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 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.
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.
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. "
Well yes, in fact its quite plain above that you stated that aluminum is not expected to burn at office fire temps. IF you were not including this as part of your rebuttal to my post then one wonders exactly why you included it at all, and then went on to say it again in response to AG.
As for no visual indication that the material is burning, I suppose I disagree with NIST except I suspect you are taking it out of context. Could you please reference that NIST report and page number. The main component(s) of the material, aluminum, glass, copper would not be burning, but carbon based contaminants would be.
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,
You linked a compilation of videos that clearly show that the upper section impacted the lower section AND was beginning to rotate about its CoM.
Once it begins to do so the lower edge of the tilt will be crushing into as well as down onto the lower section. This will have the effect to slow the rotation.
At this point you can also quite clearly see that only a small percentage of the mass of the upper section is beyond the edge of the lower section.
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.
I have watched this video and countless others and have never seen any indication of anything moving upwards, except smoke.
Would a large section exit the structure? I have no doubt that one might. In fact I believe that I stated that I saw a large section that could possibly be a section of the top portion of the tower that was beyond the edge of the original structure,,,remember me saying that?
Even if its not I still have no problem with this being the case in the scenario I put forth above in which the failure of the perimeter is due to failure of the floors/trusses.
Note that I most certainly do not believe that this occured uniformly accross the structure and that the collapse zone most likely grew from 1-3 floors in depth to 7-10 floors in depth, perhaps much more as evidenced by the lagging core failure (the so-called 'spire' being the greatest visual of this)
As for a 'jolt', why would one be observed if the force on the floors is at least 10X what it is designed to withstand? Do you feel a jolt if you stomp on a paper cup as your foot contacts the upper surface of the cup? No, and a video of you doing so would also not be capable of noticing the small decrease on the velocity of your foot.
However that is a very closed and uncomplicated analogy. The collapse of the towers was most certainly not a simple, uncomplicated event.
Even Verniage is much simpler as it is desgned to have the upper and lower sections of the load carrying components strike each other as sqaurely as possible.They do this by blowing a section out and away without offsetting the upper and lower sections. In the case of the towers there is no way that the vertical load carrying components would have struck each other even close to squarely. Thus no 'jolt'.
) and you simply choose to ignore this. As I said, this is typical of truthers who believe google is a simile for research, and are perpetually stuck in 2006!