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

tmd, what is the liquid in this photo?

You only get one guess, because the first thing you say will be quoted by "truth seekers" as gospel. Think long and hard!



 
1337m4n said:
tmd, what is the liquid in this photo?

You only get one guess, because the first thing you say will be quoted by "truth seekers" as gospel. Think long and hard!



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_168034e3d9753319d7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Melted orange/pineapple smoothie?

I'm really getting tired of this. "Truthers" what happened to the "molten steel" after it cooled? You know, what would have been found by the hundreds of people that were milling around. Do you think it's odd no one reported seeing it? This is where you need to start. Explain why no one reported seeing the solidified remains of these "rivers of molten steel".
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Explain why no one reported seeing the solidified remains of these "rivers of molten steel".
Click to expand...
Because it was turned into foam by the giant orbiting foamification machine of course. Then it blew away.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Try watching the whole video specifically from about the 1 minute mark and on.
Click to expand...

The "whole video" isn't the point. Once again, you said:

tmd2_1 said:
There was more then enough time, for that to turn to silver during the fall, from the South tower, yet it didn't.
Click to expand...

What color is the falling material observed in this picture?

Alum-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Well they had the guy who says mini-nukes took down the towers. And another one (Heiwa) who claimed that if the top section of the WTC was dropped on the lower part from a height of 5 miles it would just bounce off without damaging it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gage is the only actual architect or engineer at the place who isn't clinically insane. He's just a charlatan.
Click to expand...


Which is why I said "almost none". With a supposed 1500 signatures very very few of them play any active role in the "twoof":rolleyes:
 
1337m4n said:
tmd, what is the liquid in this photo?

You only get one guess, because the first thing you say will be quoted by "truth seekers" as gospel. Think long and hard!



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_168034e3d9753319d7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I've told you before this is an extremely loaded question.
#1 I don't know the temperature that is reached
#2 I don't know how long or if it is cooled at all.

I've also admitted that I may not get it right even if it was more fair. What more do you want?

This isn't the question we need to ask in regard to the WTC though. In essence what's pouring out of the South tower is a multiple choice question with three (although one is very weak) options. The first is steel, then aluminum, then lead.

Lead seems very unlikely, it would have to be coming from the UPS and it's hard to imagine that much could flow out that quickly. Lead when melted is also Silver not orange. In fact 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." So if lead were an option I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature. Now of course there is what NIST said...that is the mixing of other material will turn it this orangeish color. But experiments have shown molten aluminum will not mix with these materials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

With lead and aluminum seemingly unlikely or impossible, that only leaves steel.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I've told you before this is an extremely loaded question.
#1 I don't know the temperature that is reached
#2 I don't know how long or if it is cooled at all.

I've also admitted that I may not get it right even if it was more fair. What more do you want?

This isn't the question we need to ask in regard to the WTC though. In essence what's pouring out of the South tower is a multiple choice question with three (although one is very weak) options. The first is steel, then aluminum, then lead.

Lead seems very unlikely, it would have to be coming from the UPS and it's hard to imagine that much could flow out that quickly. Lead when melted is also Silver not orange. In fact 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." So if lead were an option I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature. Now of course there is what NIST said...that is the mixing of other material will turn it this orangeish color. But experiments have shown molten aluminum will not mix with these materials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

With lead and aluminum seemingly unlikely or impossible, that only leaves steel.
Click to expand...

Reading between the lines,you don't know. Where did you study metallurgy?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Agnostic definition:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Yet in the post I referenced Dr. Greening himself made the statement "I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority. "

Seems different then agnostic to me.
Click to expand...

Then: adverb . 1. at that time: Prices were lower then. 2. immediately or soon afterward: The rain stopped and then started again. 3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

Than:conjunction
1. (used, as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison): She's taller than I am.
2. (used after some adverbs and adjectives expressing choice or diversity, such as other, otherwise, else, anywhere, or different, to introduce an alternative or denote a difference in kind, place, style, identity, etc.): I had no choice other than that. You won't find such freedom anywhere else than in this country.
3. (used to introduce the rejected choice in expressions of preference): I'd rather walk than drive there.
4. except; other than: We had no choice than to return home.
5. when: We had barely arrived than we had to leave again.

Why yes I am not an agnostic on the matter of 911. I instead do believe that one can know the nature and causes of the destruction wrought on that day. I believe this due to a background in physics (BTW electronics, television broadcast to be specific, is my actual baliwick. I did study physics but switched - better job prospects)

OTOH you seem determined to over blow any and all matters, however small, to try and cast doubt and from there to subscribe to a different contention despite no evidence. Despite having no evidence at all that the material in question in the towers is steel you claim it is because you will it, wish it, desire it, to be steel.
That puts you squarely in the camp of a true believer.


As near as I can figure your posts to nothing but the strengthen Dr. Greenings opinion on JFERS.
Click to expand...

When Greening was here I agreed with him on many issues. Perhaps he was referring to someone else.
I also have a few issues with aspects of the NIST reports. Wanna know a few?

I more then got the joke. I just would have preferred an actual rebuttal especially coming from a physicist.

In regards to the silver I knew what you were saying, and you should have known that doesn't matter. There was more then enough time, for that to turn to silver during the fall, from the South tower, yet it didn't.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you jumped to the conclusion that I am a physicist. I said I studied physics.(see above)
However, I did in fact rebutt the video. The author spends all his attention on the weight of a falling mass as measured by a non-falling spring scale. He ignores the fact that it is the dynamic force of the falling mass UPON the stationary mass that causes the destruction. I then also posted a short explanation of the collapse. The premise of the video is laughable to anyone having gone past high school physics. If he is to be believed then do as I suggested with the steel hex nut. If he is to be believed then as the steel nut hits your head you will feel LESS force than when it is placed slowly on your head.
I explained that the falling mass impinged upon the floor pans which could be expected to normally hold loads expected of ONE floor. The mass hitting it was that of ten+ floors as well as the columns(a load not normally carried by the floor pans) and that thus even the static load would have been at the very lower limit, 10X more than ONE floor could be expected to transfer to the columns.
Let's take Gage's boxes. Its the sides that carry the load. Stack ten boxes on each other, no problem. Now take a mass equal to that of ten boxes but ensure that it is just inside the perimeter of the original stack. Drop it on the original stack and the top of the original stack caves in.
That's how the floors behaved.
The core and perimeter columns systems relied upon each other as lateral braces though via the trusses. No florrs=no trusses=no lateral support=column failure.

Feel better now?
 
Further, you're wrong both about the picture on this thread page and the stuff pouring out of the WTC tower. They're both cheese. The pic on this page is cheddar -- quite dark and very gooey. The WTC stuff is clearly velveeta from a nacho machine in the corner.

I'm using the exact same tools you are, tmd -- subjective analysis of visual information filtered through a limited experience base.

Prove me wrong on both pictures.
 
Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature. Now of course there is what NIST said...that is the mixing of other material will turn it this orangeish color. But experiments have shown molten aluminum will not mix with these materials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Click to expand...

I have a learning disability known as HDD ("hey, Dad" disorder). Can you give me a time count for this test so I don't have to sit through the whole clip while I'm trying to teach my 11 year old how to mince herbs?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I've told you before this is an extremely loaded question.
#1 I don't know the temperature that is reached
#2 I don't know how long or if it is cooled at all.

I've also admitted that I may not get it right even if it was more fair. What more do you want?

This isn't the question we need to ask in regard to the WTC though. In essence what's pouring out of the South tower is a multiple choice question with three (although one is very weak) options. The first is steel, then aluminum, then lead.

Lead seems very unlikely, it would have to be coming from the UPS and it's hard to imagine that much could flow out that quickly. Lead when melted is also Silver not orange. In fact 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." So if lead were an option I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Next Aluminum...aluminum also melts silver at this temperature. Now of course there is what NIST said...that is the mixing of other material will turn it this orangeish color. But experiments have shown molten aluminum will not mix with these materials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

With lead and aluminum seemingly unlikely or impossible, that only leaves steel.
Click to expand...

As an aside though it does point out that the 'little river' could have been anything. You can't know what it is simply by a cursory look.

As for the material flowing from a corner of one fire floor, its contaminated with all manner of other materials some of which will be actually burning. One can easily find examples of trees being carried away by flowing lava which are burning(orange). 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.

(3,2,1 tmd claims I said that trees are being carried out of the towers by molten aluminum)
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
I have a learning disability known as HDD ("hey, Dad" disorder). Can you give me a time count for this test so I don't have to sit through the whole clip while I'm trying to teach my 11 year old how to mince herbs?
Click to expand...

about 2:50
 
jaydeehess said:
As an aside though it does point out that the 'little river' could have been anything. You can't know what it is simply by a cursory look.

