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

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

So it's less likely that the tons of metals that melt at lower temps than steel was the culprit?

The TONS of metals that WERE PRESENT?

How's that work, exactly?
 
tmd2_1 said:
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. Lead when melted is also Silver not orange. 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.

... (snip)

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

So you discount lead because NIST didn't mention it in their FAQ?

But NIST are apart of your conspiracy! Why would they, according to you, intentionally make the "official story" sound less likely to be true?

Here's the part you also seem to ignore even though you quoted it:

"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. "
Click to expand...

So a cocktail of aluminum alloys, lead and other metals that could have melted in the plane and on that floor, mixed in with a variety of other organic materials such as "furniture, carpets, partitions and computers".

This is apparently highly unlikely to you or impossible.Here is what you apparently think is more likely:

1. Tons and tons of thermite was in the towers cutting columns.
2. The thermite/molten steel drips out of ONE corner of ONE floor of ONE tower in the exact place we EXPECT the plane to have ended up in a floor that has a lot of metals at low melting points.
3. The building collapses and we only see fire until the collapse front progresses past the fire damaged floors, but somehow all this thermite can't be seen either.
4. After the towers collapse none of it was videotaped when it would have been in its most volatile state - straight after.
5. Even though the collapse would have dispersed the thermite all over the place, you think there was enough of it to keep the pile hot for weeks because you also somehow think it did not ignite in and during the collapse, but when it did it was so hot it manged to melt steel beams into "rivers" and it managed to keep it molten for long enough for Leslie Robertson to find it.
6. All that is more likely than the alternative even though not a single respected legitimate peer-reviewed journal cares about it, the firefighters don't care about it (aside from you finding a few casual comments) and despite plenty of professional commentary Gage's ridiculously irrelevant tiny fringe group thinks anything of this at all.

tmd2_1, you propose impossible things and have the most uncredible people promoting this stuff. What you propose is not the most likely situation, it isn't even just as likely, its way down below what is likely its not worth entertaining... which is why no one relevant has. Somehow you have convinced yourself that it has to be true and therefore no matter how ridiculous the senario you have you think it has to better than any alternative where thermite wasn't used and there was no molten steel.

Here's what we know, I already gave this to you before:

1. We know the pile being hot and with fires for months is completely understandable
2. We know the glowing debris and steel can occur at expected temperatures in the fires
3. We know that other metals, alloys and even wood (for glowing sparks like a river) can create molten metal at far lower temperatures than steel melts just like you see in the video
4. We know that people and fire experts reporting molten steel and metal is entirely expected and common in a fire.
5. We know metals with low melting points such as aluminium can actually glow if heated up enough
6. We know that steel can look melted when it oxidises or if aluminium drips onto steel it can look melted
7. We know that no one relevant cares about this molten metal apart from a ridiculously tiny fringe group of nobodies.

And probably lots more I can't think of right now.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that was molten steel flowing out of the building then what was holding the building up?
 
Edx said:
So you discount lead because NIST didn't mention it in their FAQ?

But NIST are apart of your conspiracy! Why would they, according to you, intentionally make the "official story" sound less likely to be true?

Here's the part you also seem to ignore even though you quoted it:



So a cocktail of aluminum alloys, lead and other metals that could have melted in the plane and on that floor, mixed in with a variety of other organic materials such as "furniture, carpets, partitions and computers".

This is apparently highly unlikely to you or impossible.Here is what you apparently think is more likely:

1. Tons and tons of thermite was in the towers cutting columns.
2. The thermite/molten steel drips out of ONE corner of ONE floor of ONE tower in the exact place we EXPECT the plane to have ended up in a floor that has a lot of metals at low melting points.
3. The building collapses and we only see fire until the collapse front progresses past the fire damaged floors, but somehow all this thermite can't be seen either.
4. After the towers collapse none of it was videotaped when it would have been in its most volatile state - straight after.
5. Even though the collapse would have dispersed the thermite all over the place, you think there was enough of it to keep the pile hot for weeks because you also somehow think it did not ignite in and during the collapse, but when it did it was so hot it manged to melt steel beams into "rivers" and it managed to keep it molten for long enough for Leslie Robertson to find it.
6. All that is more likely than the alternative even though not a single respected legitimate peer-reviewed journal cares about it, the firefighters don't care about it (aside from you finding a few casual comments) and despite plenty of professional commentary Gage's ridiculously irrelevant tiny fringe group thinks anything of this at all.

tmd2_1, you propose impossible things and have the most uncredible people promoting this stuff. What you propose is not the most likely situation, it isn't even just as likely, its way down below what is likely its not worth entertaining... which is why no one relevant has. Somehow you have convinced yourself that it has to be true and therefore no matter how ridiculous the senario you have you think it has to better than any alternative where thermite wasn't used and there was no molten steel.

Here's what we know, I already gave this to you before:

1. We know the pile being hot and with fires for months is completely understandable
2. We know the glowing debris and steel can occur at expected temperatures in the fires
3. We know that other metals, alloys and even wood (for glowing sparks like a river) can create molten metal at far lower temperatures than steel melts just like you see in the video
4. We know that people and fire experts reporting molten steel and metal is entirely expected and common in a fire.
5. We know metals with low melting points such as aluminium can actually glow if heated up enough
6. We know that steel can look melted when it oxidises or if aluminium drips onto steel it can look melted
7. We know that no one relevant cares about this molten metal apart from a ridiculously tiny fringe group of nobodies.

And probably lots more I can't think of right now.
Click to expand...

I'll address your points, since you made a few good one's in less insulting tone than most here.

Yes don't you think NIST would have tried to list as many possible plausible sources for that as possible. I believe the fact they concluded it was aluminum, shows they could not make a good case for anything else.


1. If you actually look at Cole's videos you can see the damage he does with only a few pounds.

2. Isn't that what you would expect? It's the only part of the building where the thermite could have ignited early and/or the plane made an unexpected hole or gash that the steel was pouring out of.

3. Again the amount of thermite needed is something very much in doubt.

4. After the towers collapsed, there may have been just a little dust in the air, making seeing anything very difficult.

5. Not necessarily for weeks, if you look at the NASA photos, the temperature was still hot enough to melt aluminum on the top of the rubble on 9/16. How hot was it underneath? It would only take a little but of un ignited thermite to create melting...who are we to say when that happens? I mean I see no reason for it not to happen.

6. Appealing to authority.


1. Yes...but that hot?

2. No disagreement there.

3. It certainly does, but those other metals melt silver, and if you look at jones' report adding those other materials doesn't account for the orange glow. The max temperature was about 1800F aluminum still melts silver.

4. It happens, how common it is I think is debatable. Those items you showed me contained a lot of just the word metal, or other metals like copper.

5. Glow yes turns back to silver very quickly more then enough time during the fall.

6. I agree, but know of no report of actual melted aluminum, not saying there is any I just don't know of any.

7. Another appeal to authority.
 
NoahFence said:
So it's less likely that the tons of metals that melt at lower temps than steel was the culprit?

The TONS of metals that WERE PRESENT?

How's that work, exactly?
Click to expand...

The "sparks" falling from WTC 2 have been curious to me in the past, but not enough to flag controlled demolition. Thermite requires a precise mixture, and burns brilliantly bright, yet not a single survivor from WTC 2 impact region, nor the firefighters who made it to the impact floors there ever reported such "fireworks" before the towers came down. This spark trail we're supposed to believe is a thermite burn isn't seen anywhere else in either tower, nor in WTC 7. Cole's experiments to "prove" that thermite can cause anything in the debris pile is shoddy and full of procedural holes. It is curious when nobody's singing the truther mantra in all that indeed
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The "sparks" falling from WTC 2 have been curious to me in the past, but not enough to flag controlled demolition. Thermite requires a precise mixture, and burns brilliantly bright, yet not a single survivor from WTC 2 impact region, nor the firefighters who made it to the impact floors there ever reported such "fireworks" before the towers came down. This spark trail we're supposed to believe is a thermite burn isn't seen anywhere else in either tower, nor in WTC 7. Cole's experiments to "prove" that thermite can cause anything in the debris pile is shoddy and full of procedural holes. It is curious when nobody's singing the truther mantra in all that indeed
Click to expand...

Well I'll have to disagree with you on some points. First of all, almost all people at the impact zone are dead, but if you watch cole's videos you see what NIST says an one of the few witnesses near the impact zone said, specifically from 6:15 to about 7:20. Also of points of interest from this video are 10:45 to 11:30, pressure pulses NIST admits they do not know where they come from. 12:30 to 13:00 are also of interest gun shot like explosions, how thermite could do that.

As far as Cole's work being shoddy I know of no one who has proved or even tried to prove him wrong by experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
 
tmd2_1;7450761 As far as Cole's work being shoddy I know of no one who has proved or even tried to prove him wrong by experiment. [url said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/url]
Click to expand...

No need,his experiments are nonsense.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Not strictly. The definition does not involve a distinction by temperature, but rather by the phase (solid/condensed vs. gaseous) of the fuel that's getting oxidized. The same material may have a fire front that's typically be cooler when smouldering than when flaming, but some smoulders of some materials under some condition might (I am speculating, but find this plausible) be hotter than some flames of other materials.

GlennB said:
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.

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'.
Click to expand...

I guess in the context we are discussing, the relevant temperature is that of the immediate vicinity of the fire front / flame.

GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes.
It never occurred to me that the steel in that picture was more than red hot! I think if it appeared brighter than that (whitish, actually), that would not be its true colour but a common artefact of photography: the red glow, where too intense, would be overexposed; overexposed pixels (or film) appears white even when the original light has a predominant colour and would not appear white to the naked eye, or a properly exposed pixel/film.

GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep.

GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I am arguing (or rather suggesting, as I don't really know) that a huge debris pile fire has so many more layers of insulation and what not that you couldn't apply experiences from "ordinary" fires to it. Fires do not have a temperature "as such"; temperature, as I said, is always a thermodynamic equilibrium of heat gained from burning and heat lost to convection, radiation and conduction.


What I learned now is that I used the word "smoulder" too loosely. I agree now that purely smouldering fires, regardless of insulation, would not likely get much hotter than 720°C (this paper, by NIST incidentally, mentions on page 2-208 that wood may transition from smoulder to flame around 950 to 1000K, or 677 to 727°C), as it would transistion to flame then, or earlier.

However, I was really more thinking about a pile that is mostly smouldering, with insulated pockets transitioning to flames; these pockets then need not be limited to the typical temperatures of open flames, but might conceivably get hotter than that. Result: In smoldering debris piles, we can't categorically rule out finding pockets of temperatures well above red-hot. Reason: the temperature inside a flame does not only depend on the fuel type and oxygene availability, but also on its environment.

You'll agree that this is obvious if you consider an extreme example in a thought experiment: Let's have a closed system that is at thermal equilibrium and 10,000°C hot. Burn fuel, and the flame will peak above 10,000°C, because it adds heat to the system.
 
Why can it not ever,never,ever,ever enter into a truther's head that they might actually be wrong about something?
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just letting you know how you really do appear.
By the way: Learn to use the quote-tags correctly! That's another thing you are really bad at!

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. You showed that NIST said the aluminium wasn't burning. It is rather obvious that other contents of the building were burning.

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe. So what?

tmd2_1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes: When molten aluminium that you add stuff to drops, some things that drop with it glow orange.


tmd2_1 said:
Also look at the Cole videos, it looks exactly like what is pouring out of the South Tower
Click to expand...

What is that "it"? Time stamp?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Oystein quote tag fail :D
Click to expand...

Where is that smiley that bangs itself against a wall when I need it? :boxedin:
See, there was one opening quote tag too much in tmd's post, and I removed the wrong one :rolleyes:

ETA: Fixed ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom