WTC Collapses

[Stryder]

copper wires or pipes could not account for the amount of material flowing from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

the problem of the temperature of the metal is still the same, whether you consider it to be iron, aluminum or copper.

The video depicted Aluminium melting, this is understandable considering the entire face of the building was clad in aluminium sheeting.

 

[Headspin]

The video depicted Aluminium melting, this is understandable considering the entire face of the building was clad in aluminium sheeting.

speculation, not supported by the physical properties of aluminium.

 

[leopold]

Actually (Q) stepped down some time back due to someone's Intellectual Dishonesty.

ah, okay. i guess we both know who this someone is.

then you need to present the evidence for this. How do you yourself even know that you are not simply mistaken if you do not have the evidence to check?

where were you when scott was presenting "evidence" in the FORMAL DEBATES forum from people we couldn't even verify existed?

I seriously think that if we spent more time on the evidence instead of name calling we would get further.

you can start by producing the evidence that bomb debris was found at ground zero.

the problem of the temperature of the metal is still the same, whether you consider it to be iron, aluminum or copper.

wrong.
copper melts at a MUCH LOWER temperature than steel.

 

[scott3x]

then you need to present the evidence for this. How do you yourself even know that you are not simply mistaken if you do not have the evidence to check?

where were you when scott was presenting "evidence" in the FORMAL DEBATES forum from people we couldn't even verify existed?

I believe you're referring to the anonymous letter submitted and -approved- by the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies, Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (November 27, 2007).

Ofcourse it'd be nice if everyone felt there would be no repercussions if they simply said who they were, but we know from notable examples such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan that many people have suffered for revealing evidence against the official story concerning 9/11. While it's nice to be able to cite who produced x or y piece of evidence, it's not necessary, or allowing people to provide anonymous tips concerning evidence in crimes wouldn't be possible.

 

[swivel]

I was standing there when it happened and I was also present for two controlled demolitions in Florida. Unless they used some new, silent explosives, nothing occurred before the buildings collapsed. It was a slow, gradual, grinding noise that crept up to a higher and higher pitch, like the sound of a jet preparing for takeoff.

There were no explosions before this happened. I was several hundred yards away, much closer than the cops would let me get to the Florida demolitions, and those explosives, the smallest they could safely use to bring down a 10-12 story building, were LOUD. They set off car alarms and made my ears ring from a quarter mile away.

I was an eye-witness to this event. There were no bombs. All this conspiracy theory bullshit is utter nonsense spread by the paranoid and the delusional.

 

[Headspin]

where were you when scott was presenting "evidence" in the FORMAL DEBATES forum from people we couldn't even verify existed?

i have no idea what you are referring to.

you can start by producing the evidence that bomb debris was found at ground zero.

what "bomb debris" would you expect to have been found?

wrong. copper melts at a MUCH LOWER temperature than steel.

yes, copper melts at nearly 1100 celcius. given it flows out of the building and down through the air remaining molten despite the cooling as it loses heat to the air, what temperature do you think the material started at inside the building if it were copper? even if you believe it could be copper, where did that amount of copper come from?

here is an interesting video that i have never come across before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzzi2nruRuw

 

[scott3x]

I seriously think that if we spent more time on the evidence instead of name calling we would get further.

you can start by producing the evidence that bomb debris was found at ground zero.

Here's a good excerpt from 9/11 Research's Aluminothermic Residues article:

Residues Consistent With Incendiaries

Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. 3

 

[Headspin]

I believe you're referring to the anonymous letter submitted and -approved- by the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies, Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (November 27, 2007).

Ofcourse it'd be nice if everyone felt there would be no repercussions if they simply said who they were, but we know from notable examples such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan that many people have suffered for revealing evidence against the official story concerning 9/11. While it's nice to be able to cite who produced x or y piece of evidence, it's not necessary, or allowing people to provide anonymous tips concerning evidence in crimes wouldn't be possible.

so this is of course nothing to do with the point i made.

I made the point that the only evidence presented for putin's 9/10 phone call was "i read it in a report somewhere", that is unsupported hearsay.

a letter written anonymously is only comparable if the existence of the letter is not proven. what does it matter who says what? why does the discussion ALWAYS gravitate to appeals to authority? religion and politics rely on authority, science NEVER relies on authority.

 

[leopold]

I believe you're referring to the anonymous letter submitted and -approved- by the peer reviewed Journal for 9/11 studies, . . .

i have an anonymous letter stating steve jones is a proven liar.

 

[leopold]

i have an anonymous letter stating the the WTC was taken out by the soviets.

 

[leopold]

scott,
who did the analysis of the debris you mentioned?
where was this debris taken from?

 

[Headspin]

i have an anonymous letter stating the the WTC was taken out by the soviets.

"does it contain any information to support its assertion" is the only question that is worth investigating. unsupported assertions, or anonymity are irrelevent in determining the truth.

 

[Headspin]

i have an anonymous letter stating steve jones is a proven liar.

but do you have anonymous proof that steve jones is a liar?

 

[Stryder]

speculation, not supported by the physical properties of aluminium.

No, not speculation. First hand evidence. You see many years ago I participated in what is actually perceived a crime (outside of statutes now), where I took over 60 aluminium beer barrels and melted them down into a globual to be sold to a scrap merchant.

In normal cases those barrels are suppose to be returned to the brewery that they were delivered from when full, however in this particular instance the barrels had been left to stack for many years outside an old bar and nobody knew who the brewer was since they had no distinguishing markings.

At first we tried just using a blowtorch and a steel barrel to try and pool the molten aluminium in. At the molten temperature aluminium didn't convey the heat into photon's (It was a pool of molten metal devoid of the bright colours usually associated with high temperatures.) The problem with this low temperature method was that it took ages to do and we went through a whole bottle of propane running a blowtorch and heater. It wasn't a cost effective method to deal with melting all the barrels.

The result was to strip the yard at the time of all broken pallets and stack the pallets into a great bonfire. The barrels were placed into the stack and added during the fire. The temperature of the fire itself was definitely over 1000 degrees, The steel skip that the fire existed in glowed an orange. The aluminium at the time was a glowing bright orange/yellow pool.

It wasn't until the next day though that the lump of molten aluminium (and steel nails from the pallets) could be reclaimed.

 

[Headspin]

No, not speculation. First hand evidence. You see many years ago I participated in what is actually perceived a crime (outside of statutes now), where I took over 60 aluminium beer barrels and melted them down into a globual to be sold to a scrap merchant.

In normal cases those barrels are suppose to be returned to the brewery that they were delivered from when full, however in this particular instance the barrels had been left to stack for many years outside an old bar and nobody knew who the brewer was since they had no distinguishing markings.

At first we tried just using a blowtorch and a steel barrel to try and pool the molten aluminium in. At the molten temperature aluminium didn't convey the heat into photon's (It was a pool of molten metal devoid of the bright colours usually associated with high temperatures.) The problem with this low temperature method was that it took ages to do and we went through a whole bottle of propane running a blowtorch and heater. It wasn't a cost effective method to deal with melting all the barrels.

The result was to strip the yard at the time of all broken pallets and stack the pallets into a great bonfire. The barrels were placed into the stack and added during the fire. The temperature of the fire itself was definitely over 1000 degrees, The steel skip that the fire existed in glowed an orange. The aluminium at the time was a glowing bright orange/yellow pool.

It wasn't until the next day though that the lump of molten aluminium (and steel nails from the pallets) could be reclaimed.

was the aluminium reflecting orange like a mirror or glowing orange?

of course, i know the answer you'll give, but there is no way of telling which is the case from your memory of that event all that time ago.

 

[Stryder]

was the aluminium reflecting orange like a mirror or glowing orange?

of course, i know the answer you'll give, but there is no way of telling which is the case from your memory of that event all that time ago.

You do understand why metals generate a "glow" when they are heated? It's down to their molecules becoming so aggravated through thermal dynamics that they produce not just heat as an output but photons.

Here's a URL to a nice page showing Glowing Aluminium. In fact checking the temperature chart there and looking at the steel, the temperature would of been more 1100°C
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html

 

[leopold]

"does it contain any information to support its assertion" is the only question that is worth investigating. unsupported assertions, or anonymity are irrelevent in determining the truth.

but do you have anonymous proof that steve jones is a liar?

yes, to both questions.

 

[leopold]

what "bomb debris" would you expect to have been found?

YOU are the one that is speculating bombs, not me.
so far you have produced ZERO evidence of any bomb debris being found at ground zero.

yes, copper melts at nearly 1100 celcius. given it flows out of the building and down through the air remaining molten despite the cooling as it loses heat to the air, what temperature do you think the material started at inside the building if it were copper?

all i see is showers of sparks.
i have no idea how you know it's molten metal.
how do you "know" that headspin?

even if you believe it could be copper, where did that amount of copper come from?

actually my response was to the supposed pools of molten metal found underneath all the rubble.

as to the showers of sparks coming from the towers i have only two questions. why would the government place whatever it was only in one corner of that building, and why place it where it could be easily found?

 

[Headspin]

You do understand why metals generate a "glow" when they are heated? It's down to their molecules becoming so aggravated through thermal dynamics that they produce not just heat as an output but photons.

Here's a URL to a nice page showing Glowing Aluminium. In fact checking the temperature chart there and looking at the steel, the temperature would of been more 1100°C
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html

yes i understand.
the emissivity or radiance of a metal is the measure by which it emits glowing light under heat.
of all the metals aluminium has an unusually low emissivity
http://www.newportus.com/Products/Techncal/MetlEmty.htm

but also aluminum has an unusual high reflectivity level of 95%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectivity

this means that the ambient background reflected light will outshine its low level of radiance, making it appear silvery in daylight conditions.

it is no accident that any pictures presented of molten aluminum being orange or yellow are taken in dark conditions where there is little ambient light to reflect, leaving only the emissivity radiation, making it glow in darkened conditions. the picture you chose was taken in a dark room, so is not comparable to the conditions seen at the wtc where molten material poured out of the window in daylight conditions.

 

[Headspin]

YOU are the one that is speculating bombs, not me.
so far you have produced ZERO evidence of any bomb debris being found at ground zero.

you are playing games of sophistry.
"evidence of bomb debris being found" is not the same as "evidence of bomb"
your phrasing is such that the only evidence to be considered is that which is officially recognised. you see, why is it necessary to have added the words "being found" if not to limit the discussion only to that "evidence" officially recognised. it is also apparant you frame your post in terms of "explosives" when it is clear that incendaries are being discussed. this can only be for the reason of appealing to the casual reader. you are making statements in the form of questions making it difficult to respond.

all i see is showers of sparks.
i have no idea how you know it's molten metal.
how do you "know" that headspin?

the video displays visual properties. the visual properties match incendaries.
things that do not match the visual properties of what we can see in the video can be ruled out. of course you now use a false dichotomy of "to know" or not "to know" as if there are only 2 choices to reason with. the wider picture is to see what observations are accounted for or not accounted for by the hypothesis.

as to the showers of sparks coming from the towers i have only two questions. why would the government place whatever it was only in one corner of that building, and why place it where it could be easily found?

I didn't say "the government" had anything to do with this, obviously an investigation would be required to determine responsibility.

The one corner where the molten material flowed out had been disturbed by the plane impact. that would easily explain it.