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

[twinstead]

Next thing we know he'll be claiming the moon landings were hoaxed because he can't see any stars in the pictures...

 

[Travis]

I still think its funny he thinks all these thermite/thermate cutters could go off and no one sees them. Especially when the perimeter columns would need to be cut and doing that would have been impossible to hide.

 

[Minadin]

I still think its funny he thinks all these thermite/thermate cutters could go off and no one sees them. Especially when the perimeter columns would need to be cut and doing that would have been impossible to hide.

Well, he also doesn't believe that the perimeter columns carried any / much of the gravitational load of the buildings . . .

But in any event, you're entirely correct, therm(*)te incendiaries being ignited at all of the load bearing columns would have been quite the light show - as demonstrated by this embarrassing conspiracy theorist video demonstration:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Oh, I know, I know... I've said this a million times over it seems, and even once or twice in this thread here, but just because I address a conspiracy peddler doesn't necessarily mean the info is aimed at him. It's for lurkers, newbies, etc. etc.

Dabljuh devolved into a brick wall all the way back when he brought up the old canards about the towers' redundancy and the "never in history" claim. Everything else since then has been about showing people what the right information is. Remember, this is the poster that started out talking about explosions and brought up arguments Steven Jones doesn't even use anymore. I know he's a brick wall. Walls are good for hanging the right picture on. You just got to hammer the nail a bit harder when the brick resists.

I agree. If he can't see where he's gone wrong by this point, he stopped looking a long time ago.

 

[Dabljuh]

This is really the only post that tries to refute the thermite hypothesis? And it gets the science all so wrong!

The reason you shouldn't be too happy is that if you want to claim that this is thermite, you also have to acknowledge that thermite burns spectacularly and visibly, and obviously, this single event, even if it were thermate, could not have structurally compromised the building (let alone both towers). So when one thermite burn is so spectacular, where is the evidence of all the others?

The proof of the presence of thermite does not prove that the buildings were brought down with thermite. However, especially circumstantial evidence, it would be illogical not to assume so as a start.

In fact not particularly typical of iron, because iron at this temperature will start to burn when exposed to open air, so we should actually see flying, white-hot sparks, not just falling orange drops.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Burning iron particles produces GOLDEN sparks. You can see those as the hot material falls down, a few sparks ignite. Nothing like the sort of thing you describe.

No.[TM]

One word, and you don't manage to back it up.

Fault. The color of a material is mainly dependent on its temperature.

Actually I was wrong about that when I posted something to that end earlier, but I have already correct that part. The color of the light, i.e. the blackbody radiation, is indeed largely right, apart from some absorption lines. The problem is: 1300°C hot iron produces *red* light. It simply *appears* yellow to the naked eye.

Thus, at 1200°C, aluminum will have the same color as steel of the same temperature. But, since aluminum is much less combustible, it will not burn.

How do you manage to get so much science wrong? Aluminium is just as combustible as iron, and burns - unlike iron - with SILVER sparks. And no, Aluminium will not have the same color as steel of the same temperature, because it has a much lower emissivity. It won't be visibile in dailight until the 1700°Cs, and even at 2300°C, where it is as *bright* as iron at 1300°C, It'll appear in a different color from iron both at 1300°C or at 2300°C.

Mmmm, the windows were not blown then from whence did all the smoke seen to pour out of the building come?

Some of the windows were destroyed by the plane's impact

Could we imagine that it collected somewhere inside the building, getting heated, before finding its way to the outside? Well, I can.

But, getting heated by what?

And you find it impossible to imagine that it may have originated farther inside and higher up in the building?

No, that would be perfectly consistent with a thermate hypothesis.

Vastly higher? Ehr, we see that it runs quite quickly, so it may have found its way from a different location in a matter of seconds.

But not without flowing over a significant amount of comparably cool concrete.

Things melt in fires.

...

 

[SDC]

This kind of discussion makes me think... 10% of all men are color-blind. (Including me.) The term color-blindness really means color-deficient vision, practically speaking, with reds and greens more than any other areas. Many color blind men are unaware of the fact.

Anyone who claims to be able to make hard, scientific statements on the basis of eyeballing photos is a nincompoop. And since I am sick of this, let me state, This Means You Dabljuh. You are a nincompoop. Go ahead, sic the mods on me. Or ignore me. I don't care.

 

[WildCat]

OK, who is Dabljuh really? This has to be a joke! Sgt. Powers?

 

[Dabljuh]

This kind of discussion makes me think... 10% of all men are color-blind. (Including me.) The term color-blindness really means color-deficient vision, practically speaking, with reds and greens more than any other areas. Many color blind men are unaware of the fact.

Anyone who claims to be able to make hard, scientific statements on the basis of eyeballing photos is a nincompoop. And since I am sick of this, let me state, This Means You Dabljuh. You are a nincompoop. Go ahead, sic the mods on me. Or ignore me. I don't care.

Alright, Science-time:

You're saying, scientific evidence is invalid if it involves usage of the eyes?

The same logic can be applied to the ears and all other sensory organs, of course.

So you're saying, anyone who makes scientific statements on the basis of his perception of REALITY is a... whatever? That we should only make scientific statements if it does not involve perception of any kind, and if a testable hypothesis does differ in its prediction from an observation, that we should dismiss the observation because it is obviously false?

Have you ever heard of 'empirism'? 'fallibilism'? Heck, even though it's outdated as a scientific theory (compared to the much more modern fallibilism), have you ever heard of skepticism?

SDC... I don't know what to say. Sorry for your color-blindness though. I can just tell you that I'm not color blind. And I don't know how much your color blindness affects your ability to judge the issue tbh. I'm sorry if you feel left out.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good grief, not more sloppy analysis about the color again!

First: Color analysis in the absence of knowing the gamma and color temperature settings of the monitor in question is insane. And this is well before taking into account the chromatic accuracy of the cameras themselves!

Furthermore, what was the composition of the falling material? Dabuljuh breezily asserts emissivity values for steel and aluminum, but that's not a given; there's no allowance for the fact that it may even be a heterogenous mix of items on fire; recall, it is known that there were banks of enterprise-class uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). Those would contain a variety of elements and compounds. And since emissivity depends on the material, it is important to know the composition of the flowing material. Without showing the values he plugged into his calculation, his conclusion of what the temperature of the falling material is ends up being meaningless.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So you're saying, anyone who makes scientific statements on the basis of his perception of REALITY is a... whatever? That we should only make scientific statements if it does not involve perception of any kind, and if a testable hypothesis does differ in its prediction from an observation, that we should dismiss the observation because it is obviously false?

Recognition of the limits of human perception is a necessary component of analysis. That is something you dismiss at your peril when you cling to your conclusions of the temperature of the falling components in the video. You haven't accounted for the inaccuracies in question, again not the least of which was, as mentioned above, the color calibration of the monitor the image is viewed on, as well as the accuracy of the camera in question. And this is all before the human inaccuracies that is the point of this response. Note the information at the link you yourself provided earlier.

Tables comparing temperature and color appeared at least as early as 1836 (Pouillet). The one below shows three attempts at correlating temperature and color. The verbal descriptions given by Howe2 and White and Taylor3 have been omitted and their temperatures placed with the verbal description in the Holcomb Steel data that was closest to theirs. The variation demonstrates how unreliable this method is even in the hands of careful observers.

http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm

As an example of the table at that site, note the temperature differences between the Halcomb Steel descriptions and the White & Taylor ones: Orange-yellow is 1300 degrees C in one as opposed to 941 in another. And that's with careful observation of material in person, not 3rd party observation of a recording, with all the additional error that is added by the recording device.

Keep in mind that when you discuss quantitative conclusions - such as the temperature of phenomena observed at the twin towers - qualitative assessments lack the precision necessary to draw such conclusions. The charts at the link above demonstrate this. Proper application of empiricism understands the difference between qualitative and quantitative assessments, and proper analysis of phenomena understand the errors that can occur in both equipment used and human observation. And you'd hope that the error in the equipment is measured or at least accounted for, not dismissed by increasing the numerical range of the conclusion drawn. You are not keeping any of this in mind, not when you defend your conclusions as being as based in perception as anyone elses. Yes, your assessments are based in perception, but your failure to take properly into account the sources of error and limits of such perceptions are what render your conclusions suspect.

 

[Dabljuh]

EMH, amongst other things, I posted this link myself.

From observation, my estimate is that the incandescent liquid is about 1300°C (yellow-white) hot when it is first visible and cools to below 1000°C (orange) during the course of the video.

Of course there's errors in the camera, the gamma of my screen, and the substance's composition cannot be clearly determined, except that - due to the golden sparks that are visible as it pours down, it is rich in iron.

But how would you suppose the are the errors? Statistically speaking, where's the 90% confidence interval? 1000-1700°C at its hottest? Lets assume 1000°C now. This is just about the hottest that an office fire in theory could heat anything, and far hotter than what anyone expects the fires in the WTC to have heated macroscopic solids. But: Steel, Iron all aren't liquid at this temperature. And they certainly don't cool down to the 700°C range and still stay liquid. And furthermore, even if we somehow found an explanation for this, we'd still be confronted with the non-identifiable source of the incandescent liquid, which I presume is in the core, and would have to have started out several hundred degrees hotter than when it first enters visibility. So you'd still end up with an inexplicably hot incandescent liquid.

Explain it! Lead-Acid batteries contain water, and thus would explode above 100°C, and liquifiy above 350°C. If you propose aluminium, you're also proposing the substance to be above 2000°C hot - and would have to explain *that* temperature. If you propose glass, you'd have to propose why it is liquid at 1000°C rather than just plastic.

Just give me a satisfying alternative explanation for the observation - Simply dismissing it, claiming a high-quality professional camera isn't a pyrograph, does not suffice.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, you posted the link yourself. I noted that in my post above. As well as the fact that you ignore the warning given:

The variation demonstrates how unreliable this method is even in the hands of careful observers.

You also presume temperatures due to color observations without knowledge of what the material is. And emissivity depends on the material(s) observed, so the temperature analysis you purport to have done is indeed dependent on what the composition of the material is. Add to that all the errors due to the camera and monitor as well as the human element, and one wonders how you calculated the figure you did when you are missing multiple variables.

You can't speak of a confidence level when you don't even show the measurements, let alone acknowledge the margin of error in such measurements. Show your work. Plug in the figures, show us how you reached 1100-1300 degrees. Otherwise, all your posts are meaningless.

 

[phunk]

Explain it! Lead-Acid batteries contain water, and thus would explode above 100°C, and liquifiy above 350°C.

Wether they exploded from the heat, or were smashed by the impact of the plane, the lead was contained in plates within the batteries, and would not magically disapear when the batteries were destroyed. There would be a load of lead plates and plastic left mixed in with the plane & office debris that was swept into that corner in the impact.

 

[Dabljuh]

Wether they exploded from the heat, or were smashed by the impact of the plane, the lead was contained in plates within the batteries, and would not magically disapear when the batteries were destroyed. There would be a load of lead plates and plastic left mixed in with the plane & office debris that was swept into that corner in the impact.

Yeah but lead melts at 350°C, so how in $DEITY's name would it get over a 1300-1700°C hot pooling on the floor? Also, in the video the incandescent liquid seems to solidify in the orange temperatures, which means it's certainly not lead.

 

[Dabljuh]

You also presume temperatures due to color observations without knowledge of what the material is. And emissivity depends on the material(s) observed, so the temperature analysis you purport to have done is indeed dependent on what the composition of the material is. Add to that all the errors due to the camera and monitor as well as the human element, and one wonders how you calculated the figure you did when you are missing multiple variables.

You can't speak of a confidence level when you don't even show the measurements, let alone acknowledge the margin of error in such measurements. Show your work. Plug in the figures, show us how you reached 1100-1300 degrees. Otherwise, all your posts are meaningless.

Simple calculation. (Warning: Math incoming. Non-Asians, brace yourselves!)

Molten ferrous substances have an emissivity of 0.4.

We know the Stefan Boltzmann Law: P = e * o * T^4
where e is emissivity, o is the boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature in kelvin. A perfect blackbody would thus have

P1 = 1 * o * T^4

Now we calculate, if we assume it's iron, according to the visual identification it looks like it's at least 1300°C (1573K) hot at its hottest when it's visible.

P2 = 0.4 * o * (1573K)^4

Now for another material to appear as bright as iron, we can assume that in the worst case it's a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature. P1 = P2, x is the temperature of the perfect blackbody:

0.4 * o * (1573K)^4 = o * x^4

We resolve for x

0.4 * (1573K)^4 = x^4
(0.4 * (1573K)^4)^1/4 = x
0.4^1/4 * 1573K = x
1573K / 2.5 = x
1250K = x

That means the lowest possible temperature of the item in question, that is, if it's in fact a perfect blackbody that doesn't occur in nature, is 1250K = 975°C = 1790°F

Add in a margin of error, and it still can't be cooler than 900°C - after it lost already hundreds of kelvin flowing to the edge of the building from the core (edge of core to edge of building = ~80-90ft)

Meaning, even if you assume this is pixie dust, you still have to wonder how or why it got so hot, if the fire in the WTC didn't even manage to heat the glass windows to the point where they blow out which happens at 700°C...

EMH, you're still just protesting the evidence. Come up with an alternative explanation.

I can explain everything to you with just one word: "Thermate"

And that means it's the best theory to explain the observation.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Looks like we have another stundie.

Gosh I wonder what Dr Greening is doing these days... *cough*

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
And no, Aluminium will not have the same color as steel of the same temperature, because it has a much lower emissivity. It won't be visibile in dailight until the 1700°Cs, and even at 2300°C, where it is as *bright* as iron at 1300°C, It'll appear in a different color from iron both at 1300°C or at 2300°C.
<snip>

My copy of "Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants" by Kaye and Laby, thirteenth edition page 50 gives the following average emissivities:

Iron: Solid 0.35, Liquid 0.35
Iron (oxidised): Solid 0.7, Liquid 0.5
Aluminium (Oxidised): Solid 0.3, Liquid no figure quoted.

This reference book does not give a figure for the emissivity of molten aluminium, so I am interested in where you got your figure.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

all I see is a poor quality video that has not been adjusted to insure color correctness. I see some sort of material, contaminated or otherwise (we do not know) dripping from one area of the WTC, or at least material particles falling, what look like sparks etc....

must be Thermate...case closed...lol

 

[Dabljuh]

Iron: Solid 0.35, Liquid 0.35
Iron (oxidised): Solid 0.7, Liquid 0.5
Aluminium (Oxidised): Solid 0.3, Liquid no figure quoted

Just let me point out there that oxidized aluminium is more commonly called clay

Here's a link
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

Aluminum Rough 0.07
Aluminum Commercial Sheet 0.09

So I'd guess molten aluminium is going to be in the ballpark of those values. From memory, it's 0.11

The thing about aluminium is not just that it has a very low emissivity compared to iron for example, but it also has a very high reflectivity - so in daylight conditions, up to high temperatures, the reflected light's color (silvery) will marginalize the light (read: color) emitted from incandescence.

 

[T.A.M.]

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Sounds good enough to me, and since these guys, unlike you, actually investigated, I'll take their word.

Or simply prove them wrong, and send the proof to the authorities.

Wait, you guys never do that, or on the rare occasion you do, you get laughed out of court.

TAM

 

[Dabljuh]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Sounds good enough to me, and since these guys, unlike you, actually investigated, I'll take their word.

Or simply prove them wrong, and send the proof to the authorities.

Wait, you guys never do that, or on the rare occasion you do, you get laughed out of court.

TAM

Sure... because they never make mistakes. Or lie intentionally. Whichever you chose.

Notice the sparks as the incandescent liquid drops in the video? Observe their color.

Iron sparks are golden, Aluminium sparks are silvery.

Pyrotechnics 101


Also, seriously. Aluminium with dirt in it, bright like that? And how would it have gotten 1000°C hot if not even the windows were blown out due to the heat? Furthermore, as they say, the Aluminum alloys melt between 500 and 700°C - why would they sit around, liquid, and wait until they got 1000°C hot until they decided to jump out of the windows? Bovine Scatology.