Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[triforcharity]

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures

Who said the aluminum had to ignite?

Molten aluminum/previously molten aluminum is quite common in fires. Especially older house fires, as most of the wire used in the 60's and
70's was aluminum.

http://n-p.com/advantages/design/aluminum.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?id=dB...Bw#v=onepage&q=aluminum melts it fire&f=false

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e05d2b764d9a4354acd4beb64a240fd9/OK--Grass-Fires-Oklahoma/

http://potomaclocal.com/2011/07/30/separate-fires-kill-pet-burn-home/

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/564606--neighbour-alerts-sleeping-teens-to-house-fire

So, let's just not raise that little canard, ok?

 

[grandmastershek]

I've told you before this is an extremely loaded question.
#1 I don't know the temperature that is reached
#2 I don't know how long or if it is cooled at all.


[blah blah blah...unsubstantiated BS and deferring to youtube]

Yet this doesn't seem to be a problem when looking at a picture from 9/11. Isn't that a kawinky dink?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

If you look again at the section of video you referenced and the question asked regarding said video you will, if intelligent and honest, realize that the subject of discussion was flaming debris carried by molten metal of unspecified content, NOT flaming metal.

DOUBLE FAIL

 

[Edx]

Thought I'd briefly chime in again while I have a few moments to post some more video of glowing red aluminium.

POURING MOLTEN ALUMINUM

 

[gumboot]

It's a matter pf curiosity to me, though of course I agree it cannot be molten steel. The way the 'glowing' part blends right along into the mass of black material in the jaws of the grappler (which appears quite smoothly crumpled and bent, the way concrete wouldn't be ) especially. But I seriously doubt it's as hot as 1000°C as such temperatures are round the peak of those reached in open home and office fires. Frankly I have reservations about the whole veracity of the photo as it's presented by Truthers, wondering just how much it has been tweaked.

Well, the 1,000 degrees is based on the colour the metal is glowing. While you're right that home and office fires tend not to be that extreme (the average office fire burns for 20 minutes and reaches 800 degrees F), this is not an office fire, nor normal. A smothered fire can reach very high temperatures and burn for a very, very long time, with enough fuel. This is because the debris insulates the fire and prevents heat loss, thus enabling it to burn without oxygen. Fires of this type can burn for thousands of years, at temperatures as hot as 1800 degrees C.

 

[GlennB]

A smothered fire can reach very high temperatures and burn for a very, very long time, with enough fuel. This is because the debris insulates the fire and prevents heat loss, thus enabling it to burn without oxygen. Fires of this type can burn for thousands of years, at temperatures as hot as 1800 degrees C.

Out of academic interest, have you got a source for that? It contradicts what I've learned on the subject (that a smouldering fire cannot, by definition, be hotter than a flaming fire. If it were it would burst into flames, It's that critical rise in temperature that brings the inflamable gases being produced up to their ignition point.).

Insulation is clearly an issue, but no amount of insulation can get the environment hotter than the fire itself, and burning without oxygen (or, rarely, some other oxidising agent) is impossible according to my understanding of the subject.

I'd put this in the Science forum but it's pertinent to 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

If you really believe that, with rebuttals like, it's so 2006, you have demolished me, then I really don't know what to tell you. Most of what you said is laughable...totally laughable.

Yes, the highlighted part is a good summary of these 36 pages so far: You don't know what to tell us. We have heard everything you wrote so far so many times for so long, and most of us know exactly in most instances why what you say is either plain wrong, or does not support whatever claim you intend it to support. You are vastly outmatched by anyone here. There are a couple of debunkers in this thread who I consider to be mostly pretty dumb and ineffective; even those own you completely. I shall stop destroying you; arguing with you feels so much like beating up a kindergarden kid, I start feeling guilty.

 

[Oystein]

I've told you before this is an extremely loaded question.
#1 I don't know the temperature that is reached
#2 I don't know how long or if it is cooled at all.
...

Argh
I just said I would stop beating this kindergarden kid, but it drives me nuts how the stupidity jumps in my throat every single time!!!

@ #1 Your witnesses for molten steel likewise did not know the temperature that was reached, and you likewise don't know what temperature the flow from WTC2 reached
@ #2 That isn't English!!!



ETA:

...
This isn't the question we need to ask in regard to the WTC though. In essence what's pouring out of the South tower is a multiple choice question with three (although one is very weak) options. The first is steel, then aluminum, then lead.

Incorrect:
- Steel is not among the options, as the liquid flow is orange or yellow as it emenated from the building. Liquid steel cannot be only orange or yellow hot. Liquid steel is always white hot.
- There are more options, such as glas, copper, zink, titanium..
- The options "lead" and "aluminium" are really sets of options that contain many variants of different materials mixed in

...Lead seems very unlikely, it would have to be coming from the UPS and it's hard to imagine that much could flow out that quickly.

Argument from Incredulity Logical Fallacy. You have been alerted to it so many times, you really should start avoiding it!
Even if arguments from imagination carried any weight, you would be totally wrong on this: If it is easy to imagine any metal melting, pooling and than pouring by chance during normal fires, lead would be the #1 or #2 candidate because of its low melting point, and clearly #1 if we comsider the kmown presence of UPSs that contain a lot of lead. Reason: a) It melts fairly easily at 621°F/327°C which is easily reached in a building fire b) a fair amount of molten lead could be held by many other materials, including zinc, aluminium, glass even (think of windows), without melting that materia, too, allowing the molten lead to pool for a while till the amount seen in that video has assembled. Much much much harder for steel to pool like that, as any other building material it gets in contact with, including aluminium, glass, other steel and even concrete would soften and melt, making it unlikely to pool before the release that we see.

Lead when melted is also Silver not orange.

Incorrect.
Usually that is true, when people melt lead to work with it, as it would be a waste to heat it very much beyond its melting point of 327°C. However, with its boiling point being 1749°C, molten lead can be heated to glow in any colour from dark red to orange to yellow to white. Random building fires don't care for efficiency. They just heat up things to whatever temperature they can. Orange-hot = around 900°C - quite possible in office fires. Even lead glowas orange then.

In fact NIST concluded that "the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." So if lead were an option I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Most here concur with NIST that aluminium is the most likely option. However you need to realize that none here cling to the "official version" of anything as gospel. We all see the potential for errors. So lead is still a possibility, even if less likely than aluminium. That distinction is irrelevant anyway. The only relevant conclusion in our context is: It glows orange, so it can't possibly be molten steel.

Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature.

Yes, it's silver when it melts, but if you heat it beyond merely melting temperature, it will start glowing. Shades of red first (very faint), then orange (getting brighter). You have been shown images and video of molten aluminium that glows orange. Your denial at this point can only be interpreted as willful lying.

Now of course there is what NIST said...that is the mixing of other material will turn it this orangeish color. But experiments have shown molten aluminum will not mix with these materials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

I submit it isn't strictly necessary to mix the materials.
Anyway, your video does not explore all the possibilities.

With lead and aluminum seemingly unlikely or impossible, that only leaves steel.

No. Steel is the only impossible of the three options.

If you want to convince us, then do so by your own standards: Please show us a video of someone pouring steel that glows orange!

 

[Oystein]

...teach my 11 year old how to mince herbs?

Wow! Excellent endeavour! Everybody should learn how to grow and use herbs.

 

[Oystein]

about 2:50

@ 3:23:

Dr. Steven Jones proved the NIST molten aluminium and furniture mix theory...wrong

then goes on to show a short second apparently of Jones' experiment. Here is a screenshot from 3:29:


Call me crazy, but I see something that is glowing orange falling with that poured aluminium...

 

[Oystein]

If I understood you correctly...I believe NIST rebuts this...Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. I'm sorry if I didn't. That last comment is un-necessary, and I don't understand why things like that need to be said.

Again, your reading comprehension just sucks. jaydeehess didn't say that aluminium was burning.

 

[Oystein]

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
ApolloGnomon didn't say that aluminium burned in that clip.
Please remind us what is being poured from the pot in that video: Just aluminium? What were we talking about?

 

[Oystein]

Out of academic interest, have you got a source for that? It contradicts what I've learned on the subject (that a smouldering fire cannot, by definition, be hotter than a flaming fire. If it were it would burst into flames, It's that critical rise in temperature that brings the inflamable gases being produced up to their ignition point.).

Insulation is clearly an issue, but no amount of insulation can get the environment hotter than the fire itself, and burning without oxygen (or, rarely, some other oxidising agent) is impossible according to my understanding of the subject.

I'd put this in the Science forum but it's pertinent to 9/11.

I have no source for smouldering fires getting as hot as Gumboot claims, and agree with you that the smouldering fires, by their nature, are almost always cooler than open flames.
However, the temperature that is reached is not dependent on there being a flame or not. A flame is simply glowing gas, and the appearance of a flame pretty much depends on it being sourrounded by a volume non-glowing gas, which is lacking underground.
Temperature is an emergent property that arises from the dynamic equilibrium between chemical energy converted into thermal energy, and thermal energy being conducted or radiated away from the same material.
Open flames have a high burn rate, that is a high rate of heat production, but at the same time a high rate of convection and radiation. Mainly it's the gasses that escape the system that expand and carry away the heat and limit the temperature that is reached (that's why thermite gets so hot: It produces no gas). Smouldering fires have a much lower burn rate, but are insulated which makes both the produced gasses and the radiation stay near for a while. Usually, the insulation does not fully offset the lower heat production, but it is my understanding that there is no fundamental reason why it couldn't. Overall, the debris pile certainly was much cooler than an open office floor would be when fully involved in fire, but there is no reason why there shouldn't be to occasional pocket underground that has just the right proportions of fuel load, ventilation and insulation to get red-hot.

 

[GlennB]

I have no source for smouldering fires getting as hot as Gumboot claims, and agree with you that the smouldering fires, by their nature, are almost always cooler than open flames.

OK, except my contention is that a smouldering fire is - by definition - cooler than a flaming fire for a given fuel source. That depends on considering the flame to be part of the fire. If the fire cools, the flame goes out when the temp. is below ignition temp. for the gases. If it's flaming it's hotter than a smouldering fire. By definition.

However, the temperature that is reached is not dependent on there being a flame or not. A flame is simply glowing gas, and the appearance of a flame pretty much depends on it being sourrounded by a volume non-glowing gas, which is lacking underground.

It depends on whose temperature we are measuring and what we consider to be 'the fire'. If you're talking about the general environment then that is hard to define. But the temperature in any flame will be greater than the surface of the fire itself. It takes the fire to rise in temperature to ignite those gases.

Temperature is an emergent property that arises from the dynamic equilibrium between chemical energy converted into thermal energy, and thermal energy being conducted or radiated away from the same material.

And the environment around a fire cannot be hotter than the surface of the fire itself (or the flame if there is one) unless the fire were suddenly extinguished. Otherwise the environment would be heating the fire down the temperature gradient, which for an active fire is a nonsense. Which brings me to the point I was trying to make - no amount if insulation can raise the environment to a hotter temperature than the fire itself.

An insulated fire can be hotter than an uninsulated one? It depends on whether you consider the environment near the fire to be 'the fire'.

Smouldering fires have a much lower burn rate, but are insulated which makes both the produced gasses and the radiation stay near for a while. Usually, the insulation does not fully offset the lower heat production, but it is my understanding that there is no fundamental reason why it couldn't.

I wouldn't disagree. My position was that the surrounding environment can never be hotter than the fire. If a flaming office fire peaks at (say) 1000°C then any metal hauled from it can never be hotter. Which is why I doubted the honesty of that grappler photo. There are no flames. The steel would be limited to red heat and it appears much hotter, fuelling Truthers' excitement.

Overall, the debris pile certainly was much cooler than an open office floor would be when fully involved in fire, but there is no reason why there shouldn't be to occasional pocket underground that has just the right proportions of fuel load, ventilation and insulation to get red-hot.

I agree. In fact - given the subway system under WTC - there's no reason there couldn't have been flaming fires in places, though they would tend to subside to smouldering as the fuel was consumed.

Smouldering office fires peak - according to my sources - in the 500-600°c range. The debate with Gumboot started when I said that the photo of white-hot steel was of doubtful provenance. Unfortunately then Gumboot started talking nonsense about 1800°C underground fires burning for 000's of years with no oxygen at all, which simply redefines what the word "fire" means in the first place.

 

[tmd2_1]

Argh
I just said I would stop beating this kindergarden kid, but it drives me nuts how the stupidity jumps in my throat every single time!!!

@ #1 Your witnesses for molten steel likewise did not know the temperature that was reached, and you likewise don't know what temperature the flow from WTC2 reached
@ #2 That isn't English!!!



ETA:


Incorrect:
- Steel is not among the options, as the liquid flow is orange or yellow as it emenated from the building. Liquid steel cannot be only orange or yellow hot. Liquid steel is always white hot.
- There are more options, such as glas, copper, zink, titanium..
- The options "lead" and "aluminium" are really sets of options that contain many variants of different materials mixed in



Argument from Incredulity Logical Fallacy. You have been alerted to it so many times, you really should start avoiding it!
Even if arguments from imagination carried any weight, you would be totally wrong on this: If it is easy to imagine any metal melting, pooling and than pouring by chance during normal fires, lead would be the #1 or #2 candidate because of its low melting point, and clearly #1 if we comsider the kmown presence of UPSs that contain a lot of lead. Reason: a) It melts fairly easily at 621°F/327°C which is easily reached in a building fire b) a fair amount of molten lead could be held by many other materials, including zinc, aluminium, glass even (think of windows), without melting that materia, too, allowing the molten lead to pool for a while till the amount seen in that video has assembled. Much much much harder for steel to pool like that, as any other building material it gets in contact with, including aluminium, glass, other steel and even concrete would soften and melt, making it unlikely to pool before the release that we see.



Incorrect.
Usually that is true, when people melt lead to work with it, as it would be a waste to heat it very much beyond its melting point of 327°C. However, with its boiling point being 1749°C, molten lead can be heated to glow in any colour from dark red to orange to yellow to white. Random building fires don't care for efficiency. They just heat up things to whatever temperature they can. Orange-hot = around 900°C - quite possible in office fires. Even lead glowas orange then.



Most here concur with NIST that aluminium is the most likely option. However you need to realize that none here cling to the "official version" of anything as gospel. We all see the potential for errors. So lead is still a possibility, even if less likely than aluminium. That distinction is irrelevant anyway. The only relevant conclusion in our context is: It glows orange, so it can't possibly be molten steel.

Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature.

Yes, it's silver when it melts, but if you heat it beyond merely melting temperature, it will start glowing. Shades of red first (very faint), then orange (getting brighter). You have been shown images and video of molten aluminium that glows orange. Your denial at this point can only be interpreted as willful lying.



I submit it isn't strictly necessary to mix the materials.
Anyway, your video does not explore all the possibilities.



No. Steel is the only impossible of the three options.

If you want to convince us, then do so by your own standards: Please show us a video of someone pouring steel that glows orange!

@ 3:23:

then goes on to show a short second apparently of Jones' experiment. Here is a screenshot from 3:29:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864e3e63ee6e177.jpg[/qimg]

Call me crazy, but I see something that is glowing orange falling with that poured aluminium...

Again, your reading comprehension just sucks. jaydeehess didn't say that aluminium was burning.

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
ApolloGnomon didn't say that aluminium burned in that clip.
Please remind us what is being poured from the pot in that video: Just aluminium? What were we talking about?

I believe when one starts saying things liking beating up a "kindergarten kid" they are really beginning to run out of things to say, and resorting to insults like that. This is what jaydeehess said "Its quite likely that contaminants are burning and causing the orange(I have alluded to this several times now but tmd hasn't picked up on it.) Further to this as the material falls it brightens ORANGE and yellow further indicating that something is actually burning and doing so at a greater rate as it falls essentially in a fast air flow." I was showing that NIST said the contents were not burning or on fire.

In regards to lead...don't you think NIST would have mentioned it if it were at all likely? I mean if I remember correctly they do briefly talk about it (I'm just going from memory) but if they thought it remotely likely they would not have concluded what they did.

In regards to Jones' experiment, look at the whole thing. Say what you will about him, but his results are pretty conclusive. www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

Also look at the Cole videos, it looks exactly like what is pouring out of the South Tower

 

[dafydd]

Argh
I just said I would stop beating this kindergarden kid, but it drives me nuts how the stupidity jumps in my throat every single time!!!

@ #1 Your witnesses for molten steel likewise did not know the temperature that was reached, and you likewise don't know what temperature the flow from WTC2 reached
@ #2 That isn't English!!!



ETA:


Incorrect:
- Steel is not among the options, as the liquid flow is orange or yellow as it emenated from the building. Liquid steel cannot be only orange or yellow hot. Liquid steel is always white hot.
- There are more options, such as glas, copper, zink, titanium..
- The options "lead" and "aluminium" are really sets of options that contain many variants of different materials mixed in



Argument from Incredulity Logical Fallacy. You have been alerted to it so many times, you really should start avoiding it!
Even if arguments from imagination carried any weight, you would be totally wrong on this: If it is easy to imagine any metal melting, pooling and than pouring by chance during normal fires, lead would be the #1 or #2 candidate because of its low melting point, and clearly #1 if we comsider the kmown presence of UPSs that contain a lot of lead. Reason: a) It melts fairly easily at 621°F/327°C which is easily reached in a building fire b) a fair amount of molten lead could be held by many other materials, including zinc, aluminium, glass even (think of windows), without melting that materia, too, allowing the molten lead to pool for a while till the amount seen in that video has assembled. Much much much harder for steel to pool like that, as any other building material it gets in contact with, including aluminium, glass, other steel and even concrete would soften and melt, making it unlikely to pool before the release that we see.



Incorrect.
Usually that is true, when people melt lead to work with it, as it would be a waste to heat it very much beyond its melting point of 327°C. However, with its boiling point being 1749°C, molten lead can be heated to glow in any colour from dark red to orange to yellow to white. Random building fires don't care for efficiency. They just heat up things to whatever temperature they can. Orange-hot = around 900°C - quite possible in office fires. Even lead glowas orange then.



Most here concur with NIST that aluminium is the most likely option. However you need to realize that none here cling to the "official version" of anything as gospel. We all see the potential for errors. So lead is still a possibility, even if less likely than aluminium. That distinction is irrelevant anyway. The only relevant conclusion in our context is: It glows orange, so it can't possibly be molten steel.









I believe when one starts saying things liking beating up a "kindergarten kid" they are really beginning to run out of things to say, and resorting to insults like that. This is what jaydeehess said "Its quite likely that contaminants are burning and causing the orange(I have alluded to this several times now but tmd hasn't picked up on it.) Further to this as the material falls it brightens ORANGE and yellow further indicating that something is actually burning and doing so at a greater rate as it falls essentially in a fast air flow." I was showing that NIST said the contents were not burning or on fire.

In regards to lead...don't you think NIST would have mentioned it if it were at all likely? I mean if I remember correctly they do briefly talk about it (I'm just going from memory) but if they thought it remotely likely they would not have concluded what they did.

In regards to Jones' experiment, look at the whole thing. Say what you will about him, but his results are pretty conclusive. www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

Also look at the Cole videos, it looks exactly like what is pouring out of the South Tower

Is there something in your computer that makes you include a daft link with every post? Where did you study and what are your qualifications? Really. No fibs. Tell us.

 

[Edx]

In regards to Jones' experiment, look at the whole thing. Say what you will about him, but his results are pretty conclusive. www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

After a quick read I quickly noticed something, here's a quote:

.The pan reached red-hot temperatures (about 600 C) during the melting process.

WTC fires were far hotter than 600oC

We noted that the aluminum retained its silvery appearance throughout the melting process and final heating.

Yet you've been shown that aluminium can glow when molten if suffiently heated and there was probably a cocktail of metals and probably other non-metal burning elements mixed in the material that fell from the WTC. Even burning wood can look molten as you've been shown.

I still don't know why you think such massive amounts of this stuff would only cause this to fall out of a single floor of a single tower in the exact place we would expect the plane debris to have ended up and in a floor where a lot of metal with low melting points was situated.

 

[jaydeehess]

If I understood you correctly...I believe NIST rebuts this...Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. I'm sorry if I didn't. That last comment is un-necessary, and I don't understand why things like that need to be said.

I did NOT say that the aluminum was burning.
I said that contaminants in the molten material were burning just as trees caught in a lava flow will do.
I am also not saying that large solid objects caught in the molten material are burning.
You will notice that although you did not misunderstand or twist my post by alluding that I said trees were involved, you did misinterpret or twist what I said into having the aluminum burning.
That is why things like my last comment get made.

I have also said in the past that it may well be a combination of several lower melting point metals, aluminum, copper and tin, all of which would have been found in the towers in relatively large numbers.
Copper piping and tin components of desks and file cabinets.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes I believe the part of the video, where he needed the jolt to break the fishing line attached to the bowling ball as opposed to just going straight down, shows what would have needed to and what did not happen. A jolt would have been needed, other wise you have uniform acceleration. Which is in fact what we see at all three Towers.

Yes IF the force impinges upon the main load bearing structural components, the columns. It does not. It cannot do so after collapse initiation, obviously, since the columns are no longer in line.

In regards to your theory which is I guess the predominant theory. Even if I were to accept that it is possible, it contradicts with visual evidence. If you look at this video, there are many places to see it but I guess the best is just after the 3 minute mark, you can clearly see the south tower is titled and not falling straight down. How is it therefore causing pressure to floors below?

The south tower upper section is tilted.
Collapse initiation takers place and now the upper section no longer has a pivot. Conservation of angular momentum now states that the angular momentum of the top section will see that top section rotate about its center of mass rather than the pivot. Basic Newtonian physics says that the upper section center of mass wil now follow gravity's demands and fall straight down.
The upper section top floor was never more than a dozen feet or so beyond the confines of the original footprint of the tower. Thus as the top section falls , the vast bulk of its mass is STILL going to impact the lower section. That mass is going to have its dynamic impulse impinged predominantly on the floor pans.

How did the top section also not fall down intact?

Once again, after the pivot is crushed it rotates about its center of mass(about halfway between top floor and lowest floor of the section, in the horizontal center of the structure). There is no horizontal movement possible without a horizontal force. There is no horizontal force therefore the section falls upon the lower section.

Not intact in the sense of no damage certainly there would be damage from hitting the ground, but it would be easily identifiable in the aftermath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

In fact in one video of the south tower collapse a large part of 'intact' structure can be seen falling next to the lower section of tower, near ground level.
(intact as in about a dozen window openings can be seen and its is obvious that at least two sides are still conntected) As I stated, only a fraction of the upper section extended beyond the perimeter of the lower section. It is possible that this eventually broke away and fell outside the structure and is what is seen in the video. There is no way of telling where this particular piece originated.
OTOH it is also quite possible that the entire upper section broke apart as crush up/crush down continued.

However there is no expectation that the entire upper section at any time could have exited horizontally.

 

[tmd2_1]

I did NOT say that the aluminum was burning.
I said that contaminants in the molten material were burning just as trees caught in a lava flow will do.
I am also not saying that large solid objects caught in the molten material are burning.
You will notice that although you did not misunderstand or twist my post by alluding that I said trees were involved, you did misinterpret or twist what I said into having the aluminum burning.
That is why things like my last comment get made.

I have also said in the past that it may well be a combination of several lower melting point metals, aluminum, copper and tin, all of which would have been found in the towers in relatively large numbers.
Copper piping and tin components of desks and file cabinets.

I never said you did you said "Its quite likely that contaminants are burning and causing the orange(I have alluded to this several times now but tmd hasn't picked up on it.) Further to this as the material falls it brightens ORANGE and yellow further indicating that something is actually burning and doing so at a greater rate as it falls essentially in a fast air flow." I was showing that NIST said the contents were not burning or on fire. " While NIST said "there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. "

In regards to the tower tilt even if I accept that the tilt was at angle that it would still impact the lower floors and not fall intact, there should still be a jolt there was uniform acceleration. Also if you look at that video I have go to the about the 6:05 mark and a little after, you can clearly see a large section being blown out and almost certainly up as well, I see no other cause for this except some form of explosive.