See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1519
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
(Edited)
BeAChooser is dumber than a 5th grader. It's so obvious that 9/11 was an inside job that it really makes pro-government theory defenders look like total morons. They have the power and license to kill, but they are still scared to death of the 9/11 truth movement.
God is always good! True. The psychological profile of a 9-11 truth denier is the same as that of a jailhouse snitch. It is emotion which compels them to slavishing repeat the official story, as if they were agents of the government, which, of course, they are.
This is the sticking point for me. The USAF has spent the last half century thinking long and hard on how to defend US airspace from Soviet bombers and other airborne threats. The best they could do on 9/11 is run around like chickens with their heads cut off and in the days that followed 9/11 they spent lots of time threatening to shoot down single engine float planes in Alaska on their way to pick up chartered hunting and fishing groups way out in the wilderness. If 9/11 is any indication on the level or readyness of the USAF, WWIII would have been over in 5 minutes as Soviet bombers dropped nukes and vaporized cities while USAF pilots were still eating breakfast or sleeping in that morning.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
IMO, the failure of NORAD to act, coupled with the control of NORAD to shoot down being transferred to Cheney, who was in control that morning, is the biggest indicator that THEY did 9-11. Mohammed Atta didn't make the Air Force stand down or go the wrong way instead of intercepting.
I agree, it points to "who".
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Where did the govt say the steel beams melted? The 9/11 report stated the fire weakened the structural steel enough to cause strength failure. That is why I feel the 9/11 truth people in acts of ignorance demonstrated in the Rense article are destroying the investigation in the 9/11 plot by people who think the govt is involved on some level but are then grouped in along with moonbats who not only say stupid things but they even get the facts about what the govt said wrong. So therefore http://Rense.com - where UFO nuts go and hang out - proves that they also are not smarter than a 5th grader as well. OK, the following I will explain ahead of time for the slow witted among you. The only reason I am posting the Popular Mechanic article segment on the steel is to show that no one in the official govt story ever claimed the steel melted. Hence this proves whoever wrote this Rense article is either a willful liar or a fool or both. Again, I am posting the following to disprove Rense's accusation that the govt official story says the steel melted. CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site http://AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength-- and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
There are only 16% of Americans who believe the president's story on 9-11. Congratulations for being in that group.
THE WHO! Tell me Who, who, who, who ... Good tune, and appropriate here.
http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?lyrics=rqeavqzt
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
What most people miss is that the FAA was the facilitating agency of 9-11. They blocked airport security, controlled the fighters and covered up the reality of 9-11, via non-availability of the radar data and ATC tapes. The fighters were under FAA control & kept from visual and electronic contact with the 9-11 events. See - http://home.comcast.net/ ~skydrifter/timeline.htm
Congratulations for being in that group. Snaps fingers in front of your face---FOCUS> This article is not about believing the govt's story - this article said - and you agreed - that the govt said the steel melted. Right? Still with me? I then posted showing the govt did not say the steel melted - only that the fire weakened the steel. Did you not read what I wrote? A 5th grader would have. Do you concede that this Rense article is incorrect in this fact and that the govt did not say the jet fuel melted the steel?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Except that is not what the government says. What this article is doing is putting forth a strawman. A logical fallacy. All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers. But strength reductions of the steel and sagging of the steel due to high temperatures is the cause. This is another strawman. The WTC towers did NOT fall at the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity would imply a collapse time of about 9-10 seconds. But videos and still photos taken on 9/11 show quite clearly that the towers took about 15 to collapse. They show the first exterior panels ejected from the tower took about 9-10 seconds to reach the ground. And the photos show those panels were way ahead of the collapsing level of the towers. And I've pointed this out to you over and over. Are the members of the *Truth* movement incapable of learning? Are logical fallacies all they have to offer? And this is just downright false. WTC7 has not been ignored. Now tell readers the rest of the story. That Dutch expert (Jowenko) was not told the structure had been hit by debris from the collapsing towers. He was not told that the structure had been burning for almost 7 hours without much in the way of fire suppression. He was not told that firemen on the scene observed the building starting to lean long before the collapse. He was not told that fireman at the scene believed the building was going to collapse long before the collapse. He was not shown all the videos and photos available showing damage to the building and the extent of the fires. And one more thing, this same expert also said that the collapse of the two towers were definitely NOT controlled demolitions. This is also downright false. The Indian paper which initially made that claim retracted the story and ended up saying an entirely different person actually provided the money. The problem with CT'ers is that they latch onto the first incriminating thing they hear and then never listen to another fact regarding that event or claim.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are never going to get him to listen to facts and admit that. He's made his mind up and apparently doesn't realize that with such inaccurate claims the *Truth* movement is only destroying any hope of finding out the truth of 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'm referring to the poll taken by the New York Times and CBS in October of 2006, which revealed that only 16% of Americans believe the official 9-11 story, and 57% believe Bush had actual, prior knowledge of the attacks. You can take up YOUR points with someone on the thread who cares about whatever obtuse point you think you're making. I'm commenting on the fact that you're in the small minority who hover over every word of every government statement, as if it were Moses bringing down the tablets.
EX-cel-lent!
I know the government's position better than you two ever will. I don't feel it's necessary to respond to those who want to require me to consume time in some pointless dialogue where you think you're going to prove something. The government's fairy tale about the collapse of the towers is well known, and it requires something that is impossible: steel and concrete vaporizing in a gravity collapse. If you can't SEE that the buildings were exploded, all the discussions in the world won't get your head unstuck from where you have it lodged.
The fighters were under FAA control & kept from visual and electronic contact with the 9-11 events. It wasn't the FAA which kept the fighters from scrambling and engaging. It was Cheney, who was in personal control of NORAD that morning during war games, drills to simulate airplanes being used as missiles to hit the Pentagon and other locations. The FAA made several communications with NORAD, and after the first crash, NORAD was automatically in the loop and heard everything the FAA did, in real time.
The NORAD aircraft which launched were under the control of the FAA - not NORAD! Yeah! There's the rub. Sure, Cheney was in it up to his ears.
So, why did the 47 steel columns in both towers collapse simultaneously? C'Mon BAC, you treasonous queer; 'splain that one! How many seconds did it take the buildings to fall? Give us a figure that you'll stand by. Well ....?
And don't forget that FEMA arrived the night before, to be ready for their DRILL in Manhattan on the morning of 9-11, that turned into the WTC attack response effort. The coincidences that day just keep on keepin on.
Don't you know?! The planes hit the towers and the collision knocked all the fire proofing off the hundreds of steel beams on the exterior and inside the support grid near the elevators. Then the jet fuel burned, and although it never got hot enough to melt steel, it got hot enough to cause the welded support pins for the trusses to fail under the weight, and begin a pancake collapse that pulverized and turned into dust most of the steel, concrete, and contents of the towers. At gravity speed, instead of at pancaking speeds. What a load of malarkey!
See - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871 I'm assuming this is the same as the DVD that I just watched. It's limited to the 9-11 WTC issues, but it's damned good. If you want a WTC encapsulation, this is a great one. {This commercial is NOT approved by BAC!}
Tom Kenney's team did, but FEMA was already in place on Pier 92, as "Operation Tripod II." Rudy 'fessed-up. Kenney's team did NOT go to the hotel to sleep on 9-11, as BAC would have everyone believe!
That is a great video. There are many very good videos. Google video and youtube both have many.
Let's use this figure BAC. No, not at the open-air falling speed, but so radically far from a "collapse" speed that "controlled demolition" is the only possible explanation. Add the molten steel in the three Silverstein buildings. You're way busted BAC! You're a wannabe deceiver - doing a lousy job.
that BAC is dumber than a 5'th grader. and he does it on purpose - only way he could think what he thinks. He thinks that jet fuel burns hot enough to produce molten steel. We've told him 100 times it just doesn't burn hot enough and he says 'yeah but if it was a big fire ... ' nonsense. if it don't burn hot enough it don't burn hot enough and doesn't make any difference what quantity of jet fuel. If you add in paper or wood or office furnishings and that only makes it burn less hot. yet BAC still insists on the fantasy that jet fuel melted steel to liquid form. He accepts that the steel was liquid because honway showed him pictures, but he insists it became liquid because of burning jet fuel. dumber than a 5'th grader and a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Sorry to hear this. Is this temporary or permanent?
God is always good! That's a new one. I haven't heard of that one before. Ah well, we have video evidence and no leaning is observed. But even if it was leaning, that only means in a collapse it wouldn't have come straight down. I guess that new line won't work chooser, back to the drawing board.
God is always good! Once again, Red Jones just demonstrates that he doesn't know what he is talking about. http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Which is why he must resort to strawman arguments. In other words, claiming I've said things that I have never said. Pathetic, Red. Really pathetic.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
BAC, You're an asshole, by any standard. Truth means nothing to you, except a challenge to distort it - to the benefit of the Jewish State of Israel. Your queerness knows no bounds.
TREASONOUS QUEER! you used to agree that the molten steel really happened. and now you link me to a site that says molten steel didn't exist because for it to exist there must've been something besides jet fuel & the ordinary debris from the office & furnishings in order to produce the molten steel. Well the molten steel is reality. it was reported right in mass media about the hot spots, so for you to sit there and say that the hot spots didn't exist because it would've required something more than jet fuel to produce them is just plain more TREASONOUS QUEER! garbage. NASA flew a plane over the site in the day or two after the event and measured the hot spots. it was reported right in mass media. and you sit there and deny it because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! You used to agree with us that the molten steel did happen. We've talked to individuals on the internet who live 2 blocks from there and they told us that in personal conversations with firemen they heard stories of the molten steel & the hot spots. and now you change your story. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;) Or was it he was only investigating, like Reverent Haggard? Oh well, as Bob Seger said "turn the page." (Or was that Mark Foley?)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel? Molten Metal Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. [1] A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [11] [image] This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim. Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts. Well aren't you in a snit?! It's a poll. I referred to it. If you don't like it, tough titty. Why don't you go look up the poll, read the source data, specifically found at page 30, question 78? That's the TRUTH you're so afraid to admit.
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I never said anything about Rense. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do it twice.
BeAChooser says he is not gay. This causes him a lot of problems on Log Cabin. People wonder what he is doing there if he isn't gay. Here is an example from the other day.... #40. To: Romping Fairy (#34) But I'm not gay. I'm married with children. I rarely I blow more than a couple of guys per month. And I sometimes do it with my wife when she starts to get nasty about it. Now is that gay in your book? BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-13 10:41:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
The number of Republican activists who are gay is astonishingly high. Gary Bauer? super gay!! John Fund of Wall St Journal? Ga-ay!
Thanks Trace for those insights. and thanks Paul Revere for your expert analysis above. BAC in the past has accepted that molten steel was in the pile of rubble. and he said previously also that this molten steel was caused by jet fuel burning. It is impossible of course because jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to cause the steel to actually become molten. We know beyond shadow of any doubt because of the NASA plane that flew over and measured heat that there were hot spots which cannot be explained by burning jet fuel or office furnishings fire either because those hot spots were way too hot. So per this link BAC provided above he's apparently changed his view. He now says that because the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to create the molten steel or the hot spots either, that therefore there was no molten steel. Despite witnesses. despite photographs. despite even the two owners of the demo companies used to remove the debris saying that the molten steel pools were real, despite all that he now says that the molten steel didn't exist. Because apparently the molten steel can only be explained by a chemical device like thermite and BAC therefore denies that the molten steel was there. that's why he's a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Did any of those claiming they saw molten steel actually test it to be sure? And I'm curious. What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel? ROTFLOL! Christopher Bollyn is a hack journalist who completely misrepresented the seismic data and seismologist statements in the same article where he made the above claim about molten steel. The link I provided proves that Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel. And how did Tully determine it was steel that was seen, ASSUMING that Bollyn is accurately quoting him to begin with (and I have doubts about that)? Notice that Bollyn didn't put the word "pools" in quotes. Did Tully actually say what Bollyn claims? Or is he exaggerating? No other witness of 9/11 has used the word "pools" to describe what was seen. Just how much of Bollyn's account can be believed? Red Jones championed Bollyn's report at LP. And then added his own twist to the claim. He claimed there were "60+ POOLS" of molten steel in the basements of the towers. When asked to back that up, he couldn't. Why is that? And here's another question. Loizeaux is on record saying that "molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile." How do you square this ... that the molten material was found primarily around one tower and relatively shallow in the debris with Bollyn claiming it was in the basements and with the notion of thermate being used to bring down BOTH towers? But let's go ahead and assume it was molten steel for the moment. What kept it molten for 5 weeks after the collapse, if it was indeed created by whatever brought down the towers? And, by the way, have you ever heard of Dr Greening and his theory about this?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
And I'm curious. What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11? you just demonstrated why it is that you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! did they have it tested? you are an idiot. You don't have to test such a thing. You just have to look at 2 things - the color and the state of plasticity or liquidity. If it is orange or red, then it is near molten and far hotter than any jet fuel can get it. and if it is liquid it is actually molten which is an amazing thing. You yourself have posted pictures showing it to be both orange and liquid. and jet fuel as your own link said cannot get the steel that hot to be either orange or liquid. the only way you can satisfy your pro-government theories is to lie and say that you yourself have lied. that is why you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! as well as the FACT! that Trace said you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! who hangs out at Log Cabin Republican forum. go back and chew weenie with muscle butt and ralphie and whoever else you know over there. You ask 'what continuing source of heat kept this steel in molten state for weeks'. I have been telling you for 4 years that the only possible thing that could've done that is thermite or thermate or some other chemical related bomb. and that this chemical bomb is also the only thing that could've caused the small earthquake measured by Syracuse Univ. You are an idiot BAC. you are now denying realities that you previously accepted all so that you can conform your mind to the lies that government & big media have told. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC is off the radar, negotiating a peace treaty with Goldi. {:-)) They deserve each other.
Damned good question, BAC - it wasn't jet fuel or burning furniture! Well ......? (Aren't you glad you brough it up?)
The details are unimportant, BAC, the fact that it was confirmed is quite enough. Something is radically wrong in the 'official' story. (Aren't you glad that you brought it up?) Well, ....., your queerness? Got an answer?
It's not an animal, it's a dog!! If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty.
.
you are a complete idiot. Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it. I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical. and I've been telling you that this is a smoking gun which means beyond a shadow of a doubt that the buildings were sabotaged by forces unrelated to the jet airplanes that crashed into them. And you are now saying that there was no molten steel because molten steel could not have been caused by jet fuel and jet fuel is the only solution to the problem you think. I've said 'NO!!!!!' - there was thermite also and it was put there by the saboteurs who were in league with the terrorists. It is the only logical solution to the problem we're presented with. While I solve the problem and you say that I'm a liar you are busy denying that the evidence is the evidence.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If there was molten steel, then all of the other metals with lower melting points would probably have alloyed with it. Copper, tin, lead, bronze all melt at much lower temperatures than steel. A puddle of molten steel buried in construction debris would probably have other metals from conduits, nails, wirs and such melted in with it. The point is chooser's allegation that it was "metal" and not 100% pure virgin steel is just a diversion from the real issue.
.
If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty. LOL!
This picture shows well that when a male has no heart, they say the Pledge of Allegiance with hand over stomach. ;-D [BAC #42] Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. According to #38 and #40, posters reported you are a Treasonous FELLOW. Are you a FELLOW? Regarding the USS Liberty, I asked BAC if, "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." BAC responded that he had "No Opinion." Have you been able to nut up yet and form an opinion? Or do you still passionately cling to "No Opinion?" According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says. Perhaps 12 posts a day are more than BAC can handle. There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the ." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of ." [11]
Look what BeAChooser posted the other day over on Log Cabin .... #29. To: Muscle Butt (#17) I'm not really attacted to women, but I do like Goldi over on LP. I guess this is because she sort of looks like a guy. I have a fantasy about giving her a blow job. But don't take that to mean I'm gay. BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-15 09:12:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
he doesn't even have to open his mouth to show how dopey he is.
I thought you claimed to be a Summa Cum Laude? I now question that since I suspect most with such credentials would have readily understood that I was referring to the type of metal. Did they test that? But thermite or thermate bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. So that can't be what kept the temperatures high enough to keep the steel molten (assuming it was steel) throughout that time? So what was that source of heat? Right. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state. There was a time when BAC did accept the witness statements, the photographs etc showing tht the steel was in a liquid state weeks after the event. and the only possible thing that could've kept it in that molten state was a chemical like thermite. which means absoluteproof, a smoking gun showing sabotage unrelated to the jet fuel. and we showed him this 4 years ago. and he's just realizing its true and now he must deny that there was molten steel in order to support his conspiracy theory. but there was molten steel. and even the workers & firemen on the job site where they removed the debris were freely saying that there was molten steel even 4 & 5 weeks after the event. he's reduced to having to change the known facts in the equation to fit his conspiracy theory.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC, they didn't have anything tested. they purposely avoided and prevented testing even. the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker. the authorities were purposely not allowing any testing to be done. now I'd think they refer to it as molten steel because it looked like molten steel. and the structure of the building was primarilly steel. this is kind of like 'obvious to the casual observer' stuff that doesn't require testing for one to think that it was molten steel. was it molten aluminum because there was a lot of aluminum on the exterior of building? Well these molten steel pools were found in the interior of the pile. and aluminum will look different than steel.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The sad part is that there is no scientific data available on the air contaminants at the 9-11 WTC. BAC screwed up by addressing the topic, but the long-lasting thermal signature poses as much a mystery as the two missing 9-11 aircraft. Those are two answers that I don't have.
well I wish you luck over at Log Cabin Club's discussion forum. If you like hanging out with Ralphie & Muscle Butt & Long-Joe or whatever his name is, and if you have this fantasy fixation for Goldi - well that's your business and I wish you luck. I just want to remind you that I told you the molten steel pools were a smoking gun 4 years ago. and you began to spam me like crazy with all kinds of ridiculous arguments. But you accepted that the molten steel pools were real because we showed you evidence of this. and now you've finally figured out (4 years later) that there couldn't have been any molten steel pools (or aluminum either you idiot) 4 weeks after the event unless a chemical was used to melt the steel and the chemical continually interacted. I know this because of my background in studying engineering at the university as I told you. and I realized this instantly and told everyone that it was a smoking gun. and you took 4 years to figure it out. and now in reaction to finally figuring it out you deny that the molten steel pools exist. That is why you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! I suppose if you want to continue having those exciting dates with Jeff Gannon as you told us, then you have to deny certain realities so that you can fit in politically with those Republican QUEERS! To be a Republican QUEER! is to be a TREASONOUS QUEER! by definition. and if it's your chosen lifestyle, then I say go for it. but how come you don't tell us whether you are the boy or the girl in these dates you have with Jeff Gannon and other Republicans apparently. Sure am glad Trace came on and confirmed this, I knew from the way you talked that you were TREASONOUS QUEER!, but Trace has confirmed it and now everyone knows.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Thank you for the kind words. BAC is a fun kind of guy. He will ignore or deny that another of his posts has been documented as nonsense. He really does not care. When I want to tweak him, I ask him about Jonathan Pollard or the USS Liberty or UN Resolutions that condemned Israel. The protocol his ilk follows does not allow him to respond or engage in argument on those subjects, or any subject that tends to cast Israel or Zionists in a bad light. It is sort of like sprinkling holy water on a vampire. "Be A Chihuahua" answers to some Big Dog who keeps him on a leash. There is a good vision of "Be A Chihuahua" - a little pipsqueak dog barking and making noise, and straining against his leash. His only accomplishment seems to be making noise and chihuahua poop.
Never mind that Jones is a physicist who spent the last 30 years looking at nothing but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Never mind that he's not a chemist or a metallurgist ... i.e., someone qualified to make such a determination. For the record, he didn't do tests that confirmed the material was molten steel (http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html ). And his tests for the presence of thermite/thermate consisted of looking for the compounds associated with thermite/thermate. But guess what? Those compounds existed in the very structure of the WTC towers in large quantities. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to detect them. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to produce a situation where those types of reactions could occur. This fact is carefully examined in the following article by Dr Greening who, unlike Ex-Professor Jones, really is a chemist with metallurgical experience. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf He doesn't rule out the possibility that aluminum related reactions occurred in the WTC rubble. On the contrary, he examines that possibility and finds that it was quite likely to have occurred. And he's not to first to suggest this. As noted in his article, "the idea that molten aluminum-thermite reactions may have been involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers is not new. It was first proposed by S. Ashley in an October 2001 article published in Scientific American. Ashley noted that the aviation fuel fires in the Twin Towers burned sufficiently hot to melt and even ignite the airliners". But Greening's work expands on that possibility, showing that "tinue to burn at high temperatures for weeks on end. As he concluded, "simply put, thermite-induced reactions WERE largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City -- but the fatal damage was NOT from deliberately planted thermite charges." But thermite bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. There is one of the fatal flaws in your thesis. Something else must have provided the heat to keep the steel (if that's what it was) molten throughout that time. What? I'm still waiting for an answer from you. No, I am not. I'm simply saying there's no definitive proof that the molten materials that were seen were steel. And that there are other ways that temperatures high enough to melt steel AND KEEP IT HOT could have been produced without resorting to thermite bombs and time-delayed thermite bombs. I'm saying that someone with the credentials of Dr Greening has a lot more credibility than someone with the credentials of Jones, when it comes to the chemical reactions that took place at the WTC site on 9/11 and thereafter.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact. The fact is that several individuals he quotes in his out of context fashion, have made statements in technical reports and other venues that directly contradict what Bollyn claims they said. You wish to ignore what I posted about that, fine. Ignore it but I'm sure any visitor to 4um who chances upon this thread will grasp the significance of you ignoring the criticisms I leveled about that claim. I'm curious, what is a molten steel BEAM? Didn't 4um's very own Summa Cum Laude just get done telling us that if something is molten it is a liquid? And how did Greg Fuchek learn this? Was he told this? Did he see the steel beams himself? Has he the training to know if it was steel? And perhaps it was. SO WHAT? You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel. Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
A "chemical like thermite"? Oh. So now you are postulating two different types of thermite related bombs in the WTC towers? One to burn quickly and cause the collapse and one to burn slowly over time and keep things hot. Now why would the folks who placed those bombs feel the need for this second type of thermite bomb, RJ? Or couldn't the chemical reactions Dr Greening discussed be the "chemical like thermite" you now see the need for? And if Dr Greening is right, then tell us why we need thermite to explain the molten steel in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That's false. The steel sample that Jones tested came from a "monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York", ACCORDING TO JONES. You can confirm this by going to Jones' own talks on this subject. You like to make up things. Just like that claim of 60 + POOLS of molten steel in the basement of the Towers that you repeated over and over at LP. You made that up, didn't you? You make up the claim about being a Summa Cum Laude too?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I thought he was only supposed to have 10 posts. What is he doing with 15? 15 is too many. He will get obnoxious again.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&search=thermite%20liquid%20nitrogen Youtube - Thermite vs. Liquid Nitrogen Thermite defeats liquid nitrogen. http://www.veronicachapman.com/checktheevidence/Thermite.htm side-by-side demo of molten metal falling from WTC-2, and a Thermite Reaction demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0a6eNw98A Yellow smoke emitted at ground level? Anybody have an explanation for this one? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg discussion in firehouse http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek: Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating. Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail. I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder: 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = - 853.5 kJ/mole. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal! The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated: None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis. Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.) ... Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 °C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite). ... We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 °C -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 °C) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse. ... THERMITE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Types Black or blue iron oxide (Fe3O4), produced by oxidizing iron in an oxygen-rich environment under high heat, is the most commonly used thermite oxidizing agent because it is inexpensive and easily produced. Red iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3, commonly known as rust) can also be used to make thermite and yields a significantly more energetic reaction. Other oxides are occasionally used, such as in manganese thermite and chromium thermite, but only for highly specialized purposes. Both examples use aluminium as the reactive metal. In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum. This is rarely done, however, because the properties of aluminium are ideal for this reaction. It is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2519°C, 4566°F) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[2] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2887 °C and 2582 °C respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1090 °C and 883 °C respectively). Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. Ignition Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature. Often, strips of magnesium metal are used as fuses. Magnesium burns at approximately the temperature at which thermite reacts, around 2500 K (4000 °F or 2204.44 °C). However, this method is notoriously unreliable: Magnesium itself is difficult to ignite, and in windy or wet conditions the strip may be extinguished. Also, magnesium strips do not contain their own source of oxygen so combustion cannot occur unless the magnesium strips are exposed to air. A significant danger of magnesium ignition is the fact that the metal is an excellent conductor of heat; heating one end of the ribbon may cause the other end to transfer enough heat to the thermite to cause premature ignition. Despite these issues, magnesium ignition remains popular amongst amateur thermite users, mainly because of its abundance and the fact that it can be easily obtained. The reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerine is used as an alternative to the magnesium method. When these two substances mix, a spontaneous reaction will begin, slowly increasing the temperature of the mixture until flames are produced. The heat released by the oxidation of glycerine is sufficient to initiate a thermite reaction. However, this method can also be unreliable and the delay between mixing and ignition can vary greatly due to factors such as particle size and ambient temperature. Apart from magnesium ignition, some amateurs also choose to use sparklers to ignite the thermite mixture. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample. However, not all sparklers work. Sparklers used for the ignition of thermite must contain a mixture of aluminium and an iron oxide themselves. This ensures that the reaction from the sparkler produces enough heat to ignite the thermite mixture. A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered Fe(III) oxide and aluminum may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.
Yes, you have a habit of concentrating on the irrelevant and making believe you are asserting some relevant point rather than BeAChihuahua poop. As is typical of your DISHONEST crap, you stopped quoting just before the quote destroyed the non-point you wished to make. In BeAChihuahua #42, You very selectively quoted as follows: Let us examine a more complete quote of what I posted at #33: Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. While those that I quoted noted what Christopher Bollyn had reported, those that I quoted, had you continued to the sentence after where you deliberately stopped quoting, rendered their opinion that the American Free Press report of Christopher Bollyn was suspect for two reasons, and then they provided those reasons. You may address Christopher Bollyn all you want. I did not quote Christopher Bollyn, and those I did quote rendered their opinion that the Bollyn report was suspect and used a source of doubtful credibility. Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
BeAChihuahua, how would you extinguish a thermite reaction that has a supply of fuel to burn? It does not need a supply of oxygen. It is impervious to water. Forget cold water, it can boil liquid nitrogen. A thermite reaction burns extremely hot. What method would you use to stop it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air.
Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat? While you are ever creative, I did not proffer any theory of what collapsed the towers. I have proffered the immutable truth that BAC is full of crap. Perhaps the molten steel at the WTC was not steel at all. Perhaps the building was secretly constructed of kryptonite and it was really molten kryptonite. What we can readily discount is the BAC bullcrap that it could have been aluminum, perhaps from a jetliner. The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel, your theory about forces unknown to any man other than Fox Mulder will only ignite a dim bulb such as yourself.
Who is the author of this? Ex-Professor Jones, SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE PHYSICIST? ROTFLOL! Except that NONE of the examples that follow that statement actually refer to molten metal IN THE BASEMENTS. I notice you didn't even try to tell me what continuing source of heat kept this molten steel in a molten state for SIX WEEKS after the collapse of the towers? Why not? Why do you completely ignore what Dr Greening (a real chemist and metallurgist) has to say? Or do you really think that it was so well insulated that it just retained the heat that it initially got from the thermite bombs? Is that your *theory*?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Listen-up, BAC, you asshole - You're apparently in league with the super-extended temperatures; so what would cause them, besides something on the order of controlled demolition - call it sabotage? Thermite? Thermate? Micro-nukes? What's your take, BAC? Well ....? You're endorsing the controlled WTC demolition, whether you like it, or not. (Bad to use the 'cheerleader' image on Christine, by the way. Coupled with your persistent refusal to capitalize her name, you're losing a lot of points.
Glad to hear you think Bollyn is not credible. Red Jones and others will be disappointed. Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site. Which reduces the rest of your post to wasted effort. What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
There's the rub, BAC. The required temperature would disintigrate anything near it. What could be so hot that any form of 'normal' temperature loss would be so slow. That defies anyone's imagination. Especially with so many millions of gallons of water being poured onto the site. My temptation is to discount the reported temperatures, but I keep seeing evidence that the temperature reports are correct. I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks. In any case, the issues totally destroy your assertions that anything expected could possibly do the damage to the WTC buildings. That takes us back to the Bush Cabal players and the Mossad. Well .....? Give us a clue, BAC - you're hooked-up.
And you don't pimp yourself out to pro-Israeli boiler-room operations either?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
wikipedia? ROTFLOL! Don't you find it odd that not one REAL expert in metals or chemistry or fire or structures or demolition has come forward to echo that claim ... which Ex-Professor Jones (sub-atomic particle physicist) makes? So let's examine that claim by quoting some former members of the 9/11 truth movement. ********** http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues, "…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])." We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature. At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it. Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained. If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C? Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature) Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a). Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures. Note that the emissivity of Aluminum increases with temperature. **************** And how about this? Ex-Professor Jones claims that "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." But that isn't true. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is very clearly silver ... NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying. Maybe Reynolds and Woods are finally right about something. ROTFLOL! But it does get consumed. So unless you are postulating (like Red Jones) a form of thermite that burns for a long time (weeks), you have a problem. You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. And again, you don't seem to grasp that I'm not arguing against a thermite reaction in the rubble pile. After all, I'm the one posting Dr Greening's work and he says that thermite type reactions played a role in what happened on 9/11. He just shows that the source of the chemicals needed for that reaction is a lot more mundane than the thermite bombs you postulate. But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site. Now it's your turn. Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You believe SKYDRIFTER, don't you nolu? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Did you have a part in killing this guy? Life is short, eternity isn't. ~ God
God is always good! How well aquainted are you with Achmed Chalabi?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Soft? Heck the video evidence is the best evidence out there that the government did 9/11. Citing people who don't believe the WTC towers were struck by planes doesn't help your credibility chooser. Oh, I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with knocking of 9/11 truthers, you are just a keyboard warrior.
God is always good! WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long. The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did. If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction? What chemical extinguishes a thermite reaction?
You believe SKYDRIFTER, don't you nolu? ROTFLOL! The thermite reaction will continue as long as it has fuel. WHO tested it on a mountain of steel? ROTFLOLPIMP!!!
Ah yes, Dr. Greening. BAC's hero of the moment. Dr. Greening says, When challenged by Dr. Jones about Tower #7, he retreats: If WTC-7 does not conform to the Greening theory, ignore it and enlist BAC to pimp the theory anyway. Dr. Greening made a proposal: Gee, look what happened when Dr. Jones put it to the test: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc Experiments with Molten Aluminum By Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch In a treatise entitled “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster,” Frank Greening raises an intriguing hypothesis: “Based on these findings it is proposed that the formation of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers just before their collapse, accounts for most of the startling and controversial observations that accompanied the spectacular destruction of these massive structures. It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete.” [1] I noted to Greening that this explanation would not apply to the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7, since it was not hit by an airplane, and in he agreed: In reference to my further skepticism that melted aluminum could cause global failure and symmetrical collapse of the Towers, as well as the speed of the collapses, Greening replied: Accordingly, an experienced welder along with students and I conducted such tests on a small scale at BYU, on February 16, 2006. We performed two tests involving approximately 500 g of aluminum alloy 6061 in each test. This alloy is composed of 97.9% Al, 0.6% Si, 0.28% Cu, 1.0% Mg and 0.2% Cr [2] and has a melting point of about 600 C. The aluminum alloy was melted in a steel pan using an oxyacetylene torch. The pan reached red-hot temperatures (about 600 C) during the melting process. We noted that the aluminum retained its silvery appearance throughout the melting process and final heating. Temperatures were monitored with an infrared probe. TEST 1, Molten Aluminum on rusty steel In this test, we explored Greening’s hypothesis that molten aluminum alloy would initiate violent thermite reactions when poured onto rusty steel: Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos). Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen “violent thermite” reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions. [IMAGE] We observed that no obvious heat-releasing reactions occurred. There were no explosions whatsoever. No “globules of molten metal” were dispersed. No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling. When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction. However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all. There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models. This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings. TEST 2, Molten Aluminum on concrete Greening also predicted that molten aluminum impinging on concrete would initiate violent reactions: So we poured molten aluminum onto a concrete cinder block to see whether “explosive reactions” would in fact ensue. They did not. In this case, we formed two “puddles” of molten aluminum, one directly onto the concrete, and the other onto concrete, acrylic plastic, and a piece of aluminum foil which held a fair amount of iron rust extracted from a very rusty iron ball. In both cases, the molten aluminum sat on the surfaces with no “explosive reactions” whatsoever. Instead, the aluminum cooled steadily, suggesting no exothermal chemical reactions were competing with radiative and conductive cooling. [IMAGE] Some water was present in the concrete, which clearly formed steam and then a distinct bubble under the aluminum melt. The rectangular piece of plastic also released gases which formed a separate bubble under the aluminum melt poured over the plastic. The rust was embedded in the aluminum melt (the aluminum foil melted) without showing any “explosive” reaction at all. When the aluminum was removed from the concrete surfaces, we observed a dark pattern on the surface (not deeply etched into the concrete) where the aluminum had been, so there may have been some surface reactions with the concrete. The rectangular piece of plastic left an image which shows where the aluminum did not contact the concrete (photo above). TEST 3, Molten Aluminum on crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic, on rusty iron Crushed gypsum (from drywall) mixed with crushed concrete and plastic pieces and placed on a very rusty steel channel thrown in to cover all the bases -- trying to reproduced conditions as might be found in the WTC. (Greening’s idea is that molten aluminum from a plane might hit these materials and lead to violent reactions, culminating in Tower Collapses.) The experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions. The molten aluminum flowed around the materials with no obvious reactions at all, and solidified. TEST 4, Molten Aluminum on water-slurry of crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic on rusty iron The mix described in test 3 was repeated, this time mixed as a slurry in water. Greening suggested that molten aluminum plus water might generate hydrogen, perhaps to get reactions started. And there could have been water in the WTC. Again, the experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions, except that some steam was generated. No flame or strongly exothermic reaction was detectable in any of these tests. Conclusions These experiments do not support the assertion of Greening that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have attacked the enormous steel columns (47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns) sufficiently to cause total collapse of these skyscrapers, even in the presence of crushed gypsum, concrete and plastic, with or without water. We also conclude that pre-planted thermate (sulfur added to iron oxide and aluminum powder) is much more likely to have cut through steel-core columns in the Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 than aluminum melted from the planes and contacting the columns at random places, if at all. The cutting effect of thermite derivatives is well-substantiated and rather routinely used. [3] The use of thermate or thermite would explain the enormous pools of molten metal observed pouring down the rubble immediately following the collapses, and then forming in pools beneath the rubble piles of both Towers AND WTC 7 (where no aluminum-frame plane hit). The use of thermate would also account for the significant sulfidation attack structural members at WTC7 and the Towers. [4] These issues are all treated in a previous paper. [3] The collapse of WTC 7, the molten metal beneath the WTC 7 rubble pile, and the observed sulfidation of structural steel from WTC 7 and the Towers’ rubble piles are very important facts not treated or explained by Greening in his treatise [1]. Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large “drops” from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse. (See http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm.) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction. (See http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.) References 1. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf 3. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html 4. Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, "Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:18 (2001), and FEMA WTC report, Appendix C. Draft 2.0
BAC has opened a can of worms. Now, he's splitting hairs; trying to evade the obvious fact that something is far too 'un-natural' to conform to the official lies, concerning 9-11. In the Army and National Guard, we got to play with ordnance on different occasions - including thermite grenades. In civilian life, I flew for the BLM in Alaska, doing aviation forest/tundra fire fighting operations. One of my assignments was to fly a Cessna 206 with military grenade dropping racks. (Probably originally intended to drop tear-gas grenades) These were used to drop thermite grenades, for the purpose of setting back-fires. I've spent a fair amount of time playing with thermite, whether BAC approves or not. {Drop dead, BAC!}
More DISHONEST BAC BULLCRAP Dr. Jones was NOT testing for colors in daylight. Dr. Jones was explicitly testing for the reaction when molten aluminum came in contact with rusty steel. Dr. Greening had opined about it starting a violent thermite reaction. It didn't. It would no more start a violent thermite reaction in sunlight than in the dark. Speaking of said image, Dr. Jones wrote: [IMAGE] We observed that no obvious heat-releasing reactions occurred. There were no explosions whatsoever. No “globules of molten metal” were dispersed. No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling. When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction. However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all. There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models. This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings.
That's about 1020 degrees F. So, pour that melted alumimum over steel and you have a heat-sink, which will cool the aluminum very rapidly. There will be no 2,700 plus degrees, necessary to collapse the buildings at essentially free-fall rates. That requires explosives - evidenced by video and sound recordings; add the witnesses. {BAC, when you find yourself in a hole; quit digging!}
Another military use in in communications centers as an emergency measure to destroy sensitive equipment.
Thermite is some damned fine stuff, if you need to destroy. Cannon barrels, radios, engines, boat hulls, or burn through armor, from above. Good for clearing the oxygen out of caves & tunnels, also. I always hated the 'instant' ignition of the thermite grenades, however. You should have at least three seconds to get away.
Oh Lord, is BAC stupid or what??? Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than 1500°C. If it melted high up in a WTC fire, it would not hang around to reach 1500°C, it would flow away. It would not reach 1500°C until put into the blast furnace of BAC's hot air. ... Unless, perhaps, it was very rapidly heated by a pure hydrogen bomb... (I did not say that happened.)
That theory appears to be a desperate grope to explain away the presence of sulphur and molten metal and an apparent thermite reaction. Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed. I do not find the government story compelling. I do not find the Warren Report compelling, but I do not know who killed JFK either. Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction. The firemen discussing the tower collapse in the below mpg (about 30 sec) opine about a demolition job with timed charges chasing after them. http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it! BAC, are you the one who carried it across the bridge from Brooklyn? ... 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges. For BAC: I said it was interesting. I did not say it was a new book of the bible. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000-fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.
The "thermite reaction" requires a particular 'mixture' of materials, along with a high temperature ignition source. That's a long way from a "contact" reaction. The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!) Ordinarily, 'thermite' operates in concert with gravity. You might be able to lose a couple of floor panels, but you couldn't trigger the abrupt collapse of the 47 vertical core columns. I'm still puzzled at the high temperature thresholds; those are tough to account for. I'll have to take a look at the 'micro' device proposition. I was schooled (basics) on fission weapons, but not 'hydrogen' or fusion weapons. There could be something there. Ordinarily, one would think in terms of massive concussion and fallout, but, what if ..... There was definitely something exotic in the building. Ordinarily, I'd guess thermite and cutting charges. Those long-term and high temperatures don't jive with the 'ordinary.'
You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. * * * But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site. Now it's your turn. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/19/fire_wtc011219.html Last Updated: Thursday, December 20, 2001 | 7:41 AM ET CBC News The fires at the World Trade Center are finally out. More than three months since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 knocked down the twin towers, the fires have been extinguished. "We consider the fire to be out," said New York Fire Department spokesman Robert Calise. Small pockets might still be burning, he added. A firetruck is on standby at the site. The fires that have sent acrid clouds of smoke into the New York atmosphere were fueled by documents and office furniture. Workers clearing debris would often cause flare-ups as smouldering debris was exposed to the air. Firetrucks have sprayed a nearly constant jet of water at the site, and the fires have sometimes slowed down work at the site.
Actually, from the BAC source, the implication seems to be that molten aluminum from the kerosene fire hit steel and caused numerous violent contact thermite reactions. Dr. Greening said, “I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.” Still... Rubbish. In the experiment they melted aluminum and poured it onto steel with rust and various other materials. No thermite reaction occurred. I lack the basic knowledge to evaluate the possibility, or lack thereof, of some sort of small hydrogen fusion device. The idea of a device that could (possibly) generate an extreme blast of heat up the core is interesting. The linked site provides some interesting images.
Thermite is a mixture, by weight, consisting of 8 parts of iron oxide to 3 parts of aluminum. (That would be approximately half and half by volume.) How much thermite was available sort of depends on the supply of aluminum and rust, mixed in the right proportions, that was at the site of the WTC. For BAC: to mix them properly, they would sort of have to be in powder form. You cannot just throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum. Well, being BAC, you might throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum, but you would not produce much thermite that way. Then again, maybe that Finnish guy is on to something: Maybe Bush was right. When they attacked the USS Liberty, we didn't fight them there and they followed us here. BAC, thanks for showing us the light and the way!
[BAC] Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C Again. How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). How do you KNOW that is aluminum or that it is 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat.... How do you KNOW that is aluminum or tungsten? Did you TEST it? Was the aluminum at the WTC 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? Did you certify that the aluminum and the tungsten came from the rubble of the WTC?
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones. 160 were areas mapped and 170 areas examined. NIST called the samples adequate. NIST also used conventional microscopic fractographic metallographic studies of coarsening of carbide phases of thermal excursions. No spheoidization was observed. No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F. Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I guess you weren't paying attention to the news back then. ********** http://pyrocooltech.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=48 ... snip ... The level of destruction, which covers an area of approximately seventeen acres, cannot be accurately described; it must be seen to be fully comprehended. Each floor of the World Trade Center towers comprised an area of one acre. All two hundred and twenty floors are now compressed into an angulated mass of twisted and charred 30 ton I beams. It was beneath these enormous debris piles, and particularly in the sub levels beneath the towers, that the fires continued to burn. As debris removal continued, thermal-imaging scans taken by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) helicopters revealed numerous super-heated areas below the debris piles. FDNY Incident Command grew increasingly concerned that several of these hot-spot areas were spreading and that they posed an imminent danger to several large Freon tanks that lay buried beneath hundreds of feet of smoldering debris. Hoping to extinguish, or at least to slow the spread of these super-heated areas, FDNY Incident Command turned to a multi purpose fire extinguishment and cooling foam, PYROCOOL FEF, which had been used successfully by, FDNY HAZMAT 1 to extinguish several difficult fires in New York City. PYROCOOL, which is mixed with water at 0.4%, drains rapidly and is extremely absorptive, characteristics that would be essential in extinguishing such deep-seated fires. On the morning of September 30, two thousand gallons of PYROCOOL FEF was delivered to the Liberty Sector Command Post at Liberty and West Streets, adjacent to the West side of what was the North Tower. Staging operations were coordinated by WTC Incident Command and FDNY Research and Development (R&D) that would apply PYROCOOL to two areas of immediate concern - the debris field on the West side of the North Tower and the backside of the debris field of the Federal Building (No. Seven). For the Building Seven operation, a 75-foot ladder tower (Truck Company 133-Brooklyn) was utilized, together with a 500 GPM Akron eductor. Foam was applied, at approximately 500 GPM, for two hours to the middle section of Building Seven, after which a portable infrared camera revealed that the area had been fully extinguished. In fact, no hot spots were found in the area where PYROCOOL had been applied. The North Tower fire operation proved to be logistically more complex, in as much as it had to be conducted so as not to hinder ongoing rescue efforts. An Akron Appolo 500 GPM multiversal was placed 150 feet up onto the debris field with the water stream directed into a void area nearby. Immediately, an enormous column of vapor began pouring from numerous areas throughout the debris field. This was a clear indication that PYROCOOL was draining deep into the debris pile and was reaching the seat of the fire. Lt. Mike Stein and Lt. Larry Monachelli of FDNY R&D coordinated the foam application with assistance from Mike Hagar, Chief of Fire Operations for Pyrocool Technologies, Inc. "It was obvious when we applied the PYROCOOL, that we achieved a rapid reduction in the temperature of the exposed steel, observed Lt. Stein. The application of PYROCOOL continued throughout the week at various locations, including the front section of the Federal Building and a lengthy attack on the debris pile at the South Tower which lasted over twenty-four hours. At the conclusion of the operation Deputy Chief Charles R. Blaich, Incident Command Chief of Logistics, noted, after viewing the latest thermal images, "where the PYROCOOL was applied the fires went out." The success of the PYROCOOL fire operation was due, in large measure, to the professionalism of FDNY WTC Incident Command and to FDNY personnel on site, who directed the operations with dignity and efficiency under the most demanding circumstances. Photographs from Ground Zero Robert E. Tinsley, Jr. *********** Because they had to dig their way through a mountain of rubble and until near the end all they used was water. I didn't say it wasn't a thermite TYPE reaction. In fact that's exactly what Dr Greening says it was. But the materials that made that reaction go didn't need to come from bombs because they were already present in large quantities in the rubble. You really should read Dr Greening's papers.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What do you mean by "fuel"? It is the thermite which burns. When it is gone, the reaction is over. So again, if thermite bombs brought down the WTC towers, what kept the molten steel in a molten state for more than 6 weeks?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Greening was only trying to explain why the towers collapsed. WTC 7 did not collapse for the same reason as the WTC towers. WTC 7 collapsed because debris from the collapsing towers damaged the building and started fires that burned without fire suppression for about 7 hours. But Jones didn't put it to the test. In the first two experiments all he did was drip molten aluminum onto a steel beam and concrete block. Here was Greening's response to Jones regarding those two tests: ************** From his http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf paper: "In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduced conditions in the WTC fires and would thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area ... snip ... 67 m^^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. **************** In the third test Jones claims to have crushed materials and dripped molten aluminum on them. But how finely did he crush them. He doesn't say. And he doesn't show you a photo of this test. And did he preheat the materials? He doesn't say. And I rather doubt it. In test four, Jones claims he dripped molten aluminum on a watery slurry of gypsum, concrete and plastic. Again, there are no details regarding how finely the material was crushed. There are not details to indicate how much water was actually used. And again there are no pictures of this test setup. Slurry can mean almost anything. Jones is not acting very "scientific". The reality is that he probably didn't recreate the environment well enough to do a valid test. Because he doesn't really understand what Dr Greening is talking about (after all, he's a sub-atomic particle physicist, not a chemist with metallurgical experience). And because he is a biased researcher hoping to create a test with a specific outcome. That's been his pattern all along since he first began concocting these tests. First of all, if you look at the video I provided earlier http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see that Jones is incorrect in claiming that the material that fell from the towers was yellow or yellow white. It had more of an orange tint to it. And indeed, in other articles he has stated "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery.") Furthermore, numerous times in that video I provided one can see that the stream is in fact SILVER colored. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. And you know something else that Jones claims? In http://www.reopen911.org/BYU.htm he claims "We also recall that this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (see the last photograph, above). This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum." Again, that video I posted above proves he's a LIAR. That silver color shows up well within 150 meters of where it started falling. But at least he got the color correct. And why is the color difference between reddish orange and yellow-white important? Maybe this will give you a clue (and it probably is something Jones learned long after he'd made his initial claims that the color was orange. ******** http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html Thomas Eagar wrote: "Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such "glory"." ***************** Jones is a LIAR whose story is changing over time. Furthermore, as Woods and Reynolds pointed out, the color is determined by the temperature, not the material. Just ignoring the data provided by Woods and Reynolds to support their assertion (which is what you did) is not a convincing response to it. And now I wonder if you will just ignore these additional examples of Jones' dishonesty. In his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Building Collapse?" paper he states "Moreover, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html ." He is lying. Go to that source and you won't find one eyewitness claiming there were "pools" of molten metal. Not one. Here is another example that I found here: http://debunking911.com/jones.htm . This is a really good one so pay attention. Jones uses the following graphic in his presentations: He wants folks to think that is a hunk of solidified molten metal from one of those bogus "pools". But here's another photo of the same debris ... along with the caption that originally accompanied it: Jone is LIAR. That's not the slag from molten steel. And here's a closeup of the paper in that debris showing the paper with legible type: Jones LIED in claiming that object was slag from a molten pool of steel. And you are a fool if you take anything he claims at face value. And as http://debunking911.com/jones.htm concluded: "This is also an indictment against the other 77 scholars who continue to follow a leader who has shown such a lack of respect for truth. They also seem to have little use for proper research. They should have uncovered Jones' blatant errors in his work. I can excuse the average internet blogger but not people who make it a point to parade the word "scholar" around as if they know more than the rest. That's just shameful in my view."
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Flow where? Perhaps structural elements had to deform (like floors sagging) before pools of aluminum could escape the confines of the structure. And by the way, I never claimed the aluminum was as 1500C.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
someone wants to fight you. I say go for it!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The presence of sulphur at the WTC site is no mystery. Again, we need only listen to a REAL chemist rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist to see why. http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Lame. We all know why you are defending Jones and the thermite bomb theory. When it comes to why the WTC structures collapsed and what did the damage at the Pentagon, it is not just "the government story". The fact is that almost without exception, structural engineers, material experts, demolition experts, experts in fire, seismologists and macro-world physicists around the world do not dispute the scenario laid out by NIST. That isn't to say there aren't good questions about other aspects of "the government story" regarding 9/11 but you will never get answers to those good questions if you persist in promoting the theories of KOOKS regarding the collapse of the WTC structures and the damage at the Pentagon. And how do you know that PYROCOOL FEF won't do that? And second, the reactions taking place in the structure and rubble, according to Dr Greening, were thermite-LIKE. So how do you know they would be as difficult to extinguish? Third, we don't know for a fact that the fires were due to thermite. It's only a theory. It's a well know fact that underground fires can get very hot and are very hard to put out. The bottom line is that you don't have a single expert in fire in your camp. NOT ONE. Wonder why ... ROTFLOL! Trying to muddy the waters even further?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Yes, it would appear you are trying to muddy the water. You will only discredit efforts to find the answers to the legitimate questions surrounding 9/11. What a shame.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
So tell us, Nolu, since you don't believe in Greening's thermite theory and the nuke theory is obvious nonsense, how do you explain molten steel (assuming that is what it was) 100 days after the collapse of the towers? If it wasn't just ordinary physics and fires that did it, what did? Because it certainly wasn't the thermite bombs which Jones insists brought down the WTC towers. Why are you ignoring this critical question? Because I ignored your USS Liberty red herring? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Let me see if I am reading all of this straight: 1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work. 2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work. 3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion, we make up the notion that thermite was accidentally produced by the INTRODUCTION OF THE AIRLINERS INTO THE TOWERS. The aluminum fuselages are now replacing the jet fuel as the missing ingredient to cause all of this to happen. The aluminum mixed with all the elements comprising the towers and: a. Produced a kind of accidental/homemade thermite. b. Produced enough of that accidental/homemade thermite to bring down BOTH towers. c. Introduction of the oft-used word "coincidence" is all that is missing for this fantastic challenge to laws of probability (BOTH towers got enough of the "magic" thermite?) to work. I don't know why we haven't read it yet. First, any SUGGESTION of thermite is a "kook" suggestion. Then, after Greening, or someone, discovers that there is something missing in order to preserve the official version, THERMITE, as long as it is an "accident," along with coincidence (BOTH towers and BOTH airliners had to produce enough of the "thermite," despite the South Tower losing a large percentage of the jet fuel) to collapse as they did. This surrender to the need for SOMETHING more to be added to the official version, especially thermite, in order to make the official version work, after the suggestion of thermite caused the defenders of the varied official versions over the years to "get the vapors." Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version, as long as it is an "accident," or by-product of the original incident, the planes flying into the buildings. It is another hypothesis, but hypotheses are always enough if they buttress the official version. OTHER hypotheses are automatically false if they produce a contradictory conclusion.
But not from zones where the calculations show the temperatures were the highest. None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C. And note this. The samples they tested indicated peak temperatures that agreed with the temperatures calculated by their fire model in those locations of the towers. The tests actually validated the computer model results. In other locations, those same fire models indicated peak temperatures of more than 1800 F. What Mark can't fathom is that computer modeling is the STATE OF THE ART in determining peak temperatures in fires. And those codes have been validated against numerous actual cases during development.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Who is full of shit? You or NIST? One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire? The shit is so deep at the moment, that I need an extension ladder to see over the top of it.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#2. To: robin (#0)
#3. To: robin (#0)
Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES?
#4. To: Pissed Off Janitor, robin (#3)
#5. To: Paul Revere (#4)
#6. To: robin, RickyJ, Paul Revere, Pissed Off Janitor (#0)
Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved.
#7. To: Destro (#6)
#8. To: robin (#5)
I agree, it points to "who".
#9. To: Paul Revere (#8)
#10. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#4)
IMO, the failure of NORAD to act, coupled with the control of NORAD to shoot down being transferred to Cheney,
#11. To: Paul Revere (#7)
There are only 16% of Americans who believe the president's story on 9-11.
#12. To: robin, RickyJ, ALL (#0)
Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved.
-that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can.
Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years.
For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition.
Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right.
#13. To: Destro, Paul Revere, ALL (#11)
Do you concede that this Rense article is incorrect in this fact and that the govt did not say the jet fuel melted the steel?
#14. To: Destro (#11)
(Edited)
#15. To: robin (#9)
#16. To: BeAChooser (#13)
#17. To: SKYDRIFTER (#10)
What most people miss is that the FAA was the facilitating agency of 9-11. They blocked airport security, controlled the fighters and covered up the reality of 9-11, via non-availability of the radar data and ATC tapes.
#18. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#17)
It wasn't the FAA which kept the fighters from scrambling and engaging. It was Cheney, who was in personal control of NORAD that morning during war games, drills to simulate airplanes being used as missiles to hit the Pentagon and other locations.
#19. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#13)
Except that is not what the government says. What this article is doing is putting forth a strawman. A logical fallacy. All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers. But strength reductions of the steel and sagging of the steel due to high temperatures is the cause.
#20. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
#21. To: SKYDRIFTER (#19)
#22. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
#23. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#20)
And don't forget that FEMA arrived the night before, to be ready for their DRILL in Manhattan on the morning of 9-11, that turned into the WTC attack response effort.
#24. To: SKYDRIFTER (#22)
#25. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#12)
But videos and still photos taken on 9/11 show quite clearly that the towers took about 15 to collapse.
#26. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, TREASONOUS QUEER! (#18)
#27. To: BeAChooser, chrsitine, Zipporah (#12)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#28. To: BeAChooser (#12)
He was not told that firemen on the scene observed the building starting to lean long before the collapse.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#29. To: Red Jones, ALL (#26)
If you add in paper or wood or office furnishings and that only makes it burn less hot.
yet BAC still insists on the fantasy that jet fuel melted steel to liquid form. He accepts that the steel was liquid because honway showed him pictures, but he insists it became liquid because of burning jet fuel.
#30. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#29)
#31. To: BeAChooser (#29)
#32. To: Red Jones (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: BeAChooser, robin, RickyJ (#12)
All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com , [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine , [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org , [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
#34. To: Paul Revere (#14)
I'm referring to the poll taken by
#35. To: Destro (#34)
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim.
#36. To: Paul Revere (#35)
#37. To: Destro (#36)
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
#38. To: Paul Revere (#32)
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;)
#39. To: Trace21231 (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: Trace21231, Paul Revere, BeAChooser (#38)
#41. To: Red Jones, ALL (#31)
Well the molten steel is reality.
#42. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#33)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
#43. To: BeAChooser (#41)
Did any of those claiming they saw molten steel actually test it to be sure?
#44. To: Red Jones, All (#43)
#45. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#41)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#46. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#42)
#47. To: BeAChooser (#42)
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#42)
According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel?
#49. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#44)
They deserve each other.
#50. To: Red Jones (#48)
#51. To: ... (#47)
It's not an animal, it's a dog!!
#52. To: christine (#51)
#53. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Trace21231, ..., christine (#42)
Corroborating Reports
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding . [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the , the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
#54. To: Red Jones (#49)
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
#55. To: nolu_chan (#53)
#56. To: christine (#55)
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#58. To: Red Jones, ALL (#43)
did they have it tested? you are an idiot. You don't have to test such a thing. You just have to look at 2 things - the color and the state of plasticity or liquidity. If it is orange or red, then it is near molten and far hotter than any jet fuel can get it. and if it is liquid it is actually molten which is an amazing thing.
You ask 'what continuing source of heat kept this steel in molten state for weeks'. I have been telling you for 4 years that the only possible thing that could've done that is thermite or thermate or some other chemical related bomb.
You are an idiot BAC.
#59. To: SKYDRIFTER (#45)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#60. To: BeAChooser (#58)
#61. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#59)
#62. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#58)
#63. To: christine (#55)
#64. To: Red Jones, ALL (#48)
Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it.
I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical.
And you are now saying that there was no molten steel
#65. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#53)
According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press.
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
#66. To: christine, nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#55)
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
#67. To: Red Jones, ALL (#59)
"What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11? "
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state.
#68. To: Red Jones, ALL (#60)
the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker.
#69. To: Christine (#66)
(Edited)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#70. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Red Jones (#65)
'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; emphasis added.)
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#65)
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact.
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
#72. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Red Jones (#66)
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
#73. To: BeAChooser (#65)
You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
#74. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#70)
http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example,
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.
#75. To: beachooser, Christine, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#66)
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
#76. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#71)
Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
#77. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#76)
What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
#78. To: BeAChooser (#76)
Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site
#79. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#73)
The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite 
Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with. 
Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window. 
Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart 
Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart 
Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. 
Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69] 
Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" 
(a) Water at -10 to 0°C 
Some liquid at 25°C 
Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C 
Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C 
Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C 
Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). 
Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel
#80. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#77)
SKYDRIFTER - I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks.
#81. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Zebuhr
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: BeAChooser (#80)
#83. To: BeAChooser (#79)
He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#84. To: BeAChooser (#79)
But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#80)
SKYDRIFTER - I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks.
#86. To: BeAChooser (#79)
After all, I'm the one posting Dr Greening's work and he says that thermite type reactions played a role in what happened on 9/11. He just shows that the source of the chemicals needed for that reaction is a lot more mundane than the thermite bombs you postulate.
It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete.”
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
“Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 ?C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse…
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
“At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2. ?The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also falls onto concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires. The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.” [1]
“As previously noted, the combination of water and metal oxide bonding in concrete makes this material very susceptible to explosive reactions in the molten aluminum.” [1]
#87. To: nolu_chan, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#84)
#88. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?"
Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos). Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen “violent thermite” reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions.
#89. To: nolu_chan, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#86)
" ..... to about 548 C for alloy 2024. "
#90. To: SKYDRIFTER (#87)
In the Army and National Guard, we got to play with ordnance on different occasions - including thermite grenades.
#91. To: nolu_chan (#90)
#92. To: BeAChooser (#79)
There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower ....
#93. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
So, pour that melted alumimum over steel and you have a heat-sink, which will cool the aluminum very rapidly. There will be no 2,700 plus degrees, necessary to collapse the buildings at essentially free-fall rates.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions.
#95. To: nolu_chan (#93)
#96. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
More than three months later, fires extinguished at WTC
I suppose water is a chemical agent. However, after three months, pockets might have been still burning.
#97. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)
The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!)
#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones (#79)
But it does get consumed. So unless you are postulating (like Red Jones) a form of thermite that burns for a long time (weeks), you have a problem.
12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#79)
#100. To: nolu_chan (#99)
#101. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#84)
"But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site."
WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long.
President & CEO
PYROCOOL TECHNOLOGIES
MONROE, VIRGINIA U.S.A.
(434) 929-3352 The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did.
If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction?
#102. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#85)
The thermite reaction will continue as long as it has fuel.
#103. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#86)
When challenged by Dr. Jones about Tower #7, he retreats:
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
Dr. Greening made a proposal:
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
Gee, look what happened when Dr. Jones put it to the test:
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large “drops” from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse. (See http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#104. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#92)
Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than 1500°C. If it melted high up in a WTC fire, it would not hang around to reach 1500°C, it would flow away.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#103)
#106. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#93)
the presence of sulphur
Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed.
I do not find the government story compelling.
Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction.
A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
#107. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it!
#108. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#98)
#109. To: nolu_chan (#98)
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#100)
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones.
No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F.
Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#110)
None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#112. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#113. To: roughrider, nolu_chan, ALL (#109)
No, I didn't say that. I don't see any experts in fire, anywhere in the world, stressing about the high temperatures found in the WTC rubble. Perhaps they think that ordinary fire under those conditions could actually be very hot and hard to put out. Also, I don't see ANY of them suggesting that steel couldn't melt under those conditions. I'm all ears, if you know of any that do dispute that. I'm all ears if you can name any that have actually joined this so-called *truth* movement. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that a thermite like reaction occurred in the rubble or perhaps even in the towers. Dr Greening makes some very good points (and he's not the only chemist who has remarked about that possibility). And Ex-Professor Jones is a demonstrable, serial LIAR. He has NO background in any of this. He's a sub-atomic particle physicist and he should have remained one. No. It's Occam's Razor. IF there were a thermite reaction in the rubble (and we don't really know if there was), and IF the materials that produce thermite are readily available in the rubble (making Jones' claim that they prove the existance of bombs foolish), then the most likely explanation is Dr Greening's, rather than the silly assertion that thermite bombs were placed everywhere throughout the towers. Occam's Razor is not on the side that has to claim no one noticed the placement of all these charges and no one (among the hundreds or thousands who must know the truth) has yet blown the whistle. And I'm still waiting to hear their theory of what kept steel molten in the rubble for 6 weeks because it certainly wasn't thermite bombs that went off on 9/11. But it could be Dr Greening's theory or those ordinary fire physics that none of the fire experts seem to have challenged. Oh no. Are you going to start counting angels on the heads of pins again? Not at all. The NIST scenario does not need thermite to collapse the towers. The only issue is where the molten steel (if that's what it was) in the rubble came from. Was it produced during the collapse, afterwords or both? I don't think it was even necessary for Dr Greening to try and explain the collapse of the towers with his theory. NIST's explanation is fine. The material seen flowing out of ONE of the towers many minutes before it collapsed (say, roughrider ... did they set off those thermite bombs minutes before the collapse and it still took minutes for the towers to collapse?) may or may not be steel. A lot of REAL experts seem to think the material was aluminum. And that has a certain logic since the remains of the airplane's fuselage came to rest in the corner of the tower where the stream of molten material was seen and it was very hot in that corner (according to the fire code models that NIST developed). As to the molten materials in the rubble, they may or may not have been steel. I'm willing to believe some of it was. But so what? We know you can melt steel with wood under certain conditions. NONE of the experts in fire have come forward to say it was impossible that ordinary fires in the rubble (and there were plenty of combustibles and sources of air in the rubble) did that. But if they didn't, then there is still the possibility that a thermite-like reaction took place along the lines postulated by Dr Greening and others. So there is no inconsistency in this view.
1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work.
2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work.
3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion,
Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#114. To: BeAChooser (#113)
There's that shill term again. Why do fairy tale believers always use that term?
No. It's Occam's Razor.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#115. To: Critter, ALL (#111)
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/highlight_WTC2004.htm "Task 5 — Analyze Steel to Estimate Temperature, Just as the nature of the deformation and failure of the recovered steel reveals information about the impact and collapse, the steel can also contain evidence of its exposure to the elevated temperatures in the fire. The situation is made more complex because much of the steel was also exposed to extended fires in the rubble before recovery. Several different methods, both conventional and novel, were examined for estimating high-temperature excursions seen by the steel. Only one method proved to be robust and easy to implement: paint on steels that reached temperatures over 250 °C cracked from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel." And you might also want to take a look at this: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
Who is full of shit? You or NIST?
One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#116. To: All, Itisa1mosttoolate (#112)
You will never get answers to legitimate questions about what really happened to Flight 93 if you discredit yourselves with silly assertions about bombs in the WTC and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon.
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#117. To: roughrider (#109)
Thermite placed in exactly the right positions to bring down the towers symmetrically and at a near free-fall rate.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
So it is NIST that is full fo shit. OK thanks.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#119. To: BeAChooser (#116)
How about expecting aircraft parts at an aircraft crash? Is that to much to ask?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#120. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#121. To: Minerva (#120)
yes, he is a horny, sullen, creepy korean guy with a lot of pent anger and a serious lack of social skills. which is weird, i don't meet many jewish korean guys.
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#122. To: Morgana le Fay (#121)
You never met Won Epstien?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#123. To: Critter (#122)
i know one named sung yu rubinstein.
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#124. To: Critter (#111)
I found a forum index with some of the NIST "experts" replies, concerns, emails and such. The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project. The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#125. To: Kamala, critter, ALL (#124)
Go to http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/ Download the FDS Technical Reference User Guide http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/docs/fds_tech_guide_4.pdf listed on that web page. In the acknowledgments section it states "The Fire Dynamics Simulator has been under development for almost 25 years." In Chapter 2 it states that "Version 1 of FDS was publicly released in February 2000". Chapter 6 is on model validation. It states "FDS was officially released in 2000. However, for two decades various CFD codes using the basic FDS hydrodynamic framework were developed at NIST for different applications and for research. In the mid 1990s, many of these different codes were consolidated into what eventually became FDS. Before FDS, the various models were referred to as LES, NIST-LES, LES3D, IFS (Industrial Fire Simulator), and ALOFT (A Large Outdoor Fire Plume Trajectory)." So Mark is simply wrong about when the software was developed. As to it's accuracy, if you read Chapter 6 you will see there has been a significant and highly successful effort to validate the code both before and since 9/11. They are able to conclude that "for simulations that simply involve mass and heat transport, the model predicts flow velocities and temperatures to an accuracy of 5 % to 20% compared to experimental measurements, depending on the fidelity of the underlying grid." So isn't it ironic that Mark seems to have utter faith in the conclusions of Skilling's "white paper" (which he wrote back in 1964), when they had virtually no tools (and certainly NO computer tools) for evaluating the spread and effects of fire in structures, much less anything else. Deceptive and false again. For example, in the acknowledgments page of the above FDS Technical Reference Guide, it says "Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm laid the theoretical groundwork for the model and devised the basic numerical solvers that are still used in the code today." Well according to his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=baum ), Howard Baum has a BS in Aeronautical Engineering, an MS in Applied Mechanics, and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. He has "research interests in the fluid mechanics of fires, turbulent combustion, convective and radiative heat transfer, smoke transport, and microgravity combustion. He was a Lecturer and then Assistant Professor in the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University from 1964 to 1971. He then spent four years as a Senior Scientist at Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts before joining NIST. Dr. Baum has published over one hundred forty papers and reports. His analysis of ventilation in containership holds is the technical basis of an international standard for containership ventilation. He is the co-developer (with R. Rehm) of what are now known as the low Mach number combustion equations, the starting point for most theoretical and computational work in that field. He has been involved in the development of large eddy simulation models for both building and outdoor fires at NIST since its inception. He also developed the first multiple fire model for urban environments that actually distinguishes individual fires. Dr. Baum has served on National Research Council Panels convened by the Naval Studies Board in 1986 and 1991 to consider Office of Naval Research Opportunities in Solid and Fluid Mechanics, and a Panel in 1987 to consider the Status of Nuclear Winter Research. He was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 1991 Japan-U.S. Heat Transfer Joint Seminar, and an invited participant in the 1994 U.S. Japan Seminar "Modeling in Combustion Science" sponsored by the National Science foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He was an invited lecturer at the SIAM Sixth International Conference on Numerical Combustion in 1996, at the 50th anniversary symposium of the National Research Insitute of Fire and Disaster in Japan in 1998, and at the Emmons Memorial Symposium in San Antonio in 2000. He was also a member of the U.S. Panel of the UJNR Panel on Fire Research and Safety at the 13th meeting in 1996, the 14th meeting in 1998, and the 15th meeting in 2000. He was a Senior Visitor at the University of Minnesota Insitute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) in 1999 and organizer of the IMA Fire Modeling Workshop. He is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journals Combustion and Flame and Combustion Theory and Modeling. Dr. Baum has been the recipient of many honors and awards. They include the U.S. Department of Commerce Silver Medal Award in 1981 and a Gold Medal Award in 1985. He was named Russell Severance Springer Visiting Professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1985. He was awarded a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship in 1994 for a visit to the University of Tokyo Insitute of Industrial Science. He received the Medal of Excellence from the International Association for Fire Safety Science in 1991 and 1999. He was awarded the 1999 Arthur B. Guise Medal of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. He was elected a Fellow and Chartered Physicist of the Insitute of Physics in 1999. Dr. Baum was elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 2000. His biography is listed in American Men and Women of Science, and Who's Who in America." He really is an expert on fire ... contrary to what Mark would have you believe. He co-developer, Ronald Rehm, has a profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=rehm ) that indicates he has a BS in Engineering Sciences and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. His resume would suggest he's quite good at computational mathematics (he's published over 80 papers, for one thing). That is expertise one actually needs to develop good simulation tools. Contrary to what Mark would have you believe. And that's just for starters. Kevin McGrattan, another mathematician, is mentioned as adding features needed to make the model accessible to practicing fire protection engineers, and he remains the custodian of the FDS source code. It is noted in his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=mcgrattan ) that he developed LES (Large Eddy Simulation) models of smoke movement in enclosures of various geometries and in the atmosphere, as well fire models for other situations. That certainly seems applicable experience. Glenn Forney is identified as having developed the visualization tool Smokeview that not only made the public release possible, but it also serves as the principal diagnostic tool for the continuing development of FDS. Yes, he's another mathematician. But so what? Maybe that qualifies him to actually be a good computer programmer? The acknowledgments says Kuldeep Prasad added the multipleblock feature of the model, paving the way for parallel processing. According to his profile Dr Prasad has a BT in Aeronautical Engineering and a PhD in Aerospace Engineering. His profile says his doctoral thesis was done under the direction of Profs. Edward Price, Warren Strahle and Ben Zinn, was entitled “Numerical Simulation of Chemically Reacting Fluid Flows Through Two-Dimensional Burners”. Dr. Prasad did post-doctoral research at Yale University with Prof. Mitch Smooke, where he designed a comprehensive multi-layered combustion model for studying the burning rates of solid rocket propellants." "At NRL, he developed models for studying liquid methanol pool fires and performed numerical simulations to optimize water-mist injection characteristics for maximum flame suppression. He also developed a domain decomposition technique based on the multiblock Chimera approach to solve the unsteady compressible Navier Stokes equations inside a large fire compartment. Computations for a 1310 kW fire in a multi-compartment geometry that replicates the ex-USS Shadwell were performed." He has over ten publications in refereed journals. And that's before he even got to NIST. "His research interests include numerical simulation of chemically reacting fluid flows with detailed finite rate kinetics, mathematical and numerical modeling of various physical and chemical processes and large scale computing using DNS or LES models. His areas of expertise include scalable computing on massively parallel architectures, distributed computing, OpenMP and SPMD programming as well as visualization and animation techniques." I don't know about you, Mark, but that sounds like an expert who is qualified to develop good fire codes. William (Ruddy) Mell is another person mentioned in just the first paragraph of the acknowledgments page. It says he has developed unique applications of the model in areas of microgravity combustion and wildland fire spread. He doesn't have a profile at NIST but it turns out he was a research assistant professor in the Combustion Research Group at the University of Utah. And whether his experience before joining NIST was directly associated with building fires, at least he had experience in fires ... rather than sub-atomic particles or (in the case of Shillings) just building design. And the last name mentioned in that first paragraph is Charles Bouldin who "devised the basic framework of the parallel version of the code. " Bouldin has BS, MS and PhD in Physics. "Solid state physics, with a specialization in converting computational codes to run on parallel processing systems." This too is a expertise that would be needed to build a efficient fire modeling code. And unlike your ex-professor Jones, he's at least working in the arena of his specialty. By the way, he is the author of over 75 technical publications. And that's just the names mentioned in the first paragraph of the acknowledgments section. There are dozens of other names and I'm willing to bet that Mark has mischaracterized their expertise just as badly as he did this first group. Indeed, a careful reading shows this section of the document is loaded with names of individuals who have experience directly applicable to modeling building fires. Mark is just plain wrong. Again.
The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project.
The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#126. To: BeAChooser (#113)
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated. Simply saying "coincidence" won't cut it.
#127. To: roughrider, ALL (#126)
Strawman. You apparently didn't actually read my last post to you. I'm not advocating Greening's theory about what brought them down. I don't need to because the NIST explanation is more than adequate to explain what was observed before and during the collapse. Which is why not one structural engineer, demolition expert or macro-world physicist anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise. You see, roughrider, they understand the physics involved ... whereas a sub-atomic particle physicist, a theologian, a philosopher, an expert in dental materials, an economist, a janitor, a lawyer, and all the rest of the names leading the *truth* movement do not. I'm only suggesting Greening's theory MIGHT be an explanation for why molten "something" was observed in rubble as much as 6 weeks after the collapse. Equally possible is that an ordinary subterranean fire can explain it (as NOT ONE expert in fire or steel anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise). Still another possibility is that the steel was affected by materials (like sulfer) in the environment either long before the planes hit the buildings or after the collapse while it sat in that hellish mix we call rubble. Form a eutectic mixture in that steel and you lower the melting point which again would allow ordinary fires to produce molten material long after the towers had collapsed. And by the way, the thermite bomb theory does NOT explain that last fact. Like you said, solutions have to answer ALL of the questions and the CT community has been studiously avoiding the question about what source of heat kept the steel molten (assuming it was steel) for more than six weeks after the collapse.
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#128. To: BeAChooser (#113)
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to supply the simplest solution that answers ALL of the questions. Following is a reproduction of the outstanding questions concerning what happened in and around the WTC as a result of the attacks on 9/11/01. ALL of the questions have to be answered under Occam's Razor. Greening only tries to answer (perhaps) two of them: What caused the towers to collapse AND/OR what caused the continuing hot fires and molten metal for a long period of time after the towers collapsed. By employing his "back of the envelope" hypothesis, he explains both events with the introduction--a priori--of "Accidental Thermite," a substance at which you used to scoff at the notion of its presence on 9/11. Interestingly, he suggests that his "Accidental Thermite" might explain the explosions ("Explosive reactions" was HIS term) that numerous firefighters, police, and victim/witnesses testified they heard. So, now there WERE explosions, provided we can posit them within the confines of Greening's hypothesis, as it buttresses the official version--The collapses, continuing heat, and explosions were the result of "Accidental Thermite," the SWAMP GAS and MAGIC BULLET needed to explain all of these events within the confines of the official hypothesis. Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. The hypothesis leaves the following events unaddressed as originally posted by nolu_chan: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000- fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.de bitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC. All of these events require some kind of verifiable explanation. EMP, Tritium, etc., etc. Now, I don't know if there was a backpack hydrogen/fusion device anywhere near those towers, but, if you are going to apply Occam's Razor, I hate to tell you this--Occam's Razor fits this explanation like a glove. It answers every outstanding question and is completely simple. One item, easily concealable and capable of being covertly introduced into one or both towers, was responsible for ALL of it. If Al Qaeda gained access to stolen Soviet backbacks, which is not an unreasonable position given how nukes seemed to be unaccounted for there, you don't even need to blame our government for anything more than concealing the instrumentality of the attack.
#129. To: roughrider (#128)
Excellent. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers. They think that Occam's Razor stands for whatever the official version of something is. Occam's Razor says explosions of intense heat blasted the WTC and brought WTC1 and WTC2 down. Gravity could never explode the buildings like that.
#130. To: Paul Revere, roughrider (#129) (Edited)
i agree. it's a cop out theory. whenever someone posts that i know immediately they are not openminded, usually arrogant, and certainly not interested in learning the truth.
Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#131. To: christine (#130)
Yes, it was logic, not fantasy or desire, that convinced me 9-11 was an operation that had to involve the top levels of government for months. I wish it were not true, and tried to find a way to believe the official story, but there is simply too much out there that makes clear the towers were demolished by our government.
#132. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
There is an occasional use for this tool, but it requires prudent judgment. The Doyle/Holmes philosophy of eliminating the impossible is one of the most dynamic reasoning tools available. Occam's Razor is useful in cleaning up any doubts, afterward. But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used. Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#133. To: SKYDRIFTER (#132)
Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Well said. In practice, Occum's Razor is used to foreclose discussion, to ridicule a theory as not the obvious one. Every criminal framing or false flag operation relies upon Occam's Razor to sate the masses and convince them UP is DOWN. It's like misdirection and magic. Logic is deceived because it sees only what it expects to see.
But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used.
#134. To: roughrider, ALL (#128)
Occam's razor does not apply in the way you claim since the immediate cause of the towers collapsing, the immediate cause of the damage at the pentagon, the failure of the government to prevent those immediate causes from occuring, the failure of the government to punish anyone for incompetence related to 9/11, and the behavior of the government with regards to Flight 93 can be totally separate yet still logically consistent. First, there is no logical reason why the towers could not have collapsed due to ordinary physics that have nothing to do with bombs. In fact, an explanation of the collapse is relatively simple. Here: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm . Which is why NOT ONE structural engineer, demolition expert or macro-level physicist in the world supports the assertion that bombs, energy beams or space aliens did it. The claim that thermite bombs (or bombs or energy weapons of any kind) were necessary to bring down the WTC, that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, or that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage that was done to the Pentagon rests on the shakiest of foundations. There are NO actual experts in subjects relevant to such phenomena who have come forward saying they believe that's what happened. NOT ONE. Anywhere in the world. But there are numerous experts around the world who say the "official" explanations are logical and probably correct based on the evidence and what they know about the relevant technical disciplines. I could make a list of things (just like you did) that the thermite/nuclear/beamweapon explanation (your choice) has to explain and I guarantee you that none of them does ... certainly not in any simple way. You can't explain why NO experts ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD agree with the thermite bomb theory except by either calling thousands of professionals in structures, demolition, materials, seismology and physics incompetent morons or by saying they are part of the largest conspiracy theory every imagined or that they've all been silenced in some manner or by saying none of the them have the slightest conscience and are only interested in money and their jobs. You can't explain why the towers were seen to be deforming (in a manner compatible with NIST's theory) long before the collapse. You can't explain how so many bombs could have been placed in the towers without ANYONE noticing. You can't explain why bombs would be going off for many, many minutes before the actual collapse (if you believe CT accounts). In comparison, the NIST explanation answers all of the above concerns with a relatively simple answer. You can't even answer the question of what kept the molten steel molten for 6 weeks. Whereas, I've offered you THREE different explanations that REAL experts in the relevant subjects advocate and that no REAL experts challenge. And in the case of the Pentagon, the facts (the missing plane and passengers, the size and shape of the entrance hole, the extent and shape of the damage through the structure, the identifiable debris that was found, the damage to the light poles and generator, the testimony of forensic and other professionals who were at the scene, the vast numbers of eyewitnesses that saw a plane like Flight 77 hit the building, the fact that NO expert in structures or demolition says the pentagon was damaged by a bomb or a missile) can not be explained by ANY of the alternate theories that have been proposed ... not missiles, not small aircraft, not bombs. The ONLY simple answer is that Flight 77 did indeed hit the structure and did the damage. THAT is what Occam's Razer really says in this instance. That said, there STILL can be valid questions about certain aspects of 9/11. I've said that all along. The government could have screwed up through incompetence (and thus made it possible for bin Laden's folks to get away with this) AND THEN tried to cover up that screwup to keep members of it from suffering the consequences of their poor performance. There is even the POSSIBLY that someone(s) or some group in the government aided the hijackers efforts (for whatever reason) by ignoring their efforts until it was too late. But that possibility does not require bombs in the towers to bring them down. It doesn't even require that they have wanted the towers brought down. Maybe it was just an accident. I do not discount the possibility that the government shot down Flight 93 and then denied it (for obvious reasons). But none of the above possibilities REQUIRES that bombs brought down the WTC towers or did the damage to the Pentagon. Insisting that it does only makes it harder to get the valid questions taken seriously. Now let's take a look at that list you offered: Give me the name of ONE structural engineer, demolition expert, expert in steel and concrete, macro-world physicist anywhere in the world who says that pulverization of the concrete is impossible under the NIST scenario. Just one. The simple truth is YOU CAN'T. And Occam's Razer suggests a reason. So your *simple* alternative is fusion devices in each of the towers? Is that what your application of Occam's Razer is telling you, roughrider? If so, all I can do is laugh. ROTFLOL! If you want to ensure that hardly a soul in the real world will take you or anything you claim seriously, just continue with this assertion. This is utter nonsense, roughrider. By all means, present us the video evidence supporting this silly claim about "vaporizing" steel. Now even thermite bombs can't do it. It takes NUCLEAR WEAPONS (at least two, since there were two towers that acted the same way but at different times). ROTFLOL! Did you even look at what you posted, roughrider? Right. So you think Occam's Razer tells you that it takes nuclear energy to do that. Hate to tell you, roughrider, but I've linked a calculation several times that shows relatively low air pressure could do it. Here: http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html See the calculation at the very of end of that web page. Air pressure low enough that it could have been generated by the collapse itself. So was there a separate mini-nuke at that location? ROTFLOL! This is bogus. Pools. Ponds. Show me ONE actual credible source that claims having seen that. And provide an explanation of how thermites or energy beams could keep that material molten for more than 6 weeks. Or if a nuclear device is your energy, then provide ANY proof that the hundreds of workers exposed to the debris of the WTC towers are suffering ANY sign of radiation exposure. It didn't vaporize, it toppled as the videos clearly indicate. And just how do they know that was "steel" dust in the air where the spire was, rather than some of the pulverized concrete that created a cloud across half of NYC and coated every surface for miles? There was nothing in the seismograms that seismologists described as "spikes". Nor did the peak oscillations occur at the beginning of the collapse. Lerner-Lam, chief seismologist at the facility that made the recordings, is on record stating that "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." And there is not a single seismologist in the world that supports the bomb/energybeam conspiracy theories. NOT ONE. Maybe they hid the nuke in the press? ROTFLOL! Just so folks know, this claim is derived SOLELY from a comment made by Mike Pecoraro who worked in the north tower basement. He said after the explosion that occurred when the plane hit, he and another worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. He said "There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” Now Occam's Razer (and a certain degree of common sense) says he meant that the explosion had reduced the press to rubble rather than vaporizing or melting it. Exactly. So we have a choice. What kept the metal molten? A nuke. Ordinary fire physics? Naturally occurring chemicals in the rubble that resulted in a thermite-LIKE mixture? Or did the steel get affected so that it melted more easily? Ask yourself, roughrider, which of the above is the SIMPLEST? Which fits the facts the best? So now the media are part of the conspiracy too? ROTFLOL! FALSE http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf states that emergency exit signs, weapons from law enforcement which have tritium sights and were destroyed at WTC , and watches containing tritium could account for the measured amounts of tritium. Looking at this another way, the CT community would have us believe that the tritium from a minimum of two fusion devices would be no more than found in 8 emergency exit signs, less than a 120 law enforcement weapons (because some that were present were recovered intact and relatively undamaged) and the watches occupants wore. Now is that ridiculous or not? ROTFLOL! Funny ... none of the experts in pyroclastic flows have expressed any concern that conditions at the WTC couldn't have produced them ... without bombs or nukes. Again. Not one real expert seems to have problems with what was observed to happen. What does Occam tell you, roughrider? Is the simple answer that they are ALL incompetent, part of the conspiracy, or under death threats to keep quiet? And what if the heat generate was less than a traditional demolition because it wasn't a demolition at all? What if the towers collapse wasn't due to a traditional demolition? And, in point of fact, the height of the rubble pile was completely consistent with the original height of the towers, the fact that the towers were mostly made of air, and the fact that structure debris spread out over an area 3 to 4 times that defined by the outer wall of the towers. Oh ... so now your SIMPLE theory has FUSION BOMBS in the basement of each tower too. How many nukes in all did they use in each tower, roughrider? Prove this. And just how much of the original steel did they recover. Last I heard it was hundreds of thousands of tons. So were these *really small* nukes, roughrider? This is simply false. It's amazing that we didn't see these sun-bright nukes go off that day. Cars but not people? Strange... But only powerlines were affected. Not electrical devices ... which would be the case if it had been EMP. Complete nonsense. By all means, roughrider, provide us a source to prove this silly claim. Bet you don't. Yeah, sure it does, roughrider. What you've just introduced is a red herring ... a diversion meant to distract attention from the real issues. Or are you going to pretend I don't understand what that is either? ROTFLOL!
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to supply the simplest solution that answers ALL of the questions.
1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies.
Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000- fold in the concrete floors.
2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.
This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature.
3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts.
4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges.
5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7).
6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was).
7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings
8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally.
10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days.
11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.
12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible.
13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations.
14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.
15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition.
Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.
18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel.
20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble,
21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.
22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.
23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.de http://bitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse.
I hate to tell you this--Occam's Razor fits this explanation like a glove.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#79)
"Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C" That's not Aluminum.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/40c_lg_molten- lg.jpg
#136. To: nobody (#135)
your link doesnt work.. but here is the pic welcome to 4~!
#137. To: BeAChooser (#79)
No, it glows all the way down, as shown by several videos. "9/11 ABC South Tower Live Collapse Enlarged Video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP6MlrfbCvQ "9/11: Stabilized South Tower Molten Metal" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvaKyxXUS-8 "9/11: South Tower molten metal compilation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM
you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day.
#138. To: Zipporah (#136)
Thank you. Here's another link used by "debunkers": http://www.metalw ebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html It cleverly mixes two photos of molten iron pouring from a non-tilting furnace with pictures of molten aluminum in a tilting furnace.
#139. To: nobody (#137)
hi nobody, welcome. ;)
#140. To: christine (#139) (Edited)
Thanks. An outdoor color temperature chart should be used to estimate the temperature of the molten flow from the tower, since it's in broad daylight. http://www.spacekdet.com/ tutorials/coltemp.html NIST says it's molten aluminum with contents mixed in that make it glow orange as it flows from the tower-top. No-one has duplicated the effect, so we get a lot of miscaptioned pictures of so-called "aluminum" glowing yellow, from "debunkers." No-one has suggested how already-molten aluminum is supposedly contained and heated hundreds of degrees beyond its melting point, to make it glow as it appears in the 9/11 videos.
#141. To: nobody (#138)
ah..!! I see.. thanks for the link..
#142. To: Zipporah (#141)
Glad you could take a look. Steven Jones apparently thinks that due to the presence of an Iron-Sulphur eutectic, the color is made slightly more orange-y than one might normally expect from molten iron or steel. By the way, I think that when color correction is performed on an indoor photo, it generally shifts the relevant chart from an indoor chart to an outdoor chart, removing some red and yellow.
#143. To: nobody (#142)
Hmm could you explain?
#144. To: Zipporah (#143)
Practically all standard photo-processing programs have an "auto-correct" type of feature that takes away the yellowy cast of indoor lighting. Complicating the situation a little more, perhaps, people such as myself will often automatically mentally compensate for indoor lighting to the extent that white looks white again, unless consciously thinking about the lighting, but not for uncompensated indoor photos.
#145. To: nobody (#144)
Oh okay.. thanks for the explanation.. very helpful.
#146. To: Zipporah (#145)
Happy to oblige. I bring it up because the photo you helped me re-post appears to be color-compensated.
#147. To: nobody (#146)
k..that makes sense.. thanks!
#148. To: Zipporah (#147)
Jones has also described the color as "yellow-to-white." So I suppose he sees it as a mixture of iron eutectic and iron. Hopefully he will clarify why his description of the color has varied. Here is apparently a presentation of his from last year: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Molten- Jones7apr06.htm "Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001. [1] (See: http://www.checktheevid ence.com/911/Thermite2.htm ) The fact that this is indeed molten metal was confirmed in official FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports. [2, 3] Could this be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel (due to fires), or molten iron (due to thermite reactions)?"
#149. To: Zipporah (#147)
Here's another outdoor color temperature chart for iron and aluminum (i.e. blackbody-type) thermal glows: 1500 degrees Centigrade (about 1770 K) is about 300 degrees C above the melting point of the aluminum alloy with the highest melting point (about 1200 C, 1500 K). By the chart, that alloy would appear red-orange outdoors when it melts. Nothing available will ever make that alloy (or pure aluminum or iron or steel) glow yellow outdoors without first raising the temperature to about 3000 K.
#150. To: christine (#130)
In this case a fair application of Occam's Razor would be that the buildings were brought down by friction caused by the insurance policy rubbing against the mortgage.
i agree. it's a cop out theory. whenever someone posts that i know immediately they are not openminded, usually arrogant, and certainly not interested in learning the truth.
#151. To: Zipporah (#147) (Edited)
The subjectivity of color perception is evident. On top of that, the typical outdoor-type color temperature chart, like the one I showed, has an entry on it such as "blue sky" at 10,000K. This is something photographers do in applying it, it has nothing to do with thermal blackbody, and does not indicate the chart cannot be applied to making a blackbody-assumed thermal estimate. You can find on the web discussions including: "Example: Molten Iron has a Temperature of around 1500 degrees Celsius and appears reddish-orange." ... which agrees with the chart, and disagrees with Beachooser's charts. Blue color temperatures apply to the surface temperatures of stars: "Surface Temperature. Color. 30000 K. Blue Star "
#152. To: Zipporah (#147)
Beachooser gives us three color temperature charts: I am having serious doubts that Jones used the chart attributed to him by Beachooser, at least not to determine the temperature of the molten metal seen gushing from one of the WTC towers by its color. Note that all these charts indicate that iron should be white-hot at its melting point. A quick google for images of "molten iron" shows that molten iron cannot be considered white-hot at its melting point Here are some color temperature charts that can actually be used to understand the surface-temperature of stars vs. their color, and which agree with a common description of iron being orange or orange-red at its melting point: A comparison of "indoor" and "outdoor" color temperature charts suggests that Beachooser's charts are "indoor" charts, at best. Above the middle of the chart, at the bue end, the chart is apparently only useful to describe blue stars. If anyone looked at something blue-hot up close, the amount of red yellow and green emission alone would be visually overwhelming.
"Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart" "Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart"
#153. To: Zipporah (#147)
The true color of the glow in many photos appears only at the edges of the molten material. This page is a good example of this, I believe: http://www.moltendesign.net/proce ss.php The text indicates the glass is 2200 F (1500 K) and glows orange, yet it only appears to glow significantly orange throughout in one photo. In the others it appears practically white with orange edges. It has a lot to do with whether the glow provides most of the lighting. Some sort of automatic photo-fix may also shift or de-emphasize some of the red end, up to yellow. This would be the shift from outdoor color chart to indoor color chart I was trying to describe (albeit backwardly then, inadvertently) earlier.
#154. To: nobody (#152)
You know, you USED to have some rational, well thought out posts. So what happened? Were you a Mossad plant inserted here to try to get people to think you're just another person seeking truth on these matters, or did you start hitting the bottle when you realized there's not much one person can do about any of this?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#155. To: FormerLurker (#154)
I've been looking for this thread. Thanks. You finally did something useful.
#156. To: FormerLurker (#154)
Sure pal, whatever.
there's not much one person can do about any of this
#157. To: nobody (#155)
I wouldn't doubt it you're sitting in the same cube as BeAChooser, if you're not his alter ego.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest