Gravity defying buildings? :D

[Java Man]

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

You mean too distant, but anyway the cabin is within reach. It's so close you could touch it if you stretch your hand. Anyway, typical debunker tactic. If you can't debunk it you deny it as valid. So predictable.

 

[Java Man]

Go look for yourself.

I did and I posted. Now I'm not going to do your work. If you want to debunk it go look for it yourself. So far all you've brought to the table is a bush fire.

 

[BigAl]

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.

"unknown" means that no conclusion can be taken from the color in the WTC image.

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.

Not if the material is aluminum, especially if it's impure, which it certainly was.

 

[BigAl]

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.

Do you know what "unknown" means?

 

[Java Man]

Do you know what "unknown" means?

Yes. But you're aware it's "unknown" across the frame? It isn't "unknowingly" brighter 5 pixels to the right than to the left. We are not comparing one video with another. We are comparing within the same frame and the same video. So if you see one brighter than the other it is. What's you next claim? The WTC towers were actually green? But don't appear so on the video due to "unknown" illumination issues? Get real. You're loosing the discussion just based on your ludicrous backpedaling.

 

[T.A.M.]

You mean too distant, but anyway the cabin is within reach. It's so close you could touch it if you stretch your hand. Anyway, typical debunker tactic. If you can't debunk it you deny it as valid. So predictable.

typical truther tactic...produce misleading innaccurate blurry, grainy evidence as proof of something...too predictable.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Not if the material is aluminum, especially if it's impure, which it certainly was.

First off the color of the heated material is indifferent of the underlying metal.

Secondly the impurity argument works against you not for you. Impurities don't add brightness they diminish it. If "impurities" form on the top of the molten material they would "stain" its brightness. So that implies the temperature would have to be EVEN HIGHER for a given brilliance level.

So this "impurity" line you're playing now actually works against your position rather than for your position.

 

[BigAl]

Yes. But you're aware it's "unknown" across the frame? It isn't "unknowingly" brighter 5 pixels to the right than to the left. We are not comparing one video with another. We are comparing within the same frame and the same video. So if you see one brighter than the other it is. What's you next claim?

You can't take any quantitative conclusions from unknown, uncalibrated equipment and molten material of unknown composition.

 

[Java Man]

You can't take any quantitative conclusions from unknown, uncalibrated equipment and molten material of unknown composition.

But I see fire at one color and the metal at another. Even if there was adjustment to be made it would have to be done to both. So relatively one is considerably hotter than the other. And the molten metal flowing from the window is considerably brighter than any flame seen there.

And yes you can measure temperature of an object without knowing its composition. What could affect your readings considerably would be doppler color shifts, but I don't think the towers were moving towards or away from the viewer at any considerable speed. Actually the seemed quite still and cemented to the ground by the looks of it.

 

[excaza]

what does any of this have to do with being able to tell what a molten material is from a picture/video?

 

[Java Man]

what does any of this have to do with being able to tell what a molten material is from a picture/video?

Well it is being determined that the material was hotter than the office fire. Which does raise some questions.

 

[T.A.M.]

But I see fire at one color and the metal at another. Even if there was adjustment to be made it would have to be done to both. So relatively one is considerably hotter than the other. And the molten metal flowing from the window is considerably brighter than any flame seen there.

And yes you can measure temperature of an object without knowing its composition. What could affect your readings considerably would be doppler color shifts, but I don't think the towers were moving towards or away from the viewer at any considerable speed. Actually the seemed quite still and cemented to the ground by the looks of it.

Aluminum, Emissivity, properties unique to aluminum...

Here go read this site by a no-planer from your own group.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

I love truther infighting (read the bottom of the page).

TAM

 

[excaza]

what's there to question? It was obviously thermite.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well it is being determined that the material was hotter than the office fire. Which does raise some questions.

you mean it, if the video is accurate in terms of color temp, and if the metal is essentially free of impurities, then the temp of the "metal" would indicate at that moment in time, temps higher then those recorded?

Where is the data on temperatures recorded in the buildings pre collapse again?

TAM

 

[BigAl]

But I see fire at one color and the metal at another.

You can't conclude anything, especially actual numbers, unless you know the composition of both materials.

 

[Java Man]

Aluminum, Emissivity, properties unique to aluminum...

Here go read this site by a no-planer from your own group.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

I love truther infighting (read the bottom of the page).

TAM

There are a couple of points I have already addressed and have lead to the spontaneous creation and then rupture of a crucible.

Aluminium would melt and flow away way sooner than becoming red. So would lead.

So you guys came up with the idea that a heating pit was created that housed the aluminium and then made if flow out of the building. It flows out at a brilliance level that indicates temperature in excess of those listed by NIST for the fire. Even when the highest temperatures NIST used in its model were not found applied to the sample pieces taken. Actually NIST claims they could do it because the sample was "too small" and thus not conclusive to rule out higher temperatures. This lead me to coin the "NIST technique" whereby I can prove just about anything if I take a small enough sample.

The metal flowing out is seen as yellow and that is way above orange or red. So hotter than an office fire.

 

[Java Man]

You can't conclude anything, especially actual numbers, unless you know the composition of both materials.

Yes I can. You folks were defending this just a while back when you claimed that the color was no indication to the material. According to you it could very well have been any metal. You claimed that brilliance was a product of temperature. Go back and read it. Don't just backpedal.

 

[BigAl]

Yes I can. You folks were defending this just a while back when you claimed that the color was no indication to the material. According to you it could very well have been any metal. You claimed that brilliance was a product of temperature. Go back and read it. Don't just backpedal.

Correct but you can't come up with a number unless you know the composition of the molten material.

 

[twinstead]

Just to make sure I'm following this correctly, you can tell molten metal by its color if it is pure, but once its mixed in with other metals or contaminants you'd need to know the composition of the material to make any judgments by color alone?

If that's the case, how is anybody able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what was dripping out that window? You'd think it would be time to go on to something else as an investigator.

 

[Java Man]

Correct but you can't come up with a number unless you know the composition of the molten material.

You haven't been keeping up to day here have you? The brilliance is a product of the temperature not the material. That's why it makes it hard to figure out the material. As you guys claimed a while back when I was asked to "identify" molten materials. Remember?