Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by waypastvne


That is obviously a "hit-piece" with no proof to back up the claims. If his so called paper was published, then why can't one find it through the publisher? You are taking what a guy states through his personal blog and with no evidence to back up his claim, as fact. I think we all know better than that, or at least we should but then again, that's really what's wrong with official conspiracy theorists and the OS.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


It was accepted for publication. If he would have given them $800 they would have published it.

reply to post by Ciphor


Okay , one more time ... I am asking you to explain to me what it is , exactly , that you are trying to convey in the following quote :

" First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS. Highly creditable in establishment eyes. Crap dude! There are a LOT of people locked up in prison wrongfully because of eye witnesses, we better hurry up and pardon them before people find out eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!!11!!! lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Where is your logic for this? Do you even have any? "

I will break this down , so maybe you can follow what I am asking .

1) " First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? "

With this question , you seem to imply that "hundreds of eyewitnesses" should be considered credible sources .

2) "Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS. Highly creditable in establishment eyes ."

With this statement , you also seem to imply that you feel these eyewitness accounts should be held as credible sources .

But then , you take this : "...eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!! " and use it in a subsequent post to try to make me look stupid , implying that this should have been self-explanatory as to your opinion of eyewitness accounts .

You can't have it both ways so , I will ask you one more time ... Explain what you are saying .

And , this should be self-evident that I have indeed been reading your posts before replying to them . To say that I haven't is just a cheap way to avoid answering the question .

reply to post by okbmd



You are debating an obvious sarcastic comment. Someone said eyewitnesses are not evidence, I said "lol ok lets get everyone out of prison who was convicted on eyewitness accounts".


Changed my mind. Fresh start chap. In the future when you reply to me I suggest you read in full what I write and give thought to your reply. As long as people respect my posts, read them, reply intelligently I am very polite. I also do not take well to ideas pulled out of thin air. It's not my job to research others claims. You should research them and present them yourself. You should also research what most people consider to be creditable sources. ergo College papers, peer reviewed papers, agency sources, industrial sources, or other acceptable portals like wiki and dictionaries, school books etc. The web is a mess and using random information off it is irritating to a logic rational person such as myself.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by airspoon

 

It was accepted for publication. If he would have given them $800 they would have published it.

You are going to believe this, without any kind of proof? If you believe that, well then I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale I'll offer it to you for a real good price.

--airspoon

reply to post by Ciphor


Why do you refuse to answer the question ? Here , this time I will make it real simple for you .

Do you , or do you not , consider eyewitness accounts to be credible sources that should hold weight in a court of law ?

It's a simple question , all I need is a simple answer .

The question is relevant to the topic of this thread , since eyewitnesses claim to have seen molten metal .

reply to post by okbmd


Read it again, I edited my last reply to you. And I am going to let that "real simple" comment slide *teeth grinding* so fresh start. Bring *A* game only to my ballpark.

reply to post by airspoon


You're telling me you bought some beachfront property in Arizona and then you call me gullible?

The paper is not peer reviewed.

reply to post by waypastvne


Omg. You have beach front property in Arizona? How much? I can never find beach front property listings in the mid-west =(

reply to post by Ciphor


No Airspoon has the Arizona beachfront property. This coming from someone who complains about other peoples reading skills.


The paper is not peer reviewed

Originally posted by Ciphor
You are debating an obvious sarcastic comment. Someone said eyewitnesses are not evidence, I said "lol ok lets get everyone out of prison who was convicted on eyewitness accounts".

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of false convictions where people have been exonerated by DNA evidence:

www.innocenceproject.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/61e28612ef33.gif[/atsimg]

It's probably not so humorous to joke about all the people being let out of prison based on bad eyewitness testimony, if you're one of the people who was falsely convicted.

If a cop tells me he sees molten metal, I tend to believe him, but if he claims it's molten steel, I don't know how he knows it's steel and not some other metal.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Eye-witness accounts are only faulty when dealing with human, particularly faces and from a different race. Eye-witness accounts have not been found faulty on things that are non-human. The reasons that eye-witness testimony is faulty with humans, is directly related to the fact that they are human.

--airspoon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Ciphor
You are debating an obvious sarcastic comment. Someone said eyewitnesses are not evidence, I said "lol ok lets get everyone out of prison who was convicted on eyewitness accounts".

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of false convictions where people have been exonerated by DNA evidence:

www.innocenceproject.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/61e28612ef33.gif[/atsimg]

It's probably not so humorous to joke about all the people being let out of prison based on bad eyewitness testimony, if you're one of the people who was falsely convicted.

If a cop tells me he sees molten metal, I tend to believe him, but if he claims it's molten steel, I don't know how he knows it's steel and not some other metal.

edit on 18-9-2010 by Arbitrageur because: added "not so humorous" statement

Oh god, that is too funny dude. Did you read those numbers? 400ish cases where eyewitness accounts were overturned? Is that figure for the whole US? Annual overturns? Or total since DNA evidence blah blah etc? Because I have some shocking news for you! Did you take that 400 number and put it against the number of still convicted criminal cases due to eyewitness?

I'm not going to do your research, but I have a feeling that the overturned % is somewhere in the 0.05% range, and that is being generous. So if we use our friendly friend Mr Math, he tells us that with 20 witnesses it is possible like 1/50th a witness might be wrong. I suck at math, but you get the point ya? Actually what am I saying you probably don't lol.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Eye-witness accounts are only faulty when dealing with human, particularly faces and from a different race. Eye-witness accounts have not been found faulty on things that are non-human. The reasons that eye-witness testimony is faulty with humans, is directly related to the fact that they are human.

--airspoon

I think you have a point about less accuracy when witness look at people of different races, but how can you possibly claim eyewitnesses are faulty only dealing with human subjects? Nothing could be further from the truth. The example posted earlier in the thread demonstrates that:

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ciphor
It has nothing to do with being indoors our outdoors. It glows regardless when super heated.

There is one difference. The "competition" of photons which are entering your eyes.

Ever seen something like this?

en.wikipedia.org...

"A" and "B" are the same color.

Most eyewitnesses would say A and B are not the same color, but they are the same color. And eyewitness misidentifications in the UFO field are numerous and have nothing to do with human faces. We are all easily fooled, and some of us even more easily than others, but none of is is as good an observer as we think we are.

Can everyone please stop debating my obvious sarcastic remark? Has this thread really turned into a debate about the legitimacy of eyewitness testimonies? I would have never said it if I'd known it would turn into this. TIME MACHINE WRU!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You have completely lost context of the eyewitnesses. They are in context to seeing molten iron. Not faces, not colored blocks. Molten Iron. I'll be right back, is it across the streets or over the tracks? Ahh nevermind I'll do both to be certain.

Originally posted by Ciphor
Can everyone please stop debating my obvious sarcastic remark? Has this thread really turned into a debate about the legitimacy of eyewitness testimonies?

I haven't seen any photos or credible evidence of molten steel so the eyewitness testimonies are being cited as something that's supposed to be credible, and it's not enough. Molten metal, yes, molten steel, I am unconvinced by witness testimony.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pteridine

 

How is that a "vanity journal"? The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real, peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal, cited in many prestigious universities. Are you claiming that it is a "vanity journal" because you don't agree with a study that has been peer-reviewed by the experts and published therein? Deny ignorance, don't propagate it.

Furthermore, it was peer-reviewed and you have just been caught in a lie, which is tells us a lot about your credability.

There are currently 16,559 reputable scientific journals that can be used as sources to post on physicsforums.com:

www.physicsforums.com...

A list of journals that may be used as academic references can be found at the following link:...
www.thomsonscientific.com...

I wasn't able to find the Open Chemical Physics Journal in that list, I see "Open Biology Journal" and then "Open Conservation Biology Journal" and nothing in between, did I miss it? If it's there please help me find it.

If not then physicsforums doesn't consider it a journal that may be used as a reference.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pteridine

 

You are making the accusation that the experts published that paper for money because you either don't agree with it or don't understand it. That's pretty ignorant and a shame on a board with the motto of "deny ignorance". Certainly, you can see your own folly. Maybe you should bring this accusation to the universities and scientists who either publish through the journal or cite it in various research and/or educational capacities.

Maybe you should bring your complaints to the experts who reviewed the paper, however your claim doesn't hold water so they probably wouldn't even respond. Maybe if you had evidence of the journal accepting money to publish, the experts to review or even if it was known as a "vanity journal", you would have legs to stand on.

--airspoon

Airspoon,
I make that accusation because it is true. The Open Journal [blog] published the paper for $800. No experts were involved anywhere in the process except for Bentham's accountants.
If you think Jones' paper is so good, please explain why the super thermite went out after it ignited. Explain why Jones ran the DSC in air and claimed thermite under conditions of combustion. Explain why the energy balances are inconsistent with thermite. Those are for starters; picking ths paper apart is so easy it is apparent why Jones couldn't get it published anywhere but in a pay for publication "journal."
FYI, in a real scientific journal, the reviewers are anonymous.