Any hypothesis on pools of metal?

[BigAl]

Were the predictions with regard to temperature in the towers while they were standing or after they had fallen?
If they predict those temperatures while they were standing, what could have caused heat of 1,000(c)?

Since the NIST study was chartered to study only the building's response to the impact, the pile wasn't their problem, literally.

 

[BigAl]

I want to know what happened to the office furniture that didn't burn. There were thousands of chairs, desks, computers etc but none were found.

It was there. The problem with images
of the pile is that the scale was so large that you can't see the details of the debris. I saw the pile.

The bit of video of a fireman saying that "nothing larger than a phone keypad" was found is just one more example of out-of-context video
from a truthy.

It's from the two hour Naudet documentary, which , IMO, should be required viewing for anyone before they are allowed to opine about WTC.

I can't post a URL yet. Hit google video search
with "naudet cbs nextel" to find it.

 

[BigAl]

Why would I feign confusion?

We have all seen the clip where the italian-named firefighter expresses his incredulity at the fact they didnt find any office paraphenalia.

But you didn't see the full context of that video clip. I can't post a URL yet. Hit Google video search with "naudet nextel cbs" and watch the whole thing. The "phone" quote is there. Come back to us, afterwords.

The "bucket brigades" were widely reported in the days after 9/11.

 

[BigAl]

This may seem silly, but if it was suppose to be a CD where are the Phones?? Would not the blasts sent some of them out the windows?? And as none of them were ever recovered how could it be a CD?


What is your familiarity with the pile? How
did you come to the conclusion that there was
no debris, as evidenced by "no phones"?

Is there a JREF "required" reading/vewing list for
people? I nominate the Naudet CBS video on Google Video

 

[BigAl]

NIST themselves admit that the fires were oxygen starved. Irrelevant really since we know the temperatures the fire reached.

On the same page, NIST said that metallurgical analysis showed temps to 1100F, plenty to cut steel strength in half and cause joints to bust due to expansion.

"oxy starved" doesn't say anything about temps. Fire temp is set by the equilibrium between convection and re-radiation (cite when i can post URLs).

The fact that the video shows massive red flames on the impact floors just before collapse trumps any handwaving about blask smoke.

 

[BigAl]

No. There is a section (which I will track down) which says that the fires were oxygen starved. I remember it because it is in Dave Von Kliests new film that I watched last night. He puts the quotes up on the screen. It's a good film by the way.

The fact that videos of the collapse show raging red fires in the impact floors right up to the end makes any argument based in black smoke irelevant.

 

[Corsair 115]

Why are you coming across like you are somehow superior to me in any way?

That's a problem in your interpretation. If I wanted to denigrate you, I'd just come out and do it.

Your condescending reply did not answer my question.

I'll explain the process by which I arrived at it. First, you said this:

Would the fires have been able to maintain that temp after the jet fuel had been exhausted?

When I read that, I note the part about the jet fuel being exhausted. This I take to mean, and not unreasonably in my view, that once the jet fuel is gone the fires would lessen or even stop altogether. I then reply with:

Buildings are full of combustible material which will readily fuel a fire; if they weren't, then buildings wouldn't burn and there'd be no need for fire departments.

 

[Max Photon]

MAX-MIHOP explains pooled iron on impact floors

----

The following post discusses the source of pooled iron on the WTC towers' impact floors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2759074#post2759074

Max Photon

---

 

[Devil's Advocate]

When I read that, I note the part about the jet fuel being exhausted. This I take to mean, and not unreasonably in my view, that once the jet fuel is gone the fires would lessen or even stop altogether. I then reply with:

The statement that "Buildings are full of combustible material which will readily fuel a fire; if they weren't, then buildings wouldn't burn and there'd be no need for fire departments" had nothing to do with my question.
It seemed to be a condescending snap at me, thinking that I was pushing CT agenda. I am fully aware that building materials burn, and why there is a need for a fire department. As is everyone else above the age of five years old.

My question was pertaining to the effects the fuel dissipation would have in relation to the temperatures in the towers. (If any)

 

[Corsair 115]

My question was pertaining to the effects the fuel dissipation would have in relation to the temperatures in the towers. (If any)

It might have been helpful then to be a little more explicit in what you were asking rather than leaving it somewhat vague. Say, something along the lines of, "Would the fires inside the WTC towers been able to burn that hot from burning the other combustible material available once the jet fuel had been consumed?" Phrasing it along those lines makes it quite clear what is being asked.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It might have been helpful then to be a little more explicit in what you were asking rather than leaving it somewhat vague. Say, something along the lines of, "Would the fires inside the WTC towers been able to burn that hot from burning the other combustible material available once the jet fuel had been consumed?" Phrasing it along those lines makes it quite clear what is being asked.

How is that not clear in what I asked before?

"Would the fires have been able to maintain that temp after the jet fuel had been exhausted?"

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hey time out guys. Step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths, then go and watch TV and have a life for a bit. It's not worth it over this.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Hey time out guys. Step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths, then go and watch TV and have a life for a bit. It's not worth it over this.

Sorry, bro.
But I do not get why I have to qualify a question for clarity when it was clear to begin with. I am not the type that will be bullied for any reason, much less simply because I'm 'the new guy.' Perhaps his intent was not to come across as a condescending (self edit), but it seems to have been the case.
If not, then I apologize.

 

[Corsair 115]

How is that not clear in what I asked before?

"Would the fires have been able to maintain that temp after the jet fuel had been exhausted?"

I've covered that already. It may be others read your original question differently than I did.

Perhaps his intent was not to come across as a condescending (self edit), but it seems to have been the case. If not, then I apologize.

I've explained what I said what I did. It seems to be nothing more than a misunderstanding so I don't see much reason for anyone to get bothered by it.

 

[BigAl]

Yes.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Revolutionary91:

I may be wrong on this but I believe NIST only mentions that the fires were "oxygen-starved" in reference to the first few minutes of the burning of the aviation fuel.

Indeed, NIST show that the air on a single floor was only sufficient to burn 365 gallons of Jet A fuel and conclude that the maximum amount of fuel that could have burned "immediately" within the building (WTC 1) was about 1,460 gallons

See NCSTAR 1-5A, page 81:

"These observations are consistent with the conclusion that internal fires were effectively damped down by oxygen depletion"

Nevertheless, with time, the fires spread over large areas above the impact zones and were probably NOT oxygen starved.

Thanks for that clarification. That is the quote used in the film.

 

[Anti-sophist]

How is that not clear in what I asked before?

"Would the fires have been able to maintain that temp after the jet fuel had been exhausted?"

NIST's own experiments show fairly conclusively that your basic office fire can reach temperatures higher then those capable of using jet fuel as the only source of fuel.

Your implied assumption is false. Jet fuel is -not- the hottest burning fuel-source in the WTC fires.

 

[CurtC]

Thanks for that clarification. That is the quote used in the film.

So this Troother video you watched effectively lied by quoting NIST out of context? Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[CHF]

Thanks for that clarification. That is the quote used in the film.

It's called quote mining. Dishonest people do it all the time.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

NIST's own experiments show fairly conclusively that your basic office fire can reach temperatures higher then those capable of using jet fuel as the only source of fuel.

Your implied assumption is false. Jet fuel is -not- the hottest burning fuel-source in the WTC fires.

Thank you.
It was addressed before. Thanks though. I could not recall if NIST made a claim with that information specifically.
I need to read it again....but it is so long. I'm in a mood where I just want to lay around all day scratching myself while saying,"Ahhhhh..."