|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2006 : 10:31:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Could you elaborate on what you think I suggested the first time around? I'm not sure what part of my quote you are referring to.
The first time around, you said - paraphrasing - that if molten metal were in the basements, and if the only way molten metal could exist is if explosives or thermite was used, then eyewitness reports of molten metal would make for decent evidence of controlled demolition.
And you were right. The argument is as follows:Premise P1: There was molten metal witnessed in the basements of the towers.
P2: The only way molten metal could get there was if explosives or thermite was used.
Conclusion: Explosives or thermite were used. Nobody seems to be arguing with P1, but it's not the only premise upon which the conclusion rests.
Can we move on or not?
Well, it seems some people are questioning P1 (which is all this thread was started to deal with)--or at least some of the citations I provided.
I don't want to move on if people are still unsure of P1. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 10:49:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
It turns out that the indefatigable Mike Williams of 911myths.com followed up on two of the purported quotes conspiracists so love to wave around in support of "molten steel"
claims. He wrote to the sources and asked them about what they had said and, more importantly, what they had seen.
Regarding Leslie Robertson, the result was...
... A reading of Mike's page on "molten steel" claims in general is also worthwhile:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
The main thrust of the links provided above is to show that it was not necessarily molten steel in the basements.
I agree with this position--which is why I titled this thread "Molten Metal."
Are you challenging the evidence that molten metal was in the basements or just the idea that the molten metal was steel? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 10:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
Ergo, why do you think Greening's discourse on spontaneous thermite is a a red herring? Merely calling it a red herring doesn't dismiss it. You're the one proposing thermite...
No, I am proposing that there was molten metal in the basements of the 3 collapsed buildings. Maybe I should translate for you: Proposing there was molten metal in the basements I am.
A bunch of others here are leaping to the conclusion that I am proposing that use of Thermite caused this molten metal. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:01:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Could you elaborate on what you think I suggested the first time around? I'm not sure what part of my quote you are referring to.
The first time around, you said - paraphrasing - that if molten metal were in the basements, and if the only way molten metal could exist is if explosives or thermite was used, then eyewitness reports of molten metal would make for decent evidence of controlled demolition.
And you were right. The argument is as follows:Premise P1: There was molten metal witnessed in the basements of the towers.
P2: The only way molten metal could get there was if explosives or thermite was used.
Conclusion: Explosives or thermite were used. Nobody seems to be arguing with P1, but it's not the only premise upon which the conclusion rests.
Can we move on or not?
Well, it seems some people are questioning P1 (which is all this thread was started to deal with)--or at least some of the citations I provided.
I don't want to move on if people are still unsure of P1.
Well, the problem is that even with the quotes, it's all rather ambiguous. Was there at least some molten metal witnessed at some point from the morning of 9/11 on? I don't think I could take a voable stand againt that suggestion.
But how much molten metal was seen? Multiple large pools? Was it seen all the time by myriad people? Or was it something less than that?
Where in particular was it seen? Again, was it all over the place, or confined in a particular spot?
What kind of metal was molten? Is there any way to tell? |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:08:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Whilst looking for something to use at Bible Study tomorrow night at the biker bar, I happened across this rundown on the 9-11 conspiracy hoo-hah, as put forth by our friend ergo and other, better known folks who should research and think before speaking, lest they be accused of woo-wooism.
Link.
An interesting read that covers a lot of territory.....
You can also find the link to the Bob Carrol article, 9/11 conspiracies: the war on critical thinking , in last weeks skeptic summary. It was my evil pick for the week…
The problem, though, with the CT crowd is that they are reduced to "I think...", "I feel...", "Clearly you can observe...". They have misappropriated the term skeptic for what Gravy refers to as JAQing off ("just asking questions"). Why? Because there is no evidence other than a deep suspicion of government.
We, as skeptics/sceptics, apply critical thinking. It's in our nature, if not our very veins. They, OTOH, argue from emotion and impressions. If I had a dollar for every time a CTer said, "but it doesn't look natural to me it looks like a CD", I could send you to TAM, myself, and have money left over for a couple of Grolsch!
A going-nowhere-fast thread on another forum, actually has the CTer trying to make a serious debate based on "Well, that's my opinion and you can't argue with opinion, no matter what you think the evidence says." You can't convince such a person. All you can do is ridicule and mock them and hope that the innocent bystanders see their fallacious logic and hyperbole for what it is.
What you fail to realize is that any rational processing your brain conducts, it conducts on information that has first been processed by the emotional centers of your brain. (See Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, by Antonio R. Damasio.)
These emotional centers filter out aspects of the raw input from your sensory organs. This filtering is largely subconscious.
Unfortunately, among those who are unaware that this process takes place, this process is completely subconscious--the implication being that those who are unaware of the influence their emotions have on their rational processing of information are the ones whose rational processing is most impacted by their emotions. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
ergo(liar)123 said:
Prove you are not an imbecile...
quote:
And now you degenerate into petty namecalling. Good for you!
Just following the lead of the man who inserts the word "liar" after my name every time he quotes or refers to me...
quote:
But seriously, you aren't claiming anything in your OP (you said so yourself), so there is nothing to really talk about past that.
Yes. My hope was to keep the conversation on this thread focused on the evidence that there was molten metal in the basements of the collapsed buildings. But it seems you, and many others here, are all about attacking "claims." Sorry to disappoint.
I am at the beginning of my journey here. As such, I am claiming nothing--I am testing evidence to see if it is worthy of being the basis for a theory (theories are built on observations). If this doesn't appeal to you, just stay off my threads until you see one with "claim" in the title. Because I'm going to be testing a lot of evidence before I build my theory and actually claim anything.
quote:
To bad for you that all rational people treat the claim of controlled demolition/9-11 in the same way you treat the claim that elves exist.
Hmm. So you admit your rejection of the cd theory is essentially an emotional one not based on evidence?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:24:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It seems odd to me that a substance that is 600*C can suddenly increase in temperature by a factor of 3 (or by any factor for that matter). I haven't found any explanation for such a situation on the entire internet that doesn't involve pumping energy into the system.
Once again you display your ignorance. In this case it is thermodynamics. 1800 C is not 3 times 600 C. Temperature ratios are only meaningful when an absolute scale such as Kelvin or Rankine is used. The energy would come from combustion of the aluminum.
Yes, well, it's been a long time since I took chemistry and physics. But thanks for the info. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Could you elaborate on what you think I suggested the first time around? I'm not sure what part of my quote you are referring to.
The first time around, you said - paraphrasing - that if molten metal were in the basements, and if the only way molten metal could exist is if explosives or thermite was used, then eyewitness reports of molten metal would make for decent evidence of controlled demolition.
And you were right. The argument is as follows:Premise P1: There was molten metal witnessed in the basements of the towers.
P2: The only way molten metal could get there was if explosives or thermite was used.
Conclusion: Explosives or thermite were used. Nobody seems to be arguing with P1, but it's not the only premise upon which the conclusion rests.
Can we move on or not?
Well, it seems some people are questioning P1 (which is all this thread was started to deal with)--or at least some of the citations I provided.
I don't want to move on if people are still unsure of P1.
Well, the problem is that even with the quotes, it's all rather ambiguous. Was there at least some molten metal witnessed at some point from the morning of 9/11 on? I don't think I could take a voable stand againt that suggestion.
But how much molten metal was seen? Multiple large pools? Was it seen all the time by myriad people? Or was it something less than that?
Where in particular was it seen? Again, was it all over the place, or confined in a particular spot?
What kind of metal was molten? Is there any way to tell?
Yes, cunie. All very important questions. Just not the topic of this thread... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 11:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Well, the problem is that even with the quotes, it's all rather ambiguous. Was there at least some molten metal witnessed at some point from the morning of 9/11 on? I don't think I could take a voable stand againt that suggestion.
But how much molten metal was seen? Multiple large pools? Was it seen all the time by myriad people? Or was it something less than that?
Where in particular was it seen? Again, was it all over the place, or confined in a particular spot?
What kind of metal was molten? Is there any way to tell?
Yes, cunie. All very important questions. Just not the topic of this thread...
Again egroie, your obnoxiousness is stunning. In any case, if the thread is about whether or not people saw molten metal, then I think my comments and questions are entirely germane. Implied in the numerous quotes is the notion that there was abundant quantities of liquid metal. Note the use of the plural in many of your quotes-- "streams", "rivers" and so on. I am simply suggesting that while there may be a kernal of truth in some of those statements, I am still skeptical overall about the complete veracity of the statements you cited. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/21/2006 12:06:17 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 12:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, the problem is that even with the quotes, it's all rather ambiguous. Was there at least some molten metal witnessed at some point from the morning of 9/11 on? I don't think I could take a voable stand againt that suggestion.
But how much molten metal was seen? Multiple large pools? Was it seen all the time by myriad people? Or was it something less than that?
Where in particular was it seen? Again, was it all over the place, or confined in a particular spot?
What kind of metal was molten? Is there any way to tell?
quote:
Yes, cunie. All very important questions. Just not the topic of this thread...
quote:
Again, your obnoxiousness is stunning. In any case, if the thread is about whether or not people saw molten metal, then I think my comments and questions are entirely germane. Implied in the numerous quotes is the notion that there was abundant quantities of liquid metal. Note the use of the plural in many of your quotes-- "streams", "rivers" and so on. I am simply suggesting that while there may be a kernal of truth in some of those statements, I am still skeptical overall about the complete veracity of the statements you cited.
As I said--yes, those questions are all important. And I'll add "germane" to that comment. If you want to explore how much molten metal was seen then go ahead. I'd be interested in knowing that, too. It's just that this thread was intended to present evidence that the molten metal existed--period. That's not being obnoxious--that's being focused. At some later point, if I find evidence that speaks to the amount of molten metal that was found, I'll start a new thread on that--or, as I mentioned, you could start one.
If your acceptance of this evidence as being true hinges on whether a person saw one river of molten metal or two, that indicates to me that no level of specificity will satisfy you on this issue. Next you will question where it really was a "river" of molten metal they saw; how deep was the river, ad nauseum. And that's, at best, just a stone-walling tactic. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 12:35:54 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Just following the lead of the man who inserts the word "liar" after my name every time he quotes or refers to me...
I call you a liar because prettymuch all you do here is lie. You string together one strawman after another. Strawman arguments are lies you create by deliberately mischaracterizing what others say. You have a nack for it. You like to do it, apparently.
So calling you the liar that you are isn't namecalling, it is accurately describing you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 12:40:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Just following the lead of the man who inserts the word "liar" after my name every time he quotes or refers to me...
I call you a liar because prettymuch all you do here is lie. You string together one strawman after another. Strawman arguments are lies you create by deliberately mischaracterizing what others say. You have a nack for it. You like to do it, apparently.
So calling you the liar that you are isn't namecalling, it is accurately describing you.
9.2, 8.9, 9.0, 9.1, 8.8 & 3.0 (from the christian mental gymnastics judge) |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/21/2006 12:40:51 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 16:50:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
As I said--yes, those questions are all important. And I'll add "germane" to that comment. If you want to explore how much molten metal was seen then go ahead. I'd be interested in knowing that, too. It's just that this thread was intended to present evidence that the molten metal existed--period. That's not being obnoxious--that's being focused. At some later point, if I find evidence that speaks to the amount of molten metal that was found, I'll start a new thread on that--or, as I mentioned, you could start one.
If your acceptance of this evidence as being true hinges on whether a person saw one river of molten metal or two, that indicates to me that no level of specificity will satisfy you on this issue. Next you will question where it really was a "river" of molten metal they saw; how deep was the river, ad nauseum. And that's, at best, just a stone-walling tactic.
Well, it's hard to me to say that molten metal was not observed. Indeed, the NIST briefly discusses it. All the various accounts and photos make it hard to dispute this claim.
But while I can agree that there was molten metal, I am not convinced that the cited statements are 100% correct. That is, my saying "I agree that there was molten metal" is not the same say my saying "I agree that there was molten metal, just as it was described by quote X as cited in this first post of this thread." |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 19:45:26 [Permalink]
|
Ergo,
Let's assume your title thread as your hypothesis.
We concede. There was, in all likelihood, molten metal at Ground Zero, particularly WTC 1 and 2, although there's been no discussion of molten metal at 7... let's even concede that that's a possibility too, just for the sake of making progress.
So, other than obfuscation, where do you go now? P1, as posted by Dave about a dozen messages ago, is conceded.
Molten Metal = Yes
How does that get you to your confusing opening paragraph (which I've assumed was your hypothesis rather than simply the Thread Title!), which states:
quote:
I am making no claim that the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-01 were brought down, at least in part, by explosives or aluminothermic reactants. Rather, I am presenting evidence that explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used and am looking for any evidence that the evidence found in my sources is invalid.
The non-ferrous metal melted. People saw it in pools or puddles. Just how does that lead you to the conclusion that those 8/10 quotes (all on molten metal) amounts to "presenting evidence that explosives or a.r. were used..."
Since you won't state your contention, but continue to to lead us around by the nose, we're having to guess. And all we have to guess by is your words. Ergo(if I may co-opt your name to it's original meaning), we have to conclude that you believe that those pools of metal, since you have posted NOTHING ELSE, are proof of explosives.
They are not. Explain your theory, as otherwise having conceded on the Thread Title as Hypothesis, this issue is closed. If you want to now start a thread offering evidence of explosives (not molten metal), we're here for you.
Or, as I said, show us how/why you feel that molten metal equals proof of explosives. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 22:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
Ergo,
Let's assume your title thread as your hypothesis.
No, please don't. Assuming it a hypothesis implies I have a theory--which I don't at this point. Talk to someone with a background in science: first one observes; then one develops a theory to explain those observations; then one tests the theory by posing hypotheses based on that theory.
I'm still in the observation stage--looking for confirmation that what was claimed to be observed by others (I wasn't there to see the events with my own eyes) could have happened.
Once I have all the observations confirmed, I'll develop a theory that accounts for all the observations.
That's a major shortcoming of the NIST Report--it ignores all observations after the towers are poised to collapse according to their model. I would ke to see a theory of collapse that includes those observations.
quote:
We concede.
Who appointed you spokesman for the forum?
quote:
So, other than obfuscation, where do you go now? P1, as posted by Dave about a dozen messages ago, is conceded.
Molten Metal = Yes
I don't know. I'm still reading papers on the collapse. I'm sure I will want to confirm more claimed observations--but of what, I'm not sure yet.
quote:
How does that get you to your confusing opening paragraph (which I've assumed was your hypothesis rather than simply the Thread Title!), which states:
quote:
I am making no claim that the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-01 were brought down, at least in part, by explosives or aluminothermic reactants. Rather, I am presenting evidence that explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used and am looking for any evidence that the evidence found in my sources is invalid.
I don't know. It mig not lead there. I'm exploring so I'm not sure where the evidence will lead me.
quote:
The non-ferrous metal melted. People saw it in pools or puddles.
How do you know it was non-ferrous?
quote:
Just how does that lead you to the conclusion that those 8/10 quotes (all on molten metal) amounts to "presenting evidence that explosives or a.r. were used..."
I doesn't necessarily--but others who reference this evidence of molten metal present it as evidence of use of explosivess or a.r.! So I guess that's an immediate next step--determine possible reasons for finding molten metal in the basements.
quote:
Since you won't state your contention, but continue to to lead us around by the nose, we're having to guess.
You don't have to guess. You could always just wait until I develop and present my theory.
quote:
And all we have to guess by is your words.
Well, so far your guesses have all been wrong. So I'd stop guessing if I were you...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Molten metal
