Michael Shermer alert - help needed

[Me]

I’m being badgered at another forum by some dunderhead touting the work of Michael Shermer and others from Skeptic magazine on 9/11. Does anyone have any good links or clips refuting their stuff?

Here's one of the dolts postings.

[uselesseater]

What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.

No. Molten steel does not look similar to molten steel.

So the CEO of controlled demolition inc doesn't know the difference between 'Literaly pools of molen steel' and aluminium?

You can't mistake molten steel for aluminium. Aluminiun remains silver when molten and steel glows red, yellow, orange, white according to the temperature.

As for the “squibs” conspiracy theorists claim to see in videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers (see Figure 2).

As usual the critics never offer any supporting information like plans of the building or the air conditioning ducts. No they simply float this extremely ropey explanation and pretend it holds water.

It might be possible if the squibs were much smaller, shorter in duration, nearer the collapse zone and far more numerous. One of the squibs is so far below the collapse zone that it makes a mockery of this argument.

Videos of the WTC collapse show that these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase in intensity as the collapse continues — this is not the scenario one would expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to fall.

The visible squibs were probably mis-timed, possibly due to the use of radio frequency detonators. If the squibs were in the collapse zone you wouldn't see them.

Hope that helps.

[Bongo]

How about you just ignore these f*** wits!

My family and my life are more important to me than these * who are obviously just attempting to capitalise financially from the blood which was spilt on 9/11 and also in Iraq!

STOP pandering to these sickos!

Regards,

Brian.

Ps... all you can do on their website is spend your hard earned money... you cannot contact them to discuss the issues... WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

HELL!!! ignore these scum bags and they will go away!

However, if you feel you must argue with them ....

Then just ask them; "What temperature all the steel was at on floors 1 to 75 on each tower and susequently how much it had been softened enough to collapse completely???"

[Me]

I’ve got a debunker at a another forum quoting Popular Mechanics and Michael Shermer that the molten steel was really just "aluminum". I explained about the numerous eyewitness accounts from all kinds of sources including a CEO of a controlled demolition company and veteran firefighters but his answer was that they all must’ve been mistaken. Then I showed him some of the work of Steven Jones where he demonstrates that molten aluminum looks and behaves nothing like molten steel. The consistency, color and duration of temperature doesn’t correspond with molten steel. We have photographs of steel beams melting like wax candles and the characteristics do not at all match that of aluminum.

The debunker told me that you’d expect to find this type of molten material at such a site. If it’s so common to mistake aluminum for molten steel in a building fire then I’d like to hear about another example of this. Wouldn’t veteran firefighters be able to tell the difference based on prior situations and observations? If you recall, PM was originally saying that the aluminum must’ve came from the planes until it was pointed out that no planes had hit building seven and then they had to quickly revise their story. Now it’s that the aluiminum was an element of the building structures themselves.

This of course begs an even greater question. Why then were there no reports of molten “aluminum” found in the basements of buildings five and six which were much closer to the WTC towers and sustained much more physical and fire damage? Why didn’t they collapse? Why is that only those buildings with firsthand accounts of molten steel found in their basements fell? Aluminum makes no sense. Thermate makes perfect sense.

He also told me that eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable form of evidence and can often be wrong. So I asked him why then should we trust the words of the 9/11 Commission or Michael Shermer when they weren’t even there! Based on his own logic their ideas must be near worthless. But then I also told him that if he’s going to use that angle then he’s also going to have to dispel those quotes of eyewitnesses claiming to have seen a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

Debunkers want it both ways. They want to accept the accounts that they agree with and dismiss those that they don’t and call it an accurate investigation. They want to accept the suspicious confession tape of Bin Laden while ignoring his first statement where he specifically denied any involvement in 9/11. They want to believe that fires burned hot enough to melt steel and yet at the same time a paper passport could survive unscathed.

I also asked him about the DNA match of the hijackers. The now infamous question that stumped Popular Mechanics. He said that they collected the DNA from places that they had visited before boarding the planes. Any thoughts?


I totally agree about the squibs. Air pressure chooses the path of least resistance. It’s not going to dispense through one single window on a particular floor while ignoring all other windows beside it and also ignore the many floors with unbroken windows above it all the way up to the collapse wave.