• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity defying buildings? :D

T.A.M. said:
If you are referring to the recorded temps in the pile, then yes, however, i thought we weRe talking about the flowing metal from the building pre collapse. As well, i am pretty sure they were not monitoring the temps inthe entire pile 24/7 for all the days after 9/11. Do you have proof they were.

I am not an expert in materials sicence, so i will defer any further comment on temperature color and the effects of impurities to them (we have a couple of experts in this on the forum...not sure who).

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Yes I'm referring to the pouring metal out the window in pre-collapse. That material is seen to be yellow so even hotter than orange. Actually hotter than the flames seen coming out the window. That would place the temperature between 1800 and 1950. Way higher than expected for the office fire and way higher than stated by NIST itself.
 
sabretooth47 said:
Dodge noted.

But as an observation, I don't recall anyone saying anything remotely close to "it's absolutely impossible to [bring down WTC7] with controlled (targetted) fires". I'm not fishing this thread to confirm it either. Show me the post.

And I'll ask again: You obviously don't believe that uncontrolled fire+gravity was the culprit for the collapse of WTC7. What facts and/or evidence lead you to believe otherwise?
Click to expand...

Are you (and all your troofer buddies) going to keep ignoring my question, bard?
 
Java Man said:
Yes I'm referring to the pouring metal out the window in pre-collapse. That material is seen to be yellow so even hotter than orange. Actually hotter than the flames seen coming out the window. That would place the temperature between 1800 and 1950. Way higher than expected for the office fire and way higher than stated by NIST itself.
Click to expand...

You are looking at molten material of unknown composition under unknown lighting with unknown and uncalibrated video equipment and who knows what was done unintentionally to the color by the image editing software.

You can't conclude anything from that video.
 
Java Man said:
Yes they are, they are very close up and quite detailed. Please don't try such a poor excuse for a counter argument.
Click to expand...

They are not close enough to make a clear determination of the debris.

Don't pretend this photos show anything. I've seen the aftermath of aircraft fires up close and personal. There are easily identifiable globs of melted aluminum. And these are fires where the aircraft alone was self-sufficient to sustain the fire that caused the melting.
 
Melted aluminum pool...from an ultralight aircraft that was torched by a wildfire:

20031028trailer0.jpg
 
sabretooth47 said:
Melted aluminum pool...from an ultralight aircraft that was torched by a wildfire:

[qimg]http://www.usua.org/HotNews/Archives/20031028/20031028trailer0.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Now show me a 7x7 series aircraft (an Airbus will work too) that melts rather than burns like I've shown you.
 
BigAl said:
You are looking at molten material of unknown composition under unknown lighting with unknown and uncalibrated video equipment and who knows what was done unintentionally to the color by the image editing software.

You can't conclude anything from that video.
Click to expand...

What he said, as was what i said a while ago. The color chart is for pure metals. It may be different if there were impurities, or if the material is not metal, due to emmisivity and other factors. As well, it was a low rez, video that was not color corrected. However, beyond that i would defer to real materials science experts.

TAM:)
 
BigAl said:
You are looking at molten material of unknown composition under unknown lighting with unknown and uncalibrated video equipment and who knows what was done unintentionally to the color by the image editing software.

You can't conclude anything from that video.
Click to expand...

Well it looks pretty much the same from all the angles it was shot. Plus I am not looking at the molten material and then looking at the flames. They are both in the same frame. So any "unknown" value that you claim in calibration, lighting etc would apply for both. If you see the material considerably brighter and hotter (yellow) compared to the red and orange flames. Then it is hotter. And that is exactly what we see. A very hot liquid material that is hotter than the fire claimed by NIST.
 
Java Man said:
Prove it. I can bring up quite a few black body citations (plus quite some others by TAM) that do support that.
Click to expand...

As i said the temperature for most pure metals wll reflect a unique color regardless of the type of metal. I do not think al is arguing against that.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
As i said the temperature for most pure metals wll reflect a unique color regardless of the type of metal. I do not think al is arguing against that.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Then what is he arguing against?

The color is regardless of the material BTW. So even an alloy would look the same. Just ask yourself this. If pure nickel atoms at 1200º have the same color as pure steel atoms at 1200º what would make them change their color once they're standing one next to the other?
 
Java Man said:
Then what is he arguing against?

The color is regardless of the material BTW. So even an alloy would look the same. Just ask yourself this. If pure nickel atoms at 1200º have the same color as pure steel atoms at 1200º what would make them change their color once they're standing one next to the other?
Click to expand...

Emissivity, organic impurites, if it was a metal at all.

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Oh yes I have. I posted quite a few links to aircraft shells left after an extensive fire.
Click to expand...

Those photos are too small, and the objects in them to distant to make out anything close to what you are claiming they show....sorry...but het, let them standa as evidence of how weak your argument is.

TAM:)
 
Java Man said:
Maybe, maybe not. Taking a closer look at your picture I couldn't help notice it says "trailer". Maybe the trailer's aluminum is what's shown there.
Click to expand...

Go look for yourself. There are plenty of pictures and reports of melted aluminum from aircraft from plenty of reputable sources. Google is for more than searching the words "9/11 truth" and "inside job".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom