When an OCTer brings up NIST as a source.....

[Twist_U_Up]

Just pass them this link. They have all seen it but never seem to acknowledge the liar.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

John Gross NIST LIAR
Yes he is still on the board that issued its last pack of lies involving thermal expansion. thermal expansion lol
NIST is a cover up.

[Make7]

1. Man, you REALLY need some new material...

... try this:

   FBI Has Proof 9/11 Was an Inside Job


-Make7
 

[Theobald]

6. Did I miss something in the video you posted?

Because I failed to see any 'evidence' included.

The video states that Gage provides "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", but then failes to provide any evidence of that proof. Most of the video actually talks about Vietnam for some strange reason.

The only proof proffered is a letter from the FBI Deputy Director of Terrorism Michael Heinbach in which he states that "Mr. Gates presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis.". He calls it a theory, he does not call it 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think he overstepped when he called it 'thorough' research, but I will admit that Gates put a lot of time and effort into that research and analyis. The bottom line is that nowhere does the video show proof of where it was proven.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Make7 is being sarcastic, Theobald

You're new here, so you don't know that. Make is just commenting on the ancient nature of most every CT argument and "evidence." At least the Heinbach letter is something done recently, as weak as it is.

[Twist_U_Up]

9. fact remains the same. Hes a liar.

your not sticking up for a liar are you?

[SDuderstadt]

10. If he's a liar....

it shouldn't be hard for you to point out specifically where he lied.

[Twist_U_Up]

11. Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.

To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

[SDuderstadt]

12. Answer the question, please...

If he's a liar, it ought to be easy to point to the specific lie. I don't see it.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. I think he did answer the question perfectly...

If he's a liar, it ought to be easy to see last two minutes of the video link, unless you're blind as a bat.

[AZCat]

17. ...or on dial-up.

YouTube is not kind to us Luddites. :(

[SDuderstadt]

20. How does the last two minutes of the video....

prove "molten pools of steel"?

[MrMickeysMom]

21. Even YOU can figure that answer out

... unless your computer talks to you and you respond in Braille because you would be blind.

If you ARE blind, then, please know I meant no offense.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Instead of insulting me, why not just answer the question?

How, specifically, does the last two minutes of video prove "molten pools of steel"?

[Realityhack]

23. This dodging the question game is getting old.

I can't watch the vid. from here (more specifically there is no sound), so I have no idea what the 'proof' is either.
And I am tired of so called 'truth'(tm) seekers throwing up videos that 'prove' something and then refusing to spell out the argument.

If they can't summarize the argument I seriously doubt they have one.

[MrMickeysMom]

25. Oh, you can't hear the video...

Oh, I see...

[Realityhack]

31. WTF!?!

That is correct. I do not have sound on this PC. And your video relays on audio. So I can not hear the video... making it impossible to understand.

But I don't think it matters because I think you have just proven you are more interested in insults than using your brain and clearly can not form a coherent argument to support your assertion.

If he lied you should be able to explain it. You can't. Therefore I have no reason to think he did and every reason to think that you are just playing games.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. And, here's another tactic

Hey, before the lock, dude...

What I'm doing here is bearing witness to the way posters will insult ohters to defend themselves being "insulting.

My interests here are not geared toward insulting others, which is evidenced by the VAST majority of my conversation. However, I stand up for what I say.

You might go to the local library and hear as well as see. Then, you can properly weigh in on the OP's video.

Meanwhile, you really should practice what you preach. The guy at the lectern certainly wasn't interested in meaningful dialog, but you won't know that unless you hear and see.

Good luck with that!

[Realityhack]

37. Yes...

I can access the video from another location. OR you could simply summarize the argument you are making in text.
The fact that you refuse to do so makes me think there is little point in me going out of my way to hear the vid because the argument is likely very very weak.

If you wanted a meaningful dialog so badly you would just summarize the argument so we could discuss it. After all this is a text based forum. Instead you have spent a bunch of time telling other people that you think they are stupid because they don't agree with your analysis of the video.

Remember, SDuderstadt asked you to simply point out a specific lie. You could easily type the sentence that was not true and a couple of sentences showing it isn't true and that the speaker knew that. But you haven't. And SDuderstadt appears to have seen the video.

I can only assume this is because you can't point to the lie.

[MrMickeysMom]

38. Here..... Let's review this for your understanding...

The OP pointed to the subject of this thread, which could only be commented on through a video/audio link.

You weighed in without the benefit of audio.

Now you want someone to prove something you yourself are too intellectually lazy to assess.

Try to practice what you preach instead of trying to present false arguments to cover intellectual laziness.

I wish you good luck while you go find this other computer you couldn't be bothered to use before.

[Realityhack]

41. Nope but nice try.

I did not weigh in on the video that I could not see. I weighed in on your refusal to state specifically what the lie in the video was.

You have in fact refused to do so. That is a factual statement.

Now you accuse me of intellectual laziness in not assessing an argument that you refuse to make. You are claiming proof of a lie. Even people watching the video with audio don't see the proof. You won't even simply type out the specific sentence you think is a lie.

[Pharaoh]

44. Go buy some headphones

and listen/watch the video, and then come back and argue......

WTF is so hard about that.

If your in the text only world of the internet you are in the dark ages. And not as informed as you may think.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Why can't anyone here simply explain why the video proves Gross a liar?

It would take about three or four short sentences. Yet everyone pushing this notion simply says "go buy earphones, go to the library."

Put up or shut up is what I say. Explain how the video makes Gross a liar.

[Pharaoh]

48. I mean its like having a TV

with the sound turned off and then screaming at someone over the phone to explain the moving pictures for him :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

49. No, it's like you can't prove your point and so you're seizing on this irrelevancy

to pretend you don't have to.

[MrMickeysMom]

51. Quit hijacking the thread...

And, while you're at it, buy a pair of earphones for your brother.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You have a strange definition of hijacking a thread.

A reasonable request for accomodation to that audio isn't hijacking.

A reasonable request for someone to show exactly how the video proves its claim isn't hijacking.

Once again, can you or anyone demonstrate how exactly the video proves the claim it makes?

If you would like an example of this, I'd be happy to provide one with another video.

[Realityhack]

50. Does that stand for the people

who have seen the video and have exactly the same question I do?

I think that kills your analogy.

[Pharaoh]

52. Whatever

:shrug:

[Realityhack]

54. It is a valid question.

Two other people are asking the same question I am after seeing the video. So while you can poke fun at the fact that I have no sound on this computer... that would not appear to be a valid reason for MMM dodging the question.

[MrMickeysMom]

55. Me, too Pharaoh...

What-in-the-wide-world-of-sports-EVER...

Any moment now, I sense a deleted sub-thread as a result of someone's imploding set of new head phones!

[Realityhack]

60. Funny....

Seems Bolo and SD both asked the same question and did see the vid.
AZ also indicated he would prefer text.

And you know full well I can't delete subthreads.

So... Why ARE you refusing to simply state what lie was told and what proof there is that it was a lie?

[AZCat]

61. I would indeed prefer text...

although I'm at work right now and can watch videos (except I have to get this cross-section updated). I only have dial-up at home.

[MrMickeysMom]

63. Wait.... you're actually indulging in this thread while AT WORK????

Really?

:donut: wow

[AZCat]

65. When I read and post is none of your business. n/t

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. You must be talking to someone who actually said

that this person behind the lectern was a liar. I simply think he didn't do his homework. You'd have to have read this thread to have gotten that, but you probably have bad memory, or didn't read.

I'll wait for the person who claimed the guy was a liar to respond to you. Try to keep the thread straight, meanwhile.

As you review what's been posted, you'll note what I cut and pasted was research published with a reference to the NIST measurement. That produced a loud fart as I was told in an off-handed way that I must be mistaken.

Prove where I was mistaken or get off the thread.

[AZCat]

69. Prove where you were mistaken or get off the thread?!

For fuck's sake... You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, I guess.

[lovepg]

119. Ok he claims not to know about what the questioner is talking about.

Ignorant of the NASA , pictures the video, The reports of molten steel the workers boots melting from the heat.
I do not for a second believe him when he says that. I believe he wishs to plead ignorance.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Post 86. n/t

[lovepg]

96. Or you could wait until you can hear the video before you jump to insane ..

conclusions about the content in the video. I mean how many times has an official story person on this board flipped me a link
to the NIST report ,911 commission ect ect, because they didn't want to type out the answer to the question themselves?
Gee now I know that means you rally had no argument! Thanks hack!

[MrMickeysMom]

24. No, no, no....

It's much better to point out the obvious.

Play it again.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Quit playing games, MMM...

I've watched it multiple times and it neither proves that there were "pools of molten steel" nor that Gross is a liar. Again, please enlighten us specifically as to how it does. I'm betting you can't, so you infer I'm stupid if I can't see it.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. Oh, please, talk about playing games

Why don't you get off of it and and enlighten everyone else as to how those first responders didn't experience what they detailed to the cameras and reported at ground zero.

Honestly, you post to these 911 threads in the grand fashion that Gross "informs" a classroom!

[Theobald]

2. The video is rather has a paucity of evidence

and doesn't show him to be a liar. The questioner asks if NIST guy is aware of a 'pool' of molten steel and he says no. The video never profers evidence that there was a pool of molten steel and never shows him to be a liar. Please show me step by step how the NIST guy is a liar and how the video you offer has evidence proves that.

BTW we are already discussing this issue here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x235371

The video questioner asks the NIST guy if there is any evidence of molten steel and he says no. Steel becomes molten at 2,600 hundred degrees farenheit and the temperature of the fire in the building before it collappsed never got above 1,800 degrees farenheit. There are other metals that melt at 1,800 degrees or below; aluminum, brass, bronze, lead, magnesium, silver, tin, and zinc. Airplanes are made primarily of aluminum and if there was any molten metal falling from the building, as suggested by the video, then it was most likely aluminum.

The questioner says that eyewitnesses so 'huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers' (which would be after the collapse), but fails to provide one eyewitness who actually said that. Two firefighters say they saw molten steel running down a channel like lava. Never did they say they saw huge pools of molten steel and there is no evidence to suggest they know the differnce between molten steel and other molten metals. The rest of the eyewitnesses in the video talk about the temperature reaching 1,100 degrees and 1,500 degrees and the core looking like an oven, but none of them talk about molten steel.

If you are trying to make a point it is best to put your best evidence forward. If that is your best evidence it is pretty lame.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

8. "There are other metals"

...and as covered here many, many times in detail, metals form solutions - e.g. steel is soluble in aluminum.

It's like arguing that you can't dissolve table salt in water at room temperature because NaCl has a very high melting point.

Taking the argument at face value, and assuming truth of the assertion, the larger problem is that the NIST report is not the work of one author or editor, and these people do not understand that.

[AZCat]

13. I wondered when you would make an appearance in this thread.

Perhaps you should post that thread-killing Al-Fe diagram.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Oh, no.....

not the THREAD-KILLER!!!! Aaiiee!

[jberryhill]

16. Theobald seems erudite enough not to need it

I'll bet he even uses The Google.

Aside from which, I forgot to welcome him to DU, and the DUngeon in particular.

Binary phase diagrams usually send people screaming off into the night.

[AZCat]

18. Erudite indeed.

The force is strong with this one. Welcome him, we must.


They certainly haunted my dreams for quite some time, but that was a long time ago and I was a callow youth. Since then I have learned the beauty of engineering (still haven't embraced materials science though).

[jberryhill]

19. "Welcome him, we must."

You weren't at the reception when the "off balance sheet" stimulus funding came in, I take it.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. John Gross doesn't do his homework, does he?

The melting point of steel is about 2,800*F (about 1,400*C). The highest a
jet-fuel based fire can attain is 1,800*F (about 900*C) under ideal conditions
with force-fed pure oxygen. In fact, the fires were oxygen depleted as
reflected by the billowing black clouds. UL certified the steel used in the
towers to 2,000*F for three to four hours without incurring adverse effects
(weakening or melting).

In fact, NIST itself tested 236 samples of steel and determined 233 had not be exposed to temperatures above 500*F (about 250*C).

Plus the fire in the South Tower only burned about one hour and in the North
about one and a half. The other three samples had been exposed to temps of
around 1,200*F, two after the destruction of the towers. Moreover, we can't
rebuild them to test them, but history helps us out. An enormous fire in the
North Tower in February 1975 enveloped 2/3 of the 11th floor at temperatures
around 2,000*F for three or four hours and yet none of the steel had to be
replaced, a nice test of the UL certification. John Skilling, the principal
engineer in the construction, observed that the buildings could support 2,000%
of their expected live load (20 times what they were ever expected to carry).
So, even if they lost half of their load--and why would that be true, given,
for example, that the floors beneath the 80th in the South Tower and the 96th
in the North were basically stone, cold steel?--they would still have been able
to carry 10 times a normal load. Eager wrote a slick piece that appears to
deliver more than it possibly could. In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the
profession and has done a huge disservice to the nation. By the way, former
head of the NIST Fire Science Division, Jams Quintiere, Ph.D., has called for
a peer review of NIST's studies on the World Trade Center. Read about it at

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent
Review of World Trade Center Investigation
(Note: It's a significant step in the right direction]

21 August 2007, OpEdNews.com, Alan Miller
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

[AZCat]

29. Copy & paste is a dangerous tactic...

especially if you don't understand the underlying principles. Way to propagate misinformation, MrMickeysMom.

1. UL didn't certify the steel. This is a well-worn theme of the "truth movement", and has been corrected a million fucking times by now.

2. The 1975 fire damaged structural supports for the 12th floor. The main fire was confined to approximately one quarter of the 11th floor, but fires extended to the 9th and 16th through unstopped cable openings in equipment closets. The HVAC system, while not operating correctly (some of the dampers malfunctioned and had to be opened manually), still managed to exhaust smoke from the areas affected. A quickly-responding, coordinated, well-supplied direct attack by firefighters on the fire managed to confine the damage. Says John T. O'Hagan, "If the alarm had been delayed an additional 30 to 60 minutes, it is reasonable to expect that the entire east half of the building could have been involved. In that case, would a direct attack have been successful?"

3. I don't know where you're getting the 2,000% capacity number from Skilling. It is either a misquote or just outright misunderstanding of engineering design principles (maybe somebody mistakenly multiplied the wrong numbers). It would be ridiculous to design a building to that sort of standard. When the NIST calculated the DCR's for the towers, they found them to be typically around 1.6, with a few less than unity (but the load was taken up by neighboring structural elements).

4. Quintiere's issues with the NIST investigations are well-known and have been discussed many times here. Many of us agree with him.

[LARED]

30. This is utter nonsense

The highest a jet-fuel based fire can attain is 1,800*F (about 900*C) under ideal conditions
with force-fed pure oxygen.

Just to start

[AZCat]

32. It's chock-full of mistakes.

I got tired after four, but there are plenty more.

Say what you want about the "truth movement", but they sure are good at recycling and composting.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. I wondered how long it would take for the un credentialed knee jerk reaction-

Gee, why would you get tired after four?

By the way, what is this "truth movement" you think I belong to? Do you know something I don't?

Let's start by asking you boyz to show your pedigree. Let's see your own "cut and paste" resume to back everything you knock down. I'm wondering if there's another type of movement being dumped in reaction to the propositions here.

Say what you will about the fecal movement, it sure provides some entertainment!

[AZCat]

35. So, no response to those issues, then?

Other than your bizarre request to see our "pedigree(s)".

I'm not surprised. The veneer of knowledge on the "truth movement" is millimeters thick. Once that is penetrated, they tend to become hostile. Good luck perpetrating your falsehoods elsewhere, but there not going to slide by unnoticed here.

[MrMickeysMom]

39. So, you don't have one, eh?

That figures.

[Realityhack]

43. Creditialism asside.

(and IIRC AZCat has the credentials that you lack)
AZCat has demonstrated repeatedly here that he has a good understanding of the engineering principles at work in the events of 9-11. You have shown no such understanding. So regardless of what unverifiable degrees someone claims to have on an internet board, AZCat has shown through his posts that he has an understanding of engineering issues and you have shown you have none.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. And you'd be objective with that opinion about someone else by WHAT means?

.... cause it's looking like neither he nor you can state the obvious for themselves.

"Creditialism asside"? Why do you even bother to respond to questions?

[Realityhack]

58. Look carefuly at AZCat's response.

As he quite correctly points out, we are all just posters on an internet site. Nobody is around to double check our credentials.

And my point was... even if they were, credentials do not make a person correct. They are just an indicator.

You brought up peoples 'pedigree' as if it has some meaning here on this board. It doesn't. What has meaning here are the quality of the arguments people make. Therefore you should respond to the points people make not attempt an ad-homenim attack on their undemonstrateable (because of the forum) credentials.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. Can you DO as you ask OTHERS to do?

For instance...

Can you make an argument for someone else's credibility without evaluating the majority of their opinion? Apparently you can ... for SOME people, but not the ones who take you to task for your ad-homenim attacks on their opinion when they see the OP's video (oh, and hear it, too).

You appeal to your own prejudice, rather than reason when you say...

What has meaning here are the quality of the arguments people make. Therefore you should respond to the points people make not attempt an ad-homenim attack on their undemonstrateable (because of the forum) credentials.

By the way, I'm not gonna correct your spelling, or the fact that you may live in a dorm with some of these guys, but, by God, I AM gonna correct your stupid logic about the viewing of this video, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD, by the way.

You guys spend way too much time avoiding the OP subject, and throwing stuff against the wall. Reminds me of chimps looking for the alpha while jumping up and down.

[AZCat]

64. Actually, we WERE trying to discuss the topic of this sub-thread.

You remember - the post you made titled John Gross doesn't do his homework, does he?

But after LARED and I pointed out mistakes in that post, you have tried to deflect the discussion to something irrelevant. You have yet to respond to any of our criticisms with a substantial answer. I think the only person trying to avoid the subject is you.

[MrMickeysMom]

68. You did no such thing and neither did LARED

Did you, boyz? No, you didn't.

QUIT HIJACKING THE THREAD.

[AZCat]

70. That is not true, and it is obvious to anyone else but you. n/t

[AZCat]

45. I'm an anonymous poster on the internet.

I have exactly the same credentials as every other anonymous poster.

Besides, this shouldn't be about credentials. Your copy and paste job contained a number of mistakes, and you're apparently not willing to recognize that. Your loss. Willful ignorance of the issues isn't going to help spread the "truth".

[MrMickeysMom]

56. Why don't you point out those mistakes with linkies, then...

... pardon me for using one of your retorts...

What's the error? Prove it!

[AZCat]

59. Some of them are from the real world.

Not all information is available on the internet.

It was late (past midnight) and I was tired, so I apologize for the lack of links. I'm usually good with that stuff. I'll try to add some later, but for now the only reference I can provide is the source of the 1975 fire information. It comes from John T. O'Hagan's book, High Rise|Fire & Life Safety. Your local library might have a copy, but it's not cheap (~$100).

[Pharaoh]

47. Lol...........

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks MMM

[LARED]

36. Except the difference is when you recycle and compost

there is something of value in the end even if there is a stink in the middle of the process. The "truth movement" seems to be stuck in the useless and stinking phase.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. No pedigree, eh?

That's a no brainer!

[Realityhack]

42. I don't think that word means what you think that it means n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

57. What word is that?

[LARED]

75. No matter what I told you, you would not believe it, nor would it matter

I have a BSME and a MSEM.

I bet you're not impressed.

[AZCat]

77. MSEM?

Masters of Science in Engineering Materials?

[LARED]

78. "Management"

Sort of a hybrid between a MSME and a MBA.

[AZCat]

79. Ahhh...

In my ever-so-humble opinion, management is given short shrift in most engineering programs, especially when you consider how essential it is to most engineering positions. If it didn't have to displace other classes, I'd support some sort of management 101 class for all engineering students.

[LARED]

80. I completely agree

Too many engineers have almost no concept of how business works. Entering the real world with some exposure to things like, business strategies, planning, finance, client relationships, (I could go on) would be most beneficial to themselves and employers.

[AZCat]

81. When I was at Kansas State...

as an undergrad, one of the assistant deans was trying to get something like that going in the department. I wish now I had participated - it would have made a difference. I have no idea if he ever succeeded, but I think he had the right idea.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

73. While this is a little out-of-date...

most of Quintiere's criticisms are still valid. Of course, nobody here (at least that I know of) has claimed the NIST investigations and subsequent reports are perfect.

[Realityhack]

74. +1 n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

76. "he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down..."

"he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives."

This is not the questioning of the official report you seek.

[greyl]

82. MrMickeysMom is still running from posts 29,30, and 32.

To name only three.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. To that less than astute observation ...

You go back and read ... for meaning, this time, the responses to any question directed at me (posed by those who didn't view and listen, and had nothing to do with calling lectern man from the NIST a liar, and more to do with his claim that no such evidence of molten steel existed, which was negated afterward by viewing and LISTENING to those first responders in the video therein)...

If you still can't summarize any follow-up argument of how people should weigh what they SEE and HEAR after WATCHING and LISTENING to that video (the subject of the OP) and how the guy behind the lectern didn't do his homework, then go do something useful like read the Sunday funny papers.

[AZCat]

84. So you're not going to address the points brought up in those posts?

I thought so. Don't want to threaten your precious ignorance, do we?

[MrMickeysMom]

85. So, you think I'm ignorant, AZ...

I'll remind you, Ignorance is what ignorance does... The evidence of ignorance is debatable, but your response is downright STUPID.

You haven't listened to my answers, nor are you interested. I'm through with talking to stupid people. I have to assume you're being stupid from home now, and not from work. I wouldn't want to deprive your boss anymore than he/she has been of your productivity already.

I'm not afraid of ignorance as much as I am the illusion of knowledge.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Why do you keep chasing labels?

No one has called you ignorant. Please stop accusing others of calling you ignorant when they have not done so.

[AZCat]

88. Don't let me get in the way of your fantasies.

If calling me stupid and pretending I'm the ignorant one helps you rationalize ignoring the points LARED and I made upthread, go right ahead. But for someone who claims to be afraid of the illusion of knowledge, your behavior seems a bit contrary (but, unfortunately, typical of the "truth movement"). You claim to have provided answers, but all I see is the shallow snarking of somebody who prefers copy & pasting in lieu of actual knowledge.


On Edit: And again with this obsession with my work schedule and posting here. I guess when you haven't anything substantive to say, falling back on irrelevancies is a way of covering up that absence in your posts.

[greyl]

91. Is it ok to call someone liar when they are actually ignorant of something? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

86. You have finally, after great lengths for us to get it, provided the argument of the video

So thanks for that.

Let's examine the claim of the video, now, and examine your presentation of it, and see if it comes out.

You stated:

You go back and read ... for meaning, this time, the responses to any question directed at me (posed by those who didn't view and listen, and had nothing to do with calling lectern man from the NIST a liar, and more to do with his claim that no such evidence of molten steel existed, which was negated afterward by viewing and LISTENING to those first responders in the video therein)...

Lectern Man from the NIST has a name. It's John Gross. "John Gross" being easier to type, and since John Gross is mentioned twice in the OP, your dedication to ad hominem is noted.

You say that your responses did not have anything to do with calling John Gross a liar. However, you are defending not only the video but the posts of Twist_U_Up, (note your post #15 ("I think he did answer the question perfectly), and Twist has called John Gross a liar several times in this thread, offering only the video as evidence.

By the way, in post #15, you stated:

If he's a liar, it ought to be easy to see last two minutes of the video link, unless you're blind as a bat.

Following the trail of antecedents back, it's easy to see that "he" is John Gross, so you most definitely were trying to call John Gross a liar. So much for your present claims that you weren't. By your own posts you are condemned.

Did John Gross claim that no such evidence of molten steel existed? Let's go to the video:

Q: I'm curious about the pool of molten steel that was found in the bottom of the towers.

Gross: I am, too. Tell me about it. Have you seen it?

Q: Well, not personally, but eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel underneath the towers, and scientists -- some scientists don't think that the collapse of the building could have melted all of that steel. And Professor -- a physics professor analyzed the steel, Steven Jones, and he found evidence of thermate residue, which would explain how the building collapsed by means of pre-planted explosives. So have you analyzed the steel for these residues?

Gross: First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of melted -- molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody -- no eyewitnesses said so, nobody who's produced it. I was on the site, I was on the steelyards, so I can't -- I don't know that that's so.

Q: There's video of it.

Gross: Steel melts at around 2600 degrees Fahrenheit. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in fire. So I don't know the basis -- I can't, you know, address your question if I don't know the basis.

Q: Well, NASA pictures -- thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement.

Gross: Will you send them to me?

Q: OK.

Gross: Good.

The video goes on with other questions, but this is the only section dealing with molten steel.

John Gross clearly does not claim that there is no evidence of a pool or pools of molten steel. He says that he is aware of none. None has been presented to him. He asks the questioner to send him the information.

So the claim that John Gross denied the existance of molten steel is a big, fat factual inaccuracy. He claimed to be unaware of any evidence. Now unless you've got video or other evidence that he did know about eyewitnesses to molten steel, you've got nothing. You can stack up quotes about molten metal at Ground Zero all you want, and unless you've got proof John Gross had seen that evidence, you can't legitimately claim that John Gross lied or that John Gross is a liar.

And remember John repeats the first claim about "a pool of molten steel", something that the firefighters in the intercut video do NOT claim to have seen. They claim to have seen it running. They don't talk about the amount they've seen, they don't talk about it pooling, they don't even explain how they distinguished this as steel apart from any other softer metal or combination of metals that would flow at lower temperatures. So the quote used to show John Gross to be a "liar" or at least simply mistaken doesn't even do that.

Yet you, MrMickeysMom, seem hung up on the last two minutes showing Gross to be a liar. That where one of his quotes is repeated, although the question was not deemed worth sharing by the person who put this video together:

Gross: We were charged with finding out the cause of the collapse, and we found what happened. I think we've scientifically demonstrated what was required to initiate the collapse. Once the collapse initiated, the video evidence is rather clear. It was not stopped by the floors below, so there's no calculation that we did to demonstrate that -- what is clear on the videos.

But this again doesn't show he's a liar. He says we didn't examine something that's clearly seen on the video. AND THEY DIDN'T. CD advocates yell and scream about NIST not studying the collapse after collapse initiation (the probable subject of the question Gross is responding to here), and when Gross says they didn't do it, MrMickeysMom says it's easy to see that he's a liar here. Obviously NIST can't win whatever they do and so a different criteria other than an evidence-based path to the truth is being applied to Gross and the NIST.

Of course, when you can openly imply that Gross is a liar and then come down here and pretend you weren't doing that, it's easy to see that a evidence-based discussion of the facts isn't one of your primary goals here.

[Theobald]

89. Oh please

Is it really necessary to muddy up the issue with facts?

[snooper2]

93. Mickey Mouse isn't going to respond

to your post...

:)

[lovepg]

97. Bolo are you actually claiming Gross knew NOTHING about the eyewitness..

Reports from firefighters clean up workers and people in the basement of the Towers on 911 about molten steel?
Never heard of the NASA photos?
What kind of investigator would be unaware of these disturbing and persistent claims?
Why I am not the head of an investigation and I certainly heard of years ago. If you had any interest in 911 there are photos, videos, eyewitness reports to evaluate.
I find his claim of ignorance on the subject beyond belief.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Go back and read my post. Gross is quite specific about what he's denying. n/t

[greyl]

90. You're still doing it. nt

[defendandprotect]

92. k i c k

[Twist_U_Up]

94. kick

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Post #86. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

99. kick

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Post 86. n/t

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Feel free to post 86 with acual evidence. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

103. awww did I hit a nerve?

lol

[Bolo Boffin]

112. No, you attacked me personally wihich is against the rules. Please stop breaking the rules.

And deal with post 86 the next chance you get. No, handwaving and personal attacks is not dealing with post 86.

[Twist_U_Up]

145. you sure are proud of that peice of shit post arent you.

But like 99% of the time your posts are just that.. a peice of shit.
and everybody knows it.

deal with that

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Your invective would be more persuasive backed by substance.

But since you can only sputter and hurl insults when asked to deal with post #86 substantively, I trust the disinterested reader to see who's posting shit and who's not.

[Twist_U_Up]

147. post 145 n/t

[rhymeandreason]

104. You're right it's like trying argue with fundamentalist Christians

-- everything and anything that they need to know or will ever need to know is in the book.

[SDuderstadt]

105. It's kinda silly to try to downplay actual science by...

equating it with the bible.

[rhymeandreason]

106. Are you a scientist?

?

[SDuderstadt]

107. No...

are you suggesting one must be a scientist to distinguish science from the bible?

[rhymeandreason]

108. If you aren't a scientist

why do you assert your opinions with such unqualified and authoritative emphasis?

[SDuderstadt]

109. Because I've taken the time to carefully...

study the issue. Quit trying to make this about me because I am far from a ''fundamentalist christian''.

[rhymeandreason]

110. Actually I think the comparison is quite apt.

The NIST report serves as a bible for you in the sense of being (in your view) the singular authoritative and reliable reference for this subject. The comparison to fundamentalist Christians is also apropos in-as-much as, like the fundamentalists, you are wholly committed to and rather inflexible in your beliefs and seek to impress upon others the indubitable correctness of your beliefs in these matters. And so you treat people who question the OGCT in much the same way as a determined fundamentalist Christian might treat atheists or heretics; as unenlightened, foolish and in need of instruction.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Excuse me, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about...

I find it highly laughable that a CT like you is lecturing me about inflexibility. conversation ended.

[rhymeandreason]

113. You have illustrated my point perfectly.

But no need to go off in a huff...say, isn't this the way our last discussion ended?

[SDuderstadt]

114. I wouldn't exactly call them "discussions"...

they usually center around you playing "psychic" and telling me what I really think which, frankly, always comes as a huge surprise to me. Of course, the fact that you are dead wrong probably doesn't matter to you, but I'm not surprised. You can take your bullshit projections and find another mark, dude.

BTW, has anyone ever told you that you remind them of a refugee from a failed anti-WTO/NWO rally?

[rhymeandreason]

116. Well, it's true they aren't discussions

since you apparently don't read for comprehension or care to engage in a civil exchange of ideas but prefer instead to rant and rave and hurl insults.

[SDuderstadt]

118. No, I just don't see any point in talking with you...

I keep trying to get that across to you.

[Realityhack]

115. You may or may not have been around to witness them...

but there were some threads where many of the so called 'OCTers' questioned aspects of the NIST reports.

If you raise a good solid scientific argument I think you will find a surprising number of people willing to entertain the idea.
The issue is with the typical empty conjecture. 'It looks like a CD' is going to be greeted with hostility because it is a stupid stupid argument.
If you want to criticize over reliance on complex nonlinear computer models, then you might get a warmer reception.

If you want to talk about 'fundamentalist' like arguments I would look at people like no-planers. They are much closer in argumentation and rhetorical style to creationists and other fundamentalists.

[rhymeandreason]

117. I like to approach these issues with an open mind

but it is my impression that at least a half dozen of the regular posters in the 911 forum are not interested in open discussion but are wholly committed to defending the government's versions of what happened on 911 and in belittling and insulting anyone who disagrees with them.

[Realityhack]

121. Two things.

1. I think you are misunderstanding when you say people are supporting the 'government's' version of what happened. When it comes to the Bush administrations statements about what happened I think you will find most here are happy to call them liars.
The issues most discussed such as wither planes hit the buildings and wither explosives were employed are far from just being the 'government version of events'. Those views extend beyond the government and are supported by outside groups.
If you make goofy claims like the planes didn't exist expect to be ridiculed in the same way as someone claiming the earth is 4,000 years old and there was a global flood.

2. Your posts/behavior here do not show an open or inquiring mind. As I can only judge you based on your behavior here I must say you have yet to demonstrate anything of the sort.

[rhymeandreason]

122. Doublespeak and insults.

Every day you defend every aspect of the Bush, administration's lies and deceptions but, amazingly, you aren't defending the Bush administration.

I don't agree with you so you, characteristically, respond with insults.

For you and some of the other posters this seems to have less to do with science than with ensuring that these discussions remain stranded in a fog of mindless contention, antagonism and confusion.

[SDuderstadt]

123. maybe you get "insulted" because you're constantly accusing those who disagree with...

you on the facts of defending the Bush administration. Did you ever think of that?

[rhymeandreason]

124. I thought you weren't going to talk with me any more.

???

[SDuderstadt]

125. I'm not...

I'm admonishing you and not expecting or wanting a response.

[BuddyBoy]

126. That doesn't mean he won't INSULT you any more.

But, I know what you mean. It would be courteous and respectful to DU members if he would keep his word on occasion.

[SDuderstadt]

127. And it would be courteous and respectful if...

"truthers" would stop falsely accusing people who disagree with them on the facts of "defending the Bush administration".

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuddyBoy]

129. Good question and good points. n/t

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

137. We "belittle and insult"...

"truthers" who make outrageous claims without a shred of proof. You may have noticed that. I'd love for you to show one example of anyone being "insulted or belittled" Merely for "questioning the OCT! What bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

130. You just fucking did it again!

Do you realize that people can disagree with you on the facts, yet not be a "Bush supporter"? Do you really think calling someone who disagrees with you on the facts a "Bush supporter" is not an insult, in and of itself?

And, if your think you've been "insulted" in a manner that violates DU rules, notify a moderator.

Have you ever had a debunker refer to you as a "bin laden sympathizer"? You haven't? why do you think that is? This "anyone who disagrees with me is a Bush supporter" bullshit has got to stop.

[rhymeandreason]

131. Since you openly and daily cite the Bush Admin

representation of events relating to 911 to make your arguments and vigorously defend that version of events from any criticism, I fail to see how it is insulting to remark on it.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Please point where I have done so.

This silly "all info and facts about 9/11 could only come from the Bush administration" bullshit also has to stop.

[Realityhack]

139. I think we need some new forum rules.

Saying people support the Bush administration because they think planes hit the WTC should result in an immediate permanent ban. IMO that kind of BS has no place in reasoned discussion or on DU.

[rhymeandreason]

140. What I said was that some of the posters

routinely and energetically support the Bush Administration version of 911 events, the so-called OGCT. Perhaps you opposed the Bush administration on other vital issues.

[SDuderstadt]

142. I believe that actual planes flew into the WTC, the Pentagon and into the ground in...

Shanksville. That doesn't mean I "support the Bush administration version of 9/11 events". Your patently offendive and amateurish debate tactics need to stop now.

[Realityhack]

143. A perfect example of where such a rule would be useful. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

141. Exactly, RH...

the "truthers" are going way overboard on this.

[Realityhack]

132. Bullshit.

"Every day you defend every aspect of the Bush, administration's lies and deceptions"
Back that up or retract it.
Your assertion is not only demonstratively false but is also insulting and a blatant guilt by association attack. It has no place in reasoned debate or on DU.

You do realize that we can all agree with the Bush administration that the incidents took place on September 11th without agreeing that 'nobody could have anticipated that planes would be used as missiles' right? Or that I can say that I think aircraft really did hit the buildings and not support the war in Iraq right?

Your all or nothing false dilemma belongs in a children's schoolyard (at best) not in reasoned debate among adults.

[rhymeandreason]

134. Okay. You agree with the Bush administration

version of 911 events (which like most Bush policies and actions is an assortment of lies and deceptions) but you don't support the Bush Administration version of 911 events. Thank you for clearing that up.

[SDuderstadt]

135. More "Guilt by association" bullshit...

It's time for this to stop.

What if I start posting, "You agree with bin laden" as a response to all your posts?

[Realityhack]

138. Oh for fucks sake.

You can agree with SOME of what person X says without supporting ALL of what person X says.

Do you agree with the above logical statement?

[rhymeandreason]

144. Question the OGCT and the OGCTers descend like the Stasi

rushing to discredit and suppress the opinions of a dissenting citizen. It's really very disturbing.