WTC Collapses

[Stryder]

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.

No, you are still missing the point.

Camera's are designed to take photons in to create a picture, if the photon output is too high it can cause a change in regards to how a picture develops. Namely if the central piece is a bright light, then the surroundings will appear dark.

There is something else that I've not mentioned to, it involves Aluminium filings and a candle. I don't suggest doing this experiment in an enclosed environment, however if you blow the filings across the candle, the cloud of aluminium will erupted into a flash. (It's the basis of Flash Powder used in Fireworks)

As you should know with fireworks, when they are shot into the sky the bright flash can linger and that's really due to fuel verses flash powder consistency, if there isn't enough powder then it will burn out, if the powders thick enough it can glow for a while before dying out.

I only mention this because Molten aluminium dripping hundreds of feet, isn't going to suddenly cool. It will glow as the velocity of the hot metal is actually fuelled by oxygen on it's decent.

You guys that don't understand Metallurgy really should check out a Foundry or two. Just if you go for a visit, don't start bombarding them with "WTC conspiracies" otherwise you'll miss what you can take in about what actually occurs with metals.

 

[Headspin]

No, you are still missing the point.

Camera's are designed to take photons in to create a picture, if the photon output is too high it can cause a change in regards to how a picture develops. Namely if the central piece is a bright light, then the surroundings will appear dark.

so you are saying the color in your picture is not the true color? I'm not an expert in cameras but i know there is a big difference between digital and analogue cameras, digital cameras depict natutral colors automatically. your picture was taken with a digital camera.

however, given what you say, why is the background not dark in this picture, which incidently is molten iron, so very much hotter than what was seen at the wtc:

 

[leopold]

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.

not exactly. the evidence i accept is FIRST HAND, meaning it came directly from ground zero with an evidence trail. evidence trail in this case means that you can positively identify everyone that had contact with it.
i WILL NOT accept red/ grey chips taken from an apartment or supposed evidence that was submitted by anonymous sources.

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.

sorry about that.
but your explanation still doesn't answer why the government placed this stuff only in one corner or why they placed it where it could easily be found.
i have no idea what this stuff is but i would guess it was some sort of pyrotechnics someone had in their office.

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

huh? what are you saying here? that the plane itself was responsible for the showers of sparks? if so then how.

 

[(Q)]

Any serious researcher would not give a *hit-*hit if a jerk called him a woo-woo. Such interaction is a sad reflection upon the jerk, not upon the serious researcher.

Congratulations. You have just won a place in my ignore Hall of Fame-Fame.

Is that a promise?

 

[(Q)]

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

As a spineless bottom-feeder, thinking seriously has not been your forte. Your so-called evidence to support your assertions is laughable to the point of insulting.

 

[scott3x]

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

[insults removed]

I rest my case

Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

 

[leopold]

I rest my case

Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

you STILL haven't answered my question as to where the debris came from or who did the analysis of it.

edit:
post in question:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171992&postcount=1927

 

[(Q)]

Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

You're more deluded than I thought if you actually believe the discussions here warrant your pathetic assertions credible.

 

[Headspin]

i WILL NOT accept red/ grey chips..

not even if the evidence is true?

from an apartment...

it was taken from other places too - scooped off the railings on the bridge before the collapse of wtc7.

or supposed evidence that was submitted by anonymous sources.

i don't know what evidence is submitted by an anonymous source that you refer to, but obviously any such evidence would be suspect, since anonymous people cannot swear an oath to a court of law punishable by charges of perjury in the event of lying.

but your explanation still doesn't answer why the government placed this stuff only in one corner or why they placed it where it could easily be found. i have no idea what this stuff is but i would guess it was some sort of pyrotechnics someone had in their office.

I can't imagine why someone would innocently bring pyrotechnics into a skyscraper which has strict building codes, i would imagine some building regulation would be breached, sounds like a stupidly dangerous thing to do.

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

huh? what are you saying here? that the plane itself was responsible for the showers of sparks? if so then how.

any concealed incendary material concealed in the core that was concealed, or concealed in other places in the building that was intended to be concealed in a concealed fashion, may have been dislodged from its place of concealment into its eventual place of non-concealment, unintentionally by the de-concealing plane impact.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

LOL!! dude..I hope your not talking about me! phhhhff! mature?

From my own profile:

.Drinking beer...telling jokes...going to the pub.....wakin' up hungover....still in my clothes......and...making fun of stupid people.

oh yeah..that's mature alright. Scott, I generally only insult you when I'm drunk, and my tongue is loosed. I generally keep it above the belt, because I'm a joker and like to keep things light, and my mama raised a gentlemen. (of sorts)


There have been many times where I wanted to call you names, because I was just astounded by what you are capable of believing. I don't think you understand why people call you names. I know these guys that are hurling insults at you...it's not that they are trying to be mean, or are just being assholes. It's just after so many completely frustrating conversations with so many different woo woos, they don't even bother.


