Merged So there was melted steel

[Clayton Moore]

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?

FTFU

 

[lexicon008]

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?

He isn't the exception, he is another example of a person who made a statement from authority to numerous others not too long after 911 and then later denied ever having said or heard anything of the sort.
Beach likes to put him on a pedastal as the all knowing all seeing guru of the wtc and tried to imply that he did not say or see molten steel yet there it is in his own voice and in color.
Look at the responses here, with the exception of you no one is attacking the timeframe of his seeing this steel, they are attacking that he saw it at all, in essence calling him as beach said "hearsay, nonsense, woo and fantasy"

"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."

Again I would like to see said reports since without them it's all heresay..lol

 

[beachnut]

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.

LOL, showing steel with people in protective gear. Good one. You proved your claims of steel flowing next to people is not true.

You debunk yourself; very effectively.

Robertson said no melted steel. When people make mistakes they correct them, Robertson corrected his mistake you fail to correct your mistake. Have you read NIST yet, figured out the fuel issue?

It is cool all the protective stuff in the video. Keep up the good debunking, you could not do better.


Robertson retracted his mistake, can you? No; Not being about to learn could be called, failure. Robertson can reason, 911 truth can't. Where is your melted steel? Big failure, since there is no evidence, you got talk, and no studies. Now what? Read NIST yet?

You can't say what exotic material, the hot stuff, cause the fantasy melted steel; Why not?

You don't know what hearsay is, and you don't understand why there was no melted steel. Using what people say is not evidence. Learn to use the quote function; why can't you figure out there was no melted steel?

 

[lexicon008]

Well beach et all heres another example for ya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV7lkXKBTRg
Notice at the begining of this vid a guy standing in a tshirt and no sleeves within a few feet of the molten steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je2kVIrIoPk
at the 3:10 mark, 2 guys with tshirts pouring the steel about 3 feet away

at 4:10 there are 3 of them within 3 feet of the molten steel wearing t shirts

at 6:13 one of these guys standing directly in front of the flow puts his blue jean covered leg out into thr path of the flow about 3 feet away.

Notice they didn't burst into flames. Weren't running around screaming they were burning.
No protective equipment other then a face shield and gloves.

So what is so hard to understand here about them saying they saw flowing steel and didn't get burned or hurt in any way?

 

[000063]

No i am not ignoring what he said. He hasn't even defined what types of fires he's talking about. He claimed reports..what reports is he talking about?
He claimed "there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

You didn't mention a thing about any other fires at all in post #59, which I was responding to. You didn't say that JDS hadn't specified which fires until 61, in which you still didn't actually ask for evidence. All you did was say that JDS hadn't said which fires.

I also agreed that it is quite possible that in both cases it wasn't actually steel that was seen to be melted. My point is that it is not up to anyone but the investigating body to prove or disprove the molten steel evidence.
They have not disproven it, they simply stated it could not havve happened even though plenty of credible eye witnesses claim otherwise.

You really can't help yourself, can you?

People reporting what they think is melted steel in fires is common. Molten steel cannot be positively identified by eye, even if one is a trained metallurgist.

Not to mention the complete lack of melted steel consistent with said reports found at the site.

 

[beachnut]

What melted the steel in the fantasy of 911 truth. What did it? How? They can't say.

Well beach et all heres another example for ya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV7lkXKBTRg
Notice at the begining of this vid a guy standing in a tshirt and no sleeves within a few feet of the molten steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je2kVIrIoPk
at the 3:10 mark, 2 guys with tshirts pouring the steel about 3 feet away

at 4:10 there are 3 of them within 3 feet of the molten steel wearing t shirts

at 6:13 one of these guys standing directly in front of the flow puts his blue jean covered leg out into thr path of the flow about 3 feet away.

Notice they didn't burst into flames. Weren't running around screaming they were burning.
No protective equipment other then a face shield and gloves.

So what is so hard to understand here about them saying they saw flowing steel and didn't get burned or hurt in any way?

LOL, they are still using protective equipment. Get your eyes checked. BTW, distance is protection, and exposure time is protection. But keep up the comedy, it is cool to get a laugh at the silly idiotic claims of melted steel supported by talk.

lol, there were mini foundries protected by insulating stuff in the WTC pile? lol, you get funnier, and funnier. I can't believe you are trying to say you don't need protection from a river of steel flowing, or the giant un-insulated furnace burning.

You can't tell anyone what you fantasy source of heat is which made steel flow. You can't say what time it was flowing. You can't say where, and you can't produce where it became solid again, fusing the entire basement together into a pool of steel/iron.

What did it? You don't know.
How was it done? You don't know.
You don't know anything as you keep making it funnier.

What happen to your Robertson scam? Did you finally find where he said no melted steel? Dropping your number one hearsay? Finish NIST yet?

The big key here is nothing was found or seen that would melt steel. You can't state what or how your fantasy hearsay steel was melted. Why?

 

[lexicon008]

Using what people say is not evidence.

Really? Seems to me people have been executed because of what people say.
Seems to me that every court in the world uses witness testimony daily to convict or acquit people.

Why would he need to change his statement?
He's an engineer and should know that molten steel either should not be there or could be there just because of the nature of the fire in the pile.
There is no reason to change his story since saying he didn't see it is obviously false since he already said he did.
Saying he did see it only serves as proof that he saw something that he indicates hasn't been tested anyway so no need to deny it.
In 2002 as an engineer and knowing full well what he was saying he indicated he saw a flowing river of steel.
Later he denies ever having seen or heard of such a thing.
why the big flip flop? Scared of little old 911 truth?

What empirical testing was done that changed his mind or was it just not wanting to get into the whole molten steel argument?
Again he could have simply said that the molten steel was a result of the long fires underground..simple.
But no..years later he denies it ever happened and he never heard from anyone anything about molten steel or flowing steel.

This isn't a yes i smoked marijuana in highschool but i didn't inhale issue. This is a criminal investigation. You flip flop like this and people start to ask questions and want answers.
I fully agree he could have been wrong in 2002 and saw something that he beleived to be steel but wasn't. But he found this visual to be so important that he included it in his lecture. Others found it so important that they said it on camera or in print.
Are they wrong? Maybe. Does it matter? as an individual isolated incident no. When you have multiple people saying the same thing..probably should be addressed don't ya think?

 

[lexicon008]

LOL, they are still using protective equipment. Get your eyes checked. BTW, distance is protection, and exposure time is protection. But keep up the comedy, it is cool to get a laugh at the silly idiotic claims of melted steel supported by talk.

lol, there were mini foundries protected by insulating stuff in the WTC pile? lol, you get funnier, and funnier. I can't believe you are trying to say you don't need protection from a river of steel flowing, or the giant un-insulated furnace burning.

You can't tell anyone what you fantasy source of heat is which made steel flow. You can't say what time it was flowing. You can't say where, and you can't produce where it became solid again, fusing the entire basement together into a pool of steel/iron.

What did it? You don't know.
How was it done? You don't know.
You don't know anything as you keep making it funnier.

What happen to your Robertson scam? Did you finally find where he said no melted steel? Dropping your number one hearsay? Finish NIST yet?

The big key here is nothing was found or seen that would melt steel. You can't state what or how your fantasy hearsay steel was melted. Why?

Beach you're confused..I didn't say there was molten steel..HE DID. On camera..in front of a whole bunch of people..in april of 2002.

So either he is wrong about what he saw or he is lying then or now.

Distance is protection..very good..so how is seeing this flowing river of steel from a distance not possible then? Do you think they were naked? standing right in the steel?

You are attempting to dispute me but all you are doing is impeach Robertson because these were HIS WORDS not mine.

 

[beachnut]

Beach you're confused..I didn't say there was molten steel..HE DID. On camera..in front of a whole bunch of people..in april of 2002.

So either he is wrong about what he saw or he is lying then or now.

Distance is protection..very good..so how is seeing this flowing river of steel from a distance not possible then? Do you think they were naked? standing right in the steel?

You are attempting to dispute me but all you are doing is impeach Robertson because these were HIS WORDS not mine.

Robertson then said no melted steel. Not sure which part of no steel is got you fooled.

Plus you failed to say what could turn steel to a river of steel in your fantasy version of 911. Your woo of melted steel have been retracted. Plus no melted steel was found. Al was found, melted.


I will type real slow... Robertson did not see melted steel, it can't melt in the fires in the piles. Robertson says now, no melted steel. If you insist on saying 2+2=3 and then the teacher corrects it to 4; we now have the correct answer.

Feel free to present evidence of melted steel. People saying they saw melted steel is not evidence of melted steel. It has to be tested. Do you have test results; no you have silly stories where you think talk is evidence.

 

[lexicon008]

Robertson did not see melted steel, it can't melt in the fires in the piles. Robertson says now, no melted steel.

Hmm..again it appears you dont read NIST

"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. "

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

So again..we have conflicting information/evidence here. First they said it didn't happen but then say well it's conceivable that any molten steel in the wreckage was due to the fire.
What are they saying here. Either there was or was not molten steel.
If there was no molten steel then why try to explain something that didn't exist?
If there was, fine you've given an explanation (sorry you don't like it though beach)
This is like the warren commission saying....No there was no conspiracy because there was only one gunman..but if there was another gunman he obviously didn't fire his gun because we know oswald fired all three shots.

 

[lexicon008]

It has to be tested. Do you have test results; no you have silly stories where you think talk is evidence.

Yawn...much of theoretical physics is based on talk and math and no real evidence.
Religion is based on silly stories but several BILLION people take it on faith.
Many many murder convictions are based on witness testimony alone.

You sir are just scared of what a new investigation might conclude.
If you are right then it will change nothing..whats to be afraid of?
I would think you would love to see Gage get roasted over a fire under oath.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So you agree, if fires cannot melt steel, and reports of melted steel in other fires is therefore wrong, then so are reports of molten steel in this fire.
Ask yourself why reports of molten steel were not investigated in other fires and you will understand why they were not in this one.
That or continue to ignore it and insist that in this case there is some compelling reason to check it out and spend money and resources on this red herring.

Nice attempt at double talk.
Wow. Now
reports of melted steel in other fires
Is some sort of freaking factoid?

And the molten steel at the WTC debris was caused by normal "office building" fires which is impossible so there was no molten steel in the debris.



Where as the truth is that the molten steel was in conjunction with a fire under the debris that could not be extinguished until three months after 9/11. Meaning the fire underneath the debris was fueled by material that had its own oxygen.



And then there is this gem.

If you see molten steel but you don't know what caused it you didn't see molten steel.

Kinda like seeing three steel framed buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed from an above 140 IQ and being told no explosives were used.

 

[LSSBB]

Nice attempt at double talk.
Wow. Now
reports of melted steel in other fires
Is some sort of freaking factoid?

And the molten steel at the WTC debris was caused by normal "office building" fires which is impossible so there was no molten steel in the debris.



Where as the truth is that the molten steel was in conjunction with a fire under the debris that could not be extinguished until three months after 9/11. Meaning the fire underneath the debris was fueled by material that had its own oxygen.



And then there is this gem.

If you see molten steel but you don't know what caused it you didn't see molten steel.

Kinda like seeing three steel framed buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed from an above 140 IQ and being told no explosives were used.

Where's the molten steel?

 

[beachnut]

Yawn...much of theoretical physics is based on talk and math and no real evidence.
Religion is based on silly stories but several BILLION people take it on faith.
Many many murder convictions are based on witness testimony alone.

You sir are just scared of what a new investigation might conclude.
If you are right then it will change nothing..whats to be afraid of?
I would think you would love to see Gage get roasted over a fire under oath.

The physics we use to understand the WTC collapse is not talk. There you go making up talk as evidence for your fantasy thermite crazy claims of woo. Go ahead, which physics are based on talk, and how does that make your hearsay steel failed talk become real, past theory, past woo, past fantasy? Make your day... lol

Wow, failed witnesses have sent innocent people to jail, to death. People are not very good at being witnesses; but your steel witnesses? LOL, they are all wrong. BINGO

A new investigation? lol, you have no idea how many have already been done. You can't list them, you can't refute them you have failed to say what caused the steel in your fantasy to melt. Can't is the key word for all your claims on 911. The melted steel is funny.

Gage is a liar misleading nuts who can't think for themselves. Gage makes 400k/yr from gullible conspiracy theorists who can't figure out 911. They need a new investigation and never read NIST or understand physics, fire and steel. Gage has no comment on 77, or 93. His theories come up short, and only fool those who insist on being ignorant on 911.

Only a fringe few are crying for a new investigation, and they failed to read NIST. They like to apologize for 19 terrorists who did 911. The real conspiracy is 19 terrorists, they were proud to kill for their religion, for their beliefs; all you do is cry about talk of melted steel and you can't produce one piece of melted steel. Why? Cause all you have is talk, hearsay, and woo.

You had me at, "but several BILLION people take it on faith"; just like 911 truth.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

weren't given is lost to history, but what seems clear is that very few if any of the fire chiefs beleived that total collapse was going to happen. It's amazing that apparently 1 engineer thought it might happen out of the hundreds that designed, built and worked on it for years. Then all those that studied the design afterward prior to 911 and to my knowledge none ever predicted a complete unstoppable collapse.

Snipped for brevity...
So you're basically rerendering the insinuation that they made the order in anticipation for a controlled demolition of towers and they were in-the-know that something was about to happen, because god forbid, there was absolutely no conception... no comprehension that there might be the threat of another attack, or the collapse of the building? Right....

You don't have much to go by beyond a few cherry picked quotes and at least few posters on the first page already show documentations explaining exactly why the orders were given right from the source. I consider this suggestion you have here to be DOA.

There had never been an attack on a building in this fashion, and the extent of damage, and the circumstances weren't fully understood... it was a chaotic mess of information flow and movement... so the idea that people could not be totally sure of what might happen... or the fear that it might deteriorate further hardly comes to me a shock. People were in a position of making life or death decisions, and they made assessments of risk based on the information they had available.

That people had some fear of the conditions deteriorating even further.... is hardly anything I'd consider suspicious in of itself

Beach you're confused..I didn't say there was molten steel..HE DID. On camera..in front of a whole bunch of people..in april of 2002.

So either he is wrong about what he saw or he is lying then or now.

Distance is protection..very good..so how is seeing this flowing river of steel from a distance not possible then? Do you think they were naked? standing right in the steel?

You are attempting to dispute me but all you are doing is impeach Robertson because these were HIS WORDS not mine.

If the evidence was so abundant with this matter one wonders why some felt the need to photo-minipulate in order to "prove it"... Because every image I've seen used as evidence to this was the result of a photoshop exercise, including a quite famous example that Al Jones fell for. Given the tenacity of this conspiracy movement to treat statements of exaggeration and simile as fact, I'd say the measure here would be answered by what documentary evidence was gathered of the structural members, and there wasn't a single column found to have been "cut", and these reports of "molten steel" don't occur for weeks after the attacks either... Even if they are taken as face value, finding molten steel in a burning debris pile is a long way to proving it caused the collapses to initiate

 

[lexicon008]

Snipped for brevity...
So you're basically rerendering the insinuation that they made the order in anticipation for a controlled demolition of towers and they were in-the-know that something was about to happen, because god forbid, there was absolutely no conception... no comprehension that there might be the threat of another attack, or the collapse of the building? Right....


Absolutely not. I do not and have never beleived that the fire deptartment had anything to do with the collapses be they cd or not. To imply that is 100% false.
The point i'm making is that for people to say it was inevitable and obvious that these buildings were coming down is a complete farce. These fire fighters and cheifs were there and trusted their experience, instincts and the information they had been given by the people who built those towers. They were the best ones to know what if anything was going to happen..not someone watching it on tv.

You don't have much to go by beyond a few cherry picked quotes and at least few posters on the first page already show documentations explaining exactly why the orders were given right from the source. I consider this suggestion you have here to be DOA.

There had never been an attack on a building in this fashion, and the extent of damage, and the circumstances weren't fully understood... it was a chaotic mess of information flow and movement... so the idea that people could not be totally sure of what might happen... or the fear that it might deteriorate further hardly comes to me a shock. People were in a position of making life or death decisions, and they made assessments of risk based on the information they had available.

