Merged So there was melted steel

[triforcharity]

FEMA and NIST's own data. Perhaps you would have known if you had read the reports.

 

[DGM]

On what basis do you draw that unfounded assumption?

MM

Ouija board. It was the answer right after "hermetically sealed hot pocket".

 

[LSSBB]

I do not think it requires a special academic requirement to know if steel is molten or not.

MM

So it seems to me you are saying that Voorsanger's academic credentials (and, I would hazard to guess, professional standing as an Architect), has nothing to do with whether or not he is judging if steel is molten or not. Therefore, why do you state that Voorsanger is giving his "professional" opinion?

 

[Miragememories]

Truthers have a difficult time understanding the difference between "melting" and "softening to the point of losing structural integrity.

So tell me Robrob what is the basis for this great personal insight of yours that draws you to the remarkable conclusion that "Truthers" are incapable of discerning the difference between a liquid and a solid?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Except for the problem that thermite creates it's own oxygen, therby feeding the area with oxygen.

Go back to square dumb there champ......

Oxygen which it immediately consumes as part of its reaction.

Go back to any available square chump.

MM

 

[beachnut]

I do not think it requires a special academic requirement to know if steel is molten or not.

MM

it requires a chemical analysis; a quote mined opinion requires special ignorance to make up the delusional claim you can't define or explain. You have talk, you need a chemical analysis.

 

[Miragememories]

I anticipated this rather cheap and theoretical point of yours with:though you didn't seem to spot it. The paper would be reduced to little more than carbon dust by the same process that we make charcoal. Pyrolysis.

If you bother to read, I did address the issue of Pyrolysis.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Where did I ever say he cannot be wrong?

MM

are you kidding?

 

[Miragememories]

are you kidding?

No. Where did I say it?

I have never said anyone is infallible.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Oxygen which it immediately consumes as part of its reaction.

Go back to any available square chump.

MM

Citation showing that it consumes 100% of the available oxygen.....

 

[NoahFence]

No. Where did I say it?

I have never said anyone is infallible.

MM

See, this is the "dishonest" part of the discussion.

You've done nothing but say this man is 100% correct about it being formerly molten steel, for many, many pages. Did you use the term "100% correct"?

Not likely. See, that's because you'd find yourself here at some point and you can then go back and say that you never said he was infallible. This is the part where I've been saying "you're not fooling anybody". Remember me saying that?

You've implied quite nicely that this man is incapable of being wrong about there being formerly molten steel in that silly meteorite, while at the same time implying quite nicely that none of us could possibly be correct - based on the fact that all we get is a lowly hi-res closeup photo.

I've said it once MM, and I'll say it again:

This is the single most well documented event in US history. Perhaps the world. It is also the criminal act with the single most eyewitnesses. Also the largest investigation that the FBI has ever conducted.

You are wrong. There was no controlled demo. There was no molten steel - and even if there was, it doesn't prove a thing.

Nothing.

 

[Robrob]

No. Where did I say it?

I have never said anyone is infallible.

MM

Are you kidding me? That's the whole foundation of trutherism! Nothing ever said, done or even implied is the result of ineptitude, mistake or anything less than deadly serious intent.

Landlord says "pull" = a brand new CD term is invented on the spot.

There are only about a billion more examples.

 

[Miragememories]

See, this is the "dishonest" part of the discussion.

You've done nothing but say this man is 100% correct about it being formerly molten steel, for many, many pages. Did you use the term "100% correct"?

Not likely. See, that's because you'd find yourself here at some point and you can then go back and say that you never said he was infallible. This is the part where I've been saying "you're not fooling anybody". Remember me saying that?

You've implied quite nicely that this man is incapable of being wrong about there being formerly molten steel in that silly meteorite, while at the same time implying quite nicely that none of us could possibly be correct - based on the fact that all we get is a lowly hi-res closeup photo.

It is called "put up, or shut up", where I come from.

Show where I have said Bart was infallible, or could not be wrong.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

It is called "put up, or shut up", where I come from.

Show where I have said Bart was infallible, or could not be wrong.

MM

It's called dishonesty where I come from. You know it, I know it.

You never said the words "he's infallible". But you sure as hell implied it several times, your whole premise is based on the fact that he can't possibly be wrong. You know what you're doing, and you're FAILING MISERABLY.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY. GET A NEW HOBBY.

 

[Miragememories]

It's called dishonesty where I come from. You know it, I know it.

You never said the words "he's infallible". But you sure as hell implied it several times, your whole premise is based on the fact that he can't possibly be wrong. You know what you're doing, and you're FAILING MISERABLY.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYBODY. GET A NEW HOBBY.

So show where I "implied" that Bart was "infallible", or that "he cannot possibly be wrong".

I'm waiting.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Go back in 80% of your posts on this very thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Your entire premise of this retarded meteorite meme is that some unknown architect is right about there being formerly molten steel in that item, and that he's the authority on it because he happens to be standing next to it.


Bottom line this for me if at all possible:

Could he have been mistaken?

YES or NO?

 

[Edx]

It is called "put up, or shut up", where I come from.

Show where I have said Bart was infallible, or could not be wrong.

MM

I didnt say infallible, I said you were arguing that he couldn't be wrong specifically about there being molten steel.

You clearly dont think he was infallible because you ignore his professional opinion on the collapses and therefore, I guess, you think he is a big fat liar, insane or unbelievably incompetent to think the towers collapsed from fire and that there was no thermite or explosives required.

You have been saying things like this for pages and pages....

"His comment stated opinion that the WTC debris sample contained molten steel can only mean one thing, no matter how many ways you attempt to spin it. "

and..

I totally disagree with your assessment that a professional architect working for the NYC Port Authority... would give a statement that was intended as an "off handed remark."

You also claim his professional opinion becomes useless when the conclusions and research of other professionals actually say the contrary.

We had been arguing with you over and over that he was wrong and you kept saying that he couldn't be.

You also said...

Prove Bart Vansanger's statement is false, distorted, can be misinterpreted, is a lie, is biased, is vague, requires further research to become understood, etc., or you have nothing but waffling to show for your efforts.

Clearly this has been done.

I have shown you that nothing Bart Voorsanger said is at all abnormal. People say those kinds of things all the time in other fires. You claimed that all those people I showed you were "only amateurs", yet even though Voorsanger is an amateur in what melts in fires, fire professionals have also been known to incorrectly say that there was melted steel in fires! I showed you that too! If they can be wrong, why cant Bart Voorsanger?

Then there is the fact that there is unburnt paper there, when asked how this is possible you show you clearly have never played with matches as a kid or ever lit paper on fire. But the main issue here is that you've been clinging onto this one guys quote saying molten steel for pages and pages, as if somehow you can ignore all the reasons and evidence as to why it clearly was not molten steel and that he was wrong. He couldnt be wrong, he's a professional, he was there and so it can mean only one thing, right? Wrong.

I do not think it requires a special academic requirement to know if steel is molten or not.

Oh really?

Then why did you tell me that the ENDLESS examples I gave you where people INCORRECTLY reported molten steel in OTHER FIRES are merely... "amateur opinions"?

Remember saying this?

You also claim his professional opinion becomes useless when the conclusions and research of other professionals actually say the contrary.

...


So I think there is good reason for my ignoring your sourced bs quotes from amateur observers.

Guess what? If you don't think there is a special academic requirement to know if steel is molten or not, like you just said, then why were you just now arguing that there was, as the reason why you can ignore all my examples showing people reporting molten steel in the exact same way?


You were wrong of course anyway, because I then showed you 3 examples of fire professionals who are experts in what melts in fires incorrectly saying that there was melted steel in fires and that fire melted steel.

Yet now you claim that there needs to be no "special academic" knowledge to know if there is molten steel! Therefore you made your point even worse, because now all those ENDLESS examples I showed you before where people incorrectly said there was molten steel in other fires in the same way as Voorsanger did are directly comparable and now you just admitted you have no reason to ignore my "bs quotes from amateur observers"

It is COMMON for people and experts to incorrectly say there was molten steel in fires. COMMON. Got that? You cant move the goal posts around, then back again, and expect no one to notice.

Once again....

Explosions in fires are expected
Molten metal in fire is expected
People reporting molten steel - incorrectly - is expected

 

[NoahFence]

But show us where MM used the word "implied". You can't!

 

[Edx]

But show us where MM used the word "implied". You can't!

He is I'm sure going to come back with silly wordgames. I dont much care if he decides to claim he never meant that Voorsanger couldn't be wrong about this, even though that is obviously what he was arguing.

I am more concerned with what he is saying now.

Why does he think we should hold Voorsanger's quote as evidence there was molten steel when there are seemingly endless examples of people that say the exact same things in other fires - incorrectly - including actual experts in what metals melt in fire.