Here's an example of why some people get mad and hurl insults at you..this is how it sounds to us:

TS: 2+2=5

Sciforums member: Umm...TS..I think you got it a little wrong there..2+2=4.

TS: Not according to Dr. John Smith of the Wrong Math Foundation for Truth. Read this link, he tells all about how 2+2=5.

SFM: Unfortunately, Dr. Smith is wrong. Every 2nd grade math teacher could tell you this. 2+2=4

TS: Dr. Smith has several published, peer reviewed papers on the Wrong Math Journal for online peer reviewed papers on Wrong math. He is an expert in wrong math.

SFM: It really doesn't matter about his credentials...2+2 still equals 4..he's wrong. Try googling "2+2" and see what answer it gives.

TS: The insiders control the content of google, so it's answer cannot be trusted. I trust Dr. Smith and he says 2+2=5.

SFM: Ok..TS...Watch my hands...2 (holds up two fingers on one hand) plus 2 (holds up 2 fingers on the other hand) equals what? count them...1..2..3..4. Four!

TS: Dr. Smith also has a theory on 3+3=9. You should read this link, he talks all about it.

SFM: We weren't talking about 3+3=9....we were talking about 2+2=4 not 5. You avoided my question and changed the subject!

TS: Dr. Smith says 2+2=5

SFM: (steam blows from ears) AHHHHH!! You're an IDIOT!! Any damn fool knows 2+2=4. I've even showed you with my own two hands that 2+2=4...but you won't accept it!! (continue with insults from here on out)


Scott...this is what is like for some of us. This is how some see your arguments, and why they respond with insults.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Uno,

I tried to pm you this, but you don't accept pm's.

Please go to Scott's formal debate proposal thread and offically accept the challenge. James has approved the go ahead of the debate...and Scott really wants this one bad.

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mac

 

[scott3x]

Uno,

I tried to pm you this, but you don't accept pm's.

Please go to Scott's formal debate proposal thread and offically accept the challenge. James has approved the go ahead of the debate...and Scott really wants this one bad.

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mac

Lol Mac .

 

[leopold]

not even if the evidence is true?

it was taken from other places too - scooped off the railings on the bridge before the collapse of wtc7.

was those chips taken from ground zero?
if so then who submitted them?

i don't know what evidence is submitted by an anonymous source that you refer to, but obviously any such evidence would be suspect, since anonymous people cannot swear an oath to a court of law punishable by charges of perjury in the event of lying.

hot damn he's coming into heat!
NOW you understand the worthlessness of anonymous sources.

I can't imagine why someone would innocently bring pyrotechnics into a skyscraper which has strict building codes, i would imagine some building regulation would be breached, sounds like a stupidly dangerous thing to do.

probably for some such reason as some kind of "ticker tape" parade?
on the other hand i can't see why the government (or whoever) would place an "incendiary device" where it could be easily found, nor can i understand why it would be placed in one corner, and why that particular corner.

any concealed incendary material concealed in the core that was concealed, or concealed in other places in the building that was intended to be concealed in a concealed fashion, may have been dislodged from its place of concealment into its eventual place of non-concealment, unintentionally by the de-concealing plane impact.

okay. so this stuff just "happened" to be where it was.
just because.
great explanation there headspin.

these "showers of sparks" have me intrigued because i can't find any original footage with those sparks in it.
edit:
ah yes, here is one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

 

[leopold]

Lol Mac .

are you going to answer my question about the origins and analysis of the debris or not scott?

 

[scott3x]

Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

LOL!! dude..I hope your not talking about me! phhhhff! mature?

From my own profile:

.Drinking beer...telling jokes...going to the pub.....wakin' up hungover....still in my clothes......and...making fun of stupid people.

oh yeah..that's mature alright. Scott, I generally only insult you when I'm drunk, and my tongue is loosed. I generally keep it above the belt, because I'm a joker and like to keep things light, and my mama raised a gentlemen. (of sorts)

Perhaps I should have put it differently . You are far more -kind- then some of the official story suppoters. Honestly, I'd rather discuss these topics with kids then some of the more profane people here.

There have been many times where I wanted to call you names, because I was just astounded by what you are capable of believing.

And yet you've generally shown restraint. Something they just aren't very capable of doing.

I don't think you understand why people call you names. I know these guys that are hurling insults at you...it's not that they are trying to be mean, or are just being assholes. It's just after so many completely frustrating conversations with so many different woo woos, they don't even bother.

If they didn't even bother, I wouldn't have a problem with them. The problem is that they -do- bother. They bother to be name callers and not much else. I guess it's time to make a list of people of the people who I like responding to:
1- swivel (we've rarely talked but I don't think he's insulted me once; perhaps it's because we rarely talk )
2- you (I think you've probably insulted me, but in a nice way )
3- Stryder: I get -super- annoyed when he merges and/or closes threads, but what's a guy to do? Atleast he keeps things above the belt).
4- James (was thinking of admins, he's toyfully insulted me but the royal dog is generally ok )
5- shaman_- I've even reported this guy twice or so. -However-, I think that he has hands down provided more material for me to debate then perhaps the rest of the posters here combined .
6- leopold99- he's alright, although I was severely miffed when he temporarily put me on ignore just because I responded to some of his posts in a different thread or 2. It's not like I -merged- any of this thread, let alone closed one (hint hint )
I'm sure I've missed some but that's all I could think of right now.

Here's an example of why some people get mad and hurl insults at you..this is how it sounds to us:

TS: 2+2=5

Sciforums member: Umm...TS..I think you got it a little wrong there..2+2=4.

TS: Not according to Dr. John Smith of the Wrong Math Foundation for Truth. Read this link, he tells all about how 2+2=5.

SFM: Unfortunately, Dr. Smith is wrong. Every 2nd grade math teacher could tell you this. 2+2=4

TS: Dr. Smith has several published, peer reviewed papers on the Wrong Math Journal for online peer reviewed papers on Wrong math. He is an expert in wrong math.

SFM: It really doesn't matter about his credentials...2+2 still equals 4..he's wrong. Try googling "2+2" and see what answer it gives.

TS: The insiders control the content of google, so it's answer cannot be trusted. I trust Dr. Smith and he says 2+2=5.

SFM: Ok..TS...Watch my hands...2 (holds up two fingers on one hand) plus 2 (holds up 2 fingers on the other hand) equals what? count them...1..2..3..4. Four!

TS: Dr. Smith also has a theory on 3+3=9. You should read this link, he talks all about it.

SFM: We weren't talking about 3+3=9....we were talking about 2+2=4 not 5. You avoided my question and changed the subject!

TS: Dr. Smith says 2+2=5

SFM: (steam blows from ears) AHHHHH!! You're an IDIOT!! Any damn fool knows 2+2=4. I've even showed you with my own two hands that 2+2=4...but you won't accept it!! (continue with insults from here on out)

Scott...this is what is like for some of us. This is how some see your arguments, and why they respond with insults.

I contend that that analogy is simply bad (though it did make me laugh ). If anything, I would contend that it applies far more to official story posters (hint hint ). Actually, google is a profound friend- don't know what I'd do without it .

Anyway, even when official story believers are ardently proclaiming that 2+2=5 again and again, I simply don't start using insults. If I get burned out, I take a break; depending on how burned out I am, the break can be short or long. When I come back, I feel refreshed and able to continue in my usual civil way. About the only thing that would get me to insult is if I thought my physical well being was in danger. Otherwise, it's Mr civil to the end ;-).

 

[scott3x]

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

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

Here are the 3 references that can be found at the bottom of the above linked article (I actually quoted the 3rd one but didn't include the link last time, but have done so now).
1. Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07
2. Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materials, USGS.gov, 2001
3. Patent 6766744: Description, dodtechmatch.com

The analysis was done by by Steven Jones and the U.S. Geological Survey; this is why the first link is a paper by Steven Jones and the second link is to the U.S. Geological survey's material. The third link is the patent to thermate, so that you can see what it's composed of.

I think it's time that I quote the beginning of the 9/11 Research article:
Aluminothermic Residues

Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics iron-rich microspheres

A micrograph published in a USGS report shows iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during the WTC's destruction.

Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.

 

[MacGyver1968]

My analogy was intended to be ridiculous. Just for humor's sake..you know me. As ridiculous as 2+2=5 is...to me, this is just as ridiculous as your assertion that mini-nukes could have been used to bring down the towers. I'm just saying.

 

[scott3x]

My analogy was intended to be ridiculous. Just for humor's sake..you know me. As ridiculous as 2+2=5 is...to me, this is just as ridiculous as your assertion that mini-nukes could have been used to bring down the towers. I'm just saying.

No one's going to let me live down the mini nukes . Steven Jones wrote an article discrediting the mini nukes theory over in the Journal for 9/11 studies:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”

I still haven't read it but if I once again begin believing that mini nukes might have played a part rest assured that I'll read it .

Update- I had a peak at Steven Jones' article against the mini nukes theory- he really lays into the alleged evidence, laugh .

 

[leopold]

Here are the 3 references that can be found at the bottom of the above linked article . . .
1. Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07
2. Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materials, USGS.gov, 2001
3. Patent 6766744: Description, dodtechmatch.com

thanks for the info.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.

really?
the USGS article you linked to says this about it:

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.

any ideas why steve jones says it's thermate?

 

[scott3x]

any ideas why steve jones says it's thermate?

It's only about a page long- rest assured that I won't send you to read a 180 page document as shaman_ once did . Again, from 9/11 Research:
Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers