Merged So there was melted steel

[Clayton Moore]

I don't recall fire chiefs complaining, but it's established that Astaneh-Asl spoke out about this in a NYTimes article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/n...ek-test-steel-before-it-melted-for-reuse.html

Other engineers were attributed by proxy via the ASCE reference.

But this is old news. It was that, plus Astaneh-Asl and others who managed to get the arrangement to examine the steel at Fresh Kills and the other site going. The plan got stopped quickly, and neither the FEMA researchers nor Astaneh-Asl complained about access to steel after that.

This is known; there's nothing suspicious about it. There never has been. Truthers have been schooled over it for years now; one example here (as AJM8125 already knows; that statement and links are really for you other readers who haven't been around as long as he, since he's already seen all this). This is nothing more than the standard Truther claims recycling program.

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.

It may well have been because it offered such revealing clues that the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center was so rapidly destroyed, being shipped abroad as scrap to be melted down and recycled. CBS News described: "The [cleanup] operation--which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." [13] As the New York Times reported, the steel scrap was worth "only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup" was going to cost. Yet the knowledge that could have been gained from it "could save lives in a future disaster." [14]

Not much of a debunk.

 

[beachnut]

... Here's my question, answer it as best you can:

How do you, or how would anyone, know that what was in "the river of steel" was actually steel?

911 truth does not answer questions, they make up woo.

With no clue what evidence is, claims of overwhelming amounts of it are made, but never sourced. They are full of it.

No lab to test the steel, the rivers of melted steel. Where did the river go? I have my water tested, why can't they test their rivers of "steel". Is it locked up in Al Gore's lock-box, with my SS$$$$?

Another unanswered question, what does melted steel mean? It might mean those making the claim can't identify melted steel. Or the accidental Simile rules in the minds of 911 truth Followers. Neither a follower or a truther be... think for yourself 911 truth followers and join reality. Never seen a dumber movement, save the mistakes I have made. 12 years? ..., a long time to remain clinging to a dumb claim.

When will the melted steel pushers get on topic? Answer the question, explain what it means.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Why don't you ask Astaneh-asl

Wasn't that the guy who threatened to sue 9/11 truth people for quote-mining him? Or was that someone else?

Yes, it was.

Here's a link to a post from an earlier thread which directly quotes Astaneh-Asl on this point, in response to an email from Chris Bollyn:

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research.

 

[000063]

Animal, if melted steel was witnessed at the site, then it was also recovered from the site. Right?

You do realize that we're asserting precisely the opposite. Right? That there is no evidence of steel beyond quote-mined, misinterpreted, and/or mistaken witness statements?

No steel was left behind on the site. There was even a quote earlier from a pile witness who talked of large chunks of molten metal being recovered. ...

Um.

 

[jaydeehess]

I addressed that point here. In this case, there are numerous references to specific steel components. Components which would not be composed of other metals, i.e., beams, columns, girders. It's simply not credible to suggest that people who observed melting of structural steel components would have somehow got it mixed up with molten aluminum, copper or lead, since none of these metals form substantive structural components.

Except all you did in that post was repeat yourself rather than address my points.
In the cases of other reports of molten steel many of them were made by the same type of expert yet you will not come out and say whether or not these reports are credible. Are other reports of molten steel in other fires credible ergo?

If they are then molten steel is not surprising. If they are not then one notes that erroneous reports, or simile, or hyperbole in this regard are common for reports of molten steel in fires.

Take your pick. This is where witness statements takes you and no further.

You cannot show where any of these experts say how they determined that the material they were looking at and describing was in fact molten steel. You cannot show examples of previously molten steel. All you have is statements.

 

[phunk]

Yet the the concrete floors were pulverized to dust.

All of them? Completely?

 

[Animal]

Yet the the concrete floors were pulverized to dust.

Clayton tries to play three card monty................

 

[ergo]

In the cases of other reports of molten steel many of them were made by the same type of expert

Were they?

If they are then molten steel is not surprising.

Ok, then. What's the problem?

 

[Animal]

Animal, if melted steel was witnessed at the site, then it was also recovered from the site. Right? No steel was left behind on the site. There was even a quote earlier from a pile witness who talked of large chunks of molten metal being recovered.

Don't forget that many of Astaneh-asl's observations were of steel that was already being shipped away from the site, and not preserved for examination. Fire chiefs and other engineers raised alarms about this at the time. That's also documented.

Give it up, guys.

Since you cannot seem to discriminate between the two - you (and the remainder of the troofer movement) are the ones that need to "give it up"

 

[000063]

It's also never been explained how the conspirators were able to identify (in the tons of debris) and secretly remove the melted steel while under the eyes of hundreds of workers and the world, with 100% accuracy.

Were they?




Ok, then. What's the problem?

Do you really think no one notices you quote-mining and avoiding points and a question highlighted in bright yellow? Or are you simply compelled to keep the wheels spinning, even though you know everyone can tell you're logically shaky?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe wherever it's not intentional distortion it's nothing more than the belief the eye witness statements are utterly infallible with or without corroborating physical evidence. Should I point out the irony when they refer to their peers as blind sheep?

I get that people reported seeing metal metals and some people called it steel, but should the fact that no corroborating evidence suggesting the presence thereof nor the contribution to collapse exists bother people that think thermite brought the tower down?

Stupid question I suppose, but if blind faith drives anything I think it would be in the notion that all opinions, all statements, all testimony is infallible. And it doesn't matter if large chunks of corroborating evidence disagrees. Stuff like this is why crap claims from 2006 still survive to be regurgitated

 

[DGM]

Bedunker friends, it's a silly argument to try and dismiss this many reports of molten steel at the WTC as some kind of mass error or confusion. Your attempts to characterize them as such make you look desperate.

You might have noticed, I'm not trying to dismiss them. I think they're mistaken but, it really doesn't matter.

There's a reason why the early stories of the towers' collapses involved a melting steel scenario. Extreme temperatures were also recorded in the pile and the persistence of the heat months after the event was unprecedented. Everyone commented on this.

Yeah, it was hot. Fires with huge amounts of fuel are like that. So what.

Here's the reality: You folks don't know anything about it. You're making guesses, and trying to pass them off as fact. Some of you are even making **** up.

I agree. You also have to admit you can't connect this to anything other than large fires with lots of fuel. Recorded temperatures are not outside what can be found in this situation.

Since the facts are not on your side, the question we should be asking is: why is so important to you to discredit reports of melted steel at the WTC rubble pile? What personal investment could you possibly have in this argument, which you're clearly losing?

No one is trying to discredit them, that's your misreading. Everyone is looking for verification. You do know the difference between discrediting and just looking for proof. I would think you, as a "truth seeker" would want more evidence. Seems you're happy with just hearsay.

 

[Redwood]

It's also never been explained how the conspirators were able to identify (in the tons of debris) and secretly remove the melted steel while under the eyes of hundreds of workers and the world, with 100% accuracy.

It must have taken them weeks to cut up and transport those multi-ton slabs of re-solidified melted steel. I'm sure that the folks across the street at 1 Liberty Plaza (height 225 meters +) had an excellent view and got some good photos and videos of the operation. Maybe truthers could ask around and get some copies.

 

[jaydeehess]

Were they?

I provided the link to the forum discussion. Should I risk moderator correction and post all that discussion in this thread? I do note that neither you or Clayton or lexicon were involved in that thread, as far as I looked.

Ok, then. What's the problem?

As I have pointed out many times, if molten steel is common in other fires it cannot be assigned special significance if it occurred in the WTC rubble fires. Thus there is nothing to investigate as unusual.

If the demonstrably common reports of molten steel in other fires are incorrect and there isn't such a possibility then we have direct evidence of the non.credibility of such reports and thus these reports cannot be assigned special significance.

What one needs then, in order to assign special significance to these reports, is the experts who reported this to be on record as assigning special significance to their having witnessed molten steel(read; anomolous, suspicious, requiring further investigation). That is not in evidence. In fact I recall none of these 'expert' eyewitnesses stating that this was a disturbingly anomalous thing to observe. How many added to their testimonial of witnessing molten steel, that this needs special investigation or that they suspect additional malfeasance in the collapses? How many of these witnesses reporting molten steel are calling for investigation of possible behind the scenes conspiracy in the manner that you or lexicon are?
AND/OR
Physical samples of resolidified molten steel.
Also not in evidence.

Now, even IF there was some amount of liquid state steel in the rubble fire volume, how does one connect that to a conspiracy plan that caused the total collapse of these structures?
Short answer is that no such connection has been put forth, at least not one that makes much sense or does not require what amount to magical properties for the active demolition devices.

Instead perons with the same or similar POV as you draw a connection that is simplistic and utterly lacking in reasoned thought. It goes something like: 'there were reports of molten steel by people with expertise in fields of engineering, architecture, and fire fighting, ,, office fires cannot produce heat sufficient to melt steel, ,, thermite can melt steel, ,, therefore thermite melted steel in the WTC structures, ,, therefore this was a deliberate complete demotion and not the result of the obvious insults to these structure's structural integrity.
The logical problems with such a train of thought are numerous yet you and others still insist on following it.

Wake up

 

[jaydeehess]

You might have noticed, I'm not trying to dismiss them. I think they're mistaken but, it really doesn't matter.



Yeah, it was hot. Fires with huge amounts of fuel are like that. So what.



I agree. You also have to admit you can't connect this to anything other than large fires with lots of fuel. Recorded temperatures are not outside what can be found in this situation.



No one is trying to discredit them, that's your misreading. Everyone is looking for verification. You do know the difference between discrediting and just looking for proof. I would think you, as a "truth seeker" would want more evidence. Seems you're happy with just hearsay.

I have been trying to get a reason to give these reports the credit that truthers assign to them. I point out that such reports are common and this is roundly ignored. I point out that these witnesses did not also state that there was any extraordinary significance, especially wrt other causes of the collapses beyond the obvious insults to the structures. This is also ignored.
I point out that despite the fact that these witnesses have tangentially relevant experience and trading to identify what they saw as molten steel. They also have similarly tangentially relevant training and experience, some with directly relevant training and experience in building construction and/or destruction, and yet do not subscribe to the notion of hidden devices that caused the collapses. Yet their expertise is said to apply to unbacked and off the cuff statements but to not apply to the researched collapse sequence.

 

[ergo]

As I have pointed out many times, if molten steel is common in other fires it cannot be assigned special significance if it occurred in the WTC rubble fires. Thus there is nothing to investigate as unusual.

As I've said, that's fine with me. Molten/melted steel, but no special significance. That's fine.

So have we established now that there was molten/melted steel at the WTC?

I mean, reports of molten steel in fires are either ALL correct, or ALL mistaken. Right? That's your understanding of it?

 

[The Platypus]

Why should i even care if there was molten steel or not? How does molten steel = inside job?

 

[LSSBB]

As I've said, that's fine with me. Molten/melted steel, but no special significance. That's fine.

So have we established now that there was molten/melted steel at the WTC?

I mean, reports of molten steel in fires are either ALL correct, or ALL mistaken. Right? That's your understanding of it?

There is not enough information to make a conclusion that molten steel was present, so we cannot conclude it was, and the absence of evidence points to a low probability that it exists. That is all that can be concluded from the evidence. Lack of a causal mechanism reinforces the low probability of molten steel existing, unless you can come up with one. There was an earlier thread on how it could have been created if it did in fact exist, if you can solve that puzzle feel free to resurrect it.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Man... molten steel. Again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8188

... and again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58666

... and again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65353

... and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!

This has been discussed. We were tired of molten steel insinuations, as well as the "steel sent away" claims back in 2007. And truthers are still trying to make something out of this?

Nothing has changed.

• https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera
• http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
• http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Sorry, it hasn't. Truthers still haven't figured out how to analyze information. Conspiracy fantasy still hasn't made any progress towards elevating itself to conspiracy theory. And molten metal sightings is still not enough to even bring into question, let alone refute, what is known about how the towers performed on 9/11.

 

[The Platypus]

What is surprising about reports of molten material in a gigantic pile of burning debris, anyway?