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

[Jonnyclueless]

Why they never found thermite? Because despite your claims there was never any evidence of any. NIST doesn't make vast assumptions like Jones does. And there are plenty of threads that already discuss just why Jones is unable to write a paper that proves there was thermite used to bring down the WTC towers.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, I suggest Dabljuh write up a white paper explaining exactly why and how a plane and the resulting fires could not have caused the collapse. Why don't you do this Dabljuh? Seems like you feel you have found a big conspiracy. The biggest one known to man and have proof of it. Why don't you take the needed steps to back it up? Write a paper and let it be reviewed and see how well it stands up.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Again, I suggest Dabljuh write up a white paper explaining exactly why and how a plane and the resulting fires could not have caused the collapse. Why don't you do this Dabljuh? Seems like you feel you have found a big conspiracy. The biggest one known to man and have proof of it. Why don't you take the needed steps to back it up? Write a paper and let it be reviewed and see how well it stands up.

He doesn't have the ability.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

He doesn't have the ability.

Of course he doesn't. And most of his arguments are utter crap and completely absurd or just plain untrue. Writing a paper would make that blatantly obvious since he would actually have to back them up and couldn't get away with the hearsay and speculation or assumptions.

It's a nice son and dance he plays, but in the end, that's all it is.

 

[Dabljuh]

He doesn't have the ability.

It's true. Also: I'm lazy.

 

[van_dutch]

Dabljuh, you keep spitting out this black body radiation bit. What do you consider the definition of a black body to be? How does the material that you are claiming to be 1300C qualify as a black body? I am staring at a normalized brightness black body color chart (from Wikipedia) and the yellow/white you claim would be in the range of 5000K to 6000K. This leads me to believe that if the material is a true black body, it is as hot as the surface of the sun, or it is not a true black body. If it is not a true black body, the wavelengths of emitted light would depend on the material. So I point out again that the color charts that have been used to correlate the material's color and its temperature are for steel. You have already stated that you don't think it was steel so why use a color/temperature chart for steel? You claim that an office fire cannot get above some temperature as a basis for your thermite theory and this molten jet shows that something was because you interpret it to be too hot for an office fire. I don't think you have answered all the questions to prove your estimation of the temperature of this material valid. Also, even if that temperature was valid, why couldn't conditions (such as a kiln like environment being created or accelerants such Myriad had pointed out) create such phenomena?

 

[Myriad]

While it may be possible for an impacting airplane to cause the building's collapse, it is still fairly improbable to happen. Fires and Aircraft impacts have happened before and never caused the complete collapse of such a building. The WTC was designed with a high degree of redundancy to make it able to specifically withstand both fires and aircraft impacts.

Okay. But discussing the probability of things that have already happened is always a bit silly. Almost everything that happens (with certain exceptions such as astronomical events) would be assigned, before it happened, as having an extremely low probability of happening in exactly the way that it does. The probability that Jesse Jackson would be caught on mike talking about sexually mutilating a major presidential candidate on any given day would seem to be extremely small. Does that mean it didn't really happen? Or that it was pre-planned? After the fact, the probability means jack.

We're not primarily talking about starting fires using thermite here, although thermite would certainly start fires - if, for example, you look at the video, you may notice that the liquid metal seems to actually ignite a fire within seconds, behind it.

Ok, fine. Which brings me back to the original point that the use of thermite to demolish a building by directly attacking its structural members, as you propose happened on 9/11, is unprecedented.

You're underestimating to the level of analysis that can be performed on suspected thermite residue.

The level of analysis that can be performed is irrelevant, at least as far as Jones is concerned, until he publishes details of what analysis he did perform, and his data.

Suprisingly, aluminium doesn't burn under the conditions observed, and even when it does (just like in a thermite reaction) it'll evaporate and become a fine white smoke.

Ever put an aluminum can in a campfire? It burns all right. Not dramatically, but there won't be much can left the next morning.

It doesn't "evaporate" in the thermite reaction. The product is fine particles of aluminum oxide, which quickly cool and settle, generally seen as a white residue on the surrounding surfaces after a thermite reaction. Where were those particles mentioned in the Particle Atlas? What concentration of them did Jones find in the dust? Where is it? No, it didn't disappear into vapor. Where is it?

What was found was not just "steel and aluminium oxide" - What was found was thermate residue that has an entirely different elemental composition than the building. For example, it wasn't liquified structural steel, but an eutectic from iron, manganese and sulfur, with carbon, silicon, vanadium and other elements that would be expected in molten structural steel absent. And furthermore, was shown to have been in a liquid state - something which is just impossibly the result of all the sources of fire observed and predicted in the standard theory.

So it wasn't from structural steel, and that means it must be from thermite? Really? Those are the only source of trace metals in an office environment, structural steel or thermite?

There are no other possibilities?

And why would anyone think mixtures including carbon, silicon, vanadium, etc. was particularly indicative of thermite? Who threw all that crap into the thermite, and why?

So your objection is merely the result of ignorance with regards to the details to the analysis.

I confess to being ignorant of the details of Jones' analysis that he has refused to publish. As long as he keeps everyone ignorant of them, they remain irrelevant.

If we assume no level of sophistication in the analysis, no. However in this case, there really are not any known alternative explanations for the analyzed residue.

No other source for silicon, sulfur, carbon, etc. besides thermite? (Or the building framework?) Now you're just having me on, right? Was everything else in the Towers made of Boron or something?

It is perfectly possible to falsify the presence of thermite residue in the debris of an aluminium clad steel building.

Not if you're willing to cite whatever the heck you find and arbitrarily declare that it must be thermite residue.

Which you are.

And I notice that you have not yet given a specific example of a finding that would falsify the thermite theory for you. You keep saying it's possible, but you can't seem to get around to offering an example of how it might conceivably happen.

That line of questioning has been answered. Lets move to the other.

This distortion being mostly of the "white" or "purple" variety. However, the distortion is usually recognizable as a distortion.

You're saying that on your camera, 800°C is enough for a white out of the camera?

Try to film in broad daylight. I'm not a camera person, but I know that white outs happen when the lighting time and the aperture are not appropriate for the lighting conditions. I've actually done tests with the remote control IR and it began to become increasingly lilac/purple the more I tightened the exposure and aperture. If I, on the other hand, adapted those values to filming in a dark place and shined the IR light int them, it appeared blue.

With incandescent metals, I'd expect something similiar to happen, not because of the sensors' IR susceptibility, but simply because of exposure and aperture.

My camera produces white-outs on every flame that I can produce (I'll admit problems producing flames below 1000°C though, like an oxygen starved fire)

I'm saying that what your camera or my camera show is irrelevant, except as a warning that instruments used to make measurements must be calibrated or else those measurements are unreliable and therefore useless in supporting a claim about how hot something is. An ordinary video camera, regardless of its quality, cannot be expected to have been designed or calibrated to be a pyrometer.

No, that's a flat out lie. It's Blackbody radiation. The percentage of light emitted in the infrared (read:below visible) does only change with temperature (it becomes SMALLER with increasing temperature, but as the overall energy emitted increases, it becomes bigger in absolute terms) but not with *what* you're heating - Be it air or metal.

You're talking about the spectrum of the radiation. But I'm talking about the intensity of the radiation. What you're heating does make a big difference in the latter. Propane flame, natural gas flame, alcohol flame. All about the same temperature, all blue, but the propane flame is bright, the gas flame is moderate, and the alcohol flame is all but invisible. Orange-hot plasma in a wood flame, same-size orange-hot hunk of metal. Same approximate temperature, same approximate spectrum, but the latter emits a lot more light throughout that spectrum than the former. Ten-watt tungsten incandescent bulb, 100-watt tungsten incandescent bulb. Same spectrum, but one's brighter than the other. Spectrum and intensity. Two entirely different things, which makes all the difference between a flat-out lie and an obvious fact.

And note that this doesn't even touch on the additional fact that not everything emits radiation in the exact blackbody spectra. That's why we call it "blackbody" radiation rather than, say, "everybody" radiation.

Your point that hot metal would be an IR source, where as fire would be not, is completely wrong.

However, my point that hot metal would be a more intense IR source than a flame of the same temperature, which was the point I was actually making, remains completely correct.

You are aware that air would also emit IR radiation, thus, the entirety of the air above the flames in your theory, would cause white out.

That would be true, if hot air emitted radiation with the same intensity as other hot substances at the same temperature.

It doesn't. Surprise!

So, have we learned that temperature is not the only variable determining whether the thermal radiation something emits can overload an optical sensor enough to distort its color accuracy?

You are trying to argue that somehow - magically - the batteries heated themselves or something else to >1000°C ?

Some might call it magic. Others know it as "electricity."

But that's only one of numerous possibilities for creating local hot spots in an active fire covering several acres fueled by numerous different materials.

We have had reasonable assumptions regarding the hotness of the fire - 500 to 800°C - With a few isolated pockets possibly achieving 1000°C for a short time.

And with your objection about cameras' ability to see IR refuted, I'll go right back and assume a lower bound of 1200°C for the liquid in question. Something which the office fire can't dream of.

Assume what you like, but don't expect anyone to take your conclusions seriously once you've done so. I give you credit, at least, for openly admitting your assumptions, so everyone can see how silly, biased, and contemptuous of the actual evidence they are.

Candle flame: 1400 degrees C.

But nowhere in a six-acre fire could possibly reach 1200 degrees C.

Amazing.

But also for the liquid to appear at the edge of the building without an immediate source of heat visible nearby (remember how violent a thermite reaction is) we can assume that it either has been there for a while, or has travelled quite a while. As such it would have to have started out much, much, much hotter than the mere 1200°C.

Given the 1 minute-long clip alone, you'd be right. But given the circumstantial evidence - more cameras watching the WTC, none of them recording particularly hot fires, it's a fairly safe bet to say that the molten liquid is hotter than any part of the fire. Especially taking into account that with an immediate heat source missing, we have to assume its starting temperature from whereever it came must have been far far hotter.

I love the basic contradiction here. We know for certain there weren't any hotter regions in the fire because we can't see any on the videos. We can't see thermite reactions (which would definitely be hotter regions in the fire) either. So we know there's no thermite either. No wait, there is thermite, it's just hidden! But there couldn't be hotter regions in the fire we can't see, that's absurd, there's no evidence! So that's evidence for thermite. Somehow.

Sure.

Ultimately, my proof that your theory is irrelevant will come from the fact that you will either not attempt to present it to the press, academics, professional societies, business leaders, or prosecutors in any country ever, or if possessed by some fit of untrutherlike impulses to do so, it will have no impact.

So, while we're all waiting for that to not happen, how about an example of a conceivable piece of evidence that would falsify your thermite theory for you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dabljuh]

Dabljuh, you keep spitting out this black body radiation bit. What do you consider the definition of a black body to be? How does the material that you are claiming to be 1300C qualify as a black body? I am staring at a normalized brightness black body color chart (from Wikipedia) and the yellow/white you claim would be in the range of 5000K to 6000K. This leads me to believe that if the material is a true black body, it is as hot as the surface of the sun, or it is not a true black body. If it is not a true black body, the wavelengths of emitted light would depend on the material. So I point out again that the color charts that have been used to correlate the material's color and its temperature are for steel. You have already stated that you don't think it was steel so why use a color/temperature chart for steel? You claim that an office fire cannot get above some temperature as a basis for your thermite theory and this molten jet shows that something was because you interpret it to be too hot for an office fire. I don't think you have answered all the questions to prove your estimation of the temperature of this material valid. Also, even if that temperature was valid, why couldn't conditions (such as a kiln like environment being created or accelerants such Myriad had pointed out) create such phenomena?

First of all, it has to made understood that there are no ideal blackbodies. Elements and compounds absorb certain wavelengths of light better than others. But for the purpose of molten metals, this is less important, more important is the incandescent lights interaction with the human eye.

The blackbody radiation you're referring to is the "real" blackbody radiation. That is, the temperature of an item to create the light of a certain color through incandescence. Light is defined as "white" if it contains approximately the same amounts of red, green and blue, because that is how the human eye perceives white.

But because the human eye has limits with regards to what strength of light it can detect, the human eye will - like a camera - display white once all three color receptors, red, green and blue, are maxed out. That means an object that glows orange, but with sufficient amounts of brightness, will be perceived as white - because orange also contains some blue parts, although it mostly consists of red light with some green light mixed in. So a sufficient amount of orange light will be perceived as 'white'.

Consider an incandescent lightbulb. It contains a tungsten filament that is heated to about 2800K through electricity. Just looking at the bulb will give you the impression that the light is white - but if you look at the incandescent bulbs light reflected to a white surface such as a wall, it will appear orange or yellow compared to the incandescent light of the sun.

Astronomists also consider the sun 'yellow' because it doesn't have the equal parts of red, green and blue, but to the human perception, the sun's light is sufficiently white. However, there are actual 'white' stars with actual white light, and even superhot stars that produce a blueish hue.

The vast majority of stars in the universe is however of the small, red and cool variety variety, with surface temperatures in the order of 2000-2500K. Observed through a telescope, such a star would appear reddish in color - if visible at all due to the faint light. But let me assure you - if you were anywhere within one astronomical unit of this "cool, small, red" star, it'd appear you still as a bright white spot looking straight at it. Only in its reflection and thus the much weakened light intensity the human eye can actually discern the color.

For the same reason, molten iron appears nearly white to the naked eye at 2000K - but if you used the incandescent metals light as a light source to light a room, the room would appear red to you. Because there is actually a difference between the blackbody radiations color and the apparent color of the item.

That also means that I'll have to revise an incorrect, earlier statement about molten aluminium having the same color at a weaker intensity - in fact it would appear to have a color more closer to its blackbody radiation (i.e. appear red to orange at a temperature where iron would already appear as a brilliant yellow) due to the effect that the retinas RGB sensors aren't overloaded with the aluminum's lower emissivity. This does not refute my statement that it can't be aluminium, in fact, the nonlinear way would probably make an even higher temperature than the one I mentioned necessary to explain the yellow glow for aluminium.

On the other hand, glass would require a lower temperature than steel to appear yellow. Debunkers, don't get your hopes up, the liquid can't be glass. Glass, depending on the exact composition, melts between 1500°C and 2300°C, and the fire didn't even manage to blow out any windows, which happens at temperatures above 700°C - which is also the lower end of the temperature at which glass stops being brittle but becomes workable.

And it doesn't stop there. Some ions, when brought into a flame and made incandescent thusly, will strongly emission in certain specific spectra as they only have one or two. For example, sodium ions will glow strongly yellow-orange far below incandescence. Copper ions will produce a distinctive green flame. Similiarly, if the ions get excited due to electricity, they will also glow in particular color. This is a different effect from incandescence.

For high quality cameras, the same things about the overload are true as cameras are meant to imitate the human eye as close as possible, which also means copying some of its weaknesses.

My cheap CCD camera obviously fails at this task, since it is in fact vulnerable to near IR radiation - that appears as blue mostly and slightly red too, giving me the impression that the green filter is somewhat more effective at blocking near-IR radiation. The result being that a cigarette lighted turns from a barely visible orange to a purple and finally to a white - where the naked eye would merely see a brightening of the cherry color to a bright orange. So essentially, my cheap, IR-filter-less camera never displays any bright orange or even yellow colors and displays them purple/white instead. The same goes for all ordered flames such as from a cigarette lighter or a match. I unfortunately do not have the equipment to heat an item to near-IR-visible temperatures for more accurate testing, follow up by someone else would be welcomed.

However, finally: While it is obvious that determining the temperature of an item by purely looking at its incandescent color is fairly inaccurate, in all cases we can confirm the following:

1. The IR filter of the camera in question is effective due to the expected range of colors of red, cherry, orange, and yellow and yellow-white being intact and obeyed by the observed incandescent liquid.
2. The incandescent liquid in question is thus vastly hotter than whatever the fire could have produced.
2.a) Even more so when taking the travel time of the liquid with no immediate source into account
3. One possible hypothesis for the observed temperature is a thermate charge that ignited in the core.
3.a) The thermate charge in the core may have likely ignited due to its primer charge igniting in the fire.
4. The behaviour of the incandescent liquid is 100% consistent with an iron rich eutectic thermate product
5. An iron rich eutectic thermate product was identified in the rubble by Prof. Jones.

QED.

Oh, and by the way - The reason why the stuff apparently turns from orange to black or grey, skipping the red phase, is because incandescence is very low below 700°C, making it hard to see in broad daylight.

 

[Dabljuh]

Okay. But discussing the probability of things that have already happened is always a bit silly. Almost everything that happens (with certain exceptions such as astronomical events) would be assigned, before it happened, as having an extremely low probability of happening in exactly the way that it does. The probability that Jesse Jackson would be caught on mike talking about sexually mutilating a major presidential candidate on any given day would seem to be extremely small. Does that mean it didn't really happen? Or that it was pre-planned? After the fact, the probability means jack.

Ok, fine. Which brings me back to the original point that the use of thermite to demolish a building by directly attacking its structural members, as you propose happened on 9/11, is unprecedented.

The level of analysis that can be performed is irrelevant, at least as far as Jones is concerned, until he publishes details of what analysis he did perform, and his data.

Ever put an aluminum can in a campfire? It burns all right. Not dramatically, but there won't be much can left the next morning.

It doesn't "evaporate" in the thermite reaction. The product is fine particles of aluminum oxide, which quickly cool and settle, generally seen as a white residue on the surrounding surfaces after a thermite reaction. Where were those particles mentioned in the Particle Atlas? What concentration of them did Jones find in the dust? Where is it? No, it didn't disappear into vapor. Where is it?

So it wasn't from structural steel, and that means it must be from thermite? Really? Those are the only source of trace metals in an office environment, structural steel or thermite?

There are no other possibilities?

And why would anyone think mixtures including carbon, silicon, vanadium, etc. was particularly indicative of thermite? Who threw all that crap into the thermite, and why?

I confess to being ignorant of the details of Jones' analysis that he has refused to publish. As long as he keeps everyone ignorant of them, they remain irrelevant.

No other source for silicon, sulfur, carbon, etc. besides thermite? (Or the building framework?) Now you're just having me on, right? Was everything else in the Towers made of Boron or something?

Oh my god. Go check out one of Prof. Jones preliminary reports! And read what I actually wrote:

For example, it wasn't liquified structural steel, but an eutectic from iron, manganese and sulfur,

long pause.

with carbon, silicon, vanadium and other elements that would be expected in molten structural steel absent.

Oh my god. If you just had noticed these are actually two partial sentences but separated with a comma...

Sorry. It's my fault. I write long run on sentences and all and don't really try to live up to the highest linguistic standards here in favor of getting stuff written in time.

 

[beachnut]

While it may be possible for an impacting airplane to cause the building's collapse, it is still fairly improbable to happen. Fires and Aircraft impacts have happened before and never caused the complete collapse of such a building. The WTC was designed with a high degree of redundancy to make it able to specifically withstand both fires and aircraft impacts.
...
However, as a conspirative counter to this, we should be wondering then why NIST and all the others never found any thermite.

No time in history have planes impacted 110 story building with the impact kinetic energy of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. You need physics to explain these things, yet you just wave your hands and say false information after you negate your own ideas in the first sentence.

Never has 10,000 gallons, over 60,000 pounds of fuel started fires like those on 9/11.

So you need to understand your ERRORS, a plane hit the ESB with the energy of 18 pounds of TNT, the WTC was designed to resist the impact of a jet low on fuel with kinetic energy of 187 pounds of TNT. The WTC is strong, but the design by the chief structural engineer was for a slow speed impact, which makes your idea false and in error. Research would help explain why you are wrong.

On 9/11 two jets impacted a building designed to resist the impact of a jet, but the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than the 187 pounds of TNT energy in the design.

You need to present the numbers, and now you must tell me why a building designed to take the impact KE of 187 pounds of TNT, should handle an impact 11 times greater? An impact on 9/11 that destroys the fire systems, when the design aircraft impact would not of done major damage to the core and not destroyed the fire systems with only 187 pounds of TNT equal kinetic energy. Got physics?

NIST never found thermite because it was not used! Thermite was made up out of the blue by Jones, he was fired when he posted his tripe! Thermite would leave a lot (maybe tons) of evidence, it was not found, your idea has been wrong for over 6 years, and you can't even detail how it was done, or tell anyone how much you need to do more than weld a glob of iron to a piece of steel you call heat resistant, a new standard of steel used in your fantasy.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

NIST never found thermite because it was not used! Thermite was made up out of the blue by Jones, he was fired when he posted his tripe! Thermite would leave a lot (maybe tons) of evidence, it was not found, your idea has been wrong for over 6 years, and you can't even detail how it was done, or tell anyone how much you need to do more than weld a glob of iron to a piece of steel you call heat resistant, a new standard of steel used in your fantasy.

Another thing Dab did was he started talking thermate... except... barium nitrate was not found any place within ground zero.

 

[Dabljuh]

And I notice that you have not yet given a specific example of a finding that would falsify the thermite theory for you. You keep saying it's possible, but you can't seem to get around to offering an example of how it might conceivably happen.

That again? Thermate residue was *found* - How do you want to falsify the thermite theory now?

But even if we assumed that Prof. Jones were unreliable, and thus his evidence and analysis were worthless, we'd still have to explain the molten metal.

If you find me a probable mechanism that would have produced tons of molten metal WITHOUT thermite, that would be a start.

Then we'd have to have a trustworthy source just sifting through the entire pile of debris and check everything, looking for thermate or thermate-like residues. If that *trustworthy* source would come up with a negative result, AND you would at the same time offer a plausible and probable mechanism that explains the molten metal, you'd have falsified the thermate theory.

I'm still waiting.

I'm saying that what your camera or my camera show is irrelevant, except as a warning that instruments used to make measurements must be calibrated or else those measurements are unreliable and therefore useless in supporting a claim about how hot something is. An ordinary video camera, regardless of its quality, cannot be expected to have been designed or calibrated to be a pyrometer.

If the camera were actually a properly calibrated pyrometer, we'd be able to tell - by the blackbody radiation spectrum - the exact, and I mean exact plus/minus a fraction of a kelvin to a few kelvin maybe, the exact temperature of the incandescent liquid.

However we don't have a pyrometer. All we have is a regular, IR-filtered professional high resolution camera. We can make some assumptions as to what the material of the incandescent liquid is and thus estimate - of course with a much higher degree of inaccuracy, but still certain bounds - an estimate of the temperature observed.

It looks like an iron rich eutectic to me. It's hard to make out on a crummy youtube video but there are some characteristic iron sparks as the incandescent liquid drips down. Eutectic because the liquid stays somewhat liquid down to bright orange temperatures, which for iron would be maybe above 900°C. This would put the temperature of it when it is first entering the screen, appearing yellow-white, to around 1300°C. And it'd have started out vastly hotter, near the core, dripping down the broken floor until it enters the view. That means its original temperature may have been several 100°C hotter.

Bring me a hypothesis with at least a similar explanatory value that explains the observation.

However, my point that hot metal would be a more intense IR source than a flame of the same temperature, which was the point I was actually making, remains completely correct.

Actually... air has an emissivity of almost 100%. Steel and iron are just around 50%. The problem is that a small pocket of air (like in a building) is a very bad approximation to a blackbody - not so much because of it's spectrum but because of its translucence. A ginormeous ball of gas like the sun however is a very good approximation of a blackbody again.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a way to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to air (flames) - one idea would be to start at the other end and calculate the amount of chemical energy a candle burns per second and measuring the observed flame's size.

That would be true, if hot air emitted radiation with the same intensity as other hot substances at the same temperature.

Heat air to 1000°C and it'll glow. Usually, we call incandescent air a 'flame'

It doesn't. Surprise!

Wait, what?

So, have we learned that temperature is not the only variable determining whether the thermal radiation something emits can overload an optical sensor enough to distort its color accuracy?

I don't assume color accuracy from ANY camera that isn't calibrated for exactly the type of lighting and all. I bet someone with actual camera experience will beat me to death now and educate all of us on the properties of color accuracy in cameras.

However - given all the inaccuracy, it doesn't mean we can't make an estimation.

Let me make an example. We can use a ruler to measure the length of an item (provided it's roughly within the bounds of the item) if it's out of the bounds of the ruler, we need to use the ruler a couple of times, which of course degrades the accuracy of the measurement.

But now we don't have a ruler, but we have our hands. We know the approximate width of our fingers and so we can use our fingers to approximate the length of an object even without a ruler! Amazing, isn't it? Of course, we're not going to assume that this estimation is going to be very accurate, but it'll tell us the ballpark.

But what really has to be understood here, we don't even have to use our fingers. We have another object of a different length. And our job is merely to figure out if one object is longer than the other. We don't need a ruler and we don't even need to use our inaccurate hands to simply determine if one items is longer than the other.

And yes. The incandescent liquid's temperature is far hotter than the incandescence of the air (i.e. flames) observed with the same camera.

Some might call it magic. Others know it as "electricity."

You gotta be kidding me. A lead-acid battery consists of acid (in older times, mostly water, in newer times, jelly) and lead. Duh. Both of these substances are going to be very unfriendly with your theory once they're past 300°C - The lead melts, and the jello/acid simply evaporates. In an airtight container, that means the thing explodes.

That means ... wait, the batteries couldn't possibly reach a temperature of even 300°C through short circuiting or fire? And the lead would have dispersed as a liquid at 350°C? Alright I think your theory is debunked. That's the second time one proposed the magic batteries in this thread, by the way.

Assume what you like, but don't expect anyone to take your conclusions seriously once you've done so. I give you credit, at least, for openly admitting your assumptions, so everyone can see how silly, biased, and contemptuous of the actual evidence they are.

Candle flame: 1400 degrees C.

But nowhere in a six-acre fire could possibly reach 1200 degrees C.

Amazing.

Isn't it. Ask a fire protection engineer. A candle is designed to produce a small, bright flame. An office isn't. And any flame larger than your pinky finger is going to be increasingly oxygen starved. No credible 'official conspiracy theorist' argues that anything macroscopic in the office got hotter than 700-800°C.

Because for something to get heated to 800°C, you need a flame that is significantly hotter than 800°C, and you need a sufficient amount of time to heat it to that temperature. And no one argues that happened.

It's only the conspiracy theorists that argue there were hotter things - and it was due to thermite.

The problem here is that the official theory doesn't explain the molten metal found afterwards or the incandescent liquid (I'd argue they're both the same)

Well, they do. They claim the incandescent liquid is molten aluminium, which can be falsified, and they now simply deny the existence of molten hot metal found in the aftermath.

I love the basic contradiction here. We know for certain there weren't any hotter regions in the fire because we can't see any on the videos.

Sure.

I'm not making this **** up. That's the official conspiracy theory.

Alright, you expose a fallacy of mine here. I'm using the relative measurement of the videos (comparing the flames with the incandescent liquid) and I'm mixing it with the estimates of NIST and 'established mechanics of office fires.

I have to admit though, I was kind of surprised reading that a candle flame can be 1800K hot.

Ultimately, my proof that your theory is irrelevant will come from the fact that you will either not attempt to present it to the press, academics, professional societies, business leaders, or prosecutors in any country ever, or if possessed by some fit of untrutherlike impulses to do so, it will have no impact.

That's proof that my theory is irrelevant? You mean, you can live happily knowing that my theory is correct, but you simply don't care because you or me knowing about it's correctness isn't going to change anything about the world? Is that it?

So, while we're all waiting for that to not happen, how about an example of a conceivable piece of evidence that would falsify your thermite theory for you?

I'm so evil, huh. I'm making it so hard for you to prove there was no thermite by showing evidence that there was. I'm a real con artist, right.

Claiming something is the result of a malfunctioning camera can always be invoked. There's a video of some guy strangling his wife to death. What? No, that's the camera malfunctioning. There's a video of a driver committing a hit-and-run. Oh, it's just the camera malfunctioning, that didn't happen.

 

[Dabljuh]

Another thing Dab did was he started talking thermate... except... barium nitrate was not found any place within ground zero.

lol, wut?

How long have you been following the thread Grizzly? That was brought up ages ago. Barium nitrate is not a necessary component of thermate. Barium nitrate is an oxidizer. So is potassium permanganate.

Oh, and here's the best part: Jones found that the molten metal samples he analyzed were rich in both potassium and manganese.

And no: the manganese wasn't in the iron. You see, an iron based eutectic that solidifies leaves a telltale granular structure of almost pure iron grains in a mesh of the eutectic component - in this case, the sulfur and manganese. The iron itself didn't contain manganese or any other components of structural steel.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Manganese is a component of structural steel. Potassium is found in a large variety of things, not the least of which are organic-based materials and paint, which are found in large amounts in the towers. Yet, we're expected to think these came from thermate.

Do we believe the source would be things already in the tower? Or things that somehow were installed without anybody noticing? And not leaving other telltale effects, such as molten steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

lol, wut?
Oh, and here's the best part: Jones found that the molten metal samples he analyzed were rich in both potassium and manganese.

And no: the manganese wasn't in the iron. You see, an iron based eutectic that solidifies leaves a telltale granular structure of almost pure iron grains in a mesh of the eutectic component - in this case, the sulfur and manganese. The iron itself didn't contain manganese or any other components of structural steel.

Manganese, vanadium, molybdenum, chromium, nickel, tungsten an cobalt are all common alloys used in structural steel Dab... And as I have stated before steel is essentially processed iron. Merely iron alloyed with these common ingredients

 

[van_dutch]

However, finally: While it is obvious that determining the temperature of an item by purely looking at its incandescent color is fairly inaccurate, in all cases we can confirm the following:

1. The IR filter of the camera in question is effective due to the expected range of colors of red, cherry, orange, and yellow and yellow-white being intact and obeyed by the observed incandescent liquid.
2. The incandescent liquid in question is thus vastly hotter than whatever the fire could have produced.
2.a) Even more so when taking the travel time of the liquid with no immediate source into account
3. One possible hypothesis for the observed temperature is a thermate charge that ignited in the core.
3.a) The thermate charge in the core may have likely ignited due to its primer charge igniting in the fire.
4. The behaviour of the incandescent liquid is 100% consistent with an iron rich eutectic thermate product
5. An iron rich eutectic thermate product was identified in the rubble by Prof. Jones.

You admit that determining temperature by looking at the color is inaccurate yet you use the color to justify the fact that it is hotter than the fire and is of some temperature that is consistent with a thermate reaction. Am I missing something in your logic here? Does anyone else see what I may be missing?

 

[e^n]

Isn't it. Ask a fire protection engineer. A candle is designed to produce a small, bright flame. An office isn't. And any flame larger than your pinky finger is going to be increasingly oxygen starved. No credible 'official conspiracy theorist' argues that anything macroscopic in the office got hotter than 700-800°C.

Because for something to get heated to 800°C, you need a flame that is significantly hotter than 800°C, and you need a sufficient amount of time to heat it to that temperature. And no one argues that happened.

Cardington test 4 dealt with a typical office scale demonstration iirc.

well over 1000c, with parts of the steel reaching that 5 minutes afterward. These were also beams, which have a more favourable cross sectional area to surface area ratio.

Office fires will easily exceed 1000c, partially because of the lack of oxygen flow. The soot that builds up results in insulation against radiative heat emission, essentially trapping the heat expelled.

I can provide you with many more graphs from the series of tests they did if you really want me to.

 

[Dabljuh]

Cardington test 4 dealt with a typical office scale demonstration iirc.

Is that the one performed in the 90ies where nothing collapsed?

well over 1000c, with parts of the steel reaching that 5 minutes afterward. These were also beams, which have a more favourable cross sectional area to surface area ratio.

Yet:

This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3

I can provide you with many more graphs from the series of tests they did if you really want me to.

I wouldn't mind but keep it relevant. See, what you did there was show the graph of a worst, worst case scenario test in a controlled environment that shows how high the temperatures in a beam can get. However that is not really relevant to the expected temperature of the flames in the WTC. Also, we're not really talking about the beams anymore anyways.

Anyone got NIST's suggestions for fire temperature and beam temperature at hand? Those would be relevant.

Also: LOL@Reasoning

Office fires will easily exceed 1000c, partially because of the lack of oxygen flow. The soot that builds up results in insulation against radiative heat emission, essentially trapping the heat expelled.

Read Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation that essentially says the blacker something is, the higher its emissivity. That means that soot would be a particularly good radiative heat emitter.

 

[AZCat]

Anyone got NIST's suggestions for fire temperature and beam temperature at hand? Those would be relevant.

NCSTAR 1-5F has a great deal of information about the computer models developed for the WTC tower simulations. Particularly relevant to your question is the following paragraph from Section 6.6.2 (p. 109):

It was clear from both the simulations and observations that the idea of computing some "average" gas temperature was not a satisfactory means of assessing the thermal environment of a building that was over 4,000 m² (1 acre) in plan. Not only would the assumption of an average temperature have been inconsistent with the visual evidence, but it would also have led to large errors in the subsequent thermal and structural analyses. The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal radiation, a quantity that is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. It would not have been appropriate to assume that the thermal insult to the steel members was a function of the fourth power of the average temperature. The simulations and the visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 °C at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 °C to 800 °C on floors with active fires. To put this in perspective, the heat flux onto a truss surrounded by smoke-laden gases of 1,000 °C is approximately 150 kW/m², whereas it is 20 kW/m² for gases of 500 °C.

 

[beachnut]

lol, wut?

How long have you been following the thread Grizzly? That was brought up ages ago. Barium nitrate is not a necessary component of thermate. Barium nitrate is an oxidizer. So is potassium permanganate.

Oh, and here's the best part: Jones found that the molten metal samples he analyzed were rich in both potassium and manganese.

And no: the manganese wasn't in the iron. You see, an iron based eutectic that solidifies leaves a telltale granular structure of almost pure iron grains in a mesh of the eutectic component - in this case, the sulfur and manganese. The iron itself didn't contain manganese or any other components of structural steel.

Move those goalposts. Now you added some more junk ideas not supported in fact or evidence about 9/11.

Jones found zero molten metal at ground zero after 9/11 before he made up thermite 4 years after 9/11. Therefore, Jones is backing in dust samles and some chips of unknown origin as his delusional proof of thermite. Is Jones an anti-war guy who has gone nuts and lies about 9/11? He uses hearsay for the molten metal.

Read his first paper which is pure nonsense.

Wait, was it thermite or explosives? Looks like Jones is not sure, but he sees the air pressure leaving the building, air pressure due to the fact it accelerates instead of exploding and decelerating like explosives do. Your expert cold fusion physics, not good at reality.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

Jones does not understand most the "powder" (dust) was not concrete; he should use real evidence instead of making up lies! He is wrong about the energy too. There is over 100 TONS of TNT energy alone due to gradational potential energy in each tower, and that is more than enough energy to crush the ceiling tiles and wallboard into the powder Jones is talking about and trying to mislead into saying it was concrete exploded by "thermite"; Is Jones a lair or just stupid? There is enough energy, so if he understands physics, he is a liar, or lacks knowledge on this!

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

Now he compares a 110 story building covering an acre per floor to a cement block dropping 12 feet! He left out the ceiling tiles, and frable floor insulation, and wallboard! His dust experiment is flawed, it reminds me of your posts, pure junk.

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

There was no molten metal found due to thermite. Even Jones is using hearsay, to make up some more false ideas. No one found the signs of thermite on the steel of the WTC, not one beam was melted by thermite! Jones made up thermite, 9/16/05, over 4 years after the event Jones makes it up in a letter.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

Show me the thermite that makes loud noises like a building collapsing. You know not one fireman said there were explosives used. Failure!

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Real explosives kill people, the proof of no explosives in the WTC, is the survivors in the stair well and the lack of explosive deaths and injuries! No one was blown up! No explosives, but then thermite is not an explosive, it is a chemical reaction used to disable weapons and weld railroad ties together, gee, the best you could expect at the WTC would be gobs of iron welded to the steel and running along the floor for a foot. Gravity got you!

Please specify how thermite could be used in a building with the core columns protected by 3 inches of fire proofing? Forget the question, Jones made this all up in 2005 for some unknown reason, I think the hates Bush. Just like the Clinton conspiracy theorist, who say Bill Killed 50 people, the 9/11 truth idiot ideas are the same, bias driven lies, lies about people based on hate or bias.

A big lie made up by Jones, or junk ideas based on faulty logic? If you say Jones understands physics then Jones is making up stuff and he is a liar. If you fail to see this, then you lack an understanding of physics and choose to remain uninformed on this topic.
Jones is physicist, this means he is making up this fantasy on purpose, his first paper a fraudulent attempt to mislead others. He got you, yet, you could fix your gullibility by learning physics, or relearning physics. Good luck. Do you need a copy of his first paper, before he was fired for making up stuff about 9/11?