Gravity defying buildings? :D

[T.A.M.]

So residue seems to dim the color. Thus residue on the surface of the puring material would make it look dimmer than it actually is. Working against your theory because a dimmed yellow hue means a really higher yellow or whitish color without impurities. Thus the temperature is even HOTTER than "seen". Impurities thus further the thermite theory rather than hamper it.

smoke does....that is what they are talking about. I am guessing there was plenty of smoke all around...it would have went up and out.

As well, please provide proof that burning cannot take place at the same time as the melting.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The hijackers had already won a few lotteries by the time they'd taken control of the cockpits, and they still had enough luck in reserve to be able to dodge US air defenses and destroy 7 buildings with 2 planes.

Damaged 3 buildings (with planes), 2 of which collapsed, and another (which they had no direct hand in) fell hours later due to fires. Try again.

What luck? There was no luck involved in exploiting the weaknesses of a pre-911 airport system. You truthers still cannot look back without hindsight blinding you can you?

TAM

 

[excaza]

The hijackers had already won a few lotteries by the time they'd taken control of the cockpits, and they still had enough luck in reserve to be able to dodge US air defenses and destroy 7 buildings with 2 planes.

What air defenses, exactly, did they have to dodge?

 

[Java Man]

As well, please provide proof that burning cannot take place at the same time as the melting.

TAM

Why do I need to do that? And what would be the relevance to your point? Certainly burning can take place at the same time as melting. Take a piece of plastic for example and set it on fire.

Now in regards to the WTC. Would you then say that the molten metal we see pouring was molten and burning too? That sounds like thermite in action. Are you sure you want me to pursue proof that burning and melting can take place at the same time?

 

[excaza]

No, we must keep you away from The Truth

 

[T.A.M.]

Why do I need to do that? And what would be the relevance to your point? Certainly burning can take place at the same time as melting. Take a piece of plastic for example and set it on fire.

Now in regards to the WTC. Would you then say that the molten metal we see pouring was molten and burning too? That sounds like thermite in action. Are you sure you want me to pursue proof that burning and melting can take place at the same time?

pursue what ever you like. My point remains, that the video in question cannot be used to provide accurate information on what was melting/burning and then flowing briefly down from the 80-82nd floor of the wtc.

Issues:
1. Video color correction.
2. Video resolution
3. Video light sources
4. Incandescence not the only form of light production, hence not the only factor wrt color of burning material.
5. Possibility of impurities in the substance, such as sodium and calcium salts, which when burned, can produce a color change in emitted light from the melted material (in particular sodium salts can turn the color yellow orange).
6. No proof from you refuting any of the above, outside of your uneducated opinion.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong again

Issues:
1. Video color correction.

It would apply to all the colors on the video. So if you have a reference like the flame coming out and it's red (as expected) then clearly the molten metal is truly yellow.

2. Video resolution

What's that got to do with it? The resolution of the video looks just fine. What were you expecting HDTV in 2001? Actually a poor quality video hinders your cause as it would obfuscate things(like small explosions), but hardly color.

3. Video light sources

Its freaking daylight!!! You expect a lighting crew hanging from the roof to "illuminate" the shots?

4. Incandescence not the only form of light production, hence not the only factor wrt color of burning material.

True, but there we see that it is molten and not burning. So incandescence is the source of the color.

5. Possibility of impurities in the substance, such as sodium and calcium salts, which when burned, can produce a color change in emitted light from the melted material (in particular sodium salts can turn the color yellow orange).

So how did the salts get there? The WTC is also build with salts? How long would have those salts lasted without burning inside the "magic crucible" required to hold the lead and aluminium you guys claim this is until it became yellow hot? Not much, it would have burned in the crucible and then later (as its about to collapse) fallen as pure molten metal. So your color change theory doesn't stand a chance.

6. No proof from you refuting any of the above, outside of your uneducated opinion.
TAM

True, you've pretty much refuted them yourself by your arguments going in circles and bringing proof to the table that prior counter theories are false. First "it's aluminium", but aluminium would flow away as would lead. Thus we arrive at the magic crucible. But the magic crucible would burn any impurities long before reaching that color and "pouring out just in time for collapse". Any impurities floating on top would hinder the brightness, thus the underlying material would be hotter than visualized. The impurities you mention that "change the color" do so only during their "combustion", but that happened in the magic crucible, remember? The lack of color calibration is bogus, because we have clear pictures of other flames in the frame. So that's a no go.

 

[T.A.M.]

You do realize how common the impurites i mentioed are, right? The building was likely full of them. The building and the plane were full of all sorts of materials...you could probably find almost any common molecule in great quantity in the wtc.

Color correction is not a simple as you mention. And even a subtle change, that would barely be noticed in the blue grey of the building and the blue of the sky, might make a different in the shade of orange or yellow.

How can you say that there was only melting there and no burning....complete hogwash.

The resolution being low was mentioned because it inhibits, as you have said, making out finer details, such as what might be surrounding your dripping substance.

There is a famous picture of a tractor holding what truthers claim to be motlen orange steel, but later was shown here to be a frame of molten glass. It was orange through out most of it, but haf yellowy orange dripping from it....

TAM

 

[Java Man]

You do realize how common the impurites i mentioed are, right? The building was likely full of them. The building and the plane were full of all sorts of materials...you could probably find almost any common molecule in great quantity in the wtc.

Once again, color is a function of the temperature it is at. There could have been impurities but they would have burned long before.

Color correction is not a simple as you mention. And even a subtle change, that would barely be noticed in the blue grey of the building and the blue of the sky, might make a different in the shade of orange or yellow.

That's why we have reference flames right by it. You're over dramatizing a point to benefit your agenda rather than being objective. If there was a color shift it would apply to the whole frame. Making the other flames either abnormally hot or abnormally cool. None is the case, so it holds the color as is and supports the fact that the molten material was excessively hot.

How can you say that there was only melting there and no burning....complete hogwash.

There can be. I've said this before, but there's a long shot between the burning and the color change. Not to mention the fact that the burning had to occur right as we see it pouring out. If there was some burning that happened in the magic crucible that held the metal until it became yellow hot.

There is a famous picture of a tractor holding what truthers claim to be motlen orange steel, but later was shown here to be a frame of molten glass. It was orange through out most of it, but haf yellowy orange dripping from it....

TAM

I'll ask you to explain what would make glass turn so hot? Glass BTW is not affected by sulfuric acid.

 

[funk de fino]

Bill was wondering why there were so many demolition experts watching the collapse of WTC 7.

Why dont you ask them? Have you got the balls?

This is not the key to understanding why the collapse of WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition.

Looks slightly like it if you are ignorant of what CD actually look like. Does not sound like it. Those experts say it was not a CD. They were closer than you.

It's the worst movement of all time for you, because it shows that socialists have no interest in stopping the wars-for-profit promoted by the ruling elites.

No, because it is full of liars, mental cases and trolls. Lazy ones at that.

No article in your local press you can link to?

Yes. Why? dont you believe it is my picture? Dont you believe it was a steel frame building? Dont you believe it was a fought fire? How long do you think it was before it collapsed? Have a guess?

 

[T.A.M.]

Once again, color is a function of the temperature it is at. There could have been impurities but they would have burned long before.



That's why we have reference flames right by it. You're over dramatizing a point to benefit your agenda rather than being objective. If there was a color shift it would apply to the whole frame. Making the other flames either abnormally hot or abnormally cool. None is the case, so it holds the color as is and supports the fact that the molten material was excessively hot.



There can be. I've said this before, but there's a long shot between the burning and the color change. Not to mention the fact that the burning had to occur right as we see it pouring out. If there was some burning that happened in the magic crucible that held the metal until it became yellow hot.



I'll ask you to explain what would make glass turn so hot? Glass BTW is not affected by sulfuric acid.

I never said Glass was effected by sulfuric acid. What does that have to do with the yellow dripping stuff atop the WTC? my point was that glass can glow orange as well...that is all.

As well, if it were some occasional (like Jones' little experiment with woodchips) then yes, I would say they would all be "burned up" before the substance reached 1700F, if in fact it did. However, the liquid could have buckets of impurities in it, for all we know.

Like Al has said before, from the video, and the circumstance, nothing can be said with any degree of certainty, what the substance was.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Like Al has said before, from the video, and the circumstance, nothing can be said with any degree of certainty, what the substance was.

TAM

Whatever it was it was hot. Hotter than the fires themselves. And in being so raises quite a few questions.

 

[T.A.M.]

Whatever it was it was hot. Hotter than the fires themselves. And in being so raises quite a few questions.

Hot? Yes. Hotter then the fires, perhaps. Questions...in isolation with no other facts known...yes. Given what we know...No.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Hot? Yes. Hotter then the fires, perhaps.

Bingo! we're finally getting to something. A source of heat higher than conventional office fires.

 

[T.A.M.]

Bingo! we're finally getting to something. A source of heat higher than conventional office fires.

I said perhaps...it has not been proven. As well, we have no way of knowing what the peak temperature was there at that time.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

Bingo! we're finally getting to something. A source of heat higher than conventional office fires.

Great! What was the source?

 

[triforcharity]

Oh yes I have. I posted quite a few links to aircraft shells left after an extensive fire.

But yet, none were in detail enough to even SEE any melted metal. Now, the pictures that Sabre has shown DO show that.

Just because YOU can't see it in a picture, doesn't mean it isn't there.

As an example.

Can you, in this picture, show me a chair? How about a keyboard? TV? How about a desk?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg

Large file, may take a minute to load.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

And your point would be..............

 

[triforcharity]

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.

You cannot compare the two. Temperature cannot be decided by looking at two dissimmilar items. I cannot tell the temperature of a fire by looking at the sun for comparison.

Also, a yellow flame can range from 800 deg. F to 1800 deg. F. It only will change colors when it becomes superheated. IE: Blue flames. Also, you can get yellow and blue flames from the same object burning. Ie: wood, plastics, etc.

You color comparison is flawed. Go back and try again.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bingo! we're finally getting to something. A source of heat higher than conventional office fires.

OMG! It's called diesel fuel!

42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was inside WTC7 & it fueled the fire that was already there from WTC1's burning debris.

If you don't believe that diesel fire was the main cause, then I don't know what to tell you other than calling you a bunch of names & acting stupid!