Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

Dabljuh said:
If you want to argue: You actually need 6000°K for a real white. Now go explain the discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to argue that temperatures of 6000ºC were seen at the WTC? Thermal emission from steel at 1200ºC is perceived as white by a human observer. Your claim that white heat indicates a temperature of over 2000ºC is therefore incorrect.

Dave
 
Newtons Bit said:
How do I prove something didn't exist? I can demand photos, and chemical spectra that doesn't have any alternatives. I've yet to see either.
Click to expand...
And both have been demonstrated. Still you prefer to ignore the evidence and support your kin's conclusions.

Edit: Oh, and where are your calculations showing that the heat will be wicked away instantly? I'm with child waiting for them.
Click to expand...
If you can't wait for me to do them, why don't you do them yourself?
 
Dab, why don't you go look at some of the other threads where this argument has already been addressed. The experts aren't really responding because this argument is redundant and Alex Jone's findings have been show to be wrong already. Why do we need to repeat this?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Why would I want to argue that temperatures of 6000ºC were seen at the WTC? Thermal emission from steel at 1200ºC is perceived as white by a human observer. Your claim that white heat indicates a temperature of over 2000ºC is therefore incorrect. Dave
Click to expand...
Wait - What, are you arguing, is the temperature of the yellow-white to yellow-orange stuff on the video?

Just for a second, let's use something that a "debunker" posted earlier in support of the hilarious argument that steel would glow yellow at 200°C.

http://kovarna.webzdarma.cz/stranky/zakladni_postupy/tabulky_teplot.htm
Click to expand...
Even this site thinks steel is only white-yellowish up to the 1350 range. "White" is perceived because the actual color cannot be discerned anymore, as all the RGB sensors on the retina are overloading. So "White" would mean "above 1350°C" - Enough to melt structural steel. Probably not by much though, but that can be sufficiently explained with the travel time of the material from the core to the edge of the building.
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
Please point out where I mentioned Flint Spark Lighters and stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

That's right you didn't say Flint Spark Lighter, you said a Zippo.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_spark_lighter:
A flint spark lighter works by rapidly rubbing a small piece of ferrocerium against a rough steel surface
Click to expand...
And the definition of Ferrocerium from http://www.answers.com/topic/ferrocerium-2?cat=technology
An alloy of iron with a high percentage of cerium; used to make cigarette lighter flints.
Click to expand...
So apparently you can light it with a Zippo/normal cigarette lighter, although I'm sure it would burn the hell out of you since those things are not very long and you hand would be awfully close.

LLH
 
LordoftheLeftHand said:
That's right you didn't say Flint Spark Lighter, you said a Zippo.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_spark_lighter:

And the definition of Ferrocerium from http://www.answers.com/topic/ferrocerium-2?cat=technology
So apparently you can light it with a Zippo/normal cigarette lighter, although I'm sure it would burn the hell out of you since those things are not very long and you hand would be awfully close.

LLH
Click to expand...
Are you done wasting time yet?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Then link to them. Try the pictures first. Show me columns that have been cut with thermite.
Click to expand...
Show me each and every column or whatever remains from them, making sure they have not been cut with thermite.

Are you trying to back out of this?
Click to expand...
I might do it at a later time. Actually having done such calculations in the past, I don't expect them to surprise either me or you, so it'd be just a lot of work for little gain.
 
Dabljuh said:
I'll let Prof. Jones do the talking about the nanostructure of his samples. From something that I already posted.
Click to expand...

Not a single thing of what he says in the first video addresses the composition or characteristics of the particles!

In the second video, the closest he comes is when he talks about intragranular melting, and none of what he says eliminates welding, let alone pre-9/11 generation of microspheres in any way. It can't; the first slide only deals with the absence of aluminum in a sample, the second, the absence of chromium. Neither addresses spherule formation at all.

And on top of that, how can he get both discussions completely wrong? Chromium is a common component of stainless steel; it's in far lesser amounts in structural. He doesn't quantify how much was found or indicate how much was expected! And how can he say that manganese is an "anticorrelation" for structural steel? Manganese is commonly added to structural steel in order to strengthen it! His statement that the "manganese is not from steel" is a handwave.

Neither video answers the question: What about the nanostructure is supposed both point at thermate and eliminate other sources? None of what Jones said in either video does this.
 
Dabljuh said:
Bring me an office fire that burns 1500-2000°C hot. Doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

Also, you are assuming that the WTC towers was occupied by only offices and that office furniture was the only thing in those offices. Have you ever worked in an office?
 
CptColumbo said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...
You got to be ******** me. You propose the existence of something. I propose the nonexistence. I can't show evidence supporting my claim. You can show evidence supporting your claim. You bring the evidence, or fail to do so.

Waste of time.
 
CptColumbo said:
Evidence?

Also, you are assuming that the WTC towers was occupied by only offices and that office furniture was the only thing in those offices. Have you ever worked in an office?
Click to expand...

Actually... 1500 oC - 2000 oC ranges between 2700 oF and almost 4000 oF. By comparison most office fires don't exceed much more than 1800 to 2000 oF (1000-1100 oC). It rather seems he is assuming that the fires or some combustibles burning were in the 3 to 4000 oF range...

The argument he makes is a straw man at best since at no point has NIST or any one else claimed that the fires were ever that hot (1500 oC - 2000 oC).
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
None of what Jones said in either video does this.
Click to expand...
Wait, now you're listening to Jones? You're meant to look at the evidence that Jones presents, not at his interpretation of this evidence. His interpretation is well known in that it's thermate residue.

However, the evidence itself rules out welding products. In that segment he focuses on the analysis of a piece of previously metal and only touches the topic of the microspheres peripherially. The possibility that there could have been thermite used before 9/11 is not refuted, although we have no evidence to suggest so. The NYFDs witnesses, NASA, and the notorious video suggest that regardless of the past of thermite usage in the WTC, thermite was likely used on the day of 9/11.

The videos I posted do not indeed answer all of your questions. Unless you want to go through a host of more videos and truther links, I suggest you write him an e-mail, asking him to take on each individual point that you still take issue with.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
<snip>
Impact damage either disabled or overwhelmed the existing sprinkler systems, ...<snip>
Click to expand...

Just a point of information. From memory (I worked with people testing sprinkler systems) non-specialist sprinkler systems are designed to work with up to four heads activated. Any more than this and there is not enough water to supply the activated heads properly. So, if there had been no damage the systems would be completely overwhelmed.

Dave

(this applies to the UK, but I guess that the US is similar)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The argument he makes is a straw man at best since at no point has NIST or any one else claimed that the fires were ever that hot (1500 oC - 2000 oC).
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, since obviously you're arguing that the visible yellow-white material was produced by a fire that doesn't even burn yellow-white-hot.

Or what else? Magic? God? Thermite?
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
The possibility that there could have been thermite used before 9/11 is not refuted, although we have no evidence to suggest so. The NYFDs witnesses, NASA, and the notorious video suggest that regardless of the past of thermite usage in the WTC, thermite was likely used on the day of 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom