Merged So there was melted steel

[lexicon008]

What does he say at 44 seconds

One of the fire fighters said I think you'll be interested in this and they pulled out the big block of concrete and there was a little river of steel flowing.

give or take a few ums and ahs

 

[Spanx]

One of the fire fighters said I think you'll be interested in this and they pulled out the big block of concrete and there was a little river of steel flowing.

give or take a few ums and ahs

How did they know it was steel and how did they know it was behind a big block of concrete ?

Only asking questions I assume you have the answers

 

[LSSBB]

One of the fire fighters said I think you'll be interested in this and they pulled out the big block of concrete and there was a little river of steel flowing.

give or take a few ums and ahs

How much heat would that theoretical river of steel radiate?

 

[lexicon008]

How did they know it was steel and how did they know it was behind a big block of concrete ?

Only asking questions I assume you have the answers

no idea..why don't you ask mr Robertson, it's his story..he is the one giving this lecture. Is he trustworthy or not?

 

[lexicon008]

How much heat would that theoretical river of steel radiate?

again, that would depend on the size of the flow and the direction and distance you're standing in relation to it.

 

[Spanx]

no idea..why don't you ask mr Robertson, it's his story..he is the one giving this lecture. Is he trustworthy or not?

Why would I need to ask him.

You are the one here telling his story, starting at 50 seconds.

 

[LSSBB]

again, that would depend on the size of the flow and the direction and distance you're standing in relation to it.

Dodging the question. Just give an estimate. A swag is ok...

 

[lexicon008]

Dodging the question. Just give an estimate. A swag is ok...

its not a dodge, there are too many variables to give you an accurate answer and what relevance does it have anyways since either he saw it or he didn't.

 

[LSSBB]

its not a dodge, there are too many variables to give you an accurate answer and what relevance does it have anyways since either he saw it or he didn't.

Because for it to really be molten steel, the counter claim is that extreme heat would also be present.

 

[lexicon008]

Because for it to really be molten steel, the counter claim is that extreme heat would also be present.

your point being?

Is it your argument that they couldn't have seen what they say they saw because it would be hot?
Again heat tends to rise. It is going to be far hotter over a heat source then beside it unless there is something directing the heat in the lateral direction.
So it is not impossible for them to be standing within visual distance of a river of flowing steel and not get burned.
Again, you can find pictures and videos all over the place of workers in foundrys standing within feet of molten metals and not having much of a problem.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut

"There was no melted steel found. oops - evidence of melted steel would be found, but no one has any from the WTC. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ3MDKzPp_Y

Now why would he say what he is saying..he isn't a truther.

"Robertson said no, there was no melted steel - you can ask him. He said no melted steel. Are you unable to contact him?

Simple research shows Robertson said no. BTW, a river of melted steel is how hot? What happens to people next to it?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto (50 seconds in roughly)
Robertson did say it..his voice..his words..his observations.. so is he wrong or lying?

Funny how you say he said no then use virtually his exact words from this lecture to show yes he did say it.

After asking Robertson, he denies it was melted steel. Oops, asked him, he said no melted steel. Now you got a lecture which he retracted his statement.

You lost this one because you can't get the latest information, failure of research, failure to read, failure to understand 911 for almost 12 long years of woo.

Big reason your melted steel falls into woo, ignorance and fantasy; you don't have any evidence. You have hearsay, nonsense, and no piles of melted steel, from those vast rivers in the minds of failed conspiracy theorists; 12 years of failure for sure, followed by infinity.

 

[lexicon008]

After asking Robertson, he denies it was melted steel. Oops, asked him, he said no melted steel. Now you got a lecture which he retracted his statement.

You lost this one because you can't get the latest information, failure of research, failure to read, failure to understand 911 for almost 12 long years of woo.

Big reason your melted steel falls into woo, ignorance and fantasy; you don't have any evidence. You have hearsay, nonsense, and no piles of melted steel, from those vast rivers in the minds of failed conspiracy theorists; 12 years of failure for sure, followed by infinity.

Ok so what changed between 2002 and his retraction? He seemed sure enough in 2002 to say it was flowing steel.
Oh right..they realized the fires couldn't have caused the steel to get molten and flow..oh so yeah i did say i saw it but ..well..it was never tested so we don't know for sure.
So Les robertsons statement in 2002 is hearsay, nonsense, woo and fantasy..glad you straightened that out for us..i'm sure when you asked him you told him that right?...now what has he said that isn't hearsay, nonsense, woo or fantasy?

 

[LSSBB]

your point being?

Is it your argument that they couldn't have seen what they say they saw because it would be hot?
Again heat tends to rise. It is going to be far hotter over a heat source then beside it unless there is something directing the heat in the lateral direction.
So it is not impossible for them to be standing within visual distance of a river of flowing steel and not get burned.
Again, you can find pictures and videos all over the place of workers in foundrys standing within feet of molten metals and not having much of a problem.

I'm sure you can find pictures of them in the foundry. Please do so. I think that would help the point you are trying to make.

 

[lexicon008]

I'm sure you can find pictures of them in the foundry. Please do so. I think that would help the point you are trying to make.

one does not need to be in the foundry to see a flowing river of steel or any other metal.
I guess you are trying to say Mr. Robertson is wrong or lying. Perhaps you should just say that instead of dancing around with pointless statements.

heres a prime example of what i am trying to say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w8QvO5UQ6Q
you'll notice they are having no problem standing within a few feet of this molten steel.

 

[LSSBB]

one does not need to be in the foundry to see a flowing river of steel or any other metal.
I guess you are trying to say Mr. Robertson is wrong or lying. Perhaps you should just say that instead of dancing around with pointless statements.

I don't need to prove him wrong. It's your burden of proof to say he is correct, rather than mistaken, about the metallurgical nature of what he witnessed. You have no physical evidence to corroborate his testimony, so don't you want to show as much as possible that his description could be literally true?

 

[lexicon008]

I don't need to prove him wrong. It's your burden of proof to say he is correct, rather than mistaken, about the metallurgical nature of what he witnessed. You have no physical evidence to corroborate his testimony, so don't you want to show as much as possible that his description could be literally true?

and who was supposed to be the ones collecting evidence?

I seem to recall there was a few million dollars spent on various agencies who were supposed to figure this out.

 

[LSSBB]

and who was supposed to be the ones collecting evidence?

I seem to recall there was a few million dollars spent on various agencies who were supposed to figure this out.

Yes, they did, and they came to a conclusion. If you would like to challenge their conclusions, then you need to do some work. I don't see anything yet in my opinion that substantially challenges the conclusions of earlier investigations. I am just some dude, if you want to convince anyone in a position to change things, well, hop to it, so far your example is from my point of view, quite unconvincing.

 

[swright777]

...
heres a prime example of what i am trying to say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w8QvO5UQ6Q
you'll notice they are having no problem standing within a few feet of this molten steel.

But you also said:

...
You can find all sorts of video of people working in foundries all over the world standing within feet of extremely hot flowing metals with and without heat protective suits....

The guys working directly with the molten metal appear to be wearing heat protective gear.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually no I will not agree since you have not indicated what fires you are refering to and what if any similarities they have to the fires in the wtc.
Nor will I agree unless the material that was claimed to be steel is in fact determined to be steel.

There was iirc, an entire thread devoted to examples of reports of molten steel in many other fires.
None of them involved substances that burn hot enough to do so, no rocket fuel accidents for instance.

I am more then willing to agree that without testing no one on either side can argue for or against it being steel without some measure of uncertainty.

Not true as I have pointed out. Either other reports are true in which case, in fires, there can be conditions that mimic blast furnace effects( which use hydrocarbon fuel) and actually melt steel.

Or

These reports are untrue because such conditions do not ever naturally occur in which case all such reports, including those from the vicinity of the WTC disaster, can be assumed incorrect and unworthy of further investigation.

Why they were not investigated in other cases is not for me too say since, again, i don't know what cases you are refering to. Having said that, if they were a result of a terrorist or suspicious fire, I would expect that they should have been looked at to determine the cause since, as NIST noted, normal fires even with jet fuel will not get hot enough to melt steel.

As Clayton points out reports of molten steel concern the fires in the already collapsed buildings. Since buildings can only collapse once , fires in their rubble have little to nothing to tell us about what caused the collapse UNLESS one has some compelling reason to believe that a substance was in the standing structure that was both used to cause collapse and would have remained in sufficient quantity to cause steel to melt, and remain molten, for weeks until observed by clean up crews.

There is no such compelling reason, nor is there a substance that could satisfy the above scenario. At least not that I am aware of. Please do not delve into a Claytonesque 'you do not know what they have' , argument from ignorance fallacy. Not that I suspect you would, you seem more connected to reality than CM.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok so what changed between 2002 and his retraction? He seemed sure enough in 2002 to say it was flowing steel.
Oh right..they realized the fires couldn't have caused the steel to get molten and flow..oh so yeah i did say i saw it but ..well..it was never tested so we don't know for sure.
So Les robertsons statement in 2002 is hearsay, nonsense, woo and fantasy..glad you straightened that out for us..i'm sure when you asked him you told him that right?...now what has he said that isn't hearsay, nonsense, woo or fantasy?

Yes, it is heresay, you agreed above that only actual testing could determine one way or the other of the composition of what witnesses saw. Is there some reason why Robertson is an exception to this and should be assumed correct rather than his later reasoned hindsight statement?