket" videos on youtube would you?

 

[Christopher7]

Do you know of another possibility?

One possibility you haven't considered is that your small minority of eyewitnesses (who as a rule are notoriously unreliable in comparison to other forms of evidence) who you claim as your material witnesses for liquid steel were incorrect about seeing liquid steel. That is another possibility.

Non answer.

You cannot name another possibility for what melted the steel so you subject shift to the witnesses.

That's right. Thermite has been eliminated because it is impossible for thermite to have kept steel in a liquid state for days/weeks/months.

Double talk that sidesteps the question:

What melted the steel in the first place?

We're left with the improbability that the small minority of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen molten/melted/flowing/liquid metal/steel/girders/columns/beams were not actually looking at liquid steel.

The witnesses are credible. You are discounting them because you can't deal with the consequences.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Non answer.

You cannot name another possibility for what melted the steel so you subject shift to the witnesses.

Double talk that sidesteps the question:

What melted the steel in the first place?

Apparently nothing but the fires if steel was liquid in the first place. The side by side picture with the color chart has two problems; the one with the streaming material falling out of the tower had its contrast levels enhanced and this is disclaimed by NIST itself. The other image looks like it may have been altered honestly... or that the orange material isn't steel at all... Ironically it was the slag videos I showed you before that did that... particularly given that the glow of the material was cast on the vessels they were being poured from.... Looks like they forgot to add that to the grabber... Neither of them are remotely suitable for the use of a color chart

 

[Christopher7]

Are you at least minimally aware of the fact that you are on a skeptic's board?

You-all are skeptical of anything that undermines the OCT but you are not the least bit skeptical of the OCT.

Your blind faith in your government to tell you the truth is unwarranted and indeed foolish.

Please. Do you want their mother's maiden names too?

Nope, just their names and the date of the interview. I'll find out the rest of what I want to know myself. I have contacts in the FDNY who will help me do your homework.

Your homework. I accept what the witnesses said at the time. If you want to bug them you can. The list has been posted many times and is always followed by a reciting of Gravy's list of reason to deny and discount them.

Get out of town!
Who the hell are you to say he dosen't know what he is talking about? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your disrespect.

Perfect straw man. I have not said he does know what he is talking about. He simply made a mistake about a detail of what he saw. Its an honest mistake and pointing it out need not be insulting or disrespectful.

Then you acknowledge that he saw molten metal?

But don't worry I am going to contact him too. We'll get to the bottom of this minor anomaly in the witness statements.

If it's so minor, why are you so adamantly denying what he said in a documentary?

Also, don't forget to list the other 18 witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel. Or at least have the decency to retract your claim that there were "two dozen" witnesses to molten steel at ground zero. Thanks.

Here it is again. Please don't recite Gravy's list of reasons to deny and discount. I have heard it many times. Either you take them at their word or you don't.

http://nasathermalimages.com/#[[World Trade Center Hot Spots]]

O'Toole URL
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ground_zero_fires.html

 

[Mercutio]

Non answer.

You cannot name another possibility for what melted the steel so you subject shift to the witnesses.

No, C7, this is not a shift. You, C7, have not shown us melted steel; you have shown us claims of molten steel. One explanation for claims of molten steel is the actual existence of molten steel. Another explanation for claims of molten steel is GStan's perfectly reasonable answer. Yet another would by lying, on the part of your witnesses. No one here has claimed that. Yet another would be lying on your part. These are all explanations for claims of molten steel.

Double talk that sidesteps the question:

What melted the steel in the first place?

You are dismissing all the alternative explanations for the claims, and insisting on the one explanation that is least consistent with the physical evidence? Why, C7?

The witnesses are credible. You are discounting them because you can't deal with the consequences.

At least one of the alternate explanations agree that the witnesses are credible: the witnesses may be telling the truth, but you may be putting their words into your own bizarre context. Their words, in context, are perfectly compatible with that interpretation.

Remember that old logic problem about one guard who always tells the truth, and one guard who always lies? How do you find the truth? Ask either guard what the other guard would say. C7 tells us that this is what his witnesses meant. We do not have to think they lied in order for what C7 tells us to be a lie.

 

[Christopher7]

Non answer.

You cannot name another possibility for what melted the steel so you subject shift to the witnesses.

Double talk that sidesteps the question:

What melted the steel in the first place?

Apparently nothing but the fires if steel was liquid in the first place.

Fires in a debris pile cannot melt steel. You know that.

You don't have another explanation because there isn't one.

The side by side picture with the color chart has two problems; the one with the streaming material falling out of the tower had its contrast levels enhanced and this is disclaimed by NIST itself.

The video is reasonably color correct and the yellow is a little lighter than in the photo.

The other image looks like it may have been altered honestly... or that the orange material isn't steel at all... Ironically it was the slag videos I showed you before that did that... particularly given that the glow of the material was cast on the vessels they were being poured from.... Looks like they forgot to add that to the grabber... Neither of them are remotely suitable for the use of a color chart

Hogwash. The photo and the video are reasonably color accurate. The shade of yellow may be off a little but yellow is reproduced as yellow.

 

[Toke]

EDIT: You wouldn't happen to be talking about the "Butt rocket" videos on youtube would you?

No it was still picture.
Perhaps it is C7´s grasp of physics that makes the connection for me.

 

[Christopher7]

Yet another would by lying, on the part of your witnesses. No one here has claimed that.

Are you are suggesting that Richard Riggs and the firefighters are lying?
If not, then why mention it as a possibility?

Yet another would be lying on your part.

Absurd. We are talking about what the witnesses said not what I said.

You are dismissing all the alternative explanations for the claims, and insisting on the one explanation that is least consistent with the physical evidence? Why, C7?

What alternative explanations?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The video is reasonably color correct and the yellow is a little lighter than in the photo.

Hogwash. The photo and the video are reasonably color accurate. The shade of yellow may be off a little but yellow is reproduced as yellow.

Not particularly encouraging that you'd so easily use contrast adjusted photos to prove a measure of temperature. Knowing that fully and by NIST's disclaimer there's no guarantee it would be accurate enough for a direct measure

 

[Mercutio]

Are you are suggesting that Richard Riggs and the firefighters are lying?
If not, then why mention it as a possibility?

Nice... exactly 180 degrees from my actual meaning. No, C7, I am suggesting that their lying is a possibility that I reject in favor of the fact that you are lying.

Good thing I am not a Freudian; I'd find meaning in the fact that you are so quick to jump at the notion of their lying. Fortunately, the truth is transparently clear; you are once again engaging in your habit of borrowing the credentials or honor of others to hide the fact that you are lying.

Absurd. We are talking about what the witnesses said not what I said.

Ah, finally you admit that we are talking about what the witnesses said, not about what the witnesses saw. Yes, C7, we are talking about what the witnesses said. As I said, what you have presented us with are claims of molten steel, not molten steel itself.

What alternative explanations?

Precisely as I said in the post you selectively quoted part of, alternative explanations for claims of molten steel.


Thank you, C7, for illustrating exactly what I mean about your lying by taking others' words out of context. Now you are taking my words out of context; you are a liar, C7--I am paying you the respect of assuming that you are not a complete idiot, unable to understand what I said.

So, C7, which is it? Are you a moron, unable to understand what I wrote? Or are you a liar, who understood it but chose to misrepresent it? I choose to think you are not a moron. You are a liar.

 

[Christopher7]

Not particularly encouraging that you'd so easily use contrast adjusted photos to prove a measure of temperature. Knowing that fully and by NIST's disclaimer there's no guarantee it would be accurate enough for a direct measure

The contrast adjusted photo of the falling molten steel made the yellow a little darker than the video. The difference is not significant. The videos show that the falling molten steel ranges from light yellow to orange.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE&feature=player_embedded

 

[Mercutio]

The contrast adjusted photo of the falling molten steel made the yellow a little darker than the video. The difference is not significant.

What are your credentials? Are you qualified to make this call? I have taken a number of courses in visual perception; among the things I have studied is the effect of ambient light and spectral sensitivity curves on the perception of color. I know more about this than anyone (eta--except one) I know personally (I am well aware of many experts who know more about this than I ever will).

Point is, I would never consider my self expert enough to say "the difference is not significant".

So, again... what are your credentials? By what reasoning, evidence, authority, or magic are you able to make that call?

 

[BigAl]

The contrast adjusted photo of the falling molten steel made the yellow a little darker than the video. The difference is not significant. The videos show that the falling molten steel ranges from light yellow to orange.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE&feature=player_embedded


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

It is literally impossible for you or anyone, now to know the history of the color adjustment, accidental and intentional for this photograph.

You are making stuff as you go up to fit whatever point you imagine needs to be made.

 

[Christopher7]

What melted the steel in the first place?

You are dismissing all the alternative explanations for the claims,

What alternative explanations?

Precisely as I said in the post you selectively quoted part of, alternative explanations for claims of molten steel.

Another non-answer. You said there are alternative answers. You are making that up and you know it. Name one or stop making that claim.

 

[Christopher7]

It is literally impossible for you or anyone, now to know the history of the color adjustment, accidental and intentional for this photograph.

Irrelevant. The falling molten steel was pale yellow to orange in the videos.

Orange to pale yellow is 2100-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F