Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Building 7 ???
Comments
-
Ok, here's me informing you of something.guitarzero wrote: »Fell like a controlled demolition. Cant spell it any other way. You cant spell orange any other way. You're just bullish so no one should make it there policy to argue with your cemented nut. You just drain and not inform.
That video did not show the entirety of the collapse, they have deliberately removed some footage to manipulate the clip to fit their narrative.
Before:
After:
This is where the clips in your video start.
Why don't they show the penthouse collapsing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds
Had anyone in the government pulled something like this you guys would be all over it.0 -
Well I'm not particularly bothered to do this, as I'm not the one relying on an argument from authority.
Just because someone is an engineer doesn't make them immune to shoody logic, lies and propaganda, as I'm sure you'd agree at least in regards to the scientists who disagree with you.
Whoa, whoa, back the fcuk up there KM. You flatly refuse to provide the names/credentials of engineers or scientists who backup the official line yet you demand everyone else provide YOU with source information and eyewitness accounts. Now I can see the kind of person we're dealing with here. I provided you with a few sources of eyewitnesses to the molten steel issue. In a previous post you just told a bald-faced lie. You stated that there was no molten steel. You stated that there were no witnesses to pools of molten steel. Why did you tell this lie?
Is it that you WANT this argument to collapse because you are tired of where it's going or, worse, you fear that there may be some weight behind alternative explanations?[/QUOTE]Yea, you claimed this before and I asked you to point out some the exact parts that were manipulated. You failed to do so for some reason.
The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities. That right there is gross negligence. Not only that but the tests they conducted on the steel trusses showed that they passed the test...so this was ommitted. They conducted computer simulations but fed information into these simulations that would result in a desired outcome. They rejected outcomes and scenarios which were as reliable as the ones they accepted purely because those scenarios gave different outcomes to what they wanted (not EXPECTED.....WANTED). They admitted that they had NO access to conditions at the central core so were merely guessing. They did have access to audiotape of two firemen who made it to the central core on floor 78 but they chose to not even listen to it and this audiotape would have given them a lot more insight into conditions there than what they had. Their transgressions in compiling this farcical report are too numerous to list. Sufficeth to say that it is completed biased, hence NOT scientific and would be laughed out of any laboratory or forensic investigation.Now before I actually address this I need to understand how this fits into your narrative.
Why first of all would there be molten steel in a controlled demolition?
Explosive demolition uses the shock of the explosion to break supports, heat plays no part.
I don't know. I never said anything about a controlled demolition. I just want to know where molten steel came from considering fire couldn't have produced it.And why exactly didn't they have a pre -scripted explanation for the molten steel?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here
Can I take it that you can't actually find the FDNY actually saying what you think they said?
So there's no reasoning or evidence I can possibly provide that could ever convince you that the official story is a valid explanation?
So the sources I gave aren't good enough, i.e. engineers, first responders, etc. The New York City commissioner isn't enough?
What about Mark Loizeaux president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who was tasked with the cleanup of Oklahoma after the bombing there? He was drafted in for the cleanup of WTC and witnessed pools of molten steel.
But if you really will only accept FDNY and nothing else then try this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3075760762325077704#
I think it's safe to say that there was molten steel pools in the rubble. Would you agree?0 -
Can everyone please try and calm it down a notch. This forum could create some great discussions so long as everyone chills out a bit and doesn't take things too seriously or personally.0
-
Now it's clear you've misunderstood my point entirely.jackiebaron wrote: »Whoa, whoa, back the fcuk up there KM. You flatly refuse to provide the names/credentials of engineers or scientists who backup the official line yet you demand everyone else provide YOU with source information and eyewitness accounts. Now I can see the kind of person we're dealing with here.
I was just pointing out the fact that there are engineers etc who do agree with the official story, meaning that we simply can't take either engineer's word for it on their authority alone.
Me actually going to find specific names etc would not add to this point and would be a waste of time.
You being able to point to engineers that agree with you lends no more support to your side than me doing the same because it's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Actually you have me here I was trying to refer to the steel that failed which lead to the collapse (this was weakened, not melted) however I was insufficiently clear about this.jackiebaron wrote: »I provided you with a few sources of eyewitnesses to the molten steel issue. In a previous post you just told a bald-faced lie. You stated that there was no molten steel.
This however, I never said.jackiebaron wrote: »You stated that there were no witnesses to pools of molten steel. Why did you tell this lie?
What other possibilities should they have considered?jackiebaron wrote: »The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities. That right there is gross negligence.
So what were the other outcomes?jackiebaron wrote: »Not only that but the tests they conducted on the steel trusses showed that they passed the test...so this was ommitted. They conducted computer simulations but fed information into these simulations that would result in a desired outcome. They rejected outcomes and scenarios which were as reliable as the ones they accepted purely because those scenarios gave different outcomes to what they wanted (not EXPECTED.....WANTED).
What information did they feed into the simulation that was erroneous or false?
What insight would the audiotape have offered precisely?jackiebaron wrote: »They admitted that they had NO access to conditions at the central core so were merely guessing. They did have access to audiotape of two firemen who made it to the central core on floor 78 but they chose to not even listen to it and this audiotape would have given them a lot more insight into conditions there than what they had. Their transgressions in compiling this farcical report are too numerous to list.
Well, at least if you believe what you're told by conspiracy sites.jackiebaron wrote: »Sufficeth to say that it is completed biased, hence NOT scientific and would be laughed out of any laboratory or forensic investigation.
So what is your explanation for the molten steel?jackiebaron wrote: »I don't know. I never said anything about a controlled demolition. I just want to know where molten steel came from considering fire couldn't have produced it.
Or what is your explanation for why the towers fell if it wasn't a controlled demolition?
Well if 9/11 was preplanned with these reports ready to go, why in your narrative didn't they have an explanation for why there was the molten steel?jackiebaron wrote: »I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here
No, it's just that you claimed that FDNY made such claims yet didn't provide any quotes form them. Now you've posted one, which doesn't refer to there being "pools."jackiebaron wrote: »So the sources I gave aren't good enough, i.e. engineers, first responders, etc. The New York City commissioner isn't enough?
Could you actually provide the precise quote, because none of them seem to be saying what you think they are.jackiebaron wrote: »What about Mark Loizeaux president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who was tasked with the cleanup of Oklahoma after the bombing there? He was drafted in for the cleanup of WTC and witnessed pools of molten steel.
Well no, not really.jackiebaron wrote: »But if you really will only accept FDNY and nothing else then try this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3075760762325077704#
I think it's safe to say that there was molten steel pools in the rubble. Would you agree?
The first link with the story about the dog contains no quote from the person at the scene about there being molten steel.
it's only mentioned by the reporter writing the story, seemingly for effect and even then does not mention "pools"
The seconds says: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,”
So not steel or pools.
The thrid is from a speech, not a eyewitness testimony, so
“...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”
Is probably more for effect than accuracy.
And again, no pools.
So why the difference between what you've said the witnesses report and what they've actually said.
A can't really address something you aren't supplying an accurate picture of what you at least think was happening.0 -
jackiebaron wrote:The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities.
jackiebaron, your posts are riddled with factual inaccuracies to pick just one at random2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what
caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm0 -
jackiebaron, your posts are riddled with factual inaccuracies to pick just one at random
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Di0,
Why are you even bringing up controlled demolition? Have I once mentioned it?
Let's move gently along to the factual inaccuracies that you mention. Please point out one (of the many).0 -
Now it's clear you've misunderstood my point entirely.
I was just pointing out the fact that there are engineers etc who do agree with the official story, meaning that we simply can't take either engineer's word for it on their authority alone.
Me actually going to find specific names etc would not add to this point and would be a waste of time.
You being able to point to engineers that agree with you lends no more support to your side than me doing the same because it's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Well I'll gladly take the name of one of the experts of whom you speak.Actually you have me here I was trying to refer to the steel that failed which lead to the collapse (this was weakened, not melted) however I was insufficiently clear about this.
I'm sorry, but tests have shown (tests, ignored even by the NIST) that failure was NOT possible. NOT possible.This however, I never said.
What other possibilities should they have considered?
Any and EVERY possibility from an earthquake to elves coming in the night....that's what an impartial investigation IS.So what were the other outcomes?
What information did they feed into the simulation that was erroneous or false?
The other outcomes were that their simulations were utterly inconclusive. They (the NIST) discarded computer simulations that not only having being supplied with the parameters that would (vaguely) extrapolate towards their goals, they reverse engineered their figures. They conducted test whose result flew in the face of their "would-be" findings and they flagrantly ignored these findings. Now you claim to have an education in physics....which leads me to believe one of two things.....either you do.....or you don't. Either way, manipulation of scientific facts does NOT prove a point even if it proves an outcome. We've all bitched our findings in Chemistry class or moved a few dots on the graph to get out on time for lunchtime pints but that's college......not life-and-death investagative work.What insight would the audiotape have offered precisely?
Seeing as the NIST admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever about conditions at the centre core of the WTC and so assumed that it was melting under tremendous heat close to 1000 degrees Centigrade, yet two humans were marching around that very same spot, then I would imagine that what these two firemen were saying to each other regarding saving lives and not actually melting like the mythical steel beams....well I would imagine that two humans describing their surroundings would be of quite significant value to a report about the conditions in the centre of the building.Well, at least if you believe what you're told by conspiracy sites.
And still the dig.So what is your explanation for the molten steel?
Or what is your explanation for why the towers fell if it wasn't a controlled demolition?
I don't HAVE an explanation for molten steel. Why do you keep asking me this? I have reason to believe that molten steel in large quantities was witnessed. You tell ME how it got there.Well if 9/11 was preplanned with these reports ready to go, why in your narrative didn't they have an explanation for why there was the molten steel?
And why do you think I think it was "preplanned"
I just want to know where the molten steel came from when planes and jet fuel couldn't have caused it.0 -
Ok, here's me informing you of something.
That video did not show the entirety of the collapse, they have deliberately removed some footage to manipulate the clip to fit their narrative.
Before:
After:
This is where the clips in your video start.
Why don't they show the penthouse collapsing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds
Had anyone in the government pulled something like this you guys would be all over it.
You still insist that fire and some rubble impact caused this building to collapse like this? Thats insane. Spare me the " You're not an engineer" nonsense. 1/3 on the left slightly pancakes downward and then the rest just collapses? It looks like a somewhat misfired demolition. I just cant believe you are still protesting.0 -
Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?jackiebaron wrote: »I'm sorry, but tests have shown (tests, ignored even by the NIST) that failure was NOT possible. NOT possible.
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?
And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?
Are you being serious?jackiebaron wrote: »Any and EVERY possibility from an earthquake to elves coming in the night....that's what an impartial investigation IS.
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.
What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.
I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...
You're being painfully vague here.jackiebaron wrote: »The other outcomes were that their simulations were utterly inconclusive. They (the NIST) discarded computer simulations that not only having being supplied with the parameters that would (vaguely) extrapolate towards their goals, they reverse engineered their figures. They conducted test whose result flew in the face of their "would-be" findings and they flagrantly ignored these findings. Now you claim to have an education in physics....which leads me to believe one of two things.....either you do.....or you don't. Either way, manipulation of scientific facts does NOT prove a point even if it proves an outcome. We've all bitched our findings in Chemistry class or moved a few dots on the graph to get out on time for lunchtime pints but that's college......not life-and-death investagative work.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.jackiebaron wrote: »Seeing as the NIST admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever about conditions at the centre core of the WTC and so assumed that it was melting under tremendous heat close to 1000 degrees Centigrade, yet two humans were marching around that very same spot, then I would imagine that what these two firemen were saying to each other regarding saving lives and not actually melting like the mythical steel beams....well I would imagine that two humans describing their surroundings would be of quite significant value to a report about the conditions in the centre of the building.
Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.
So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?jackiebaron wrote: »I don't HAVE an explanation for molten steel. Why do you keep asking me this? I have reason to believe that molten steel in large quantities was witnessed. You tell ME how it got there.
And why do you think I think it was "preplanned"
Well again you've yet to detail what you think was actually seen, as none of the eyewitness reports seem to match up with your claim about pools of molten steel.jackiebaron wrote: »I just want to know where the molten steel came from when planes and jet fuel couldn't have caused it.0 -
OK folks, I'm off to bed now.....I would just like to know where the molten steel in the basement of the WTC came from. It's been witnessed by many and denied by King Mob (wondering if he was there).
Just need to know your theories regarding molten steel.
Sweet dreams all.0 -
Advertisement
-
But that's not the point I was making. I was exceedingly clear so there is very little chance you missed it by accident.guitarzero wrote: »You still insist that fire and some rubble impact caused this building to collapse like this? Thats insane. Spare me the " You're not an engineer" nonsense. 1/3 on the left slightly pancakes downward and then the rest just collapses? It looks like a somewhat misfired demolition.
The video you posted leaves this section of the collapse out.
Is this an honest thing to do? Why do you think they left this out?
And as for your strawman about "fire and some rubble impact", I've addressed this point several times in several ways earlier in the thread, if you'd like to read them
So I should stop asking questions about the conspiracy and just accept what I'm told?guitarzero wrote: »I just cant believe you are still protesting.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »OK folks, I'm off to bed now.....I would just like to know where the molten steel in the basement of the WTC came from. It's been witnessed by many and denied by King Mob (wondering if he was there).
Just need to know your theories regarding molten steel.
Sweet dreams all.
That's not what I've said.
Just been pointing out that the eyewitness testimony you've been providing doesn't match what you've been claiming.0 -
Say what you have to say but it doesnt add up based on the vid evidence. It looks very much like a controlled demo. How an entire structure can come down from across the street due to extensive fire (somehow) and rubble doesnt add up. The math you are pushing doesnt make sense. It brings me back to that orange video. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck then it has to be a duck. The speed and flow of the fall, bar the jerk on the left side, which eventually takes place on all sides is so smooth its as though it was a demo. It was a demolition.0
-
Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?
And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?
Are you being serious?
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.
What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.
I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...
You're being painfully vague here.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.
Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.
So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?
Well again you've yet to detail what you think was actually seen, as none of the eyewitness reports seem to match up with your claim about pools of molten steel.
Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no? That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement, those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.
You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly. And you claim to have studied physics? I'd love to hear your theories on empirical experimentation.
You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble. You denied this. I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no? That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement,
Explosions are not proof of explosives.those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.
Witness testimony is not hard evidence.You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly.
It's been shown to you that the NIST did nothing of the sort.You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble.
Molten Metal was witnessed in the rubble, and was found in the rubble. Some people said it was Molten Steel.
How did they know it was Molten Steel? Where they able to perform a detailed metallurgical analysis of the substance by eye?
How did they know it was Molten SteelYou denied this. I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?
No merely a firm understanding as to how they were correctly able to identify molten steel from molten aluminium (aluminium being highly present in the WTC complex, and having a much lower temperature threshold.0 -
Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?
And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?
Are you being serious?
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.
What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.
I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...
You're being painfully vague here.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.
Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.
OK, at the sake of sounding exasperated beyond endurance with someone who's just plain stubborn and not in the slightest bit interested in facts, conjecture, reasonable doubt, etc., etc. I will try to deal with your points one by one. You bombard a volley of questions and demand sources as if everything I'm telling you I've just pulled out of a hat. When I provide you with sources you don't say "Thank you, I stand corrected." You don't even have the decency to contemplate the source or the evidence. You simply ignore it. Or shift off to something else and demand evidence or proof of another claim.
Well I'll go through all your demands one by one and I'd appreciate it if you would tell me that you are satisfied. This is a transcript of the conversation between the two firefighters who made it up to the area of impact:
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."
Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orlo."
Here, Battalion Chief Orlo Palmer calls for hoses to be brought up to put out the fires. His expression “10-45 Code Ones” refers to dead bodies, of which, evidently, there were many. The tape shows that the firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the impact zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the small fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairwell up to the next floor, i.e., 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.
There was no 2800 degree inferno (the heat needed to melt steel) nor was there even a 1000 degree inferno needed to WEAKEN steel. If there was, this conversation would never have taken place as the two men (and all those people around them, living and dead) would have been vapourised.
The NIST didn't even consider this recording in their report or the assumptions they made about conditions at the impact zone.0 -
Explosions are not proof of explosives.
Witness testimony is not hard evidence.
It's been shown to you that the NIST did nothing of the sort.
Molten Metal was witnessed in the rubble, and was found in the rubble. Some people said it was Molten Steel.
How did they know it was Molten Steel? Where they able to perform a detailed metallurgical analysis of the substance by eye?
How did they know it was Molten Steel
No merely a firm understanding as to how they were correctly able to identify molten steel from molten aluminium (aluminium being highly present in the WTC complex, and having a much lower temperature threshold.
Maybe explosions aren't evidence of explosives as in the traditional sense of the word but they are evidence of "something" explosive. What could cause explosions?
Witness testimony should always be treated as hard evidence in an investigation. What makes you say that some testimony can be treated as gospel truth and other testimony can simply be ignored?
How did they know it was molten steel? I'm going to take the word of this guy:
Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers. I'm betting that a master engineer of this guy's calibre could identify practically every element in the periodic table that occurs naturally in nature along with the most common compounds.
Aluminium!!! Are you having a laugh? Maybe it was tinfoil from the sandwiches in the canteen.0 -
So then what possibilities should they have investigated?jackiebaron wrote: »Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no?
And what do these testimonies indicate?jackiebaron wrote: »That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement,
But you've yet to provide a single example of someone claim there were "pools" of molten metal.jackiebaron wrote: »those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.
Or you make models based on what you know, and make the best guesses possible for the variables you don't know.jackiebaron wrote: »You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly. And you claim to have studied physics? I'd love to hear your theories on empirical experimentation.
Then you adjust the unknown variables until the simulation matches what was observed, (i.e. the timing and manner in which the towers fell). And if the variables are still in the possible parameters that could have existed at the scene, then the simulation an accurate representation of what happened.
This is what they did and it's a scientific approach.
Now again, please point to the tests you claimed showed the failures were impossible.
Which specific outcomes did the NIST reject?
No, some witnesses reported some molten metal not pools of molten steel as you have been claiming.jackiebaron wrote: »You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble. You denied this.
Not a single one of the witnesses you linked to said anything about pools.
Now who's shifting the goalposts.jackiebaron wrote: »I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?
First I've already explained that I never denied that there was reports of molten metal, saying otherwise is simply a lie.
Second you've claimed specifically that there were pools of molten steel, yet not a single one of the witnesses you provide, not one, mentions the word pools.
Why the difference?
And again, since you seem to have missed the question:
So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?0 -
So you do realise that you're leaving out specific details right?jackiebaron wrote: »There was no 2800 degree inferno (the heat needed to melt steel) nor was there even a 1000 degree inferno needed to WEAKEN steel. If there was, this conversation would never have taken place as the two men (and all those people around them, living and dead) would have been vapourised.
The NIST didn't even consider this recording in their report or the assumptions they made about conditions at the impact zone.
Like the time this was, their exact location as well what the NIST report actually says the temperature was at that time and place.
You should know that the NIST clearly states that the temperatures only peaked to 1000 degrees and higher in certain places, not all over the area.
So you simply can't assume that they were saying that it was 1000 degrees where and when those firefighters where.
If asking for things like details and facts and figures is too much for you, maybe it's because your claims aren't actually supported by them?
And are you suggesting that I shouldn't be asking you for these references?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fuel tanks, water tanks, cars, generators, transformers, battery banks, large fuse boxes, electrical equipement, falling elevators and debris, oxygen tanks fuel tanks hydrolic tanks and electrical components from the plane, small pockets of jet fuel, windows exploding under pressure, pipe bursting.....jackiebaron wrote: »Maybe explosions aren't evidence of explosives as in the traditional sense of the word but they are evidence of "something" explosive. What could cause explosions?
Yea, for there to be aluminium to be found you'd need a massive source of it to suddenly appear in the building...jackiebaron wrote: »Aluminium!!! Are you having a laugh? Maybe it was tinfoil from the sandwiches in the canteen.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Maybe explosions aren't evidence of explosives as in the traditional sense of the word but they are evidence of "something" explosive. What could cause explosions?
Jet fuel, power substations.
Hearing a Explosion does not not mean you've hear a explosion.Witness testimony should always be treated as hard evidence in an investigation.
Actually the exact opposite is true. Witness testimony is highly unreliable.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/stflr29&div=56&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/juraba15&div=37&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/juraba15&div=37&id=&page=
A set of scholarly articles on unreliability of witness testimonyWhat makes you say that some testimony can be treated as gospel truth and other testimony can simply be ignored?
Did I say that?How did they know it was molten steel? I'm going to take the word of this guy:
Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers. I'm betting that a master engineer of this guy's calibre could identify practically every element in the periodic table that occurs naturally in nature along with the most common compounds.
Cracks knuckles....lets look at your witnesses shall we jackie?Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer , "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer , September 3, 2002, p. 6;.)
http://www.reopen911.org/womaninhole.htm
Metal Not steal.The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)
However when contacted Leslie Robertson denied ever making the quote
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.htmlAluminium!!! Are you having a laugh? Maybe it was tinfoil from the sandwiches in the canteen.
And you're exposing your woeful ignorance of the building.
Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster Aluminum was present ...
The entire building was clad in aluminium0 -
guitarzero wrote: »Say what you have to say but it doesnt add up based on the vid evidence. It looks very much like a controlled demo. How an entire structure can come down from across the street due to extensive fire (somehow) and rubble doesnt add up. The math you are pushing doesnt make sense. It brings me back to that orange video. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck then it has to be a duck. The speed and flow of the fall, bar the jerk on the left side, which eventually takes place on all sides is so smooth its as though it was a demo. It was a demolition.
But if it looks like a duck, why are they hiding a bit of the footage from you?
Why didn't they show the actual start of the collapse?
This is the point I want you to actually think about.
A 9/11 truth video is hiding evidence from you...
As you say, if it looks like a deliberate attempt to hide facts....0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."
Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orlo."
Here, Battalion Chief Orlo Palmer calls for hoses to be brought up to put out the fires. His expression “10-45 Code Ones” refers to dead bodies, of which, evidently, there were many. The tape shows that the firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the impact zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the small fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairwell up to the next floor, i.e., 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.
There was no 2800 degree inferno (the heat needed to melt steel) nor was there even a 1000 degree inferno needed to WEAKEN steel. If there was, this conversation would never have taken place as the two men (and all those people around them, living and dead) would have been vapourised.
The NIST didn't even consider this recording in their report or the assumptions they made about conditions at the impact zone.
You're cherry picked- The fireman was on the 78th floor, the lowest of the impact floors on fire.
- A wingtip was the only part of the airliner which entered the 78th floor.
- The 78th floor is a skylobby which wouldn't have much to burn
- The fires above the 78th floor had heavier fires which followed the fuel/combustibles.
- If there were only two small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, it only agrees with the NIST report. Cooling trusses contracted and pulled the columns in because the fires moved to other areas.
0 -
So you do realise that you're leaving out specific details right?
Like the time this was, their exact location as well what the NIST report actually says the temperature was at that time and place.
You should know that the NIST clearly states that the temperatures only peaked to 1000 degrees and higher in certain places, not all over the area.
So you simply can't assume that they were saying that it was 1000 degrees where and when those firefighters where.
If asking for things like details and facts and figures is too much for you, maybe it's because your claims aren't actually supported by them?
And are you suggesting that I shouldn't be asking you for these references?
Nevermind this post jackie, diogenes provided the information I was looking for and amazingly it doesn't show what you were claiming for some reason...0 -
guitarzero wrote: »Say what you have to say but it doesnt add up based on the vid evidence. It looks very much like a controlled demo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Here's a video of a controlled demolition.
Compare it the collapse of the WTCs.
In the controlled demolition video there are a series of vivid flashes and loud explosions we don't hear that on the WTC collapses.How an entire structure can come down from across the street due to extensive fire (somehow) and rubble doesnt add up. The math you are pushing doesnt make sense. It brings me back to that orange video. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck then it has to be a duck. The speed and flow of the fall, bar the jerk on the left side, which eventually takes place on all sides is so smooth its as though it was a demo. It was a demolition.
Fascinating. Thats what we call a argument from incredulity
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The Hudson building was the largest demolition in the worldNo structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI’s demolition program had to cope with. These factors created an implosion design, preparation and dynamic control challenge for the 2nd and 3rd generation of a family recognized as the international founders of the commercial implosion industry (see ENR cover story October 1972).
Hudson’s was bordered on four sides by streets filled with critical infrastructure and flanked on 3 sides by poorly maintained, turn-of-the-century structures with huge sand-cast glass windows that occasionally broke in high winds. Lastly, Detroit’s elevated "People Mover" paralleled the east face of the 439 ft. tall structure just 15 ft away.
Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store
It's less than a fifth the size of the WTC complex
Do you really think a team of people could spend months (and it would take months, going on that schedule) rigging the WTC towers with explosives without anyone noticing all that work?0 -
Advertisement
-
DiO,
I'm not falling for your puerile game of semantics. Either there was molten steel or there wasn't. Either it was witnessed or it wasn't. If it was witnessed in the form of "pools", "blobs", "rivers", "lakes", "areas", whatever is besides the point. Maybe to you it makes a massive difference if someone describes something as an "area" rather than a "region" but the difference between the two descriptions doesn't discount EXISTENCE.
I have provided you with witness accounts. You have not taken them seriously which leads me to believe that you aren't in the slightest bit interested in the truth nor do you have any kind of healthy scientific curiosity. You are merely entrenching yourself and arguing for the fun of it.
You have no desire to entertain the possibility that the explanation for the collapse of these buildings might be erroneous. None whatsoever, so please don't waste my time with your word games and your theoretical hairsplitting. At least when I provide King Mob with a source he either admits to it or ignores it if he doesn't like the fact that it contradicts his argument. But he doesn't, unlike you, play infantile games.0 -
Except here it does. By claiming there were "pools" you were implying that there were large enough quantities for the steel to form large puddles that stayed liquid, however none of the witnesses you've provided say anything of the sort.jackiebaron wrote: »DiO,
I'm not falling for your puerile game of semantics. Either there was molten steel or there wasn't. Either it was witnessed or it wasn't. If it was witnessed in the form of "pools", "blobs", "rivers", "lakes", "areas", whatever is besides the point. Maybe to you it makes a massive difference if someone describes something as an "area" rather than a "region" but the difference between the two descriptions doesn't discount EXISTENCE.
So why do you claim there were pools when none of the witnesses you quote claim there was?
And remember this only includes the ones who actually did say what you've attributed to them.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »DiO,
I'm not falling for your puerile game of semantics.
It's not semantic. Other metals can be molten.Either there was molten steel or there wasn't.
I think there were pools of molten metal, not pool of molten steel.Either it was witnessed or it wasn't. If it was witnessed in the form of "pools", "blobs", "rivers", "lakes", "areas", whatever is besides the point.
It matters a great deal. You're supposedly a engineer, if someone tells you theres a blob of water somewhere, your reaction would different that discovering that there's a lake or river.
Adjectives matter, precision matters. You come from a engineering background you claim, you should know this.Maybe to you it makes a massive difference if someone describes something as an "area" rather than a "region" but the difference between the two descriptions doesn't discount EXISTENCE.
The "semantics" as you describe it matter to,
If someone where to say to me "It looks like blood, from a body". Then I don't know that it was blood, strawberry jab, sugar water with dye, or ribena. Or even if it human blood.
I want the blood to be taken away and tested and confirmed and a statement from a reputable biological laboratory to say "It's human blood and it's A positive".
The rest isn't "semantics" it's conjecture and speculation, and as the late great Lionel Hutz used to say "those are kinda like proof".
You've no proof molten steel was found beneath the WTC complex.I have provided you with witness accounts.
And I've demonstrated that those witness accounts could be faulty, and that there are other more plausible reasons for molten metal beneath the WTC (note metal) .You have not taken them seriously
I've taken them seriously enough to research them.which leads me to believe that you aren't in the slightest bit interested in the truth nor do you have any kind of healthy scientific curiosity. You are merely entrenching yourself and arguing for the fun of it.
I suspect you're about to take your ball away too now.You have no desire to entertain the possibility that the explanation for the collapse of these buildings might be erroneous.
I've discussed this topic for years on this forum.None whatsoever, so please don't waste my time with your word games and your theoretical hairsplitting.
As someone who comes from a engineering background, you seem aggrieved when I came up with a more plausible explanation for the molten metal (that it was not steel but aluminium). This seems contrary to your claims that you're investigating this incident with any degree of scientific rigour.At least when I provide King Mob with a source he either admits to it or ignores it if he doesn't like the fact that it contradicts his argument.
Well for starts I don't think King Mob does that.
What should I do, whenever you admit a source, admit you're right or ignore it?
Even when I have evidence that you're wrong, misquoting the source, or misunderstanding the source?But he doesn't, unlike you, play infantile games.
Please show me exactly where I play "infantile games".
And jackiebarron, my name is Di0genes. Not Di0.0 -
You're cherry picked
- The fireman was on the 78th floor, the lowest of the impact floors on fire.
- A wingtip was the only part of the airliner which entered the 78th floor.
- The 78th floor is a skylobby which wouldn't have much to burn
- The fires above the 78th floor had heavier fires which followed the fuel/combustibles.
- If there were only two small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, it only agrees with the NIST report. Cooling trusses contracted and pulled the columns in because the fires moved to other areas.
Of course, it’s possible that more intense fires were raging several floors above the two firemen–––fires that did cause fatal weakening of columns. This is possible, but the available evidence does not support it. Among the steel samples recovered by NIST investigators were two core columns (C-88a and C-88b) from higher up in the impact zone. Actually, these were two different pieces from the same column (801). The NIST pinpointed their location on floors 80 and 81, several floors above the firemen–––very near but just outside the path of Flight 175. Both samples were physically damaged, but the NIST reported no evidence of the kinds of distortion, i.e., bowing, slumping, or sagging that are typical of heat-weakened steel. Nor was the NIST able to glean any evidence of high temperatures from these columns. On what, then, do they base their conclusion that “Dire structural changes were occurring in the building interior”? If anything, the paucity of evidence calls into question the NIST’s declaration that their sampling effort was adequate.
Check pages 95 and 144 of the NIST report.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
jackiebaron wrote: »Of course it's semantic. Read back. You're asking me to clarify exactly what form the molten metal took. i.e. "who said it was pools"
If that's not semantic, I don't know what is.
More importantly I'm asking you to consider what was the metallurgical content of the molten metal0 -
Besides, I think that as usual in discussions of this nature, we are getting sidetracked.
King Mob, you asked me to provide you with souce material of those who witnessed molten steel in the basement and in the rubble. I have done that. You haven't said whether or not this is satisfactory for you. Could you be so kind as to acknowledge this please?0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Of course, it’s possible that more intense fires were raging several floors above the two firemen–––fires that did cause fatal weakening of columns. This is possible, but the available evidence does not support it. Among the steel samples recovered by NIST investigators were two core columns (C-88a and C-88b) from higher up in the impact zone. Actually, these were two different pieces from the same column (801). The NIST pinpointed their location on floors 80 and 81, several floors above the firemen–––very near but just outside the path of Flight 175. Both samples were physically damaged, but the NIST reported no evidence of the kinds of distortion, i.e., bowing, slumping, or sagging that are typical of heat-weakened steel. Nor was the NIST able to glean any evidence of high temperatures from these columns. On what, then, do they base their conclusion that “Dire structural changes were occurring in the building interior”? If anything, the paucity of evidence calls into question the NIST’s declaration that their sampling effort was adequate.
Check pages 95 and 144 of the NIST report.
Hang on now, what about the firemen you brought up? Why the sudden change in topics? It looks suspiciously like you're actually doing what you've falsely accused me and Diogenes of doing....
Do you agree that it's possible for the firefighters could have been in the impact zone as you put it and yet also not encounter the highest temperatures, contrary to what you previously claimed?0 -
Lol, so when Diogenes rips apart a point we're suddenly sidetracked....jackiebaron wrote: »Besides, I think that as usual in discussions of this nature, we are getting sidetracked.
You're the one who brought up the firefighters as proof that the NIST were lying about the temperatures.
I have acknowledged them several times.jackiebaron wrote: »King Mob, you asked me to provide you with souce material of those who witnessed molten steel in the basement and in the rubble. I have done that. You haven't said whether or not this is satisfactory for you. Could you be so kind as to acknowledge this please?
I've been pointing out that none of them actually match what you claimed they said.
You used a couple of quotes that didn't actually come from those who you said it did and none of them refer to pools, most only identify it as molten metal and despite your original claim, you've only been able to provide one off handed quote from the FDNY.
So once you explain the discrepancy between what you've claimed the witnesses said and what they actually said, I'll get into explaining what they might have seen.0 -
More importantly I'm asking you to consider what was the metallurgical content of the molten metal
Dr. Alison Greyth and Engineer Leslie Robertson said it was steel. Others referred to it merely as molten "metal". There are dozens of metals in the periodic table but I doubt this was Lithium or Boron. Now I don't know if NIST took any samples of this molten metal to determine its precise composition, but if they didn't then I would be very skeptical about the thoroughness of their investigation.0 -
But Leslie Robertson didn't say anything. He clearly said that he didn't recall making that quote and said he wasn't in a position to make such a statement.jackiebaron wrote: »Dr. Alison Greyth and Engineer Leslie Robertson said it was steel. Others referred to it merely as molten "metal". There are dozens of metals in the periodic table but I doubt this was Lithium or Boron. Now I don't know if NIST took any samples of this molten metal to determine its precise composition, but if they didn't then I would be very skeptical about the thoroughness of their investigation.
This has been pointed out by Diogenes:
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
So we can strike that one straight off.
As for the second, what precisely does she say she used to identified the molten metal as steel?
And you're right there are plenty of other metals, like aluminium, copper, tin and zinc as well as stuff like glass and certain plastics.
No need to go for uncommon stuff like lithium and boron.0 -
Hang on now, what about the firemen you brought up? Why the sudden change in topics? It looks suspiciously like you're actually doing what you've falsely accused me and Diogenes of doing....
Do you agree that it's possible for the firefighters could have been in the impact zone as you put it and yet also not encounter the highest temperatures, contrary to what you previously claimed?
I'm not changing topics. DiO stated that the floors above 78 had much stronger fires...fires that could weaken steel and I refuted this by showing that NIST has two 80th floor steel columns that showed no signs of buckling or over exposure to destructive temperatures.
But can we get back to the molten metal/steel in the rubble. Can you at least agree to that? Thow out shopping lists of claims and counter-claims risks torpedoeing this entire discussin as people just lose patience.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Dr. Alison Greyth and Engineer Leslie Robertson said it was steel.
Dude are you even reading my posts?
I pointed this out already
Leslie Robertson denies he ever said it was steel
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.htmlI've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
While Doctor Alison Geyh was from Doctor from John Hospkins assessing the safety factors of the site. And not a qualified metallurgist, so while she may have seen pools or blobs of molten metal, she'd be in no position to establish what the substance was.Others referred to it merely as molten "metal". There are dozens of metals in the periodic table but I doubt this was Lithium or Boron.
And now you're just being facetious.
I pointed out another metal that was in abundance at the WTC aluminium, and you acknowledged it. And now you're ignoring it.Now I don't know if NIST took any samples of this molten metal to determine its precise composition, but if they didn't then I would be very skeptical about the thoroughness of their investigation.
Your confirmation of bias duly noted.0 -
And funnily enough you avoided the question I asked.jackiebaron wrote: »I'm not changing topics. DiO stated that the floors above 78 had much stronger fires...fires that could weaken steel and I refuted this by showing that NIST has two 80th floor steel columns that showed no signs of buckling or over exposure to destructive temperatures.
But can we get back to the molten metal/steel in the rubble. Can you at least agree to that? Thow out shopping lists of claims and counter-claims risks torpedoeing this entire discussin as people just lose patience.
But again, you are the one who brought up these firefighters.
I'm happy to stick to a single particular topic if you are.
There's a ton of questions I've made about it that have yet to be answered.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »I'm not changing topics. DiO stated that the floors above 78 had much stronger fires...fires that could weaken steel and I refuted this by showing that NIST has two 80th floor steel columns that showed no signs of buckling or over exposure to destructive temperatures.
Shrugs the fire was uneven. Not every column had to buckle.
But can we get back to the molten metal/steel i.
I'm not denying people say molten metal in the basement. I do refute the fact that it was steel.0 -
Advertisement
-
But Leslie Robertson didn't say anything. He clearly said that he didn't recall making that quote and said he wasn't in a position to make such a statement.
This has been pointed out by Diogenes:
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
So we can strike that one straight off.
As for the second, what precisely does she say she used to identified the molten metal as steel?
And you're right there are plenty of other metals, like aluminium, copper, tin and zinc as well as stuff like glass and certain plastics.
No need to go for uncommon stuff like lithium and boron.
I'm not sure that we CAN just strike that one off. This article by James Williams is not available and that debunking article that you mention merely states that they sent an email to Robertson's firm and received one back refuting the claim. Not very convincing. If debunk sites are willing to deny the laws of physics they are certainly capable of pretending that the had contact with someone who later denied having said something. As it is just as easy for you to think that I could make things up as it is for these people. Let's just go with the fact that Robertson later retracted his statement or denied having said it.
Just for the record, the debunking site looks like something thrown together by a 12 year-old, with it's grammatical errors and misspellings. Of course that doesn't disprove it content material but makes me assume that the author isn't very thorough or doesn't care to be taken seriously. So it disputes the Robertsone claim (or claims to). What about the other witness accounts?
Moving on, there are many other witness accounts. I don't know if you are going to try and deny them all or google these debunk sites but do you accept that molten metal of some description was in the rubble?0 -
And funnily enough you avoided the question I asked.
But again, you are the one who brought up these firefighters.
I'm happy to stick to a single particular topic if you are.
There's a ton of questions I've made about it that have yet to be answered.
OK KM here is a quote by you in response to me saying that there was molten steel in the rubble:And how do you know this exactly?
Now I've provided a sample of sources. Apparently Leslie Robertson never made the claim but...so what. Are you happy with the other claims?
Are you happy now with the fact that there was molten steel (or some metallic substance) in the rubble?
And if you're trying to weigh in here, DiO, don't waste your time. I'm sticking to the molten metal issue with KM until we clear it up. We can address your litany of crap at another date.
Incidentally KM, this NIST report was not independent. Would you support a new independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this once and for all? To examine in fine detail all the stuff that the so called "truthers" are saying was overlooked or tampered with or ignored?
I mean, that's how they finally got to the truth about Bloody Sunday and then David Cameron issued and apology. Before the new independent inquiry all those who complained about the Widgery report were dismissed as cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Well the new independent Saville report proved them right.0 -
And another one you posted didn't contain a quote from a witness stating anything about molten anything, yet you posted it as if it had.jackiebaron wrote: »Now I've provided a sample of sources. Apparently Leslie Robertson never made the claim but...so what. Are you happy with the other claims?
So two of your samples do not in any way back up your claim, or contain what you said they did. The others you supply all don't mention pools like you claimed they did.
What would make me happy is you explaining why you claimed these people said something they didn't.
So since you've finally abandoned your claim of pools we can continue.jackiebaron wrote: »Are you happy now with the fact that there was molten steel (or some metallic substance) in the rubble?
As we've been suggesting there are tons of other sources for molten metals besides steel, all of which melt in the temperatures the NIST says were present.
Now, aside from not supporting you original claim, their is nothing in the witness reports that would allow you to exclude he possibility that they saw some other molten metal and in the few cases (only two left I think) where they specifically say "molten steel" either misidentified the substance or misspoke when relaying their story.
Now a simple yes or no question: is it possible what the witnesses saw was not steel, but some other metal or combination?
I would support a new "independent" inquiry as much as I would support one looking into whether or not the moon landings actually happened.jackiebaron wrote: »Incidentally KM, this NIST report was not independent. Would you support a new independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this once and for all? To examine in fine detail all the stuff that the so called "truthers" are saying was overlooked or tampered with or ignored?
I mean, that's how they finally got to the truth about Bloody Sunday and then David Cameron issued and apology. Before the new independent inquiry all those who complained about the Widgery report were dismissed as cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Well the new independent Saville report proved them right.
It'd be a waste of time, based on lies and half-truths and misunderstanding of basic science or people wanting to find evidence fro thier world view, and then when the inquiry doesn't produce the answer they want, they'll cry even more conspiracy.
The thing is when we actually examine what the truthers say in fine detail we usually find they fall apart.
For example one of the "problems" you pointed out was a laughable strawman that was debunked with a few minutes of research and fact checking. Your "problem" was so badly destroyed you're trying to pretend it didn't happen by not acknowledging it followed by a rapid change in the subject and a sudden uncharacteristic desire to stay on a single topic.
Other than that all you've claimed about them altering results and rejecting outcomes is yet unsupported in anyway.
These are not good reasons to start off on a new inquiry which you'll not believe unless it goes your way.
So much for focusing on the one point :rolleyes:0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »
And if you're trying to weigh in here, DiO, don't waste your time. I'm sticking to the molten metal issue with KM until we clear it up. We can address your litany of crap at another date.
Excuse me "my litany of crap" post reported.
I'm happy to discuss the "molten metal" for example if it was molten aluminium the temperature would have to much less to create this molten metal.Incidentally KM, this NIST report was not independent.
How was the NIST report not independent.Would you support a new independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this once and for all? To examine in fine detail all the stuff that the so called "truthers" are saying was overlooked or tampered with or ignored?
And who exactly chairs? funds and organises this inquiry?I mean, that's how they finally got to the truth about Bloody Sunday and then David Cameron issued and apology. Before the new independent inquiry all those who complained about the Widgery report were dismissed as cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Well the new independent Saville report proved them right.
Yeah you understand both was the "Lord Widgery" and "Lord Saville" were inquires set up by the British Government, and there's nothing independent about either of them?0 -
And another one you posted didn't contain a quote from a witness stating anything about molten anything, yet you posted it as if it had.
So two of your samples do not in any way back up your claim, or contain what you said they did. The others you supply all don't mention pools like you claimed they did.
What would make me happy is you explaining why you claimed these people said something they didn't.
Another fairly cynical tactic of your argument style there KM. Some people referred to pools, others to areas, some to steel, others simply to metal. When referring to what people said I'm not going to type out multiple separate referrals to each separate eyewitness claim just to get their individual testimony verbatim and satisfy your shabby attempt at painting me into a corner. That little ruse isn't going to work. If you can't be happy admitting that various witnesses spoke of molten metal in the rubble then just say so.
And I haven't abandoned my claim of pools but like I said before if the distinction between 'pools', puddles, whatever, is what you are going to hang on to to prove the veracity of or lack thereof of molten steel/metal then you can hardly expect any of us to believe you have an open-mind.Now a simple yes or no question: is it possible what the witnesses saw was not steel, but some other metal or combination?
It's entirely possible. And I'd feel a hell of a lot better about NIST's "comprehensive" investigation if they took the time to test what it was.I would support a new "independent" inquiry as much as I would support one looking into whether or not the moon landings actually happened.
It'd be a waste of time, based on lies and half-truths and misunderstanding of basic science or people wanting to find evidence fro thier world view, and then when the inquiry doesn't produce the answer they want, they'll cry even more conspiracy.
That's not really an answer. They can cry conspiracy all they want but if there was no reason to doubt the findings then they wouldn't have a case, would they? As it stands right now there are the possibilities that the towers were brought down by (a) airplanes or (b) controlled demolition. There may be other possibilities but I can't think of them. Thusfar however only possibility (a) has been investigated. No consideration was given to possibility (b) whatsoever, or any other option for that matter.The thing is when we actually examine what the truthers say in fine detail we usually find they fall apart.
For example one of the "problems" you pointed out was a laughable strawman that was debunked with a few minutes of research and fact checking. Your "problem" was so badly destroyed you're trying to pretend it didn't happen by not acknowledging it followed by a rapid change in the subject and a sudden uncharacteristic desire to stay on a single topic.
Other than that all you've claimed about them altering results and rejecting outcomes is yet unsupported in anyway.
These are not good reasons to start off on a new inquiry which you'll not believe unless it goes your way.
Refresh my memory of what strawman or problem was destroyed? Leading me to ignore it. If I have erroneous information or if I read/hear of a claim that later turns out to be a hoax then I'll gladly admit it. You see the problem with this whole thing is that the truthers are lumped in with being shackled to honesty and iron-clad facts. If the towers were brought down by explosives then those who are covering it up also have the added arsenal of lies and deception.0 -
But none, repeat none of the witnesses you personally provided said any about "pools". You claimed that they did.jackiebaron wrote: »Another fairly cynical tactic of your argument style there KM. Some people referred to pools, others to areas, some to steel, others simply to metal. When referring to what people said I'm not going to type out multiple separate referrals to each separate eyewitness claim just to get their individual testimony verbatim and satisfy your shabby attempt at painting me into a corner. That little ruse isn't going to work. If you can't be happy admitting that various witnesses spoke of molten metal in the rubble then just say so.
What you claimed they said and what they actually said don't match up.
I'm asking you why this discrepancy exists.
It's not what I'm using to prove the existence or absence of molten metal, just using it to illustrate that you are misrepresenting the facts.jackiebaron wrote: »And I haven't abandoned my claim of pools but like I said before if the distinction between 'pools', puddles, whatever, is what you are going to hang on to to prove the veracity of or lack thereof of molten steel/metal then you can hardly expect any of us to believe you have an open-mind.
You haven't provided a scrap of evidence that there were pools. All of the witnesses you provided either refer to streams or are not specific.
So then since there is a reasonable explanation, why do you think it's a problem?jackiebaron wrote: »It's entirely possible.
Why? What evidence do you have to suggest it was anything other than what we've suggested? What difference would the exact composition of it make to how the building collapsed?jackiebaron wrote: »And I'd feel a hell of a lot better about NIST's "comprehensive" investigation if they took the time to test what it was.
The NIST also didn't check the ruins for the presence of magic, would you also consider this a lack of thoroughness?
My answer is no, because there is no reason to and it would be a waste of time and money.jackiebaron wrote: »That's not really an answer.
I thought that was clear enough.
Well the thing is, planes crashed into the towers so I think you can see why they might be biased towards that explanation.jackiebaron wrote: »They can cry conspiracy all they want but if there was no reason to doubt the findings then they wouldn't have a case, would they? As it stands right now there are the possibilities that the towers were brought down by (a) airplanes or (b) controlled demolition. There may be other possibilities but I can't think of them. Thusfar however only possibility (a) has been investigated. No consideration was given to possibility (b) whatsoever, or any other option for that matter.
The reason they didn't consider controlled demolition is because of the same reason they didn't consider space lasers or miniature nukes.
Because those explanations are stupid and lack any evidence to support those explanations.
In fact the very thing you are trying to use to debunk the real story only goes against the controlled demo theory as controlled demolitions don't melt any sort of metal.
The firefighters you claimed should have encounter 1000 degree heat according to the report.jackiebaron wrote: »Refresh my memory of what strawman or problem was destroyed? Leading me to ignore it. If I have erroneous information or if I read/hear of a claim that later turns out to be a hoax then I'll gladly admit it.
So truthers are allowed to use dishonesty and lies?jackiebaron wrote: »You see the problem with this whole thing is that the truthers are lumped
in with being shackled to honesty and iron-clad facts. If the towers were brought down by explosives then those who are covering it up also have the added arsenal of lies and deception.0 -
But none, repeat none of the witnesses you personally provided said any about "pools". You claimed that they did.
What you claimed they said and what they actually said don't match up.
I'm asking you why this discrepancy exists.
Now you're just stalling and it's pretty weak. But if you insist on the obsession with pools then I'll try to accomodate. When I use the term pools it was my own visualisation. I could just have easily used the term patches or swathes or tracts. If person A claims the grass is wet, then person B comes along and claims it's damp, then person C claims it's soggy then person D says there's water on it and I then state that several people have claimed that there's MOISTURE on the grass, are you going to howl that none of them used the term moisture and accuse me of misrepresenting the facts? You don't find that in the slightest bit petty?It's not what I'm using to prove the existence or absence of molten metal, just using it to illustrate that you are misrepresenting the facts.
You haven't provided a scrap of evidence that there were pools. All of the witnesses you provided either refer to streams or are not specific.
Again I don't see the relevance with how the formation of the molten substance manifested itself.So then since there is a reasonable explanation, why do you think it's a problem?
Excuse me but a possibility does not qualify as an explanation. If a woman has sex with three different men and gets pregnant, there's a "possibility" that it could be any one of them. Simply pointing the finger at one and discarding the other two is not an explanation. The question as to who the father is can only be determined by DNA tests on ALL THREE.Why? What evidence do you have to suggest it was anything other than what we've suggested? What difference would the exact composition of it make to how the building collapsed?
So now you're in the business of guesswork, eh? I don't have any evidence as to what it was but neither, it appears, do you as tests were never carried out. Hinting and guessing and suggesting what it was don't really count for much.The NIST also didn't check the ruins for the presence of magic, would you also consider this a lack of thoroughness?
I'll ignore that gem of wisdom.My answer is no, because there is no reason to and it would be a waste of time and money.
I thought that was clear enough.
The same vapid excuse was used for inquiries into Bloody Sunday, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six. Would you think an inquiry into the Stardust Fire Disaster would be a waste of time and money too? Maybe the families of the victims of 9/11 would disagree with you. But if you're so worried about money then would you be fine if it was privately funded? And time-wise ... you wouldn't be involved so what are you worried about?Well the thing is, planes crashed into the towers so I think you can see why they might be biased towards that explanation.
The reason they didn't consider controlled demolition is because of the same reason they didn't consider space lasers or miniature nukes.
Because those explanations are stupid and lack any evidence to support those explanations.
You see this is where you are shooting yourself in the foot again. I'll give you another analogy. A warehouse goes on fire one night and the fire brigade and police come and extinguish the blaze. They notify the owner who tells them that he left earlier that evening and left one of his cigarettes burning in the ashtray and that that surely caused the blaze. Some time later a neighbour approaches the police and states that she saw two young men in hoodies smash a warehouse window, throw something inside and run away shortly before the fire started. Do you think that the police are just going to say "Nah lady, this fire was started by a burning cigarette." and leave it at that?
Because that's tantamount to what you are implying. There are multiple possibilities for the fire. If it's a clear night you can probably rule out lightning. It could have been and accident, arson, a conspiracy between the owner and the youths, electrical faults, etc. Insisting that these possibilities not be investigated only illustrate that someone has something to hide.In fact the very thing you are trying to use to debunk the real story only goes against the controlled demo theory as controlled demolitions don't melt any sort of metal.
See what you've just done....shot yourself in the foot again. I won't wait for the penny to drop because we could be here forever. Controlled demolitions don't melt any metal because we all KNOW they're controlled demolitions. If you want to bring a building down but make it look like it was something else that caused it....LIKE A FIRE....you're going to have to use something that will melt the metal.The firefighters you claimed should have encounter 1000 degree heat according to the report.
Well according to the official explanation after the jet fuel burned out in 10 or 15 minutes blazing infernos continued, being fuelled by office equipment. There were according to the firemen two blazes on floor 78. Why didn't these fires consume the floor and all its combustible material in a massive blaze like we're led to believe on other floors. Someone bandied about the fact that this floor was some kind of empty observation deck. Maybe that explains it. Sounds pretty implausible to me.So truthers are allowed to use dishonesty and lies?
I'd prefer they didn't.0 -
But none of the witnesses you provided mentioned puddles or collections or patches or ponds.jackiebaron wrote: »Now you're just stalling and it's pretty weak. But if you insist on the obsession with pools then I'll try to accomodate. When I use the term pools it was my own visualisation. I could just have easily used the term patches or swathes or tracts. If person A claims the grass is wet, then person B comes along and claims it's damp, then person C claims it's soggy then person D says there's water on it and I then state that several people have claimed that there's MOISTURE on the grass, are you going to howl that none of them used the term moisture and accuse me of misrepresenting the facts? You don't find that in the slightest bit petty?
Again I don't see the relevance with how the formation of the molten substance manifested itself.
One mentioned a stream.
You claimed they all observed pools.
This was not what they said, you misrepresented what they said.
The fact that you did misrepresent what they said mean either you're not checking your facts properly or are deliberately twisting them.
I've been exceedingly clear on this, you're being deliberately obtuse.
Your analogy is simply stupid as it assumes all the bat**** insane explanations for the molten metal are equal to the one sane one that's actually supported by the evidence, they are not.jackiebaron wrote: »Excuse me but a possibility does not qualify as an explanation. If a woman has sex with three different men and gets pregnant, there's a "possibility" that it could be any one of them. Simply pointing the finger at one and discarding the other two is not an explanation. The question as to who the father is can only be determined by DNA tests on ALL THREE.
Well in that case you should be rejecting all the nonsense from your side of the fence seeing as how that all the CTers have to go on.jackiebaron wrote: »So now you're in the business of guesswork, eh? I don't have any evidence as to what it was but neither, it appears, do you as tests were never carried out. Hinting and guessing and suggesting what it was don't really count for much.
So lets measure up the two explainations for what the metal was:
Aluminium and other metals-
We know there were massive fires in the
WTC. We know they reached temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees.
We know that there were ample supplies of other metals that do melt in range of those temperatures.
But for steel:
We don't know what would cause the steel to melt in the circumstances.
So using the explanation that requires the assumption of the least amount of unknowns, we can conclude that the metal observed was most likely aluminium or other common metals with lower melting points.
This is called Occam's Razor and is a basic of logic and a necessity in scientific investigation.
So unless you have evidence that excludes aluminium and other metals as the explanation, there's no rational reason to think it was steel.
Why? Seemingly it's as good as your non-existant reason for why steel melted and it applies the same backwards logic you think should apply.jackiebaron wrote: »I'll ignore that gem of wisdom.
So explain to me why we can exclude magic as an explanation in your version of science?
Yea, that's it exactly. I just hate the families of those people...jackiebaron wrote: »The same vapid excuse was used for inquiries into Bloody Sunday, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six. Would you think an inquiry into the Stardust Fire Disaster would be a waste of time and money too? Maybe the families of the victims of 9/11 would disagree with you. But if you're so worried about money then would you be fine if it was privately funded? And time-wise ... you wouldn't be involved so what are you worried about?
Would you support an inquiry into the Apollo Landings?
But there's only actually evidence for one explanation and it's not controlled demolition. Hence an odd bias towards that explanation.jackiebaron wrote: »You see this is where you are shooting yourself in the foot again. I'll give you another analogy. A warehouse goes on fire one night and the fire brigade and police come and extinguish the blaze. They notify the owner who tells them that he left earlier that evening and left one of his cigarettes burning in the ashtray and that that surely caused the blaze. Some time later a neighbour approaches the police and states that she saw two young men in hoodies smash a warehouse window, throw something inside and run away shortly before the fire started. Do you think that the police are just going to say "Nah lady, this fire was started by a burning cigarette." and leave it at that?
Because that's tantamount to what you are implying. There are multiple possibilities for the fire. If it's a clear night you can probably rule out lightning. It could have been and accident, arson, a conspiracy between the owner and the youths, electrical faults, etc. Insisting that these possibilities not be investigated only illustrate that someone has something to hide.
So they used something not present in controlled demolition to make it look like a fire.... but you also think that the same thing isn't present in a fire...jackiebaron wrote: »See what you've just done....shot yourself in the foot again. I won't wait for the penny to drop because we could be here forever. Controlled demolitions don't melt any metal because we all KNOW they're controlled demolitions. If you want to bring a building down but make it look like it was something else that caused it....LIKE A FIRE....you're going to have to use something that will melt the metal.
Why didn't they just use fire instead of planting the evidence you're apparently catching them out on?
In what reality does this make sense?
Diogenes already explained this, apparently in your quest for the truth you ignored it.jackiebaron wrote: »Well according to the official explanation after the jet fuel burned out in 10 or 15 minutes blazing infernos continued, being fuelled by office equipment. There were according to the firemen two blazes on floor 78. Why didn't these fires consume the floor and all its combustible material in a massive blaze like we're led to believe on other floors. Someone bandied about the fact that this floor was some kind of empty observation deck. Maybe that explains it. Sounds pretty implausible to me.
But you think they should be allowed to so then can spread the truth?jackiebaron wrote: »I'd prefer they didn't.
How very ironically Orwellian...0 -
Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[55] (note that the simplest theory could be something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists").
The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[56] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one."
For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.
I hate the Occams Razor, its fairly weak and overused imo.0 -
Advertisement
-
Joshua Jones wrote: »I hate the Occams Razor, its fairly weak and overused imo.
And in this case, to conclude that the molten metal is steel you have to assume something totally unknown for which there isn't a scrap of evidence.
There is nothing to suggest that it was steel and there other metals it can be.
And to conclude that these metals were what was observed, you only have to rely on known factors.
Occams razor applies very well here.
As per the paragraph you're quoting occam's razor can be superseded by evidence.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the molten metal seen by witnesses was iron.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement