Ok, let’s say that after analyzes the meteorite was proven to be the fusion of steel and concrete. Presumably temperatures around 2800 F would be required.
As I, and others haves discussed here, you need heat sufficient to meld the surfaces of the two materials together. This can be created either by heat from an external source (like the heated debris pile), or from friction caused by the pressure exerted on the two from the fall.
I do not recall Mackey saying that 2800F temps could not have been possible, but rather that he had not seen any empirical data to prove it. There is a difference.
Let us also assume that the Big Mackey is right and the 2800 F temperature reading from Professional Safety magazine is false or made up, that such extreme temperatures could never have been and were never generated from within the rubble pile.
No, let us say that there is a possibility that the 2800F REPORTED temperature may be in error, either from the source, or from the report that was quoted by you. I have seen no proof, nor a suggestion here, that temps that high could not be present in the debris pile, but please, if I missed it, show me where someone said it was IMPOSSIBLE for the pile to produce temps of 2800F.
Consequently we can rule out the meteorite being formed in the rubble pile.
No, I do not think we can rule it out. I also think that the collapse itself, and the pressure exerted on the floors, concrete, steel, etc, may have been the cause of that compression/fusion of materials you are referring to as the meteorite.
This would mean that it must have occured prior to the rubble pile, during the collapse? Extreme temperatures sufficient to fuse steel and concrete during the collapse would not support the official collapse hypothesis. What do you think?
I think that you have yet to prove that such temperatures, for instances upon the surfaces of those two materials, could not be obtained through the pressure and subsequent friction that may have been caused by the collapse.
The fact that 7 years on we are still talking about the sulfur residue on the steel “likely” being this and “likely” being that is the point i wish to make.
We are talking about it because people who hate the USG, and who are looking for any way to blame them for the attacks, think it is a point of interest. Like I said, the presence of sulfur residue, and molten steel, surprise me not.
It is a fact that sulfidation of steel is an indication – not proof - of the presence of exotic accelerants. The official investigation has terminated so a new investigation is needed whereby this question is settled empirically in a lab by physical testing with published videos, photos etc. For instance if the sulfidation and “swiss cheese” effect observed on the wtc 7 steel samples can be recreated by the sulphur in the wallboard or by the diesel fuel as suggested by sunstealer then lets have it. Likewise if truthers can recreate this effect from exotic accelerants then show us the beef, but this continual state of ambiguity on so many issues in relation to 911 screams out for a new more empirically orientated investigation.
It is not a state of ambiguity for anyone but the truthers who refuse to believe the truth.
This argument is similiar to the following.
You come upon a man who has a stab wound to the chest. next to him is a knife covered in blood.
Now do you assume, unless there is EVIDENCE otherwise, that it was the knife that he was stabbed with, or do you start searching for evidence, that it was a sharp piece of falling meteorite?
you see my point. You have a collapse, where all of the evidence points towards a gravity driven collapse, started from a combination of the crashes, the fires, the removal of fireproofing. It was a collapse of building made of steel, aluminum, wallboard, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of other materials. Then in the debris pile you find sulfur residue and possibly molten steel. The LOGICAL conclusion is the sulfur is from the wallboard, or some other common material from within the building, and the molten steel the result of either (A) the collapse itself, or (B) the superheating fires under the pile afterward.
The logical conclusion IS NOT, an exotic, never before used (in demolitions) substance that cuts through steel and then stops (like thermite/mate).
Firstly, explain to me why they were expected?
I did, see above.
Secondly, the reason these relevant issues remain unresolved is precisely because they have not been sufficiently investigated. According to NFPA both molten metal and sulfidation of steel are possible indications of exotic accelerants therefore it is impossible to rule out the possible presence of exotic accelerants until an investigation actually rules them out. Your putting the horse before the cart my friend.
It is impossible to rule out unicorns and ghosts as well, but I think they were not to blame either.
As for the rest, well it has been sufficiently investigated in the minds of the majority, and if you think otherwise, well that is your perogative, but I think you are wrong.
Thirdly, NIST did fail the requirment of total evidence because it failed to address all relevant evidence. Molten metal and sulfidation of steel. among many other things, are relevant because they indicate the presence of exotic accelerants hence they could potentially falsify NIST’s collapse hypothesis if confirmed or verified.
No they do not indicate it, they leave it in the wide open realm of possibility, with no real evidence to make it anything more that an extremely remote one, with a plethora of evidence pointing toward the obvious cause, the collapse, the fires, and the contents of the buildings.
As well, the NIST investigation WAS NOT A FORENSIC ONE. It was a SAFETY one. If you read their mandate (that by which they guide their investigation) you would know this.
No i prove it, no you prove it, we are becoming repetitive amigo mio. The reason i opened this thread was to argue for a new investigation and the very fact there are still unresolved issues left to be resolved only serves to reaffirm my argument.
I am merely informing you of the general rules, which is that the burden of proof for any theory rests upon the person who is trying to prove a theory which contradicts the accepted one. wrt 9/11, we all know which theory is the accepted one, so the burden of proof is with those who wish to prove it wrong.
The crucial question is why should these unresolved issues be investigated? Your rationale that they should not because basically noone thought their presence odd is not a sound reason.
Why not. If experts in the fields of demolition, clean up, engineering, did not feel that 2800F temperatures were odd or abnormal enough to investigate, then why should I, as a laymen in those fields, feel they were? Some sense of paranoia???
The truth is according to the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations molten metal or sulfidation of steel members is an indication of exotic accelerants which are routinely investigated. For instance between 1981-1991 25 fires
suspected of high temperature acelerants were forensically examined eventhough there was no conclusive scientific proof of there use.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=6 Now funk fino is correct when he says that NIST were not obligated to follow their guidelines but what funk fails to mention is what standard or guidelines was NIST’s investigation following? So investigating such “expected anomolies” (trying to make us both happy) is standard procedure.
Your quote is from a truther site. You will have to do better. I am not saying you are wrong with what you have said, but I do not trust the link you have provided as the source.
Furthermore because molten metal and sulfidation indicate exotic accelerants it is extremely relevant to the investigation because if their presence was established the official collapse hypothesis would be abandoned.
1. Exotic, wrt sulfidation could mean something as simple as indicating the presence of anything not a hydrocarbon. It does not indicate, in this context, an exotic steel cutting product like Thermite. You should stop using the word indicates, if you are talking about Thermite, because that is only one of a hundred or more "exotic" accelerants. Hell, perhaps the wallboard itself, in this regard, can be considered an "exotic" accelerant.
2. The presence of some substance, within the contents of the building, that might have contributed to increased temperatures at some point before or after the collapse, does not, IN ANY WAY, make the official collapse hypothesis any less likely.
Besides you already agreed in an earlier post that you would welcome further analyses on the steel-concrete meteorite so your resistance now to investigating unresolved issues (which includes the steel-concrete meteorite) is somewhat of a contradiction.
My agreement, was that I would have no problem with it. I did not say I was advocating it.
There is a big difference between studying the one area of interest you are describing, and a "Brand new investigation" which would cost a lot of money, on the backs of people who do not need it or likely want it.
I prove it, you prove it, why not support a new investigation because (a) it is standard procedure in fire and explosion investigation to prove what caused molten metal etc and (b) determining its cause is relevant to the collapse hypothesis.
Have reference for this "standard procedure" indicating that molten metal is to be investigated for cause?
And no, it is not relevant to the collapse hypothesis. You have not proven it is.
The presence of iron sphericules with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite certainly establishes the possibility that commercial thermite was present. Admitedly more work is needed on behalf of jones to eliminate other possible sources that you have eluded to above.
As a singular piece of evidence, yes Thermite is in a huge range of possibilities, but there a simpler explanations with more evidence to back it up, as we have been discussing.
Let me get this straight, Jones tested
NIST’s claim that the molten metal from south tower was aluminium + organics. And when he proves
NIST’s claim false his experiments are ridiculous eventhough he published video and photos of his experiments for all to see!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
Why doesnt NIST’s prove THEIR OWN FRIGGIN CLAIM...lol...where is your burden of proof argument now T.A.M.?
1. I watched these so called experiments. You can not compare the adding of a handful of woodchips to molten aluminum, to the tonnes of organics, or many different compositions, that may have contaminated molten aluminum in the towers.
2. It was not a claim, so much as a POSSIBLE explanation that NIST gave, in an FAQ, in response to a question about the presence or orange molten material in the towers prior to collapse.
Can you send me a single experiment demonstrating how organics mixed with aluminium glows bright orange in daylight? No you cant...
Off the top of my head, no. Are you stating for the record now, that organics added to aluminum, cannot produce an orange molten material?
final question and its very important to me in understanding the psychology of defenders of the official conspiracy:
1. why did you believe NIST's claim that the molten flow from the south tower was aluminium + organics when they had never empirically demonstrated their claim to be true?
Because;
(A) they are experts in the relevant fields.
(B) there has been no evidence to prove it was anything else.
(C) it matches with the circumstances that existed (temps hot enough to melt aluminum, and tonnes of organic material around).
Let me ask you, why do you believe the earth is round? Why do you believe their is a continent of austrailia?
2. and why do you still beleive their claim eventhough jones has empirically demonstarted their claim to be false?
Like I said, Jones has not demonstrated it false. His experiment was much to simplified. It was poor science in almost every way.
TAM
