Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[RedIbis]

False. No investigator has claimed that the collapses produced molten metal, much less molten steel.

Well, this is a fairly simple challenge. All I have to do is quote and source one investigator who has described seeing either "molten metal" or "molten steel."

Now, I play a lot of chess. I wouldn't make a bold move unless I was protected.

If I produce just one investigator, it is you who is proven to be the liar. That's the tactical mistake you made. You entered this debate with very bold moves, you made a bold claim, that I'm a liar. That's the basest form of logical fallacy, the ad hominem attack.

Strategically, you might have said, "your argument is incorrect." "You quoted incorrectly." "You ignored these facts." Instead, you went for a strategy that has probably worked for you in the past.

You pride yourself on being an excellent researcher. I can assure you there are highly credible people, whose quotes are easy to access, who used the words "molten metal" and "molten steel."

Why don't you give me the list of names. They're easy to find.

Even if you don't, I promise to produce them.

 

[RedIbis]

I've been waiting for someone to pull that canard.

The difference is that Gravy is relying on the statements of firefighters to describe a fire. And many of those comments are on-the-record from formal interviews.

The alleged testimony contradicting gravity-driven collapse is that of normal people, those who have no expertise in demolition, fires, or structural engineering, taken in informal discussions. .

Please see post #141. Those who reported "molten metal" and "molten steel" had access to GZ. Obviously, they were either an investigator, a firefighter, or possibly a member of an engineering firm.

I don't know what you mean by "normal" people. This appears to be an attempt to define credibility on your own terms.

As I said in 141, if you guys can't run down the quotes and sources I'll post them.

As long as you have the integrity, and in the spirit of friendly debate, to admit that you might be wrong. You might be unaware of research.
I sense that you don't have that humility. That you believe you have the "truth."

Which would be ironic because then you would be the twoofer.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, this is a fairly simple challenge. All I have to do is quote and source one investigator who has described seeing either "molten metal" or "molten steel."

There's one obvious flaw in your retort: just because someone says they saw molten metal or molten steel does not mean that's what it actually was. One must also be very careful to note descriptions which say "it looked like molten metal" or "it looked like molten steel." Using "like" means it is a description of its appearance by simile; it does not mean that's what it actually was.

I recall reading a comment from a B-17 crewman who described the sound of shrapnel from German flak hitting his aircraft as sounding like pebbles thrown onto a tin roof. This is description by simile; it is not a literal description.

 

[CHF]

RedIbis,

let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was indeed molten metal/steel at GZ.

What do you suppose caused it?

And if you're going to give the usual twoofer answers, be sure to explain how bombs create molten metal and how much thermite would be required to cause the metal to stay molten.

 

[RedIbis]

There's one obvious flaw in your retort: just because someone says they saw molten metal or molten steel does not mean that's what it actually was.

Hardly. Gravy called me a liar and he made a simple assertion. If I post just one report, if not multiple reports, especially from people we would consider credible, of "molten steel" or "molten metal," then he is the liar.

I agree that describing molten steel is not the same as the presence of molten steel, but that's not what Gravy said.

If nothing else, if we can cease the personal attacks, we might have a rational, well sourced discussion.

 

[R.Mackey]

Please see post #141. Those who reported "molten metal" and "molten steel" had access to GZ. Obviously, they were either an investigator, a firefighter, or possibly a member of an engineering firm.

I don't know what you mean by "normal" people. This appears to be an attempt to define credibility on your own terms.

As I said in 141, if you guys can't run down the quotes and sources I'll post them.

As long as you have the integrity, and in the spirit of friendly debate, to admit that you might be wrong. You might be unaware of research.
I sense that you don't have that humility. That you believe you have the "truth."

Which would be ironic because then you would be the twoofer.

Obviously nothing. I know every one of the individuals to whom you are referring, and I've researched it in depth. Not a single one of them performed, or was qualified to perform, a test on the liquid metal to verify that it had a high iron content.

One of those was Leslie Robertson. I presume you know who he is. Amusingly, it isn't 100% clear that he ever stated that at all -- it appears that his comments at an open lecture were either embellished by the reporter, or it was simply a figure of speech. When someone followed up on his comment, it was learned that Mr. Robertson didn't recall saying that in the first place, and freely admits that even if he did, he would have been speculating. Read here for details.

The others whom the "Truth Movement" claims "prove" the existence of molten steel include Mark Loizeaux and Peter Tully, engineers with no specific metallurgical experience; fire captain Philip Ruvolo, also no metallurgical expertise; and reporter William Langewiesche. Not one scientist and not one test performed.

If there were such huge puddles of "melted steel," how come there's no cast-iron pancake left behind? Not one. Not even a trace. Not even a report of a trace.

Don't presume that you've researched and we haven't. Your earlier comments make it clear that you do not comprehend the NIST report. My comments above should explain that I'm more than ready for you here, as well.

And this is all nothing but a diversion, anyway. The WTC 1 and 2 fires were the number 2 and 3 largest office fires in history, spanning multiple acres of involved floor area at one time. If that doesn't satisfy your definition of "inferno," remind me never to go to your house for a barbeque!

 

[Mangoose]

Ummm, what I'm missing here is .... is molten metal the kind of thing you expect in controlled demolition? How many imploded buildings have molten metal in the pit? None? How is molten metal supposed to indicate CD?

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis,

let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was indeed molten metal/steel at GZ.

What do you suppose caused it?

And if you're going to give the usual twoofer answers, be sure to explain how bombs create molten metal and how much thermite would be required to cause the metal to stay molten.

There are a range of theories. Please don't assume that I will give you the regular "twoofer answers."

Your challenge will be supporting the official story. The question is not what caused molten metal or steel. The real question is: Is it possible that gravity driven collapse can cause molten metal or steel? Has it ever happened before?

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in the official story and I hold it up to scrutiny.

I'm sure you guys aren't going to like hearing this but I thought this would be the hardest part of the "Inside Job" theory. The towers are the most difficult to discuss because collapse is very technical.

I wish you luck on the Pentagon, WTC 7, Flight 93, timelines of principles, the hijackers, NORAD timelines, terror drills, what the Commission Report does and doesn't say, PNAC, the money trail, Whitman and the EPA, and on and on...

 

[RedIbis]

Obviously nothing. I know every one of the individuals to whom you are referring, and I've researched it in depth. Not a single one of them performed, or was qualified to perform, a test on the liquid metal to verify that it had a high iron content.

One of those was Leslie Robertson. I presume you know who he is. Amusingly, it isn't 100% clear that he ever stated that at all -- it appears that his comments at an open lecture were either embellished by the reporter, or it was simply a figure of speech. When someone followed up on his comment, it was learned that Mr. Robertson didn't recall saying that in the first place, and freely admits that even if he did, he would have been speculating. Read here for details.

The others whom the "Truth Movement" claims "prove" the existence of molten steel include Mark Loizeaux and Peter Tully, engineers with no specific metallurgical experience; fire captain Philip Ruvolo, also no metallurgical expertise; and reporter William Langewiesche. Not one scientist and not one test performed.

If there were such huge puddles of "melted steel," how come there's no cast-iron pancake left behind? Not one. Not even a trace. Not even a report of a trace.

Don't presume that you've researched and we haven't. Your earlier comments make it clear that you do not comprehend the NIST report. My comments above should explain that I'm more than ready for you here, as well.

And this is all nothing but a diversion, anyway. The WTC 1 and 2 fires were the number 2 and 3 largest office fires in history, spanning multiple acres of involved floor area at one time. If that doesn't satisfy your definition of "inferno," remind me never to go to your house for a barbeque!

I already made the distinction. I am not debating whether or not there was molten steel or molten metal. Gravy challenged me to post whether or not the claim of "molten steel" or "molten metal" was made.

I don't doubt for a second that you know what I'm talking about. Perhaps we might agree that it's a topic that deserves discussion, not hostility. There is a tremendous range of important research out there.

 

[CHF]

Well RedIbis, if the official story doesn't account for molten steel and no demolition theory can account for molten steel...well maybe there wasn't any!

Crazy idea, I know.

As for metal, try aluminum.

 

[BeAChooser]

If there were such huge puddles of "melted steel," how come there's no cast-iron pancake left behind? Not one. Not even a trace. Not even a report of a trace.

There was one "puddle" reported. Or at least material taken from it.

Remember that fine work by *ex-professor* Steven Jones? He delighted in telling audiences that the object in the following slide from his presentations, http://debunking911.com/moltennothing.jpg, was slag, presumably from just such a puddle. Too bad someone noticed the the material "entrained" in it ... the concrete, furniture, steel members, pipes ... were inconsistent with the notion of it having been in a molten state.

ROTFLOL!

 

[stateofgrace]

There are a range of theories. Please don't assume that I will give you the regular "twoofer answers."

Your challenge will be supporting the official story. The question is not what caused molten metal or steel. The real question is: Is it possible that gravity driven collapse can cause molten metal or steel? Has it ever happened before?

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in the official story and I hold it up to scrutiny.

I'm sure you guys aren't going to like hearing this but I thought this would be the hardest part of the "Inside Job" theory. The towers are the most difficult to discuss because collapse is very technical.

I wish you luck on the Pentagon, WTC 7, Flight 93, timelines of principles, the hijackers, NORAD timelines, terror drills, what the Commission Report does and doesn't say, PNAC, the money trail, Whitman and the EPA, and on and on...

Your " Challenge" is rejected. YOU are trying to offer up alternative theories, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your theories, not for me or anybody to disprove them.

So, sunbeam, give it your best shot. Tell me all about the Pentagon, WTC 7, Flight 93, timelines, the hijackers, NORAD, terror drills etc.

The floor is all yours. Lets have your summary of the days events. any chance at all any troofer will do this ? Maybe you will? I await your short summary of the days events, I wish you luck.

 

[TjW]

There are a range of theories. Please don't assume that I will give you the regular "twoofer answers."
<snippage by TjW>

Why not? You're asking standard, already-been-debunked-to-hell-and-gone twoofer questions, and have given regular twoofer responses so far.

"I'm just asking questions" is among the oldest and lamest of twoofer dodges.
You can't use that and still expect to be treated as anything other than a regular twoofer.

 

[RedIbis]

Your " Challenge" is rejected. YOU are trying to offer up alternative theories, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your theories, not for me or anybody to disprove them.

So, sunbeam, give it your best shot. Tell me all about the Pentagon, WTC 7, Flight 93, timelines, the hijackers, NORAD, terror drills etc.

The floor is all yours. Lets have your summary of the days events. any chance at all any troofer will do this ? Maybe you will? I await your short summary of the days events, I wish you luck.

I didn't make the claim that 19 Arab hijackers armed with boxcutters destroyed all seven WTC bldgs, buried an airliner into dirt so soft, yet so hard that no serially charged pieces of it could be recovered, and penetrated the center of our country's defense. That's the claim. You believe it. Try and support it. The 110 pages that the 9/11 Commission Report devotes to the actual day of 9/11 didn't really explain it that well.

As for "what happened," I'd pick up Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline or check out the updated timeline at cooperativeresearch.org

 

[RedIbis]

"I'm just asking questions" is among the oldest and lamest of twoofer dodges.
You can't use that and still expect to be treated as anything other than a regular twoofer.

Point out where I said "I'm just asking questions."

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not some 17 yo kid with a collection of conspiracy dvds.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron:

There are very few who could "seriously" debate with Mark.

Here is my list of those who would perhaps "Challenge" him...

1. Paul thompson
2. Jim Hoffman

I don't think I've ever tried to reach Thompson. Hoffman ducked out on us last year.

Here is a list of those that I would most love to see him debate (for different reasons)

1. DRG
2. Judy Wood
3. ACE Baker
4. Stephen Jones
5. Kevin Ryan

Griffin won't debate. I've never attempted to contact Judy Wood. I suppose I'll have to give it a shot, but, frankly, she frightens me. Ace? Ace? Jones refuses to debate.
Ryan, as you probably know, issued a challenge to Mark, saw it accepted instantly, and hasn't stopped running yet.

Here are those I feel you would be wasting your time getting.

1. Paul Doherty
2. Willie Rodriguez (for a debate, be nice to get him for an interview)
3. Luke from "we are Change"
4. Les Jameson (you already kicked his ass)
5. LTW crew or Fetzer (Mark already kicked their asses)
6. Alex Jones (do I have to say why?)
7. Mark Dice (formerly John Connor)

TAM

Abandon all hope. Embarrassingly enough, Les Jamieson returns to 'Hardfire' on a show hosted by a former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate--who happens to be a twoofer. Yoicks!

 

[pomeroo]

I already made the distinction. I am not debating whether or not there was molten steel or molten metal. Gravy challenged me to post whether or not the claim of "molten steel" or "molten metal" was made.

I don't doubt for a second that you know what I'm talking about. Perhaps we might agree that it's a topic that deserves discussion, not hostility. There is a tremendous range of important research out there.

Mark Loizeaux flatly denies claiming he saw "molten steel." Another lie by conspiracy liars.

 

[RedIbis]

Mark Loizeaux flatly denies claiming he saw "molten steel." Another lie by conspiracy liars.

Did I use his name in my post?

 

[stateofgrace]

I didn't make the claim that 19 Arab hijackers armed with boxcutters destroyed all seven WTC bldgs, buried an airliner into dirt so soft, yet so hard that no serially charged pieces of it could be recovered, and penetrated the center of our country's defense. That's the claim. You believe it. Try and support it. The 110 pages that the 9/11 Commission Report devotes to the actual day of 9/11 didn't really explain it that well.

As for "what happened," I'd pick up Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline or check out the updated timeline at cooperativeresearch.org

Incorrect I have not made a single claim. You are the one offering up alternative theores, so go ahead, tell me all about it.

Flight 11,
Flight 175,
Flight 77,
Flight 93,
WTC 1,
WTC 2,
WTC 7,
NORAD,
The Pentagon,
Hijackers.

I await your summary,include the above, have you got one or are you concerned that you may come across as looking slightly crazy?

Tell me what happened, do not dismiss me to a website, I want your summary of the days events.

 

[RedIbis]

Incorrect I have not made a single claim. You are the one offering up alternative theores, so go ahead, tell me all about it.

Flight 11,
Flight 175,
Flight 77,
Flight 93,
WTC 1,
WTC 2,
WTC 7,
NORAD,
Hijackers.

I await your summary,include the above, have you got one or are you concerned that you may come across as looking slightly crazy?

Tell me what happened, do not dismiss me to a website, I want your summary of the days events.

I'll write you a book. In the meantime, keep researching. There are better researchers than myself, military personnel, architects, engineers, all talking about this. I'd give you a list of resources, but you appear to have your mind made up.