Merged So there was melted steel

NoahFence said:
...and until you people can prove that the explosives can even survive a minute in the conditions in the towers, you have less than n o t h i n g
Click to expand...

As the chemical composition of the paint in question was proven ad nauseum, there is clearly more than "NOTHING".

Untill MM or anybody else can take the chemical composition of the paint and make thermite, they have wishful thinking.
 
Miragememories said:
Who do you believe will accept your empty lies about thermitic material?

I credit the average visitor here with requiring greater proof than boastful claims by sheeple.

The idiots claiming it was primer paint appear to have no other proof than wishful thinking.

That and a couple of bucks will get them a cup of coffee.

MM
Click to expand...

Why didn't the thermite melt the steel of the plate?
 
Tomtomkent said:
As the chemical composition of the paint in question was proven ad nauseum, there is clearly more than "NOTHING".

Untill MM or anybody else can take the chemical composition of the paint and make thermite, they have wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Since even those who are promoting the paint theory admit they currently lack the necessary proof, you appear to have "jumped the gun."

Toke on.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Since even those who are promoting the paint theory admit they currently lack the necessary proof, you appear to have "jumped the gun."

Toke on.

MM
Click to expand...

You seem confused.

There really is no doubt that the chips are paint. Harrit an friends provided the data, the conclusion is inevitable. A bright red film the thickness of paint containing the most usual paint pigments in an organic matrix, on oxidized iron with a trace of manganese? That's paint.

We admit that the proof that that paint is specifically LaClede standard primer is not yet rock-solid. However confidence is high.

You will notice that having doubts is the hallmark of a skeptic, while harboring no doubts, as truthers do, is a sure sign of mere faith.
 
Miragememories said:
Since even those who are promoting the paint theory admit they currently lack the necessary proof, you appear to have "jumped the gun."

Toke on.

MM
Click to expand...

It's strange that you hold these people to very stringent standards of proof while routinely defending Harrit et al. That is, you defend those who failed to conduct any test that would definitively have proved the chips to be thermitic in the first place. Despite such tests being trivially cheap and easy to conduct.

What's truly disturbing is that you won't get this. And it's exactly why the vast majority of Truthers deserve to have their beliefs described as "faith based" or "delusional".
 
Miragememories said:
Since even those who are promoting the paint theory admit they currently lack the necessary proof, you appear to have "jumped the gun."

Toke on.

MM
Click to expand...

I find it quite telling how you "religiously" hold on to the belief of thermite without being skeptical of the thermite theory itself. Hmmmm
 
Oystein said:
You seem confused.

There really is no doubt that the chips are paint. Harrit an friends provided the data, the conclusion is inevitable. A bright red film the thickness of paint containing the most usual paint pigments in an organic matrix, on oxidized iron with a trace of manganese? That's paint.

We admit that the proof that that paint is specifically LaClede standard primer is not yet rock-solid. However confidence is high.

You will notice that having doubts is the hallmark of a skeptic, while harboring no doubts, as truthers do, is a sure sign of mere faith.
Click to expand...

And I did not specify the brand. I stuck to the proven chemistry that the compound was a surface preperation paint of some form. If MM wants to prove it can undergo a thermatic reaction await his rewriting of chemistry.
 
Am I seeing things or is MM lecturing you guys about your uncertainty of which brand of paint it is, even though you have shown conclusively it is paint, while holding on for dear life his claim that it's thermite?
 
twinstead said:
Am I seeing things or is MM lecturing you guys about your uncertainty of which brand of paint it is, even though you have shown conclusively it is paint, while holding on for dear life his claim that it's thermite?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he's doing. Even though you folks are presenting this in such a manner that it makes perfect sense to a person like me, having zero experience in such manners. Quite frankly all science talk makes my brain bleed - but I still see the obvious. Why truthers, who fancy themselves smarter than Einstein miss this is beyond my comprehension. I simply don't live in their alternate reality.
 
So what do people make of the NASA AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero on 9/16/01?

ae911truth.16b.jpg


Anyone know the temperatures this demonstrates? And what the chances of that many natural steel melting furnaces forming are?
 
It would be pretty helpful to know what all them letters are supposed to be highlighting.

Nobody (well, no non-truthers) mentioned melted steel. Tons of melted METALS, but no steel. So I'd say the chances are zero.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So what do people make of the NASA AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero on 9/16/01?

[qimg]http://www.cf911truth.org/ae911truth.16b.jpg[/qimg]

Anyone know the temperatures this demonstrates? And what the chances of that many natural steel melting furnaces forming are?
Click to expand...

What your trying to imply and what your saying is ridiculous, but even if it weren't...

I'd say the chances of that are better still than the chances of having enough thermite, that it is reacting for 5 days, which absolutely noone saw or even detected until years later, when a 911 CT leader miraculously found microscopic traces in some dust that someone just happened to send him after years in a baggie in a drawer, and that he didn't fully test, publishing this farce only in a bogus journal.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
And what the chances of that many natural steel melting furnaces forming are?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to add. These readings can not be used to predict higher temperature below ground. In order to do that you would need to know the exact composition of the ground and how deep the source of heat was. Think of flying over a house with a fire in the fireplace. The reading at the chimney outlet would not be very far off from the reading at the firebox. This would not indicate the temperature of the room the firebox was in.
 
DGM said:
What temps are you interested in? Surface? This is useless to determine temps below ground.
Click to expand...


It should have no real problem determining the upper bounds of temperature, but sure some radiative information will be lost depending on the depth of the reading.

Anyways, found this:

http://www.historycommons.org/timel..._imp_specific_issues_and_cases=env_imp_AVIRIS
NASA scientists, Robert Green and Frank Loiza, perform the first analysis of the AVIRIS data (see 12:00 p.m. September 16, 2001-2:00 a.m. September 17, 2001) and determine that there are a total of 34 fires burning at the World Trade Center site with temperatures ranging from 800 degrees to 1,000 degrees. They pass this and all subsequent data to the White House and other government agencies that are involved in responding to the environmental impact of the attacks. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/10/2002]
Click to expand...


I would very much like to see that data so I can understand the temperature scale attributed to the pictures, I presume that the "White House and other government agencies" released it at sometime in their extensive investigations?
 
NoahFence said:
Are these temperatures supposed to be indicative of anything in particular, or are they a simple curiosity?
Click to expand...


Curiosity. This is direct data that you can apply direct scientific meaning to, not just a video or someones anecdotal account of events.
 
Much as I hate to post youtube videos but this one shows lots of witnesses, and in particular a guy working at ground zero showing evidence of a molten *something* still burning for up to "six weeks" after the event.



.....

Is that guy correct that the molten piles were still burning six weeks or not? Seems like a very long time for a fire that is buried and starved of oxygen ...

Doesn't seem in anyway typical of thermite, or nano thermite, however.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Much as I hate to post youtube videos but this one shows lots of witnesses, and in particular a guy working at ground zero showing evidence of a molten *something* still burning for up to "six weeks" after the event.



.....

Is that guy correct that the molten piles were still burning six weeks or not? Seems like a very long time for a fire that is buried and starved of oxygen ...

Doesn't seem in anyway typical of thermite, or nano thermite, however.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, I'm a total idiot when it comes to the scientific stuff. However, I have an abundance of common sense that, when applied liberally, explains a bunch of stuff.

First thing your video does is state "molten steel" in the title. It's automatically dismissed based on that.

*Something* was metal. There was a crapload of it there. Not all metals were steel. Put it this way - your image you provided with the letters, the letters could easily have stood for:
A) Audi
B) BMW
C) Chevy
D) Dodge
E) ?
F) Ford

get it? There were hundreds if not thousands of cars there. Underground garage.
Metal everywhere. There could also have been at least a train or two under there, because there was a subway. This is also a pretty easy place to look to rid yourself of the "oxygen starved" meme. There was plenty of oxygen.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Much as I hate to post youtube videos but this one shows lots of witnesses, and in particular a guy working at ground zero showing evidence of a molten *something* still burning for up to "six weeks" after the event.



.....

Is that guy correct that the molten piles were still burning six weeks or not? Seems like a very long time for a fire that is buried and starved of oxygen ...
Doesn't seem in anyway typical of thermite, or nano thermite, however.
Click to expand...

Seems just about right to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom