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

tmd2_1 said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
Source which says NIST admits? Post source for your hearsay claptrap please. You have been fooled by liars in 911 truth, and you are diverging faster than free-fall from the truth.
 
beachnut said:
Page number, paragraph, quote! Show the quote.

Which chapter?
Click to expand...

"the sources for the pressure pulses that created the widespread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown"

see above you can find it for the lookup.
 
tmd2_1 said:
"the sources for the pressure pulses that created the widespread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown"

see above you can find it for the lookup.
Click to expand...

No all the text, not only your quote-mining misleading nonsense. Quote the whole section, then go back and include all the talk about "pressure pulses", then try to explain why they tell us what can cause them, but you failed to more than make up doubt and try to back in your delusional inside job CD delusion.

You love to quote-mine.

Page please. Section. Paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
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!



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



Maybe. So what?



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




What is that "it"? Time stamp?
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know.

Quote from NIST "there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. "

That much stuff was dropping off and there was no molten aluminum to be seen? While NIST said it did not appear burning?
 
beachnut said:
No all the text, not only your quote-mining misleading nonsense. Quote the whole section, then go back and include all the talk about "pressure pulses", then try to explain why they tell us what can cause them, but you failed to more than make up doubt and try to back in your delusional inside job CD delusion.

You love to quote-mine.
Click to expand...

Look it up yourself if you're so concerned. What do want me to do re-write the whole NIST report?
 
tmd2_1 said:
"the sources for the pressure pulses that created the widespread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown"

see above you can find it for the lookup.
Click to expand...

Page number, paragraph, quote! Show the quote.

Which chapter?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Thanks for letting me know.

Quote from NIST "there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. "

That much stuff was dropping off and there was no molten aluminum to be seen? While NIST said it did not appear burning?
Click to expand...

Page number, paragraph, quote! Show the quote.

Which chapter?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Look it up yourself if you're so concerned. What do want me to do re-write the whole NIST report?
Click to expand...
You posted a quote not in 5a.

Post the page number, chapter, etc. Show me the quote-mining source for your CD delusion support. Why can't you produce it? Did you copy your source from 911 truth liars, or what?

Where did you get this?
tmd2_1 said:
"the sources for the pressure pulses that created the widespread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown"

see above you can find it for the lookup.
Click to expand...
Did you make this up? Source, page, chapter. You need to source all your claims, and then you will figure out you have delusions on 911 and failed to read the entire NIST report, and it shows.
 
11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

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.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like NIST has a pretty firm grasp of what it was. They used an age-old method known as "common sense". This method of information gathering has been on the decline since the advent of teh interwebz, but is still useful from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom