• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

Congratulations to david.watts for carrying on a multi-week progressive derail of this thread, with the eager participation of many JREF'ers.

In 113 posts, david.watts managed only once to write this
'I give up. I cannot prove a CD based on free fall..'

But still y'all are feeding his ego and engaging him in further derail. Shame on you.

Have a good holiday everyone, and look out for nanothermite in your Xmas crackers!
btw, did you know Christmas is also a conspiracy? That's right, Santa isn't real, the government just tells us that he is. Enjoy this little claymation movie about the Christmas Conspiracy, and rest assured the clay is just clay, not thermite.. just like those little red chips. Ho ho ho!
 
NoahFence said:
I'll take your word for it.



I don't find it unusual in the least, nor do I think it requires an explanation.



Unfortunately for people like you, the answer is very simple.
Underneath 220 acres of flammable office materials we had stores, we had parking, we had cars - hundreds of 'em:

[qimg]http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q195/strido527/WTC1993_BlastDamage_zps92e4f7b9.png[/qimg]

That's the best info I could find in less than 20 seconds of searching on the web. By my lowest estimate, I'd say we had on the order of a thousand cars underneath the WTC (I'm more than willing to be shown otherwise.) All these cars had fuel in them, no?

Getting water in there to fight that fire was next to impossible. The fire will not go out until it has exhausted its fuel, or a source of oxygen is removed. In some fires, this takes a few moments. In others, it could take weeks. Months.

Even years.

There was nothing unusual or remarkable about the fires underneath the WTC. They were as hot as expected and burned as long as expected.

To people who live in reality.
Click to expand...
Good illustration wrt the towers. Looks like an illustration that would have been attached to an article about the WTC bombing. David was asking about under the WTC 7 though. Problem is, as has been said before in this thread, there is not much of a basement in WTC7. Therefore any fire on site of WTC 7 must be within the rubble. What is in that rubble? Office furnishings, same as for the towers, plus cooling oil for the consolidated Edison transformers. The towers were 2 1/2 times the size each than WTC7 and had several levels of basement with various sources of flammable material including a parking garage.

WTC7 had similar fuel source, better air supply, and similar insulative properties as the tower rubble. If I recall correctly, the fires at the WTC7 site cooled well before those of the towers even though the later had an 8 hour head start. Given the greater amount of fuel and a few other parameters, this is not unusual.

What could NOT cause long lasting very hot fires is any form of thermite/thermate. Those all, by their very nature, are substances that give up their combustion heat energy quickly in order to create very high temperatures, burn out very quickly. Its a matter of minutes even for large quantities. If one argues that a moderating substance was introduced to slow combustion then you get down to levels of heat output per time period that are akin to having burning hydrocarbon fuels, plastics, furnishings, and paper. Thus no requirement for thermite.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
David was asking about under the WTC 7 though......................
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there was any confirmed reports of high temps under building 7. Some of the highest recorded were actually under building 5. In fact, the reports of "rivers of molten metal" were under building 5.

David must have information on this.
 
Last edited:
1- I agree, thermite expends it's energy quickly (which is why it's used as an ignition source, not demolitions) and wouldn't keep fires going for weeks, etc....

2- Outside of the fantasy realm of Trutherism, once that energy is expended, the fires burn on whatever fuel source is inside the building. "Thermite" doesn't magically make office furnishings burn for a month.

3- I still wonder about the WTC7 claims. WTC1-2, yes I've heard before but not about "long lasting fires" under WTC7. Is there documentation or is this an example of the legend spreading?
 
I believe that this goes to the thermal images done from overhead. IIRC they showed hot regions under most if not all of the WTC complex including #7. I do not believe that there ever was any first hand reports of very hot rubble fires in WTC7 but that is likely due to a concentration of labor at the tower's locations. There were no bodies to be recovered at WTC7 ( well, except for Jimmy Hoffa, but that's another issue :) )
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I believe that this goes to the thermal images done from overhead. IIRC they showed hot regions under most if not all of the WTC complex including #7. I do not believe that there ever was any first hand reports of very hot rubble fires in WTC7 but that is likely due to a concentration of labor at the tower's locations. There were no bodies to be recovered at WTC7 ( well, except for Jimmy Hoffa, but that's another issue :) )
Click to expand...
These same images show that there was not long lasting fires under building 7.

If I get a chance I'll dig up the data.
 
DGM, correct, the imaging shows
Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16 (Thermal Figure 1).
Click to expand...
.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

800 degrees at the surface in "spots".
These will likely be places where hot gasses from the fires are coming to the surface.
 
jaydeehess said:
Two spots reach 1000 Kelvin(1300+Fahrenheit) one in the region of WTC 2 and one in the region of WTC 7.
The low end if the range of measured temps is 700 kelvin(800 Fahrenheit)
Click to expand...
All true but, the point is still moot.

I wonder if david.watts can explain how his demolition belief is supported by these temps? Demolitions are not hot and thermite (whatever flavor) does not burn very long. I bet he doesn't subscribe to the laws of thermo-dynamics. ;)
 
Last edited:
As I usually do in conversations concerning fire in these forums, I will state that in Canada, wood stove, insulated chimneys must have 650 degree Celsius rating.(1200 Fahrenheit) That is they must be able to withstand a continuous fire of that temperature.
That is for strictly wood fuel.

So, 1350 F,,, for an insulated mixed fuel fire,,,,where is the beef?
 
In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated:

"I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious."

There were several reasonable responses. Thank you. I now know how this issue is treated at JREF
 
david.watts said:
In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated:

"I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious."

There were several reasonable responses. Thank you. I now know how this issue is treated at JREF
Click to expand...
What is the issue? Do you really think it supports a belief of CD? If so, how?
 
david.watts said:
In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated:

"I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious."

There were several reasonable responses. Thank you. I now know how this issue is treated at JREF
Click to expand...

Care to share your thoughts on the data supplied concerning the hot spots?

(Paranoid musing - david, you aren't requiring guidance for your responses from a a non-posting, third party are you?)
 
Last edited:
jaydee: (Paranoid musing - david, you aren't requiring guidance for your responses from a a non-posting, third party are you?)

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.
 
david.watts said:
In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated:

"I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious."

There were several reasonable responses. Thank you. I now know how this issue is treated at JREF
Click to expand...
David - there is a background which will or could be influencing some of us.

Historically the temperature in the debris was used by the truth movement in conjunction with the cascade of molten metal from "up there" as "proof" of CD.

It included a sad history of evidence doctoring by truthers - colour balance adjustments to photos of alleged molten steel.

The obvious barrier being that even if there was melting of steel as a CD tactic up around the fire zone there was no way that the same molten steel would travel to and remain in the basement. Add to that the TM evidence tampering...

Whatever value of genuine truthers in the TM the dishonest conduct by the prominent few makes most of us very sceptical.
 
Oh there are abundant problems with the truther memes regarding temps and molten steel claims.
Molten dripping material: from one corner of one floor of one structure. That hardly suggests a widespread use of an incindiary to melt steel. Colour alone is a very bad indicator of what the material is. Alienentity, in another thread, posted video of the very same phenomena coming from a burning residential electric pole transformer,

: Underground temps: See posts above

Reports if molten steel: Dealt with at length in another thread. Similar reports are fairly common in other fires. Those reports are either true or untrue. If true they point to molten steel being not unusual in structure fires. If untrue they illustrate that such erroroneous reports are common for other structure fires. Either way they illustrate that these witness reports are not unusual and not reliable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom