Molten Steel

[Mercutio]

Because it is not necessary.

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance of eyewitness testimony.

If there were only one or two witnesses saying there was molten steel you would have a point. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are numerous credible witnesses saying there was molten steel.

What percentage is this of the total number who were in a position to have seen the alleged molten steel? You should know this number, C7; it is crucial to your argument.

(Of course, C7 has no way of knowing how many of his witnesses actually mean what he claims they do. He quotes them out of context--some (all?) of them explicitly disagree with his fantasy--and will not contact them to confirm. The simplest explanation is that the liar knows he is lying, and knows that they would confirm that he is lying. Again, though, C7, thank you for illustrating your ignorance of eyewitness testimony.)

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, actually, it is necessary.

No, it is not.

For instance, there is every bit as much evidence that high-powered lasers melted the steel as there is that thermite melted it (specifically, none).

Right.

it is thus necessary for you to know that eyewitness testimony has been thoroughly researched and found to be subject to systematic errors.

Witness testimony identifying a particular person is unreliable. Numerous credible witnesses are saying they saw molten steel. Others, who had no reason to lie, said they heard about it from others, who had no reason to lie. All these people were not mistaken or misled.

There is no reason to doubt all the witnesses. You are trying to dismiss what they said only because you cannot deal with the consequences.

The fact that you-all refuse to accept what the witnesses said only proves that you will reject anything that disproves the OCT.

 

[BigAl]

No, it is not.

Right.

Witness testimony identifying a particular person is unreliable. Numerous credible witnesses are saying they saw molten steel. Others, who had no reason to lie, said they heard about it from others, who had no reason to lie. All these people were not mistaken or misled.

I guess C7 never played the game, Telephone.

Hyperbole and rumor explains it all.

 

[Sunstealer]

Your denial is based on your lack of knowledge of thermite technology.

And your claims likewise.

You could not possibly know what technology the military had because they don't make that information public.

Why don't you apply the same criteria to yourself? Why do you make claims based upon what you yourself cannot possibly know?



Similarly you don't even know what thermite is, you can't explain the reaction, you don't know what the chemical equation means, you have no idea what constitutes the materials required: and by that I mean the processes that make the products and how such processes change the material and therefore it's characteristics.

You shout nano, but don't actually know what nano is or how it affects the reaction.

Come on C7 - Give us a comprehensive run down of what YOU (not the military or anyone else) UNDERSTAND by what the thermite reaction actually is. Show us that you know what you are talking about. Show us that the thermite reaction doesn't just include Al and Fe₂O₃. I don't even think you'd get past one line of an excuse let alone a cut and paste from a googled site.

 

[Sunstealer]

Because it is not necessary.

If there were only one or two witnesses saying there was molten steel you would have a point. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are numerous credible witnesses saying there was molten steel.

Go back and reread what I posted. Do this slowly and carefully. Infact copy it down onto a piece of paper, show it to a friend or two. This will help you understand the point behind the post. It is the reason why I suggested that you forget about 9/11 when doing so, but you couldn't resist.

 

[Mercutio]

No, it is not.

Thank you for illustrating your ignorance.

Right.

Liar. (you can, of course, prove me wrong, by showing any evidence whatsoever for thermite. Seriously, lasers have no problem with horizontal cutting, so your thermite is a bad second choice.)

Witness testimony identifying a particular person is unreliable.

Again, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the eyewitness testimony literature. It is not, whatsoever, limited to person identification. Your ignorance here is critically important to your case.

Numerous credible witnesses are saying they saw molten steel.

Numerous credible witnesses, in a position to have seen it, do not say that they saw it. (Oh, and you get one extra "lying SOB" point for using the present tense; in truth, no witnesses "are saying they saw molten steel". Your lie here is as transparent as all your lies; the quotes you take out of context are several years old, not current.)

Others, who had no reason to lie, said they heard about it from others, who had no reason to lie.

Much as I would rather not, I am compelled once again to thank you for illustrating your ignorance of eyewitness testimony. Once again, you are quite wrong about the need for you to know another scientific literature. Your ignorance here completely undermines your case. It is ignorance, isn't it? Or is this another case where you know the truth, but are lying?

All these people were not mistaken or misled.

I'd thank you again, but you already know. You cannot know this as fact. No one can. You are unwilling to ask them to confirm it now, so I suspect that you already know that not only is this "not necessarily so", it is outright wrong.

There is no reason to doubt all the witnesses.

Other than the entire line of research on eyewitness testimony, and your (you, C7) habitual lying. We have no reason to trust that they said what you claim they did. None. You have taken others out of context (including me), and you refuse to verify your fantastical claims. The scientific literature you are ignorant of is, once again, firmly opposed to your fantasy.

You are trying to dismiss what they said only because you cannot deal with the consequences.

Why do you think that? Of course I could deal with it. I would like nothing more than to believe that A) my country was not vulnerable in this way, and B) that Bush was culpable. Sadly, this is not the case.

The fact that you-all refuse to accept what the witnesses said only proves that you will reject anything that disproves the OCT.

You have not come close to proving that. It is a predictable dodge on your part, though (although you disappoint me by not including the phrase "Gravy's script"). Sorry, C7, you have only proven yourself a liar, many times over.

 

[Sunstealer]

Because it is not necessary.

If there were only one or two witnesses saying there was molten steel you would have a point. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are numerous credible witnesses saying there was molten steel.

It doesn't matter how many people are claiming it you still need to investigate them and their claims.

How many people claim UFOs and upon investigation it turns out that hundreds of people were wrong? How many times does it occur that people claim something and it turns out to be correct?

You can't just claim numbers, you have to establish evidence that backs up those people's claims/statements.

Imagine this scenario:

A mob gangster is arrested upon suspicion of killing a rival.
Every single witness to the killing says they didn't see that particular gangster.
The gangster has numerous witnesses that swear and will go to court saying that he was doing x,y,z at the time of the murder.

In your eyes this guy is innocent - the witnesses confirm everything because you believe that every witness statement is 100% correct and never wrong.

Notice I say noting about lying.

(Unbeknown to you, me, the gangster, the witnesses, there is CCTV camera evidence that shows that he drove his own car upto a street and is clearly identified shooting the victim.)

Clearly present the number of witnesses. (We don't need their individual statements). Get in contact with them and ask them exactly what they saw and ask them to clarify their original statements.

Unless you do this you have nothing. Nothing but hearsay, second hand information that would be laughed out of court unless you could get the witness to the stand.

Hint: You cannot do this with your ass glued to the chair infront of the internets.

 

[Sunstealer]

NIST FAQ august 30, 2006
"[FONT=&quot]Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery.[/FONT]"

There was no PURE aluminium present. I really wish you would educate yourself with regard to the materials that you continue to shout about. You knowledge of materials is rudimentary at best and certainly not above that of a thirteen year old. You refuse to acknowledge that the majority of the aluminium present would be in an alloy form even if liquid and you refuse to acknowledge that Liquid Aluminium and it's alloys will dissolve other elements and react furiously with material from it's surroundings.

There is no way that the material observed falling from the corner of the tower would be pure aluminium. Please stop it - it hurts my soul as a metallurgist/materials engineer to have to refute such basic misconceptions.

 

[Christopher7]

There was no PURE aluminium present.

Word games.

[FONT=&quot]"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."[/FONT]

There is no precedent or scientific basis for the assumption that molten aluminum mixed with organic material.

 

[Mercutio]

There is no precedent or scientific basis for the assumption that molten aluminum mixed with organic material.

How are you defining "mixed"?

(only you can answer this.)

Is this yet another area where your ignorance is relevant to your fantasy? Are you qualified to make the claims you are?

(The answers here are "yes" and "no", respectively.)

 

[Christopher7]

It doesn't matter how many people are claiming it you still need to investigate them and their claims.

Yes! We need a real investigation.

Your circular logic says we should disregard the witness statements because they have not properly investigated.
It is not possible for me or anyone else to do the investigation without the necessary resources and subpoena power. You know that so you ask for the impossible in order to deny the witness statements. That boat don't float.

 

[BigAl]

Word games.

[FONT=&quot]"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."[/FONT]

There is no precedent or scientific basis for the assumption that molten aluminum mixed with organic material.

What a loon.

 

[Christopher7]

How are you defining "mixed"?

The dictionary defines mixed.

mixed: consisting of a combination of different parts or different kinds of things

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT="][SIZE=5]"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."[/SIZE][/FONT]

There is no precedent or scientific basis for the assumption that molten aluminum mixed with organic material. [/quote]
[QUOTE="BigAl, post: 4586963, member: 17422"]What a loon.

I agree. Whoever said molten aluminum could combine with organic materials is definitely a loon.

In the smelting process organic material separates from the aluminum.

 

[BigAl]

Word games.

[FONT=&quot]"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."[/FONT]

There is no precedent or scientific basis for the assumption that molten aluminum mixed with organic material.

Whatever poured out of the tower, it wasn't pure.

I don't think you understand what "pure" means.

 

[Christopher7]

Whatever poured out of the tower, it wasn't pure.

I don't think you understand what "pure" means.

That's because you don't think at all.

Whatever poured out of the south tower was much hotter that office fires can attain.

 

[Christopher7]

Only an idiot would insist it could not be done.

Only an idiot would insist that it was.

touché

 

[Mercutio]

The dictionary defines mixed.

mixed: consisting of a combination of different parts or different kinds of things

Given that definition, your claim that this has never been demonstrated has been falsified within this very thread. If this is the definition you use, why do you continue to claim it has never been demonstrated? If you are not lying when you say it has never been demonstrated, why do you continue to use this definition? (It is trivially true, of course, that scientific definitions may be different from dictionary definitions, but when I asked for your definition, you explicitly gave the dictionary definition.)

Are you constitutionally unable to refrain from lying, C7? I would never insult you by claiming that you are simply an idiot, although that would be an appropriate alternative explanation. Either way, you are not merely wrong, you are systematically wrong. Continuously, unabashedly wrong. I do you the honor of calling you a liar; do you disagree, and claim to be merely an idiot?

 

[Mercutio]

That's because you don't think at all.

Whatever poured out of the south tower was much hotter that office fires can attain.

If I reported posts, I would report this one. A baseless insult, followed by a lie.

C7, an honest person would be ashamed to post what you just did.

 

[Christopher7]

Given that definition, your claim that this has never been demonstrated has been falsified within this very thread.

No.

If this is the definition you use, why do you continue to claim it has never been demonstrated?

Because it hasn't.