That people had some fear of the conditions deteriorating even further.... is hardly anything I'd consider suspicious in of itself

And i don't disagree, but again..if you knew that the moment that plane hit, as some imply, that the collapses were inevitable, there is no way you set up your command post at ground zero.

If the evidence was so abundant with this matter one wonders why some felt the need to photo-minipulate in order to "prove it"... Because every image I've seen used as evidence to this was the result of a photoshop exercise, including a quite famous example that Al Jones fell for. Given the tenacity of this conspiracy movement to treat statements of exaggeration and simile as fact, I'd say the measure here would be answered by what documentary evidence was gathered of the structural members, and there wasn't a single column found to have been "cut", and these reports of "molten steel" don't occur for weeks after the attacks either... Even if they are taken as face value, finding molten steel in a burning debris pile is a long way to proving it caused the collapses to initiate

Have things been faked/manipulated..sure.
Is all the evidence fake..not likely.
Could the molten materials have been misidentified..of course..but that still does not excuse the lack of investigation into those claims. Especially when they are coming from people who would likely know that what they saw was not usual in a fire.
You need to remember, thse claims of molten steel did not come from truthers..they came from firemen, clean up crews, engineers and others at the site. 911 truth did not exist when these claims were made.

 

[beachnut]

Have things been faked/manipulated..sure.
Is all the evidence fake..not likely.
Could the molten materials have been misidentified..of course..but that still does not excuse the lack of investigation into those claims. Especially when they are coming from people who would likely know that what they saw was not usual in a fire.
You need to remember, thse claims of molten steel did not come from truthers..they came from firemen, clean up crews, engineers and others at the site. 911 truth did not exist when these claims were made.

Why would you research melted plastic? Al? Why?

Why?
There was no steel damaged with bombs.
No steel was damaged by thermite.
No steel showed any damage with temperatures past 1,000 C.
Wait, let me check NIST, the stuff you never read to see...

Oops, FEMA, had samples of steel corroded in fire at 700-800 and 1000 C. Sorry, no melted steel. Darn, we almost had some evidence, and not talk.

Talk is not evidence for melted steel. no steel was shown to be melted. Zero. All the talk was other substances, and not the WTC steel. There were tons of lead in the WTC, what does that melt at? Tons of Al. No melted steel.

You got talk, and think it is evidence.

 

[LSSBB]

Have things been faked/manipulated..sure.
Is all the evidence fake..not likely.
Could the molten materials have been misidentified..of course..but that still does not excuse the lack of investigation into those claims. Especially when they are coming from people who would likely know that what they saw was not usual in a fire.
You need to remember, thse claims of molten steel did not come from truthers..they came from firemen, clean up crews, engineers and others at the site. 911 truth did not exist when these claims were made.

And there was no physical corroboration to their personal impressions of what they saw. What was there to investigate?

 

[lexicon008]

Why would you research melted plastic? Al? Why?

Why?
There was no steel damaged with bombs.
No steel was damaged by thermite.
No steel showed any damage with temperatures past 1,000 C.
Wait, let me check NIST, the stuff you never read to see...

Oops, FEMA, had samples of steel corroded in fire at 700-800 and 1000 C. Sorry, no melted steel. Darn, we almost had some evidence, and not talk.

Talk is not evidence for melted steel. no steel was shown to be melted. Zero. All the talk was other substances, and not the WTC steel. There were tons of lead in the WTC, what does that melt at? Tons of Al. No melted steel.

You got talk, and think it is evidence.

if you seriously think that the fire fighters and mr.robertson could not tell the difference between melted plastic and molten steel then you must seriously get better meds.

0.5% of the steel was collected for analysis. What might have been found on the other 99.5% that we don't know about?
236 pieces out of how many tens of thousands?

Hardly a reliable amount to determine the buildings fate on.

 

[Spanx]

There was like a little river of steel flowing.

Well was it a river of steel flowing? or did it just look like one?

http://www.harleygoldman.com/photo/water_tank_rust/

Hot Water and rust flowing could look like a river of steel flowing ?

This looks like a ditch full of molten steel.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1099889