Merged So there was melted steel

[ergo]

I am asking you to tell me how that makes sense, or if there is another way to reconcile the fact that they see no issue with melted steel or the collapse or the towers, yet at the same time remaining authoritative "experts".

You really need to ask them about it, not me. I can't speak for them, but I do trust their accounts of what they saw.

 

[ergo]

It's not big because it doesn't have to be, but it's right and you can't answer it.

It's argument from incredulity. Whoop-de-doo.

 

[DGM]

You really need to ask them about it, not me. I can't speak for them, but I do trust their accounts of what they saw.

But you do not trust their opinion on what happened on 9/11?

 

[Justin39640]

Have you really? Cars melted into pools of aluminum? There must be some pictures of this somewhere on the internet, right?

You might not realize but there is a considerable amount of aluminum in cars. In 2001 an average car had about 240lbs worth. A truck, which there were probably some in the loading docks in the basement levels, could easily have a ton or more. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7110503#post7110503

The report from that post: http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/environment/pdf/GTS_paper_final.pdf

 

[Edx]

You really need to ask them about it, not me. I can't speak for them, but I do trust their accounts of what they saw.

Why do I?

YOU'RE the one claiming that they are experts and YOU'RE the one claiming that they are too incompetent to know what melted steel means. If not, why wouldn't they agree with you?

How else can they be experts and disagree with your interpretation at the same time?

Either they are experts or they aren't. You cant have it both ways. You already think Robertson isnt just an expert moron, but that he decided to admit to the world there was melted steel and then lie about it because he's in on it. Why would he do that?

I however am satisfied that they never meant what you think they meant and see no reason why I would have to ask them. Especially as Robertson said he didnt remember saying it and didnt see it, and Astaneh said he doesn't agree with any of you. So you're the one with a horrible contradiction. Where someone is an expert to rest a claim on, yet at the same time he is also at best an incompetent that cant understand something that unqualified experts on the internet can understand. Yet he is also an expert...

 

[ergo]

You really need to ask them about it, not me. I can't speak for them, but I do trust their accounts of what they saw.

Astanaseh-Asl has made several statements about WTC melted steel. He still thinks the buildings came down naturally. Why don't you ask him? Do you think his first statement must be wrong, while his second statement is right?

How do you resolve this contradiction?

 

[DGM]

Astanaseh-Asl has made several statements about WTC melted steel. He still thinks the buildings came down naturally. Why don't you ask him? Do you think his first statement must be wrong, while his second statement is right?

How do you resolve this contradiction?

I have no problem with both being right. How about you?

 

[BasqueArch]

It's argument from incredulity. Whoop-de-doo.

Like I said you don't have an answer.
Trapped like the ogre of Notre-Dame.

 

[Edx]

Astanaseh-Asl has made several statements about WTC melted steel. He still thinks the buildings came down naturally. Why don't you ask him? Do you think his first statement must be wrong, while his second statement is right?

How do you resolve this contradiction?

Is this a forum screw up?

Why are you arguing against yourself?

 

[ergo]

But you do not trust their opinion on what happened on 9/11?

The first point is a fact. The second point is an opinion. Experts disagree in their opinions all the time.

What you can't do is claim opinion as fact, which you all are trying to do here.

 

[The Platypus]

The first point is a fact. The second point is an opinion. Experts disagree in their opinions all the time.

What you can't do is claim opinion as fact, which you all are trying to do here.

The first point is fact, in your opinion, you don't just get to dictate what you think is or isn't a fact and that makes it so. You have to establish that is a fact by showing that it is, which you haven't done.

So stop claiming opinion as fact,because that's exactly what you are trying to do here...

 

[DGM]

The first point is a fact. The second point is an opinion. Experts disagree in their opinions all the time.

What you can't do is claim opinion as fact, which you all are trying to do here.

This is true. One thing I can do is say, you don't need high tech materials to melt steel. In the 1600's steel was produced using charcoal.

So, How exactly does "molten steel" effect the "official story"?

You have a real problem with this, huh?

 

[OCaptain]

I think they're in a better position to judge than anonymous Internet posters. They've seen what fires can and cannot do. They've seen how metals melt in fires and what kinds of quantities are normal, and can extrapolate from that. I think if numerous firefighters are talking about seeing pools of molten whatever, melted beams, beams red hot, beams dripping with molten something, beams fused with other beams or debris, then it's something to take seriously. I don't think any of us here are in any position to say that their accounts must be "mistaken" somehow, and I don't know why so many of you here think you can.

Melted metal? Sure, but that's not what you're hanging your hat on. You're going full-bore on your certainty that it can only be explained as melted steel. And you're basing that on optical observations by first responders. Their eyes cannot more readily identify one melted metal from another, any more than yours and mine.

Sad to say, but professionals need samples and/or instruments to make that identification. What hope do firefighters have just by looking at it?

 

[DGM]

Melted metal? Sure, but that's not what you're hanging your hat on. You're going full-bore on your certainty that it can only be explained as melted steel. And you're basing that on optical observations by first responders. Their eyes cannot more readily identify one melted metal from another, any more than yours and mine.

Sad to say, but professionals need samples and/or instruments to make that identification. What hope do firefighters have just by looking at it?

I hate to tell you it's worse than that. No "truther" has yet to prove/show how "molten steel" even effects the "official story"

 

[ergo]

The other thing about the apparent "blase" attitude of engineers, EdX, you're forgetting that the original official story tried to explain the melted steel. I've linked to this BBC article a lot, in which structural engineer Chris Wise "explains" why the steel melted, but he is not the only one in the profession who speculated on melted steel columns.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

 

[ergo]

Melted metal? Sure, but that's not what you're hanging your hat on. You're going full-bore on your certainty that it can only be explained as melted steel. And you're basing that on optical observations by first responders.

No, I'm not. Read the links.

 

[OCaptain]

Oh, news to me. Where has this been determined? Where is the big thermite-debunking paper?

You haven't read it? It's been out for years.

Bentham Open published it, I think. Authors by the name of Jones, Harrit, et al?

It makes THE definitive case against therm*te being used at the WTCs.

 

[DGM]

No, I'm not. Read the links.

So, if you ever actually talked to these people you could explain how they are wrong in their opinions of what happened because of things the might have seen?

Let say you ran into Mr Robertson, how would you correct him on his opinion of what happened?

 

[LSSBB]

The other thing about the apparent "blase" attitude of engineers, EdX, you're forgetting that the original official story tried to explain the melted steel. I've linked to this BBC article a lot, in which structural engineer Chris Wise "explains" why the steel melted, but he is not the only one in the profession who speculated on melted steel columns.

So what? How does molten steel necessarily lead to Controlled Demolition? In your own words please.

 

[OCaptain]

No, I'm not. Read the links.

Stop deflecting.