This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[defaultdotxbe]

Go research the exact meaning of Doublethink and you will see why I just completely undermined the credibility of the NIST report.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

at best youve undermined the credibility of whoever typed up that FAQ...at best

 

[HyJinX]

Yea, I'm so obtuse, that I didn't omit key words in order to distort the reality of the situation... Mr. Orwell, sir.

It wasn't - glowed like logs - it was - glowed like logs that were burning in a fireplace. They made a visual comparison of a material that has no visual signs of burning to a material that has clear visual signs of burning.

The operative word here is "Glowed"...not "Burning". It wouldn't make sense to say"Glowed like logs that were glowing in a fireplace" now would it?

 

[stateofgrace]

No, the only thing that is intellectually dishonest about my previous post is the classic Doublethink contained in the NIST report. (That would be the part you so conveniently opted to ignore)

NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?

Go research the exact meaning of Doublethink and you will see why I just completely undermined the credibility of the NIST report.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

You are joking , right ?

Here is the full reply to the question, I have high lighted what you cannot grasp.

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

No my friend you have not just destroyed NIST, you have made rather silly and stupid claims based on you misunderstanding of this document.

Now back to you thermite theory. Any ideas how it did the cut yet?

 

[uk_dave]

Charcoal! Dammit!

Do you incinerate all of your food on the barbecue?

jeeez...IQ of 150? In your dreams

 

[Brainache]

So back to this business with thermite: As I understand it, thermite is basically aluminium and rust.(please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'd be willing to concede that the towers had some rust in them. I'm guessing that some of those core collumns had a bit of rust on their surface after 30 or so years.

Also I'm willing to concede that the buildings contained aluminium(especially after the planes crashed into them).

So is it entirely impossible that some of this rust may have combined with some of the molten Al. to produce some pretty wild exothermic reactions?
I know this is what our friend Crazychainsaw was working on when he damaged his eyes.

I'm not a scientist, but I'd like to know if some kind of reaction like this may have happened and if so, could it have increased the intensity of the fires?

 

[uk_dave]

The buildings contained alot of aluminium...after all they were clad with it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So back to this business with thermite: As I understand it, thermite is basically aluminium and rust.(please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'd be willing to concede that the towers had some rust in them. I'm guessing that some of those core collumns had a bit of rust on their surface after 30 or so years.

Also I'm willing to concede that the buildings contained aluminium(especially after the planes crashed into them).

So is it entirely impossible that some of this rust may have combined with some of the molten Al. to produce some pretty wild exothermic reactions?
I know this is what our friend Crazychainsaw was working on when he damaged his eyes.

I'm not a scientist, but I'd like to know if some kind of reaction like this may have happened and if so, could it have increased the intensity of the fires?

in theory its possible, but barring some rather unique circumstances a thermite reaction requires a much higher temperature to ignite than those present in the towers (an acetelyne torch cant ignite thermite)

i believe crazychainsaw was able to initiate a violent reaction (whether it was an actual thermite reaction im not sure) by vibrating a pan of molten aluminum at a specific frequency and dropping some rusty iron in it, lol

 

[negativ]

i want to say "please fondle my bum" but that could get me into some trouble if we arent all python fans

Ah yes, it's past the post office, 200 yards down, and then left at the light.

 

[28th Kingdom]

You are joking , right ?

The operative word here is "Glowed"...not "Burning". It wouldn't make sense to say"Glowed like logs that were glowing in a fireplace" now would it?

Yea, you're right - the operative word is glow - NIST states that glow is a sign of something burning - and they also state that this material (which has no visual signs of burning) is glowing. Anyone who engages in this type of acute Doublethink - clearly has a distorted view of reality.

 

[beachnut]

NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?

I did not know KinderCare had computers for you 3 year olds.

Hey, they said the al was not on fire! End of fire for Al. But you are a liar.

So you make up stuff about doublethink.

I am just a dumb kid myself, and I know they mean if there was Al flowing it was contaminated with burning debris.

I am sorry but if you do not agree with "they mean if there was Al flowing it was contaminated with burning debris"

If you do not agree with me I win all the marbles and loose change in the LC guys heads.

If you do not agree with me you have to prove why I am wrong.

If you do not agree with me you are not as smart as me; therefore I must have an IQ greater than 150!

But since you act list a 3 year old, I have to assume you scored a 150 on a 3 year old scaled IQ test. 150 IQ = sometimes hits the potty.

Case Closed, you have failed!

Yea, you're right - the operative word is glow - NIST states that glow is a sign of something burning - and they also state that this material (which has no visual signs of burning) is glowing.

But you have failed to see you have failed.

Once again you are a liar. NIST said the Al was not burning but had buring material in it. (for dolts that means stuff that burns at liquid Al temperature was messing up the liquid Al)

Are you really incapable of rational thought? (please try harder to use your head and prove you can overcome terminal stupidity)

My objective has always been to scientifically prove that therma/ite or a therma/ite like substance was in the towers, and I have done that. You are the ones who are bringing up the point about how therma/ite could have been used on the columns. That's a completely different subject and I never intended to discuss that. My only objective was to prove scientifically that something like therma/ite was in the buildings, and I have accomplished this.