As for the material flowing from a corner of one fire floor, its contaminated with all manner of other materials some of which will be actually burning. One can easily find examples of trees being carried away by flowing lava which are burning(orange). 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.

(3,2,1 tmd claims I said that trees are being carried out of the towers by molten aluminum)
Click to expand...

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'm sorry if I didn't. That last comment is un-necessary, and I don't understand why things like that need to be said.
 
Last edited:
I call shenanigans on the linked video, tmd. Your reverence for this reference is irrelevant and irrational. The image of a cookpot pouring -- uh -- something is excessively short and shows exactly what we're talking about -- a poultice of flaming goo!!!

Fail.
 
jaydeehess said:
Then: adverb . 1. at that time: Prices were lower then. 2. immediately or soon afterward: The rain stopped and then started again. 3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

Than:conjunction
1. (used, as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison): She's taller than I am.
2. (used after some adverbs and adjectives expressing choice or diversity, such as other, otherwise, else, anywhere, or different, to introduce an alternative or denote a difference in kind, place, style, identity, etc.): I had no choice other than that. You won't find such freedom anywhere else than in this country.
3. (used to introduce the rejected choice in expressions of preference): I'd rather walk than drive there.
4. except; other than: We had no choice than to return home.
5. when: We had barely arrived than we had to leave again.

Why yes I am not an agnostic on the matter of 911. I instead do believe that one can know the nature and causes of the destruction wrought on that day. I believe this due to a background in physics (BTW electronics, television broadcast to be specific, is my actual baliwick. I did study physics but switched - better job prospects)

OTOH you seem determined to over blow any and all matters, however small, to try and cast doubt and from there to subscribe to a different contention despite no evidence. Despite having no evidence at all that the material in question in the towers is steel you claim it is because you will it, wish it, desire it, to be steel.
That puts you squarely in the camp of a true believer.




When Greening was here I agreed with him on many issues. Perhaps he was referring to someone else.
I also have a few issues with aspects of the NIST reports. Wanna know a few?



Sorry if you jumped to the conclusion that I am a physicist. I said I studied physics.(see above)
However, I did in fact rebutt the video. The author spends all his attention on the weight of a falling mass as measured by a non-falling spring scale. He ignores the fact that it is the dynamic force of the falling mass UPON the stationary mass that causes the destruction. I then also posted a short explanation of the collapse. The premise of the video is laughable to anyone having gone past high school physics. If he is to be believed then do as I suggested with the steel hex nut. If he is to be believed then as the steel nut hits your head you will feel LESS force than when it is placed slowly on your head.
I explained that the falling mass impinged upon the floor pans which could be expected to normally hold loads expected of ONE floor. The mass hitting it was that of ten+ floors as well as the columns(a load not normally carried by the floor pans) and that thus even the static load would have been at the very lower limit, 10X more than ONE floor could be expected to transfer to the columns.
Let's take Gage's boxes. Its the sides that carry the load. Stack ten boxes on each other, no problem. Now take a mass equal to that of ten boxes but ensure that it is just inside the perimeter of the original stack. Drop it on the original stack and the top of the original stack caves in.
That's how the floors behaved.
The core and perimeter columns systems relied upon each other as lateral braces though via the trusses. No florrs=no trusses=no lateral support=column failure.

Feel better now?
Click to expand...

Yes I believe the part of the video, where he needed the jolt to break the fishing line attached to the bowling ball as opposed to just going straight down, shows what would have needed to and what did not happen. A jolt would have been needed, other wise you have uniform acceleration. Which is in fact what we see at all three Towers.

In regards to your theory which is I guess the predominant theory. Even if I were to accept that it is possible, it contradicts with visual evidence. If you look at this video, there are many places to see it but I guess the best is just after the 3 minute mark, you can clearly see the south tower is titled and not falling straight down. How is it therefore causing pressure to floors below? How did the top section also not fall down intact? Not intact in the sense of no damage certainly there would be damage from hitting the ground, but it would be easily identifiable in the aftermath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
I call shenanigans on the linked video, tmd. Your reverence for this reference is irrelevant and irrational. The image of a cookpot pouring -- uh -- something is excessively short and shows exactly what we're talking about -- a poultice of flaming goo!!!

Fail.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom