The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal, Round 2
This is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.
Relative to the building and fires that have engulfed other skyscrapers, yes. I personally know that I'm not being dishonest, but you can think otherwise if you wish. If Headspin, psikey or Tony would like to put in their 2 cents here as to the accuracy of my statement, that would be fine.
What draws you to that conclusion? I've drawn the opposite one.
I would argue that I tend to believe the arguments that fit -all- the data best. Since there is already plenty of evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions, it only makes sense that the molten metal was, indeed, molten iron produced by aluminothtermite/thermite reactions. You, ofcourse, are coming from the opposite side; for you, the evidence is on the side of the official story and so naturally when you see something that doesn't fit with that model, your first idea is to see if said idea can be discarded in favor of one that is supported by the official story.
There's lots of it, as I think Headspin has already pointed out.
This is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.
scott3x said:shaman_, you frequently seem to be of the view that when I disagree with you, I'm being dishonest. You may want to gather some evidence before making such a claim in the future, as not doing so makes it appear as if you have little regard for actually proving your assertions.
Lets go through this again. You claimed that it wasn’t exactly a 'raging inferno'. To demonstrate this you showed a cropped photo of one section (the coldest) of the WTC. I am making it clear that “to claim that you didn’t see any large fires is dishonest.”
Your games with photos alone is enough to accuse you of being deceitful. Are you still claiming that the fires were small or not?
Relative to the building and fires that have engulfed other skyscrapers, yes. I personally know that I'm not being dishonest, but you can think otherwise if you wish. If Headspin, psikey or Tony would like to put in their 2 cents here as to the accuracy of my statement, that would be fine.
shaman_ said:scott3x said:Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims
His have not gone through much rigor either.
What draws you to that conclusion? I've drawn the opposite one.
shaman_ said:scott3x said:shaman_ said:scott3x said:Many believe it was most likely to be iron. It certainly wasn't pure molten aluminum. I can't currently counter your idea that it was a combination of the 2, but even if it was, the office fires could not have accounted for the iron part. Thermate would have done quite a good job of it, though. Steven Jones deals with 4 possibilities in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", which you can currently download from NIST itself.
Those possibilities are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with
added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)
Or it could be something he hasn’t listed there such as a mixture of lead from batteries or partly dissolved iron (from temperatures near 1000C) or something else.
Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims, but I personally don't see anything wrong with those possibilities. Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?
Except that they don’t lead to a super conspiracy so you won’t want to accept them.
I would argue that I tend to believe the arguments that fit -all- the data best. Since there is already plenty of evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions, it only makes sense that the molten metal was, indeed, molten iron produced by aluminothtermite/thermite reactions. You, ofcourse, are coming from the opposite side; for you, the evidence is on the side of the official story and so naturally when you see something that doesn't fit with that model, your first idea is to see if said idea can be discarded in favor of one that is supported by the official story.
shaman_ said:scott3x said:Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?
I have said numerous times that I don’t know what that material is. When you have some reliable evidence for temperatures capable of producing molten iron I will consider that.
There's lots of it, as I think Headspin has already pointed out.
Last edited: