Did FEMA recently report temperatures of 2700 degrees F at GZ?

[ElMondoHummus]

Exactly the point. The EPA just assumend the planes were carrying DU because the older planes like the 747 carried lots of DU, but the 757 and 767 carry tungsten not DU.

There have been accidents with older 747s that casued radiation from the DU they carried.

You've mentioned this before, and it's been discussed before.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4111644#post4111644

Maybe you're relying on early reports instead of final ones again, but the fact remains that, regarding Ground Zero in New York, the EPA does not list uranium as one of the detected elements in their monitoring program. They don't mention it in regards to the Pentagon either. They may have thought this at first, but I don't see any documentation that confirms that, let alone anything about uranium detection now. At any rate, they certainly aren't saying that there's any uranium contamination now. And with respect to Ground Zero at least, there's barely any additional radiation above normal there, and the increase that does exist has been attributed to the liberated tritium, which I've discussed above.

I don't know where you're going with this - supposed uranium in jetliners is irrelevant to any conspiracy theory - but it's not even applicable outside conspiratorial thinking, because as best I can tell, the EPA isn't even discussing uranium at either site. They're certainly not publishing any findings. So what's the point of this?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

This of course does not help the thermite thesis one bit, unless Jones et. al. are able to come up with a hypothesis on how thermite burns for weeks to months after the ignition event.

Hmmmm... what is your thesis on what can ignite a fire that burns at 2,800 degrees after weeks or months?

 

[TjW]

My theory is that the ignition was accelerated by kerosene, and then the fuel of office contents was burned in a reasonably well insulated area with a restricted oxygen supply. Because there was oxygen, the fire didn't go out.
Because the oxygen was limited, the fuel didn't burn fast, so the fire went on for months.
Because the area being burned was reasonably well insulated, the area the fire was in got hotter and hotter.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

We need no "thesis" on what ignited the fire. We have observed that the jets hit and that fires followed.

The fact that it reached 2800 degrees in the rubble pile indicates nothing about the state of the towers prior to collapse. And it can be attributed to the radically different conditions present in the rubble pile.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Hmmmm... what is your thesis on what can ignite a fire that burns at 2,800 degrees after weeks or months?

assuming its even true what is your theory on what can ignite and fuel a fire that burns for 2,800 degrees after weeks or months? since you will will probably reject ElMondoHummus and TjW's posts

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

assuming its even true what is your theory on what can ignite and fuel a fire that burns for 2,800 degrees after weeks or months? since you will will probably reject ElMondoHummus and TjW's posts

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

 

[funk de fino]

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

neither thermate or explosives were found at the site

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

That's a terrible argument, based more on wishful thinking than solid consideration of the facts. Thermate/thermite or explosives are ruled out for a plethora of other reasons, and has been for a long time now. A failed thesis cannot be reintroduced simply because high temperatures are being discussed, not when the evidence falsifying the notion still exists and hasn't changed. The eutectic erosion found by Biederman, Sisson, and Astaneh-Asl argues against thermate; so does the lack of hardened pools of formerly molten iron. As well as the lack of reports of such flows from people high up in the tower. And so on. There's no need to rehash failed arguments from the past; suffice to say that whatever the temperatures were in the rubble piles, they were not caused by a fast acting incendiary that is incapable of adding heat to the system after a few minutes, much less several weeks. And as I said before, the temperatures can easily be explained by the different conditions present in the rubble piles. Fires that were spread out over multiple floors and acres were compressed and concentrated; aflame segments that spanned 2 or 3 floors before collapse were reduced to mere feet high after collapse. Flammable office contents that were spread out over acres and vertically over stories were simply compressed. That alone changes the conditions; the fact that the rubble pile, with all the concrete that was available, was insulative adds to the conditions, as does the fact that airflow is radically changed, since the formerly, relatively open floors get incredibly reduced. So, the post collapse conditions consisted of highly restricted but not eliminated airflow to take heat away, an insulative environment, and a fuel source - office contents - thats now densly packed. All that argues qualitatively for higher temperatures than would exist in the towers pre-collapse, even before we get into the nitty-gritty of quantitave arguments.

The fact is that high temperatures in the debris piles indicate nothing about the pre-collapse conditions, other than that a fire existed. And that we already knew from direct observation. There's nothing about the pile temperatures or conditions to indicate any presence of any incendiaries or explosives, and much evidence contradicting those propositions. Thermate or bombs are dead ideas.

 

[jaydeehess]

neither thermate or explosives were found at the site

Although thermate would raise the temp of debris proximate to it to a very high temp, it would burn out quickly. It cannot burn slowly, it requires no oxygen supply.

In order to raise the temp of a large volume of debris to a high temp over a long time span one requires that a constant heat input be in place AND that heat not be able to 'escape' the volume very efficiently(insulation).

I believe that the greater temps involved are also a result of the 'cooking' of material not directly involved in the fires.
Fire in one area creates heat warming up debris nearby that is not involved in the fire, volitiles cook off, both gaseous and liquid whch flow into pockets. The fire moves through the material eventually reaching these pockets which can burn at even higher temps than plain paper, carpeting, etc. thus inputting more heat to the volume, cooking material at greater distance,,,,, and this continues for months with the hottest areas moving around the pile slowly(another aspect that cannot be explained by thermate(ite))

Since the debris pile fires have no bearing on the collapses they were of no interest in any NIST study. It would however make for a decent masters degree study.

 

[TjW]

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

You would be wrong. To my way of thinking it doesn't matter if the jet fuel burned out in twenty minutes, or twenty hours, or twenty days.
The point is, it started a large fire.


While we can't rule out thermate (or mite or whatever vowel movement is popular this week with twoofers) as an ignition source, neither can we rule out kitchen matches, or cigarette butts or dragons or an evil twin of Johnny Storm who transdimensionalized in from a parallel fictional universe to perform felony arson.

Now, while dragons and the evil Johnny can't actually be ruled out, eyewitnesses failed to see, or at least to report them, and there was no forensic evidence (like, perhaps a fireproof reptile scale of unknown origin or... well, I have to admit I don't know what sort of forensic evidence the evil Johnny would leave behind, so maybe we're on to something there... )

Curiously, bystanders did see big airplanes fly into the buildings just before the fires started. Some may have jumped to the conclusion that the two events were related.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Still one does not cancel out the other especially in a real investigation.

For instance in something like arson the object is to destroy a structure and hope that you have cloaked the real cause of the fire to anyone investigating it if it's for something like insurance reasons. I'm not claiming 9/11 was because of insurance reasons I'm just pointing out that an investigation doesn't just focus on what seems to be the obvious cause.

According to the official explanations for all three global collapses the reasons given were not primarily because of structural damage from the plane crashes or because of jet fuel fires. Building content fire is given as the main culprit in the collapse of three steel constructed high-rise buildings for the first time in history.

Now someone tell me how 2,800 degrees is associated with building content fire. The premise of some of your answers is that even if there was 2,800 degrees in the piles like some claim it doesn't mean thermate was involved.

Fine. Then what? Or are you just going to go back to 2,800 degrees is not proven? That's all you needed to say in the first place. Stop pretending.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

ever hear of ockhams razor? elements should not be multiplied beyond necessity

if a fire fueled by office debris can reach 2800 degrees then thermate is an unnecessary element

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

ever hear of ockhams razor? elements should not be multiplied beyond necessity

if a fire fueled by office debris can reach 2800 degrees then thermate is an unnecessary element

Yes I've heard of Occam's razor. I think I even know how to spell it.

I've just never heard of building content fire being the cause of a global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise before 9/11. We're not even talking about buildings that were totally engulfed in flames.

Again in investigating something like fire an arsonist would depend on the investigator settling on the simplest solution. Occam's razor could be his best friend.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes I've heard of Occam's razor. I think I even know how to spell it.

I've just never heard of building content fire being the cause of a global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise before 9/11. We're not even talking about buildings that were totally engulfed in flames.

Again in investigating something like fire an arsonist would depend on the investigator settling on the simplest solution. Occam's razor could be his best friend.

condisering william of ockham was from ockham, surrey i prefer to spell it ockham

and an arson investigator would not conclude arson if there is no evidence for it, as that would be needless expanding the elements, contrary to ockhams razor

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes and we shouldn't rule out space beams and aliens either since there's always a possibility of anything we can possibly imagine.

 

[TjW]

Still one does not cancel out the other especially in a real investigation.

For instance in something like arson the object is to destroy a structure and hope that you have cloaked the real cause of the fire to anyone investigating it if it's for something like insurance reasons. I'm not claiming 9/11 was because of insurance reasons I'm just pointing out that an investigation doesn't just focus on what seems to be the obvious cause.

Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.

According to the official explanations for all three global collapses the reasons given were not primarily because of structural damage from the plane crashes or because of jet fuel fires. Building content fire is given as the main culprit in the collapse of three steel constructed high-rise buildings for the first time in history.

If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.

Now someone tell me how 2,800 degrees is associated with building content fire. The premise of some of your answers is that even if there was 2,800 degrees in the piles like some claim it doesn't mean thermate was involved.

Fine. Then what? Or are you just going to go back to 2,800 degrees is not proven? That's all you needed to say in the first place. Stop pretending.

Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.

No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.

2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.

What am I pretending?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.

There was no obvious evidence of over a thousand victims remains at the WTC site. There were no black boxes discovered. Were these things not there also?

If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.

It was building content fire according to the gospel you come here to defend. This is the first time in history three times in one day. Sounds like faith.

Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.

What are you basing this plausibility on?

No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.

2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.

Consistent with what past examples?

What am I pretending?

You are pretending to know why the buildings fell.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yes and we shouldn't rule out space beams and aliens either since there's always a possibility of anything we can possibly imagine.

I think I can rule out that you have anything of value to add to this conversation.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

condisering william of ockham was from ockham, surrey i prefer to spell it ockham

and an arson investigator would not conclude arson if there is no evidence for it, as that would be needless expanding the elements, contrary to ockhams razor

An arson investigator would not rule out arson without investigating it. A real investigation would not rule out the obvious past example causes of steel structured high-rises collapsing without investigating it. Especially in light of how the building was attacked before.

 

[Baylor]

I think I can rule out that you have anything of value to add to this conversation.

Let me rephrase what I think he's trying to say, in the form of a question. How stupid does the hypothesis have to be for it to be thrown in the "ridiculous" category. Is the possibility of nuclear weapons felling the towers worth investigating, or is even considering a waste of time? How about Judy Wood's energy beam theory? How about the yet to be discovered "thermate cutter charge?" What crosses the line between worth investigating and waste of time because it's so ridiculous?