Building 7 ???

Di0genes

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 testimony

What 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.html

Aluminium!!! 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 aluminium

guitarzero

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....

Di0genes

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.

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

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...

Di0genes

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 world

No 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?

jackiebaron

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.

jackiebaron

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.

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.

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.

Di0genes

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.

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

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.

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

It's not semantic. Other metals can be molten.

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.

Di0genes

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 metal

jackiebaron

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?

jackiebaron

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?

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Besides, I think that as usual in discussions of this nature, we are getting sidetracked.

Lol, so when Diogenes rips apart a point we're suddenly sidetracked....
You're the one who brought up the firefighters as proof that the NIST were lying about the temperatures.

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 have acknowledged them several times.
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.

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

jackiebaron

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.

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.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Di0genes

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

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

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.

jackiebaron

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.

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.

Di0genes

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.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

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?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

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.

jackiebaron

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?

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.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are you happy now with the fact that there was molten steel (or some metallic substance) in the rubble?

So since you've finally abandoned your claim of pools we can continue.
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?

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.

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.
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:

Di0genes

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?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

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.

jackiebaron

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.

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.

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.

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.

jackiebaron wrote: »

It's entirely possible.

So then since there is a reasonable explanation, why do you think it's a problem?

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.

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?

The NIST also didn't check the ruins for the presence of magic, would you also consider this a lack of thoroughness?

jackiebaron wrote: »

That's not really an answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The firefighters you claimed should have encounter 1000 degree heat according to the report.

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.

So truthers are allowed to use dishonesty and lies?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

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.

jackiebaron

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.

But none of the witnesses you provided mentioned puddles or collections or patches or ponds.
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.

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.

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: »

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.

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.

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.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'll ignore that gem of wisdom.

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.
So explain to me why we can exclude magic as an explanation in your version of science?

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?

Yea, that's it exactly. I just hate the families of those people...

Would you support an inquiry into the Apollo Landings?

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.

But there's only actually evidence for one explanation and it's not controlled demolition. Hence an odd bias towards that explanation.

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.

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...

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?

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.

Diogenes already explained this, apparently in your quest for the truth you ignored it.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'd prefer they didn't.

But you think they should be allowed to so then can spread the truth?
How very ironically Orwellian...

Joshua Jones

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.

Joshua Jones

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.