Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[volatile]

RedIbis - why did you ignore my post? Explain to me why there were no audible "pops" and visible flashes when the WT buildings fell? If it was controlled demolition, it would sound like this:

 

[Gravy]

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.

Knock yourself out. Give me the name of an investigator who says the collapses produced molten metal or molten steel, or retract your statement.

I see you also have failed to address why the photos and firefighter quotes I presented do not indicate an inferno. I take it you concede that point then? The adult thing is to say, "Thanks for that information. I didn't know that."

But you did know that, didn't you? So what is that behavior called, RedIbis?

 

[Unfit4Command]

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?

As far as I know, a collapse has never caused molten metal to form. It didn't occur on 9/11 either. Who the hell told you that the collapse caused the molten metal? Could to intense fires burning under the piles have anything to do with the molten metal maybe? Some of the metal could have possibly been oxidized also, it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes.

I would provide more information, but I have an awful internet connectiong right now. In a few days maybe.

For now, I recommend reading various pages on Gravy's website linked in his sig, TONS of good info there.

 

[Gravy]

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.

You're not? Then how in the world do you explain your behavior?


Happy birthday, unfit!

 

[Gravy]

An Italian researcher has pretty well proven that the "molten metal" came from batteries that were stored in the a corner on the 81st floor. They were UPSs for bank computers. They melted and pooled then ran out the window when the bulding listed. I'll find the link and post it.

Sorry, haven't been here long enough to post a link.
11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2

Hi, GT. Welcome to the forums. There are several reasonable explanations for the molten material that was pouring from the NE corner of the south tower. I think the aluminum that had been piled in that corner and subjected to an inferno since the plane hit, combined with the sagging floors, makes perfect sense. The battery idea is also interesting.

What RedIbis is claiming, though, is that the collapses produced molten metal that people observed days and weeks later. I've never seen that claim before, and it certainly hasn't been made by any investigator or expert that I'm aware of, nor am I aware of how such a thing would be physically possible in the universe we inhabit.

But RedIbis is going to produce quotes that prove me a liar.

 

[T.A.M.]

The reports of molten metal/steel, so far as I have seen were made by (1) a rescue worker, (2) contractors involved in the clean up who then relayed what they saw to Mark Loizeux. I do not recall any of the WITNESSES to the molten metal/steel at GZ to be INVESTIGATORS.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

The reports of molten metal/steel, so far as I have seen were made by (1) a rescue worker, (2) contractors involved in the clean up who then relayed what they saw to Mark Loizeux. I do not recall any of the WITNESSES to the molten metal/steel at GZ to be INVESTIGATORS.

TAM

That's fine, but what we're concerned with is RedIbis's claim that the molten material was caused by the collapses. It's a claim I haven't seen before.

This is a separate issue from what the molten material in the piles – which was never tested (right, RedIbis?) – was.

 

[CHF]

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.

Wait, let me guess: AE911 led by the pathetic Richard Gage?

 

[peteweaver]

Good guess CHF. And there are better researchers than Richard Gage, who scoff at his theories. Zdenek Bazant PhD for instance...

 

[RedIbis]

Knock yourself out. Give me the name of an investigator who says the collapses produced molten metal or molten steel, or retract your statement.

QUOTE]


Is this how you claim victory in debate, by reconditioning the argument?

I said there were credible reports that used the words "molten steel" and "molten metal" at GZ. You called me a liar.

Now you are trying to rephrase your demand. I never said that the presence of molten steel or metal indicated CD. I never said these people said it was produced by the collapse. Im only reporting what they described.

Do you doubt that some people, with exclusive access to GZ, used those words to describe debris?

 

[T.A.M.]

No, I personally think there were a number of unqualified people (in terms of identifying what type of metal it was) saw molten metal of some sort at ground zero. I think those who listed it as molten "steel" were unqualified to do so, and were either speculating, or merely mislabeled it as such.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

No, I personally think there were a number of unqualified people (in terms of identifying what type of metal it was) saw molten metal of some sort at ground zero. I think those who listed it as molten "steel" were unqualified to do so, and were either speculating, or merely mislabeled it as such.

TAM

I think I've got this figured out now.

Any eyewitness who corroborates the official story is credible.

Any eyewitness who corroborates an alternative theory is not credible.

An enormous amount of the official story depends on eyewitnesses, which can be notoriously unreliable, contradicted by other eyewitnesses and retracted at a later date.

But you guys are doing pretty good finding some people who reported "molten steel" and "molten metal." Surely, you can find others.

 

[CHF]

RedIbis,

did you miss the part about qualified eyewitnesses?

Indeed eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. But twoofers question witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon - an event hardly open to interpretation or error. We, on the other hand, question whether a witness is able to accurately judge one metal from another.

 

[volatile]

RedIbis - answer my question, please. Why aren't there any pops or bangs just before the collapse?

 

[T.A.M.]

Red:

Come on. A witness saying "I saw a plane hit a building" is credible, but a rescue worker/paramedic claiming they saw molten "Steel" is not as credible, in terms of the type of metal. How would a paramedic know, or be able to make such a distinction looking at a pool of molten METAL?

We do not really have to find anyone for anything...really, as we are not the ones trying to disprove the currently widely held theory (99.99% of gen populous) that 19 Arab hijackers flew planes into buildings, resulting in buildings coming down.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

sekrit Hushaboom(TM) Explosives is what I was told Volatile...lol

TAM

 

[cloudshipsrule]

That is not the way crime is solved.

You're right. A crime is solved by using available evidence, which NIST and other's have done.

You assumed the government was responsible from the get-go and you're working backwards from there, trying to make evidence fit. This is NOT how a crime is solved.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis - answer my question, please. Why aren't there any pops or bangs just before the collapse?

You can believe this or not, but my outdated laptop has stopped running video and has no audio. I can watch videos at work. I won't be back in my office until Tues. I will give you my word that I will watch the video. And I'm getting a desktop pc built, primarily because it's very frustrating not to have access to video and audio.

I believe your video is of WTC 7. Trust me, I'm very much interested in a dicussion of that collapse. Thanks for your patience.

 

[volatile]

You can believe this or not, but my outdated laptop has stopped running video and has no audio. I can watch videos at work. I won't be back in my office until Tues. I will give you my word that I will watch the video. And I'm getting a desktop pc built, primarily because it's very frustrating not to have access to video and audio.

I believe your video is of WTC 7. Trust me, I'm very much interested in a dicussion of that collapse. Thanks for your patience.

It's a video of a real controlled demolition, in which you hear very loud sequential bangs just before the collapse as the charges go off. These are evident in every single video of real demolitions, but are absent in the WTC collapse videos. Your explanation?

 

[RedIbis]

You assumed the government was responsible from the get-go and you're working backwards from there, trying to make evidence fit.

That's an absolutely incorrect assumption.

I'm not one to describe my personal experiences, but I was like everyone else after 9/11. I thought it was AQ and OBL. A few years later I was asked to look at some info. If people were questioning the veracity of the official story, I wanted to know why.

The first thing I did was read the 9/11 Commission Report. My initial feeling was that the actual day of 9/11 was not extensively covered. The emergence of AQ had been documented in other sources, and it doesn't take a genius to describe how to prevent future threats. That left a pretty thin sandwich.

Since then, it's been a three year research journey.