No, you have failed, you should get use to failure if this is the best you can do.

 

[Trigood]

No, the only thing that is intellectually dishonest about my previous post is the classic Doublethink contained in the NIST report. (That would be the part you so conveniently opted to ignore)

NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?

Go research the exact meaning of Doublethink and you will see why I just completely undermined the credibility of the NIST report.

Actual NIST quote: "However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials(e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace."

28K,

The words "much like" indicate a simile. This sentence says that the color of this material is similar to that of logs burning in a fireplace.

This sentence does not say the material itself is burning.

It's like telling your red-headed ladylove that her hair's color is like a firey sun's. You are not actually saying that your ladylove's hair is on fire.

Now, if NIST had used a poetic metaphor instead of a simile, you might have a case ... But of course, scientists rarely use metaphors in a poetic sense....

P.S. I admit it's an unfortunate simile, and in this particular case, I wish NIST had chosen some other comparison. They left themselves open to revisionist CTists like yourself. It is still a simile, however.

 

[28th Kingdom]

at best youve undermined the credibility of whoever typed up that FAQ...at best

Unfortunately, the same person who wrote the NIST FAQ, wrote the rest of the report. His name is Uncle Sam.

 

[FramerDave]

Let's try this again...

Yea, I'm so obtuse, that I didn't omit key words in order to distort the reality of the situation... Mr. Orwell, sir.

It wasn't - glowed like logs - it was - glowed like logs that were burning in a fireplace. They made a visual comparison of a material that has no visual signs of burning to a material that has clear visual signs of burning.

Ok then are you really that obtuse? ...debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace.

So to repeat my question, do you know what a simile is? Saying that something is LIKE another or SIMILAR to another does not mean it is. Similar to the kind of thinking that twists an eyewitness account stating that it "sounded like a bomb going off" to mean that it WAS a bomb, and not another type of explosion.

And to repeat another question that you seem to be ignoring, where is the device that will allow thermite to cut a vertical beam?

 

[Trigood]

The operative word here is "Glowed"...not "Burning". It wouldn't make sense to say"Glowed like logs that were glowing in a fireplace" now would it?

Actually, thel operative word here is "LIKE" - the material's color was like that of a burning log.

This is a simile, get over yourself 28K!!!

 

[28th Kingdom]

The words "much like" indicate a simile. This sentence says that the color of this material is similar to that of logs burning in a fireplace.

This sentence does not say the material itself is burning.

It's like telling your red-headed ladylove that her hair's color is like a firey sun's. You are not actually saying that your ladylove's hair is on fire.

Now, if NIST had used a poetic metaphor instead of a simile, you might have a case ... But of course, scientists rarely use metaphors in a poetic sense....

P.S. I admit it's an unfortunate simile, and in this particular case, I wish NIST had chosen some other comparison. They left themselves open to revisionist CTists like yourself. It is still a simile, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

[Trigood]

"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up."

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. PhD in Aeronautics, Nuclear Engineering.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

So, 28K, do you really decide things for yourself (as you claim), or do you believe something because someone in authority says it is so?

 

[Bell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

[Skibum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Is that what you are suffering from? Makes sense, the CTists have taken over your mind, you buy into every claim they have made even when they are obviously wrong. You are a hostage to fear and delusion.

 

[beachnut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Yes you are in a cult, and you think thermite is something that brought down the WTC.

Failure again, no thermite proof of CT in this post!

Get use to this feeling of not comprehending simple subjects. But you are wasting you posts with tangents so far from thermite, thermate and proof of CT on 9/11.

So how does the thermite take out a vertical column? And how did they do it?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Unfortunately, the same person who wrote the NIST FAQ, wrote the rest of the report. His name is Uncle Sam.

which one of these goes by that nickname?

National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation


Shyam Sunder Lead Technical Investigator

William Grosshandler Associate Technical Investigator
Project Leader, Project 4:
Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems
H.S. Lew Co-Project Leader, Project 1:
Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and PracticesRichard Bukowski Co-Project Leader, Project 1:
Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and PracticesFahim Sadek Project Leader, Project 2:
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage PredictionFrank Gayle (MSEL) Project Leader, Project 3:
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural SteelRichard Gann Project Leader, Project 5:
Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability EnvironmentJohn Gross Co-Project Leader, Project 6:
Structural Fire Response and Collapse Therese McAllister Co-Project Leader, Project 6:
Structural Fire Response and CollapseJason Averill Project Leader, Project 7:
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency CommunicationsRandy Lawson Project Leader, Project 8:
Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines Harold E. Nelson Fire Protection Engineering ExpertStephen Cauffman Program Manager
NIST Expert Consultants

Project 5, Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment

• Valentine Junker

Project 8, Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines

• Vincent Dunn
• John Hodgens
• Kevin Malley