Any hypothesis on pools of metal? [Archive]

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 07:45 PM

First off, I would like to state for the record that I am not on any 'side', as it were, on the debate. I think there are many points of both sides that lead to interesting questions.

My belief of 9/11.
Two planes hit two towers.
One plane hit the Pentagon.

As far as Flight 93 goes, I have not looked into it as much as I would have liked up to this point. I would like to couple ground evidence with the flight data before I formulate evidence to conclusion. What was the last reported altitude and pitch (degree of angle) the plane was in relation to the impact site.
So couple the crafts altitude, speed, pitch, location, etc, to see if it is possible with the data to end up in a dart like impact with the ground.
I have not been looking hard on this point as yet, and like to avoid websites that have an obvious agenda. (If there is any information regarding this, I would be thankful for it.)

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.
I am sure there are studies out there that show other possible explanations to this event, but I have not found any up to this point.
Again, if you know of a direction to point me in, I would be most thankful.

I would also like to add that I have been reading debates where for a few days now, and I think people from both sides should tone down the belittling of the other. The attacks and degrading debate slinging profanity is uncalled for in my opinion. Questioning someones intelligence, grasp on reality, name calling such as 'Troofers', 'Agents', 'Brainwashed', etc, only add to resentment and puts the debate into a second rate joust of insults. If you have good points, you should never have to lower yourself to attacks and name calling.
Sorry if I sound a bit preachy, but I hate to see a debate fall because of ego's getting in the way.
It seems far too many people have already closed their minds to the possibility that they could be mistaken, and I see that as a failure in logic and reasoning on both sides.

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to reading and posting in the future.

DarkMagician

10th July 2007, 08:00 PM

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:05 PM

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.
I am sure there are studies out there that show other possible explanations to this event, but I have not found any up to this point.
Again, if you know of a direction to point me in, I would be most thankful.

Well the main problem here is that there has never actually been any evidence of said pools actually existing. It's a little hard to explain something that hasn't ever been shown to exist, it's a little like scientifically explaining the digestion systems of an Extra-Terrestrial Biological Entity.

Let me explain further. Pools of moltem metal... Well what sort of metal? Was it Aluminium, copper, zinc, brass... All of these were present in large quanties and have low melting points and so could have pooled. The Truther movement want you to accept that such metal was steel, but the truth is that no pools were positively identified and certainly never tested to determine their make up if they did exist.

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.

So really it comes down to the fact that there doesn't have to be an explaination for them, because there isn't a need until a) it's proven they exisited, and b) it's shown what they actually were.

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:06 PM

Hello, DA, and welcome to the forums.

If you don't believe all the evidence, including all the witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 crashed, then you most certainly have taken a side. You have some reading to do:
Flight 93 / Shanksville Summary of Evidence, many links (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman)

Dark Magician covered the molten metal issue simply and eloquently.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:08 PM

There are a few. Some I recall:

* The metals are those with a lower melting point than steel, like aluminum.
* Some of the metal was caught in a simple stove* setting, allowing it to reach temperatures hotter than the contributing fire and thus hit melting points easier than without the setting.

On the other hand, thermite and thermate have some big problems in using. Both are fast-burning and wouldn't have enough heat to keep the metal melted, unless there was a large supply. Furthermore, thermate has a few barium compounds that haven't been found in the debris.

* related to kitchen stoves as much as simple machines (like levers) are related to a modern machine (like a car)

Thank you for the reply. However, I have a problem with it. Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange. Has the hypothesis of the 'oven effect' been tested to any degree?
You do not have to mention cutting compounds. I seek alternate means of the event. I am not even close to sold on the thermite/thermate theory. It is just one of the topics I have not seen much research or debate on without those two compounds coming up.

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:09 PM

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

Myriad

10th July 2007, 08:09 PM

My understanding is that there are no first-hand eyewitness reports of the existence of "pools of molten metal." (If you do have knowledge of such a first-hand report, though, please let me know so I do not remain in error.) And no reports of soilidifed pools of previously molten metal in the debris, which would have been quite distinctive in shape.

First-hand witnesses did report "molten metal" and occasionally "molten steel." How they could have distinguished one molten metal from another is not clear. What's also not always clear is whether when they say "molten" they mean fully liquid, or merely softened. (Though one described the molten metal as "dripping" which strongly suggests liquid.)

All references to "pools" are, to my knowledge, second-hand at best. What I conjecture happened is that listening to first-hand witnesses describe "molten metal," and interpreting that as "large quantities of liquid metal," some reporters assumed that naturally such liquid would inevitably form pools. They then passed on reports of "pools of molten metal."

The same way a reporter might report information that "there were dirty dishes everywhere" as "there were stacks of dirty dishes" without necessarily verifying that the dishes were actually in stacks.

Respectfully,
Myriad

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:09 PM

I would also like to add that I have been reading debates where for a few days now, and I think people from both sides should tone down the belittling of the other. The attacks and degrading debate slinging profanity is uncalled for in my opinion. Questioning someones intelligence, grasp on reality, name calling such as 'Troofers', 'Agents', 'Brainwashed', etc, only add to resentment and puts the debate into a second rate joust of insults. If you have good points, you should never have to lower yourself to attacks and name calling.
Sorry if I sound a bit preachy, but I hate to see a debate fall because of ego's getting in the way.

It sounds like you might be new to this. Unfortunately when you have read 1000 posts by a guy that claims that Flight 175 didn't exist purely because he assumes the towerrs were blown up and that means the plane had to hit the building, ergo they wouldn't have used hijackers, and when you ask for evidence that the buildings were blown up he goes on on a rant about how it's obvious they were just by looking at them..., well tempers tend to fray somewhat.

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 08:12 PM

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.

First, you need to prove there were "pools" of molten metal. Because as far as I know, no actual eyewitness has used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. That's an invention of the CT community.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:12 PM

Hello, DA, and welcome to the forums.

If you don't believe all the evidence, including all the witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 crashed, then you most certainly have taken a side.

Dark Magician covered the molten metal issue simply and eloquently.

[/SIZE]

No Sir, you are mistaken. I have not taken a side in any way shape or form. I understand there is debate with regard to the event, and want to see all sides of the debate coupled with the evidence to see what is real and what is speculation.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:12 PM

Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

Hmm, well I know you know the witness reports far better than I do Gravy, so could you point me to first hand accounts of pools of molten metal?

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:14 PM

Thank you for the reply. However, I have a problem with it. Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange. From my site (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home). Keep in mind that it was dark where the molten metal was reported.

Does molten aluminum glow? It sure can.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280681.html?page=2
http://www.world-aluminium.org/production/processing/casting.html
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html
http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data/Element/Node/Application/Application_edit.asp?ele_ch_id=A000000000000000132 6
http://www.metaullics.com/sams.html
http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/HeatTreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/casting/casting_equipment.htm
http://www.granton.k12.wi.us/highSchool/teched/index.htm
http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech%20gallery.htm

On this page (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/18/bz/FP602180326.html), note the difference between the aluminum that's just out of the furnace and the aluminum that's still molten, but cooler.

The site debunking 911 myths has an interesting page about this subject. Note their observation about the material falling from the south tower: it appears to turn silvery as it cools:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

cmcaulif

10th July 2007, 08:16 PM

Well the main problem here is that there has never actually been any evidence of said pools actually existing. It's a little hard to explain something that hasn't ever been shown to exist, it's a little like scientifically explaining the digestion systems of an Extra-Terrestrial Biological Entity.

Let me explain further. Pools of moltem metal... Well what sort of metal? Was it Aluminium, copper, zinc, brass... All of these were present in large quanties and have low melting points and so could have pooled. The Truther movement want you to accept that such metal was steel, but the truth is that no pools were positively identified and certainly never tested to determine their make up if they did exist.

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.

So really it comes down to the fact that there doesn't have to be an explaination for them, because there isn't a need until a) it's proven they exisited, and b) it's shown what they actually were.

Were the ground temperatures at ground zero even hot enough to keep steel in the liquid state for as long as the pools were present?

3bodyproblem

10th July 2007, 08:19 PM

To kinda add to what Myriad said, no one (there he is again) has defined what a pool is. Is it Barbie dreamhouse size? One of them Turtle kiddie pools, Olympic? This would go along way to help clarify this issue if we stopped refering to them as "pools" and defined a mass and area.

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:20 PM

No Sir, you are mistaken. I have not taken a side in any way shape or form. I understand there is debate with regard to the event, and want to see all sides of the debate coupled with the evidence to see what is real and what is speculation.Very good. My concern is that you're aware of the denialist claims but not the official evidence. I salute you for coming here and asking...this is a great resource...but there's no substitute for reading the investigation reports and witness accounts. :)

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:21 PM

Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:29 PM

From Keep in mind that it was dark where the molten metal was reported.

Does molten aluminum glow? It sure can., note the difference between the aluminum that's just out of the furnace and the aluminum that's still molten, but cooler.

The site debunking 911 myths has an interesting page about this subject. Note their observation about the material falling from the south tower: it appears to turn silvery as it cools:

Very good stuff! Thank you for that. Oh, I cannot post links yet, so I have to cut your reply a bit to remove your links. Otherwise, I cannot use your reply in mine.

So I guess the next thing to do is try to get an idea of how much molten material there was in 'pools.'
And that may prove difficult.

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 08:29 PM

Here are two sites with many testimonies of molten steel, with links to original sources.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:30 PM

Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

Well that depends on what the witnesses said. Gravy is likely to link to any that claim to have seen pools of molten metal if his response was to the pools claims and not just the molten metal claims. Note that these are different, and there are indeed photos of red hot steel that appears to have some other molten metal dripping off of it. Again, other metals have a far lower melting point than steel and so would cetainly have been molten at the temperatures of the fire and the piles and so need no explaination beyond that. Pools of steel would need it, but there is as of yet no evidence that such existed, and as I stated before, why try and explain what hasn't been shown to exist. Can you explain the reproduction systems of a Venusian chromic rattle snake? I'd suggest not, and it'd be a silly question to ask, even if you were an expert of rattlesnakes, until I could actually prove that such a venusian chromic rattle snake existed.

e^n

10th July 2007, 08:31 PM

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

Investigation is all well and good, but you will inevitably arrive with an unfortunate set of facts:

Were there any recorded temperatures high enough to melt steel?
No
Were there any tests done on molten material to determine it's composition?
No
Is there any verified evidence confirming existence of molten steel?
No

There are so many plausible explanations to the 'molten metal' claim and very few pieces of evidence on which to support the claim it was steel. I'm not ruling it out as the evidence is equally poor on both sides, but there are explanations which are more plausible (lead, zinc, copper, aluminium etc).

cmcaulif

10th July 2007, 08:34 PM

Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

I think much of the eyewitness testimony can be chalked up to confusion. There were even some engineers, and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, who were making snap judgments very shortly after the event, and had said that steel had melted, though we now know this to be false.

Many of the workers on sight would have assumed the pools were steel, given the info they had at the time. Though this testimony really can't be considered reliable, since its unreasonable to expect someone to be able to tell apart two different kinds of molten metal, just by looking.

3bodyproblem

10th July 2007, 08:35 PM

It a key thing for me. I'm not sure about the rest of the forum, but if someone showed me a "pool" of molten metal the size of a Volkswagen at ground zero I have to rethink my whole opinion of what transpired! If it was shown to be steel then I would probably have to jump ship and get me a black t-shirt.

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:35 PM

Hmm, well I know you know the witness reports far better than I do Gravy, so could you point me to first hand accounts of pools of molten metal?There aren't as many accounts of pools as there are of running molten metal, but I think it's safe to assume that some of that running metal pooled up. Here's a link (http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=66&nav_id=navbutt_66%20&PHPSESSID=eab472903e68f29e5b71129d428960e5) from my page Fires in the piles /Molten metal/ Eutectic reaction / Thermite theories (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera)

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 08:37 PM

Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange.

Is it?

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg

http://www.metaullics.com/graphics/sams1.jpg

http://www.eaglesign.com/images/molten.jpg

http://home.att.net/~drdipstik/pow/pow13c.jpg

Gravy

10th July 2007, 08:39 PM

So I guess the next thing to do is try to get an idea of how much molten material there was in 'pools.'
And that may prove difficult.Impossible! You'd need to know the type and quantity of the material. That information doesn't exist and can't be pieced together accurately.

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 08:40 PM

I think much of the eyewitness testimony can be chalked up to confusion. There were even some engineers, and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, who were making snap judgments very shortly after the event, and had said that steel had melted, though we now know this to be false.

Many of the workers on sight would have assumed the pools were steel, given the info they had at the time. Though this testimony really can't be considered reliable, since its unreasonable to expect someone to be able to tell apart two different kinds of molten metal, just by looking.

Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero, NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment. Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?

DGM

10th July 2007, 08:41 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

DA: Welcome

Very interesting reading on iron burning. Cool stuff

CHF

10th July 2007, 08:42 PM

The question I always ask twoofers when they bring up "molten steel" is "how much thermite would it take to do that?"

Rahne Everson

10th July 2007, 08:43 PM

Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange.

Aluminum oxide sure is.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:43 PM

Ok, with the links that Revolutionary91 posted, there are a lot of accounts that there was molten material. A few said 'molten steel', but I have to agree that there is no way for them to know it was in fact steel without it having been tested. That was an assumption.

Was there anything in the debris like large lumps of dried material suggesting it had been liquid at some point?

DGM

10th July 2007, 08:48 PM

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 08:49 PM

The question I always ask twoofers when they bring up "molten steel" is "how much thermite would it take to do that?"

Come on, bro. Don't do that 'twoofer' stuff. Lets be civil about it all. I understand people get tired of one another, but we do not need to take anger to insult. It is unnesessary. I do not want people going on the defensive or assault. It is counter productive.

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 08:50 PM

Was there anything in the debris like large lumps of dried material suggesting it had been liquid at some point?

You mean like this?

http://debunking911.com/moltennothing.jpg

ROTFLOL!

(Just so you know, that is not a chunk of slag. Closer inspection reveals it to be several concrete floor slabs pancaked together with rebar, pipes, etc.)

(But the good *Professor* Jones claimed it was molten slag)

ROTFLOL!

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 08:54 PM

Devils advocate please check your PM's.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:54 PM

There aren't as many accounts of pools as there are of running molten metal, but I think it's safe to assume that some of that running metal pooled up. Here's a link (http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=66&nav_id=navbutt_66%20&PHPSESSID=eab472903e68f29e5b71129d428960e5) from my page Fires in the piles /Molten metal/ Eutectic reaction / Thermite theories (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera)

Thanks for that Gravy. While I tentively agree that it has to have gone somewhere, most of the reports of "molten steel" are unsubstainiated in either that it actually was there (in a number of the quotes the person was quoting someone else), what it was (the assumptions made is that it was steel, the person there didn't actually test it, they saw a red hot liquid and assumed steel) and failed to give an estimate of the quantity involved. In many cases they didcribe it "dripping" rather then streams, and even streams might not be a huge amount capable of creating a large pool (maybe a puddle.) In a lot of cases it seems that they are simply speaking out of ignorance, claims of molten steel at temperatures well below the melting point of steel aren't exactly confidence inspiring. Saying that they found a "molten steel beam" isn't either. If it was molten, it wouldn't be a beam. Suggesting that the remains of a fire truck looked like a pot of molten steel is not the same as claiming t was molten either. It it had been molten, it wouldn't have been recognisable as a fire truck.

So in the end it comes back to the point that while there is evidence of molten metal, and there should have been at the temperatures given, there is no evidence of molten steel, and certainly no pools of molten steel.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 08:56 PM

(Just so you know, that is not a chunk of slag. Closer inspection reveals it to be several concrete floor slabs pancaked together with rebar, pipes, etc.)

You forgot the burnt paper. ;)

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 09:00 PM

You forgot the burnt paper. ;)

Yeah, but I wanted to rule out the possibility of anyone saying it was just "blown there" after the lump solidified. :p

Gravy

10th July 2007, 09:04 PM

Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero,Glad to see you're not parroting that silly truther canard that Guiliani/NWO had everything carted away to China on the morning of the 12th.

NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment.Yes, they mapped the site.

Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?Perhaps you should have sought the answer to this question before claiming that molten steel was definitely in the piles. Your question has been answered numerous times. Please read about what transpired at Ground Zero after 9/11, rather than making assumptions about what you think should hav happened. My site has numerous resources that discuss these things at length.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 09:05 PM

Yeah, but I wanted to rule out the possibility of anyone saying it was just "blown there" after the lump solidified. :p

IIRC some of it is sticking out from between the two slabs isn't it?

Max Photon

10th July 2007, 09:06 PM

---

Devil's Advocate,

MAX-MIHOP says that the molten metal is molten iron, the left-over product of phreato-thermatic explosions when the jets hit the towers.

I can't link yet (this is post 14)

So...

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 09:08 PM

IIRC some of it is sticking out from between the two slabs isn't it?

Details, details ...

Max Photon

10th July 2007, 09:08 PM

And this is number 15...

cmcaulif

10th July 2007, 09:10 PM

Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero, NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment. Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?

The pools were never tested to verify their content, the claims of steel are based purely on eyewitnesses, which are unreliable for obvious reasons.

NASA's imaging doesn't prove there was steel either, it just gives a map of the ground temps.

I don't see what your point is.

Max Photon

10th July 2007, 09:12 PM

---

DA,

MAX-MIHOP explains the pools of molten metal:

MAX-MIHOP Says - The Aluminum Components of Flights 11 and 175 Were Used as Aluminum Powder for Phreato-Thermatic Explosions (http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/11/maxmihop-says-flight-175s-aluminum-skin-became-the-aluminum-powder-in-a-phreatothermatic-explosion.aspx)

(Sorry if the paper has some broken links - I'll get those cleaned up.)

Regards,

Max

(Great topic, by the way!)

---

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 09:13 PM

The pools were never tested to verify their content, the claims of steel are based purely on eyewitnesses, which are unreliable for obvious reasons.

NASA's imaging doesn't prove there was steel either, it just gives a map of the ground temps.

I don't see what your point is.

My point is that with all that sampling going on you would think that someone would test the metal.

BigAl

10th July 2007, 09:15 PM

Color is a function of temperature in metal. The scale is in any of a wide range of metal trades textbooks. I have a URL that document it for Aluminum but I am not yet able to post it yet.

Google for "janedoe0911 tripod aluminum glows" and click on "Aluminum Glows"

The author did a nice experiment showing Aluminum going through color changes. Unfortunatly it's on a free web host and the pictures don't load today.

Scroll down to see the color scale.

JaneDoe0911 seems to have communicated her demonstration to Prof Jones but he still repeats the
mistake about the meaning of color.

Rahne Everson

10th July 2007, 09:15 PM

Phreato-Thermatic Explosions (http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/11/maxmihop-says-flight-175s-aluminum-skin-became-the-aluminum-powder-in-a-phreatothermatic-explosion.aspx)

You're just making up words now aren't you?

cmcaulif

10th July 2007, 09:19 PM

My point is that with all that sampling going on you would think that someone would test the metal.

unfortunately that did not happen, and with the body of evidence we have now, there is no reason to conclude that the pools were steel.

Gravy's website probably has the most links on the subject, if you're interested.

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 09:24 PM

unfortunately that did not happen, and with the body of evidence we have now, there is no reason to conclude that the pools were steel.

Gravy's website probably has the most links on the subject, if you're interested.

Yes i'm reading through his links.

It is unfortunate that nobody tested it. Could have laid it to rest before it started.

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 09:27 PM

BigAl

10th July 2007, 09:29 PM

So far, every reference to "seeing" molten metal is second-hand when you chase it down to primary sources.

There is no technical measurement that shows temps hot enough to melt steel (2500F). Molten Aluminum is a possibility, but I'm a skeptic.

There was lots of deformed steel when the pile was pulled apart. Maybe people saw some warped steel and assumed it had been molten at some point. Look at the sloppy reporting for the fire in San Francisco that collapsed a bridge. Lots of people used the "molten" word to describe the bent beams.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 09:32 PM

Janedoe0911 also believes that energy beams from space brought down the towers, and that the "fuzzy blobs" prove that steel was "dustified."

And your point? Richard Hoagland (http://www.enterprisemission.com/index.php) believes in massive glass tunnels, buried citys, pyraimds and huge carved faces on Mars, as well as robots, machines, glass cities, and other alien structures on the Moon, that serveral of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are either artifical or have alien structures on them, and that Washington DC was all laid out in accordance to masonic symbolism. He also does a very good page (http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm) proving that those that believe that the Apollo programme was hoaxed are nutty than he is. Sometimes the insane can be right, just like a broken clock manages to be correct twice a day.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 09:44 PM

And your point? Richard Hoagland believes in massive glass tunnels, buried citys, pyraimds and huge carved faces on Mars, as well as robots, machines, glass cities, and other alien structures on the Moon, that serveral of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are either artifical or have alien structures on them, and that Washington DC was all laid out in accordance to masonic symbolism. He also does a very good page[/url] proving that those that believe that the Apollo programme was hoaxed are nutty than he is. Sometimes the insane can be right, just like a broken clock manages to be correct twice a day.

Sorry everyone, been reading a site that was given earlier. And it is VERY LONG.
=o)

Oh, but, there is some masonic symbolism in Washington. I will never deny that. One guy was telling me about the Pentagon with relation to some Satanic verse of some sort, that "The center of power should always be pointing north." Something to that effect. Something about a Pentagram.
And as you know a Pentagon is the center of a Pentagram, but I have not looked to see the direction the top point of the Pentagon is pointing.
Just for laughs or a quick study for those that want a smile.
=o)

Glass cities on the moon? Very cool. Maybe that is why we're not doing anymore manned missions to to the moon? Someone screwed up and hit a golf ball into someones glass city.
=o)~

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 09:54 PM

---

DA,

MAX-MIHOP explains the pools of molten metal:
(Sorry if the paper has some broken links - I'll get those cleaned up.)

Regards,

Max

(Great topic, by the way!)

---

So far in reading the link you've provided, it seems as if the guy is trying to sell me a used car.

3bodyproblem

10th July 2007, 10:13 PM

And this is number 15...

pDoh?

Anti-sophist

10th July 2007, 10:14 PM

It is unfortunate that nobody tested it. Could have laid it to rest before it started.

Nonsense.

The only thing that would have changed would be the truthers argument for the size of the conspiracy.

kookbreaker

10th July 2007, 10:19 PM

Yes i'm reading through his links.

It is unfortunate that nobody tested it. Could have laid it to rest before it started.

People on site were concerned with saving lives, recovering bodies, removing debris, and preventing furthers hazards. Preventing the overactive imagination of kooks was not on their mind.

In addition, any such testing would be ignored ion favor of some invented lies by CTers in any case. The initial reports of the molten steel came from a second hand account that makes no sense when you read it. The whole 'HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL' became a running joke on USENET because the story was so laughable. My favorite part is when they 'dipped' out the molten steel with an excavator bucket....yeah..you do that...

BigAl

10th July 2007, 10:19 PM

I've looked at lots of "eye witnesses of molten steel and so far, when you get to the primary source you find it is secind-hand or somehow not really eye witness. In your fist URL, take "A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava" for example.

That is a very tightly edited from some other video that I have been unable to identify. It would be typical of the "truth movement" to have edited out the preceeding "I heard that..."

Does anyone know what video that clip is from?

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 10:20 PM

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 10:21 PM

Nonsense.

The only thing that would have changed would be the truthers argument for the size of the conspiracy.

Quite true, they'd be claiming that it really was steel, but it was being covered up.

Revolutionary91

10th July 2007, 10:22 PM

People on site were concerned with saving lives, recovering bodies, removing debris, and preventing furthers hazards. Preventing the overactive imagination of kooks was not on their mind.

In addition, any such testing would be ignored ion favor of some invented lies by CTers in any case. The initial reports of the molten steel came from a second hand account that makes no sense when you read it. The whole 'HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL' became a running joke on USENET because the story was so laughable. My favorite part is when they 'dipped' out the molten steel with an excavator bucket....yeah..you do that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

LashL

10th July 2007, 10:30 PM

Hey, happy birthday, kookbreaker!

:hbd: :bcake: :wave1 :bcake: :hbd:

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 10:32 PM

Please tell me this was tongue in cheek, usually I wouldn't ask but... well with some of the posters we get here one just never knows...

hahaha. Good, I got the reply I was expecting. Laughter is the best medicine, as they say.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek. But I seriously plan to find out if the top point of the Pentagon is pointing north just for information when I see the guy that said it again. I can have fun with research as well, as can we all.
=o)

The Doc

10th July 2007, 10:34 PM

This may help:
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/14.php

Anti-sophist

10th July 2007, 10:36 PM

hahaha. Good, I got the reply I was expecting. Laughter is the best medicine, as they say.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek. But I seriously plan to find out if the top point of the Pentagon is pointing north just for information when I see the guy that said it again. I can have fun with research as well, as can we all.
=o)

Sorry to disappoint you but none of the Pentagon corners point even remotely north. Not even magnetic north. Sorry.

PhantomWolf

10th July 2007, 10:41 PM

hahaha. Good, I got the reply I was expecting. Laughter is the best medicine, as they say.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek. But I seriously plan to find out if the top point of the Pentagon is pointing north just for information when I see the guy that said it again. I can have fun with research as well, as can we all.
=o)

Minor derail continued. See this Thread on the BAUT, espeically Jay's post #6 (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/19531-street-layout-washington-dc-try-debunking.html). Now back to your regular pools of metal debunking.

beachnut

10th July 2007, 10:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Facts really work better. Got some?

BillyRayValentine

10th July 2007, 10:55 PM

First-hand witnesses did report "molten metal" and occasionally "molten steel." How they could have distinguished one molten metal from another is not clear. What's also not always clear is whether when they say "molten" they mean fully liquid, or merely softened. (Though one described the molten metal as "dripping" which strongly suggests liquid.)

All references to "pools" are, to my knowledge, second-hand at best. What I conjecture happened is that listening to first-hand witnesses describe "molten metal," and interpreting that as "large quantities of liquid metal," some reporters assumed that naturally such liquid would inevitably form pools. They then passed on reports of "pools of molten metal."

I think the more important point is that this entire "molten steel" argument is an irrelevant red herring.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose we could prove that there was, in fact, molten steel found at ground zero weeks and months after the collapse. What in hell would that prove? Do the latest CT's involve magical, month-long burning thermite?

I'm very confused.

BeAChooser

10th July 2007, 11:12 PM

Do the latest CT's involve magical, month-long burning thermite?

Yes. Or residual nuclear radiation. ROTFLOL!

CHF

10th July 2007, 11:36 PM

Come on, bro. Don't do that 'twoofer' stuff. Lets be civil about it all. I understand people get tired of one another, but we do not need to take anger to insult. It is unnesessary. I do not want people going on the defensive or assault. It is counter productive.

Sorry, but twoofer is the name they've earned for themselves - largely because they do things like scream "thermite!" and yet turn pale when asked how much was used.

Devil's Advocate

10th July 2007, 11:42 PM

I think the more important point is that this entire "molten steel" argument is an irrelevant red herring.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose we could prove that there was, in fact, molten steel found at ground zero weeks and months after the collapse. What in hell would that prove? Do the latest CT's involve magical, month-long burning thermite?

I'm very confused.

I think it is important from the start of the question, because according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.
So, I figured that there was an element or equation that I was just not getting if indeed there were steams/pools/rivers of molten steel.
This was not to prove or disprove any standing hypothesis or theory. It was simple curiosity as to what *could* have caused it.
Keeping in mind, I wanted to hear other possible reasoning for the event other than Military/ Demolition compounds. I would find it hard to believe that it(molten metal of some type) is not true based on testimony and video already provided. But, I will not pretend to know the amount of, or type of, material which was seen to be molten.

So, given the fact that it is clear that there was *some type* of molten material, then what could be the reason it remained so hot for so long?
I am unclear as to the temperature readings that were taken during the investigation at or around the basement areas which could give clues as to what was causing the area to record the temperature some say were recorded at the time.
Could the oven effect be it? What were the temperatures at what times?
Could the fires inside the towers have heated the metal within enough to match the temperatures that were said to have been taken?
Would the temperatures have been higher than they were while the towers stood after collapse? Oven effect again?

I do not know the answers to these questions.

maccy

11th July 2007, 12:00 AM

Aside from the fact that you'd need a large amount of thermite to produce pools of molten metal, the reaction is over very quickly and so heat starts being lost almost immediately. If the insulation of the rubble pile is sufficient to trap the heat from a reaction that is over so fast, then it has to be sufficient to trap heat from hydrocarbon fires.

Building up heat through insulation is a basic principle of metal working.

That's before you consider how it is possible to get the thermite to burn sideways.

And before you consider that thermite has never been used to demolish a building - so this would be an entirely experimental demolition technique. Seems like a massive risk for a secret plot.

And even if the buildings hadn't collapsed thousands of people would still have died in the fires. Ground Zero would have been two blackened shells. The impact would have been roughly the same.

In fact something equivalent to the attack on the Cole, the IRA bombing campaigns, Madrid, 7/7 or the suicide bombings in Israel would still have been a massive shock.

Gravy

11th July 2007, 12:19 AM

DA, you're failing to make the distinction between the fires in the towers and the subterranean fires in the piles. That's a common mistake. The fires in the piles were fed by a vast amount of fuel.

Conspiracists often make the strawman argument that the heat from the fire floors high in the towers was insufficient to produce cherry-red column ends weeks later, as if no additional heat was added after the collapses. in fact, a former Finnish physicist was trying to pass that off on me in an email this week. No one says that's what happened.

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 12:32 AM

Travis

11th July 2007, 12:33 AM

And your point? Richard Hoagland (http://www.enterprisemission.com/index.php) believes in massive glass tunnels, buried citys, pyraimds and huge carved faces on Mars, as well as robots, machines, glass cities, and other alien structures on the Moon, that serveral of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are either artifical or have alien structures on them, and that Washington DC was all laid out in accordance to masonic symbolism. He also does a very good page (http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm) proving that those that believe that the Apollo programme was hoaxed are nutty than he is. Sometimes the insane can be right, just like a broken clock manages to be correct twice a day.

My broken clock just flashes F*@# at me all day. I guess it could be some sort of sign.

3bodyproblem

11th July 2007, 12:33 AM

I think it is important from the start of the question, because according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.
So, I figured that there was an element or equation that I was just not getting if indeed there were steams/pools/rivers of molten steel.
This was not to prove or disprove any standing hypothesis or theory. It was simple curiosity as to what *could* have caused it.
Keeping in mind, I wanted to hear other possible reasoning for the event other than Military/ Demolition compounds. I would find it hard to believe that it(molten metal of some type) is not true based on testimony and video already provided. But, I will not pretend to know the amount of, or type of, material which was seen to be molten.

So, given the fact that it is clear that there was *some type* of molten material, then what could be the reason it remained so hot for so long?
I am unclear as to the temperature readings that were taken during the investigation at or around the basement areas which could give clues as to what was causing the area to record the temperature some say were recorded at the time.
Could the oven effect be it? What were the temperatures at what times?
Could the fires inside the towers have heated the metal within enough to match the temperatures that were said to have been taken?
Would the temperatures have been higher than they were while the towers stood after collapse? Oven effect again?

I do not know the answers to these questions.

If you see Apollo20 ask him about the temperature of the pile and possible causes. I believe he's done an extensive investigation of the chemicals that could be responsible for the temperatures observed weeks after the collapse.

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 12:35 AM

If you see Apollo20 ask him about the temperature of the pile and possible causes. I believe he's done an extensive investigation of the chemicals that could be responsible for the temperatures observed weeks after the collapse.

Ok, thanks. I'll do that.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 12:38 AM

I think it is important from the start of the question, because according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.

We have a poster on the board that was there. He described feeling the heat of the fire from several blocks away, the fires were a LOT hotter then the CTs would have you believe.

Tin melts at 250°C
Zinc melts at 420°C
Aluminium melts at 660°C
Brass melts at around 900°C
Bronze melts at 950°
Copper melts at a little over 1,000°C

Steel melts at after 1,200°C

The fires got to at least 600°C shown by the physical steel samples. The NIST computer predictions put some of the temperatures up to around 1,000°C.

I think there are a number of metals that would have melted in the fires.

So, given the fact that it is clear that there was *some type* of molten material, then what could be the reason it remained so hot for so long?

Because the heat didn't have anywhere to go. The debris acted like a big blanket that kept the heat in, it's the same principle as many of the first steel forges were based on.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 12:42 AM

Vast amounts of fuel from what?

Desks, chairs, pot plants, carpets, blinds, computers, wire insulation, paper, preinters, photocopiers, and even, unfortunately, even people are all nothing but fuel to a fire.

maccy

11th July 2007, 12:43 AM

Vast amounts of fuel from what?

Why can't I put an Avatar up? I'm new to forums. =o)

Diesel fuel from generators, carpet, curtains, paper, computers, wiring insulation, desks, chairs, ceiling tiles, food and cooking oil in shops and restaurants and, lastly and sadly, people. There's probably other stuff that I missed.

I think you need 50 posts before you can do an avatar, forum help is here (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16).

Alareth

11th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Do the latest CT's involve magical, month-long burning thermite?

Yes. Or residual nuclear radiation. ROTFLOL!

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!1!111!!!1!?^!!!!!!!

Nuclear therm*te!!!!!!!

It's the only possible answer. I feel like I'm waking up from a dream ...

Inside job! Inside job! Inside Job!

Gravy

11th July 2007, 12:52 AM

Vast amounts of fuel from what?I would ask you to think about that for a while and come up with your best educated guesses, but I'm tired, so I'm just going to plug my site again.

NIST WTC FAQs (http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt)13 & 14

WTC Debris Piles Composition (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcdebrispilescomposition)

With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fightingthefiresinthewtcdebrispiles)

Fires still burning in subterranean levels pose test to rescuers (http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/news/0918firesburn.html)

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials? (Why were debris piles so hot, so long?) (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb)

REF R. Mackey on eutectic steel / thermate (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907756&postcount=605)

Steven E. Jones' Thermate claims (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones%27thermitethermateclaims)

So, all the inflammables that were in the towers, everything that was beneath the towers, the contents of fuel and coolant tanks, much of the contents of the huge parking garages, much of the contents of the subterranean mall that surrounded the towers....

Why can't I put an Avatar up? I'm new to forums. =o)You need 50 posts.

3bodyproblem

11th July 2007, 12:54 AM

[snip] in fact, a former Finnish physicist [snip]

hehe, aliteration is funny.

Um, "former"? What did you do Gravy have his degree revoked for spouting nonsense? Did you get him deported? :)

3bodyproblem

11th July 2007, 01:02 AM

Desks, chairs, pot plants, carpets, blinds, computers, wire insulation, paper, preinters, photocopiers, and even, [snip]

AH ha! WTC wasn't a Black Op, it was a Grow Op!

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 01:03 AM

The fires got to at least 600°C shown by the physical steel samples. The NIST computer predictions put some of the temperatures up to around 1,000°C.

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)?

And how do you make the 'degrees' symbol? lol

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 01:06 AM

I would ask you to think about that for a while and come up with your best educated guesses, but I'm tired, so I'm just going to plug my site again.

NIST WTC FAQs (http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt)13 & 14

WTC Debris Piles Composition (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcdebrispilescomposition)

With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fightingthefiresinthewtcdebrispiles)

Fires still burning in subterranean levels pose test to rescuers (http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/news/0918firesburn.html)

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials? (Why were debris piles so hot, so long?) (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb)

REF R. Mackey on eutectic steel / thermate (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907756&postcount=605)

Steven E. Jones' Thermate claims (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones%27thermitethermateclaims)

So, all the inflammables that were in the towers, everything that was beneath the towers, the contents of fuel and coolant tanks, much of the contents of the huge parking garages, much of the contents of the subterranean mall that surrounded the towers....

You need 50 posts.

Thanks for the links. I still have a lot of reading to do.

50 posts!?
Do they get mad if you spam your own thread?

Spam
Spam

Corsair 115

11th July 2007, 01:38 AM

If they predict those temperatures while they were standing, what could have caused heat of 1,000(c)? My first guess would be huge, uncontrolled fires.

And how do you make the 'degrees' symbol? lolHold down the ALT key and type on your keypad 0176.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 01:46 AM

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)?

Yes, NIST only deals with the events up to the collapse. I believe that thermals imaging referenced eariler shows hot spots over 1,000°C. Ordinary fires can get very hot, the average tmeperature of the WTC fires was up about 800°C, and NIST discovered that if you break up the office funiture it actually burns even hotter. There may have been localised spots that exceeded even NIST's predictions if the aluminium or oxygen generators from the planes burned while the towers were standing. (See some on Crazy Chainsaw or Apollo 20's postings on those topics)

As to the ° symbol. If you are using a windows based PC, hold down alt and then type the numbers 0 1 7 6 on the numberpad. (don't use the number above the letters, they don't work, it has to be the numberpad.)

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 01:47 AM

My first guess would be huge, uncontrolled fires.

Hold down the ALT key and type on your keypad 0176.

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

(Thanks for the degree code)

Corsair 115

11th July 2007, 02:09 AM

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

(Thanks for the degree code)I've got a printout which lists a whole bunch of such handy character codes.

MRC_Hans

11th July 2007, 02:20 AM

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 02:24 AM

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.

Why are you coming across like you are somehow superior to me in any way?
Your condescending reply did not answer my question.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 02:25 AM

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

The jet fuel fires were likely cooler than the office furnature fires, so the temp was likely to have increased as more of the fuel was office supplies and less was jet fuel

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 02:30 AM

Welcome to the forums.

Why is it so interesting? Why do we need to be able to explain every little observation from a vastly complex and partly chaotic event?

Hans

Why should I view it as less than interesting? I just want to further understand a topic I have not seen much discussion on.
I was lead to believe people were happy to answer question here for people that were interested.
I guess people will lose their seemingly paranoid suspicions of me once they realize I have no agenda other than learning.

I hear the same thing from the CT crowd over and over. Thermite/Thermate. I want to hear other ways the event could have happened.

Revolutionary91

11th July 2007, 02:35 AM

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 02:36 AM

The jet fuel fires were likely cooler than the office furnature fires, so the temp was likely to have increased as more of the fuel was office supplies and less was jet fuel

Office furniture would have burned hotter than jet fuel? That is interesting. I need to read the NIST report again. I cannot recall if it mentioned any O2 starvation that seemed to be evident in the thick black smoke from the towers.
I guess that all would just be speculation anyway.
I have looked for pictures of what the floors looked like in the towers (like a real photograph) so I can get a better idea of it all.
If anyone has one, could you post a link to it please?
I'm googling my butt off over here.

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 02:38 AM

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.

There was also 200 acres of flat steel floor decking, I have never even seen a picture of any floor decks.

Perhaps there is no furniture because it was all crushed in the collapse?
And perhaps the steel flooring deck is part of the molten metal flows?
Just speculating.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 02:54 AM

Office furniture would have burned hotter than jet fuel? That is interesting.

The materials that make up office furniture actually have more chemical energy availible than Jet Fuel, this makes the flames and thus the fire hotter.

I need to read the NIST report again. I cannot recall if it mentioned any O2 starvation that seemed to be evident in the thick black smoke from the towers.

This is another CT myth. Black smoke isn't always a sign of oxygen starvation, it is a sign of a fuel rich enviroment. Plastics and other hydrocarbons burn with dense black smoke. I'm sure there are a few photos of car fires and even plastic wire insulation on fire posted somewhere on the board, they show a lot of black smoke.

I have looked for pictures of what the floors looked like in the towers (like a real photograph) so I can get a better idea of it all.
If anyone has one, could you post a link to it please?
I'm googling my butt off over here.

Try Malcolm's 175 doesn't exist thread, I recall some in there if you can stomach it.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 02:58 AM

There was also 200 acres of flat steel floor decking, I have never even seen a picture of any floor decks.

Most of it ended up in the 7 story high pile in the collapse zones, there are photos.

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 03:05 AM

The materials that make up office furniture actually have more chemical energy availible than Jet Fuel, this makes the flames and thus the fire hotter.

This is another CT myth. Black smoke isn't always a sign of oxygen starvation, it is a sign of a fuel rich enviroment. Plastics and other hydrocarbons burn with dense black smoke. I'm sure there are a few photos of car fires and even plastic wire insulation on fire posted somewhere on the board, they show a lot of black smoke.

Try Malcolm's 175 doesn't exist thread, I recall some in there if you can stomach it.

Ok, thanks for that information.
Wait...175 did not exist?
....
Eh?
Did he mean at all, or just after it was torn apart by the slamming into a building?
I'll assume by the "If you can stomach it" as an indication of the latter.
Yikes.

maccy

11th July 2007, 03:09 AM

I have looked for pictures of what the floors looked like in the towers (like a real photograph) so I can get a better idea of it all.
If anyone has one, could you post a link to it please?
I'm googling my butt off over here.

Part of one floor:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/001-MaggieDadsOffice.jpg

along with some other photos here:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001.htm

uk_dave

11th July 2007, 03:16 AM

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.

There was also 200 acres of flat steel floor decking, I have never even seen a picture of any floor decks.

Why?

A 110 storey building just collapsed violently from the top down. We've never seen such a thing before.

Why do you expect office furniture to survive? What do you base your expectations upon?

Why would you have any expectations at all? It happened. The results are documented. Just because it doesn't conform to your imagination does not a conspiracy make.

Gravy

11th July 2007, 03:17 AM

I hear the same thing from the CT crowd over and over. You're associating with the wrong people then. I never hear conspiracist idiocy except when I go looking for it.

Thermite/Thermate. I want to hear other ways the event could have happened.I believe it's statements like this that make some people suspicious of your intent. You've been given rational explanations and links to a great deal of reading material for deeper research. Yet you're here asking the same questions over and over.

Just so you know, registering here, claiming that you haven't made up your mind about 9/11, starting threads and participating in others where your posts contain mostly truther questions and claims, but not taking the time to absorb the information you're given, is all classic truther behavior. We've seen it a hundred times. You may be entirely honest about your intent, but your behavior fits a pattern that makes a skeptic's hackles rise.

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 03:21 AM

Part of one floor:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/001-MaggieDadsOffice.jpg

along with some other photos here:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001.htm

Thanks. I could have done without the second link. I still have trouble looking at a view that shows top down to the ground....knowing people jumped from that height. It still....I can't really explain what it does.

Gravy

11th July 2007, 03:29 AM

Why?

A 110 storey building just collapsed violently from the top down. We've never seen such a thing before.

Why do you expect office furniture to survive? What do you base your expectations upon?

Why would you have any expectations at all? It happened. The results are documented. Just because it doesn't conform to your imagination does not a conspiracy make.I can't tell you how much that feigned denier confusion bothers me. Here's an experiment for them:

Drop a desk from a 50-story window. Note how it smashes to pieces. Repeat the drop with a new desk, but before letting go place a 200 million pound weight on the desk. Note how much smaller the pieces are. Go downstairs and place the remaining pieces in a hot oven for a month. Observe and record what remains of the desk.

Revolutionary91

11th July 2007, 03:39 AM

I can't tell you how much that feigned denier confusion bothers me. Here's an experiment for them:

Drop a desk from a 50-story window. Note how it smashes to pieces. Repeat the drop with a new desk, but before letting go place a 200 million pound weight on the desk. Note how much smaller the pieces are. Go downstairs and place the remaining pieces in a hot oven for a month. Observe and record what remains of the desk.

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.

I do not believe that 50,000 telephones, in a random chaotic collapse that spread well outside the footprint, would just disappear.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 03:47 AM

Ok, thanks for that information.
Wait...175 did not exist?
....
Eh?
Did he mean at all, or just after it was torn apart by the slamming into a building?
I'll assume by the "If you can stomach it" as an indication of the latter.
Yikes.

The former, that it wasn't Flight 175 that hit the Tower, still at least he thinks it was a plane, just a super strengthened one being flown by remote control by an invisible business jet.. Ace Barker, who also have threads here, claims that Flights 175 and 11 didn't exist and all, and that they were just pasted into the TV footage. :jaw-dropp

uk_dave

11th July 2007, 03:50 AM

I do not believe that 50,000 telephones, in a random chaotic collapse that spread well outside the footprint, would just disappear.

Why?

ETA:
Do you have any idea of the scale of the wtc collapse? Why should you expect to see a recogniseable bit of plastic after the collapse of a building the size of the wtc towers?

I used this example on another thread, but it might be useful for you to concieve of the scale we are talking about.

Imagine a room 6.0m x 6.0m (about 20ft by 20ft). If you can't, try measuring a room in your house and see if that helps.

Now, if this 20ft square room was a wtc tower foorprint, the 4inch thick concrete that the tower had at each floor would be less than half an inch thick.

Half an inch of concrete over an area of 20ft x 20ft.

Hope that helps

(oh and a telephone would probably be about 3/4 of an inch square.)

westprog

11th July 2007, 03:59 AM

Investigation is all well and good, but you will inevitably arrive with an unfortunate set of facts:

Were there any recorded temperatures high enough to melt steel?
No
Were there any tests done on molten material to determine it's composition?
No
Is there any verified evidence confirming existence of molten steel?
No
There are so many plausible explanations to the 'molten metal' claim and very few pieces of evidence on which to support the claim it was steel. I'm not ruling it out as the evidence is equally poor on both sides, but there are explanations which are more plausible (lead, zinc, copper, aluminium etc).

It's also important to note that even if there was verifiable proof of molten metal, and even if this was proven to be molten steel, there is no connecting link between this and the use of explosives or thermite/thermate to destroy the WTC.

Griffin simply states that if there is molten steel, it can only be explained by explosives. It only takes a moment's thought to see that this is absurd. Explosives explode, they don't heat metal for weeks on end. Even themite couldn't continue to heat steel to melting point for that length of time.

There are two explanations for the reports of molten metal. Either they are entirely spurious, or they are instances of metals with comparitively lower melting points than steel being melted at local hot spots caused by the contents of the building continuing to burn.

There isn't actually another explanation on offer. The Truth community have yet to come up with a story that connects molten metal at Ground Zero with the deliberate destruction of the building.

Gravy

11th July 2007, 04:08 AM

Why would I feign confusion?Why won't you take the time to learn?

Why would you say you wouldn't mind if Jason Holmes made good on his death threat to me, but plead with him to wait until after LC:FC is released?

Why would you make an animated .GIF avatar of me getting speared through the torso by a pitchfork?

Why do you do these things? Because you're that kind of person, that's why.

PhantomWolf

11th July 2007, 04:17 AM

I do not believe that 50,000 telephones, in a random chaotic collapse that spread well outside the footprint, would just disappear.

So what do you believe? That all the phones had been removed from the building before it collapsed? That someone put explosives in all the phones and blew them up?

Unfit4Command

11th July 2007, 04:18 AM

Thanks for the links. I still have a lot of reading to do.

50 posts!?
Do they get mad if you spam your own thread?

Spam
Spam

I felt the same way. No worries though, you'll be at 50 posts before you know it :)

I wouldn't recommend spamming your own thread, perhaps posting on a few threads in other topics would be an easier way to reach 50.

Gravy

11th July 2007, 04:18 AM

Why?

ETA:
Do you have any idea of the scale of the wtc collapse? Why should you expect to see a recogniseable bit of plastic after the collapse of a building the size of the wtc towers?

I used this example on another thread, but it might be useful for you to concieve of the scale we are talking about.

Imagine a room 6.0m x 6.0m (about 20ft by 20ft). If you can't, try measuring a room in your house and see if that helps.

Now, if this 20ft square room was a wtc tower foorprint, the 4inch thick concrete that the tower had at each floor would be less than half an inch thick.

Half an inch of concrete over an area of 20ft x 20ft.

Hope that helps

(oh and a telephone would probably be about 3/4 of an inch square.)Or, take four or five sheets of 8 1/2x11" letter-size 20 lb. copy paper and lay them perfectly flat on top of each other. If the long side of the paper is the length of a WTC tower exterior wall, the thickness of the 4-5 sheets is the thickness of an average WTC concrete floor with corrugated decking.

When is Revolutionary going to explain what he would expect to find when two quarter-mile high, billion-pound buildings collapse next to each other, followed by the dust and debris of a third skyscraper?

What is he suggesting happened to these floors and furnishings? Were they destroyed by space beams?

Gravy

11th July 2007, 04:20 AM

I felt the same way. No worries though, you'll be at 50 posts before you know it :)

I wouldn't recommend spamming your own thread, perhaps posting on a few threads in other topics would be an easier way to reach 50.I'd like to suggest focusing on that reading material, not on making posts to reach the avatar threshold.

Does that sound like a good idea, DA?

westprog

11th July 2007, 04:27 AM

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.

I do not believe that 50,000 telephones, in a random chaotic collapse that spread well outside the footprint, would just disappear.

And if the collapse of a millions ton building doesn't seems sufficient to destroy the telephones in each office, what would? When the evil conspirators were planning this, did they say

OK, that's enough explosives to bring down the buildings. But - I don't think that's enough. We won't be able to go to war with Iraq if we just kill thousands of people. We have to get all the telephones as well.

I think the fundamental error of a lot of the Truth Movement is in the belief that demolition crews blow up buildings with huge amounts of explosive, and that results in clouds of dust, etc. They fail to realise that the art of demolition is to use as little explosive as possible, and that the noise, dust and debris are almost entirely the result of the collapse.

If the evil conspiracy had wanted to destroy the buildings, they would have had an incentive to use as little explosive as possible. They would not have used a gigantic telephone erasing blast, and if they had it would have been obvious.

Finally, how do we know that no telephones survived? Did FDNY have a telephone counting group?

Murphy, you're identifying human remains. The smallest particle of bone could be vital for DNA identification. Jones, you're looking for survivors. Unlikely, I know, but we have to try. Adamson, your job is to count intact telephones.

This is either real or feigned confusion. It certainly isn't a coherent theory of what happened.

westprog

11th July 2007, 04:33 AM

peteweaver

11th July 2007, 04:41 AM

Thank you for the reply. However, I have a problem with it. Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange. Has the hypothesis of the 'oven effect' been tested to any degree?
You do not have to mention cutting compounds. I seek alternate means of the event. I am not even close to sold on the thermite/thermate theory. It is just one of the topics I have not seen much research or debate on without those two compounds coming up.

Devils advocate, when aluminium is smelted it glows reddy orange.

It all depends on the temperature the aluminium is heated to.

These examples show aluminium that glows very brightly: http://www.machineryautomation.com.au/images/allsmelting.gif

http://www.longrakespar.co.uk/images/applications/industrial_square.jpg

http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/molten.jpg

I Am He

11th July 2007, 05:07 AM

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? :jaw-dropp

I Am He

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 05:14 AM

Devils advocate, when aluminium is smelted it glows reddy orange.

It all depends on the temperature the aluminium is heated to.

These examples show aluminium that glows very brightly: http://www.machineryautomation.com.au/images/allsmelting.gif

http://www.longrakespar.co.uk/images/applications/industrial_square.jpg

http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/molten.jpg

Yes, someone posted links about this earlier, but thank you just the same. Learning is good.
=o)

Dave_46

11th July 2007, 06:15 AM

Office furniture would have burned hotter than jet fuel? That is interesting. I need to read the NIST report again. I cannot recall if it mentioned any O2 starvation that seemed to be evident in the thick black smoke from the towers.
<snip>

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Entertainment.

Link http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426. pdf

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.

Smoke produced by a fire also contains
toxic gases which are harmful to
people. A fire in a building with modern
fittings and materials generates smoke
that is thick and black, obscures vision,
causes great difficulty in breathing and
can block the escape routes.

This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen starvation.

Dave

Devil's Advocate

11th July 2007, 06:28 AM

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Entertainment.

Link http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426. pdf

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.

This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen starvation.

Dave

Thanks a lot for that. Yeah I remembered hearing about black smoke being a sign of O2 starvation, but could not recall where.
Now this gives me more ways to look at the tower smoke.

e^n

11th July 2007, 06:54 AM

Thanks a lot for that. Yeah I remembered hearing about black smoke being a sign of O2 starvation, but could not recall where.
Now this gives me more ways to look at the tower smoke.

Your interest seems to be reasonably balanced and you have commented fairly on both sides of the issue so far. How much of the NIST report have you read / how familiar are you with the 'Official Conspiracy Theory'? I ask because the majority of 'truthers' I have come across have gained most of their information about the NIST report and the building collapses from pro-conspiracy websites, and as such repeat claims like 'NIST MISREPRESENTED CORE COLUMN SIZE' without ever checking if it's true (it's not).

Revolutionary91

11th July 2007, 07:38 AM

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

MRC_Hans

11th July 2007, 07:39 AM

BeAChooser

11th July 2007, 07:43 AM

according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.

Just out of curiousity, how how do you think it got?

e^n

11th July 2007, 07:44 AM

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

I believe you'll find they specify the fires were "fuel-rich", meaning combustion was dictated by oxygen availability, the prevailing winds and large gaping holes in the building provide plenty of oxygen for combustion.

Revolutionary91

11th July 2007, 07:56 AM

I believe you'll find they specify the fires were "fuel-rich", meaning combustion was dictated by oxygen availability, the prevailing winds and large gaping holes in the building provide plenty of oxygen for combustion.

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.

T.A.M.

11th July 2007, 08:08 AM

you know what I love, is when people from the truth movement come here and whine about how they were told we are happy to answer questions, and debate is the end all and be all here.

Now we do like to debate, but my question to those who say the above is, who the F*&K told you this? All the truthers that come here tend to get their asses spanked, so why they would then go back and report that the JREF is a wonderful place for convo and debate is beyond me...it is, but why would those who get their asses kicked over here go back and tell others this?

TAM:)

BeAChooser

11th July 2007, 08:23 AM

So what do you believe? That all the phones had been removed from the building before it collapsed? That someone put explosives in all the phones and blew them up?

Good one. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser

11th July 2007, 08:27 AM

mortimer

11th July 2007, 08:49 AM

Desks, chairs, pot plants, carpets, blinds, computers, wire insulation, paper, preinters, photocopiers, and even, unfortunately, even people are all nothing but fuel to a fire.

<dylan avery>Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!</dylan avery>

Dave_46

11th July 2007, 09:09 AM

<snip>
The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Entertainment.

<snip>

Oops.

Just a minor correction, but best to get it right. The guide was for Fire Risk Assessments in Small And Medium Places Of Assembly.

Carry on.

Dave

BillyRayValentine

11th July 2007, 10:03 AM

Vast amounts of fuel from what?

Good grief, friend. About a million tons of compressed, burning debris comes to mind. I can only assume you never saw the wtc in person - the towers were massive.

The acrid stench released by the pile enveloped my neighborhood for the better part of a month after the collapses. It was worse in the evening - lingered when the breeze died down.

BigAl

11th July 2007, 10:25 AM

The color is an indication of temperature.
I can't post a URL yet, reassemble this one.

www westyorkssteel com images htchar1.gif

I can't prove it to you right now, but it came
from an industry article on aluminum. This is standard stuff in any metalworking text.

BigAl

11th July 2007, 10:27 AM

The black smoke is irrelevant since the unedited video of each tower collapse shows massive red flames on several floors right up to the time of the collapse.

apathoid

11th July 2007, 10:32 AM

Thanks a lot for that. Yeah I remembered hearing about black smoke being a sign of O2 starvation, but could not recall where.

My guess would be a conspiracy site. That's because you won't find any other site that wrongly explains that black smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire. You see, conspiracy sites very often make stuff up because the actual facts don't fit their theories. Crazy huh?

kookbreaker

11th July 2007, 10:42 AM

I'm always curious as to why the CTers think that 'Oxygen starved' means that the fire is almost out? Isn't one of the major hazards in fireifhgting the posibility that a room on fire has consumed all of its oxygen but still maintains its heat...then someone opens a door and *boom*.

Firefighters don't smother fires, they extinguish them.

Apollo20

11th July 2007, 10:45 AM

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.

BigAl

11th July 2007, 10:46 AM

[QUOTE=maccy;2757583]Diesel fuel from generators, carpet, curtains, paper, computers, wiring insulation, desks, chairs, ceiling tiles, food and cooking oil in shops and restaurants and, lastly and sadly, people. There's probably other stuff that I missed.

Add the Kinetic energy of 500,000 tons falling as much as 1100 ft. A back of the envelope calculation shows it heated up the pile to an amount equal to hundreds of tons of TNT.

If you briskly bend a big nail it gets hot. The same thing happened at WTC on a massive scale.

Alareth

11th July 2007, 10:48 AM

Firefighters don't smother fires, they extinguish them.

Firefighters interrupt the fire triangle, smothering is an effective tool depending on the circumstances.

BigAl

11th July 2007, 10:49 AM

[QUOTE=Devil's Advocate;2757611]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

11th July 2007, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE=Revolutionary91;2757751]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

11th July 2007, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=Revolutionary91;2757852]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

11th July 2007, 11:32 AM

[QUOTE=I Am He;2758018]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? :jaw-dropp

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

11th July 2007, 11:41 AM

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

11th July 2007, 11:56 AM

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

11th July 2007, 12:51 PM

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

11th July 2007, 01:14 PM

----

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

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2759074#post2759074

Max Photon

---

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 01:12 AM

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

12th July 2007, 02:11 AM

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

12th July 2007, 02:19 AM

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

12th July 2007, 02:25 AM

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

12th July 2007, 02:38 AM

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

12th July 2007, 03:04 AM

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

12th July 2007, 06:43 AM

Yes.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 06:58 AM

Anti-sophist

12th July 2007, 07:09 AM

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

12th July 2007, 07:17 AM

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

12th July 2007, 08:04 AM

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

12th July 2007, 09:30 AM

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..."

Dave Rogers

12th July 2007, 09:44 AM

I'm in a mood where I just want to lay around all day scratching myself while saying,"Ahhhhh..."

Thank you so much for putting that image in my head. I'm glad your avatar's just an outline - a clearer picture is just what I don't need right now.

Dave

Belz...

12th July 2007, 10:48 AM

Oh, but, there is some masonic symbolism in Washington. I will never deny that. One guy was telling me about the Pentagon with relation to some Satanic verse of some sort, that "The center of power should always be pointing north." Something to that effect. Something about a Pentagram.

Sure thing, man. Keep on tryin'.

I think it is important from the start of the question, because according to all reports I've read, the fires in the towers would not have been hot enough to melt most metals.

The metals, assuming there WERE pools of molten stuff, may have melted AFTER the collapses. The fires did go on for quite a while after that.

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

:jaw-dropp

Why are you coming across like you are somehow superior to me in any way?
Your condescending reply did not answer my question.

:jaw-dropp

Actually, it did.

I cannot recall if it mentioned any O2 starvation that seemed to be evident in the thick black smoke from the towers.

Brick walls, the lot of you. Did you EVER see a bunch of tires burning ?

Perhaps there is no furniture because it was all crushed in the collapse?

:jaw-dropp

Yeah. And we all know that once a piece of furniture is crushed it is afterwards IMMUNE to fire. :rolleyes:

Thermite/Thermate.

Thermite + Gravity = Down.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 10:53 AM

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.

Well... once the fuel was burnt out, the REST of the stuff that you know exists in a building will continue to burn. How did that NOT answer your question ?

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 11:46 AM

Sure thing, man. Keep on tryin'.

The metals, assuming there WERE pools of molten stuff, may have melted AFTER the collapses. The fires did go on for quite a while after that.

:jaw-dropp

:jaw-dropp

Actually, it did.

Brick walls, the lot of you. Did you EVER see a bunch of tires burning ?

:jaw-dropp

Yeah. And we all know that once a piece of furniture is crushed it is afterwards IMMUNE to fire. :rolleyes:

Thermite + Gravity = Down.

Man, don't cherry pick my posts and line them up to make it seem as if it was not a chain of posts over a long period. That is not cool.
I addressed you on each point throughout the thread.
Read the thread again if you got confused.

My main question in some of that was the effect of the fires temp when the FUEL burned off (if it had any effect), not if building material continued burning after.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 01:13 PM

Man, don't cherry pick my posts and line them up to make it seem as if it was not a chain of posts over a long period. That is not cool.

These were YOUR words. You're the one who asked a question, YOU are the one who misunderstood Corsair's answer. It was quite clear : lots of stuff in office buildings can burn. If only jet fuel burned in offices, there'd be no firefighters.

I addressed you on each point throughout the thread.
Read the thread again if you got confused.

No, I'm quite lucid.

My main question in some of that was the effect of the fires temp when the FUEL burned off (if it had any effect), not if building material continued burning after.

That was ALSO answered. Petroleum-based materials burn very, very hot.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 01:17 PM

Baleeted.

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 01:31 PM

These were YOUR words. You're the one who asked a question, YOU are the one who misunderstood Corsair's answer. It was quite clear : lots of stuff in office buildings can burn. If only jet fuel burned in offices, there'd be no firefighters.

No, I'm quite lucid.

That was ALSO answered. Petroleum-based materials burn very, very hot.

Yeah, they were answered already. I didn't need you taking my posts and stringing them out of context after I had the answers already.

And the point about the floors crushing the furniture was a counter to someone implying explosives was the cause that you could not find anything but little pieces of office material. Because the floors crushed them. Get it now?

The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.

T.A.M.

12th July 2007, 01:40 PM

D.A.

This place has become florid with "pretenders" and "just asking questions" types that quickly reveal they are full blown Woo.

As a result, i suspect you are being treated this way. Devil's Advocate I doubt plays too well here, or anywhere where such an invasion of woo is so common, and so F&*King annoying.

TAM:)

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 01:54 PM

T.A.M.

12th July 2007, 01:55 PM

I suggest a truce...but thats just me.

TAM:)

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 02:05 PM

I suggest a truce...but thats just me.

TAM:)

I had no intention of causing anyone problems here, but then again, I didn't cause them to begin with.

While in Atlanta I heard a phase, "Don't start nothing, and there won't be nothing."
That about sums it all up.

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 02:06 PM

Thank you so much for putting that image in my head. I'm glad your avatar's just an outline - a clearer picture is just what I don't need right now.

Dave

Don't pretend that you don't like it.
:D

PhantomWolf

12th July 2007, 04:32 PM

Just something else that has popped up a few times over the last few days. A 767 has over 100 oxygen generators onboard. In NTSB testing after the crash of Flight 592 were one being transported in the hold activated and caught fire, they found that these devices can create and feed fires that burn at temperatures up to 3,000°C. While they wouldn't have added to the overall fire by a huge amount, these could have created locatised hotspots that certainly would have melted steel.

njslim

12th July 2007, 09:34 PM

One explanation for the "molten metal" is lead from batteries. Many of the
tenants at WTC, both tower 1 &2, were finance and securities firms with 24
hour operations. It is likely that many of these firms had UPS (uninteruptable
power supply) for their most critical operations. The famed photograph of
molten liquid running out of south tower windows shortly before the collapse
was supposedly lead from melted batteries from FUJI BANK ups system. I
wonder how many other UPS systems there were in the building.

MRC_Hans

13th July 2007, 12:53 AM

I had no intention of causing anyone problems here, but then again, I didn't cause them to begin with.
*snip*I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Perhaps I should just leave it there, but you say you are here to learn, so I don't think you should miss this lesson.

A "Devil's Advocate" is someone who takes upon him/her to defend the opposition (hence "Devil's"). That means that the devil's advocate not only represents a well-defined standpoint, but has a well-defined one of his/her own.

Compare this with your own entrance here: You call yourself Devil's Advocate, and claim to be that, but claim to have no position, or at least refuse initially to disclose your position, and you preceed to pitch in for both sides.

In other words, you give strong, but inconsistent signals about who you are and what you stand for, so you can't blame anybody for filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly.

You have had a bit of a rough start here, and can only blame yourself. Now, I suggest we all get over it, and proceed .....

Hans

Belz...

13th July 2007, 05:31 AM

Yeah, they were answered already. I didn't need you taking my posts and stringing them out of context after I had the answers already.

Out of context ? You want me to quote every post that's related to whatever you say ?? That'll make for very long posts. Why don't you simply use your memory, instead.

And the point about the floors crushing the furniture was a counter to someone implying explosives was the cause that you could not find anything but little pieces of office material. Because the floors crushed them. Get it now?

Yeah, sure.

The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/608046235f50502c5.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5192)

Devil's Advocate

13th July 2007, 06:02 AM

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Perhaps I should just leave it there, but you say you are here to learn, so I don't think you should miss this lesson.

A "Devil's Advocate" is someone who takes upon him/her to defend the opposition (hence "Devil's"). That means that the devil's advocate not only represents a well-defined standpoint, but has a well-defined one of his/her own.

Compare this with your own entrance here: You call yourself Devil's Advocate, and claim to be that, but claim to have no position, or at least refuse initially to disclose your position, and you preceed to pitch in for both sides.

In other words, you give strong, but inconsistent signals about who you are and what you stand for, so you can't blame anybody for filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly.

You have had a bit of a rough start here, and can only blame yourself. Now, I suggest we all get over it, and proceed .....

Hans

Sorry, I do not let things go when people are mistaken like this....

Your definition of a Devil's Advocate is wrong.
Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

So in that, debating an issue for one side or another is not inclusive of commitment to a side, it is simply to determine the validity of the cause or position.

I cannot blame people for "filling in the blanks according to their own image of you, and acting accordingly" ?
Why can't I?
I said I came here to learn, and that is exactly what I have been doing. I said I did have questions about 9/11, and hoped I could be shown ways to have those questions answered. And what happened when I asked my very first question? I got attacked and labeled as a CT guy playing a game.
And you're saying that is my fault?
Did I not say that is what I was going to do from the start?
So where is my blame?
Is my blame deserved because I said what I was going to do and then did it, or was it because some people got the false impression and needlessly attacked me, my honesty, and my motives?
Again, where is my blame?

I cannot control someone's paranoia and or false impressions. That is up to them, not me. And then I am supposed to sit back and take it, or back down, when I am falsely labeled?
Would you?

If I bruised an ego in the process then that is their problem, not mine. I told no lies, I held no secret agenda, nor have attacked anyone.
All I did was exactly what I said I would do, and that is ask questions about things I had incomplete knowledge of.
So, I think you're mistaken upon whom blame should be placed.

Belz...

13th July 2007, 10:15 AM

Why can't I?

You can. But that's not what you're doing. You're throwing arguments of both sides into the mix for no reason.

Devil's Advocate

13th July 2007, 11:06 PM

You can. But that's not what you're doing. You're throwing arguments of both sides into the mix for no reason.

Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

That applies to both sides.
Just because some people may not like it does not mean I deserve to be falsely painted as one thing or another.
One could simply say that they do not like it, and me for it. That I can accept.
Being falsely accused and expected to accept it as if I did something wrong I cannot accept.
And I think a logical person would agree.

I think the fact of the matter is, some do not like the questions I have asked because they seem to be questions that CT people use as 'proof' of conspiracy. And in that, people think I am trying to trap someone into something with it. Which is not the case.
I ask questions about things I do not have as much information on. I was encouraged by some to ask questions and people would help me with sources to answer my questions. I do not see my fault or failure in any respect.

A W Smith

13th July 2007, 11:30 PM

So, given the fact that it is clear that there was *some type* of molten material, then what could be the reason it remained so hot for so long?

Because the heat didn't have anywhere to go. The debris acted like a big blanket that kept the heat in, it's the same principle as many of the first steel forges were based on.

Conditions in the debris pile could conceivably mimic the schematic of this puddling furnace. Utility and subway tunnels could have supplied combustion air.

Jonnyclueless

13th July 2007, 11:39 PM

Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

That applies to both sides.
Just because some people may not like it does not mean I deserve to be falsely painted as one thing or another.
One could simply say that they do not like it, and me for it. That I can accept.
Being falsely accused and expected to accept it as if I did something wrong I cannot accept.
And I think a logical person would agree.

I think the fact of the matter is, some do not like the questions I have asked because they seem to be questions that CT people use as 'proof' of conspiracy. And in that, people think I am trying to trap someone into something with it. Which is not the case.
I ask questions about things I do not have as much information on. I was encouraged by some to ask questions and people would help me with sources to answer my questions. I do not see my fault or failure in any respect.

YOu can pretend all you want that people don't like the questions you ask which are all questions asked here on a regular basis and answered on a regular basis by the people you feel don't like the questions. But we all (including you) know that isn't true. if people didn't like the questions, they wouldn't come to a forum where those questions are expected to be asked. Now if this was not a conspiracy forum, you might have a point.

But what people don't like are other masquerading around on a screen name thinking that using a certain name gives them permission to pretend they are open minded and to insult the intelligence of everyone here by thinking everyone is too stupid to know any better. If you were actually being honest, you wouldn't need to come up with a special screen name for such a purpose, you would just be a normal person like everyone else asking questions. Everyone here asks such questions regardless of what they believe. But they don't dance around a screen name to justify their questions. And they don't pretend to be something they are not.

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 12:00 AM

YOu can pretend all you want that people don't like the questions you ask which are all questions asked here on a regular basis and answered on a regular basis by the people you feel don't like the questions. But we all (including you) know that isn't true. if people didn't like the questions, they wouldn't come to a forum where those questions are expected to be asked. Now if this was not a conspiracy forum, you might have a point.

But what people don't like are other masquerading around on a screen name thinking that using a certain name gives them permission to pretend they are open minded and to insult the intelligence of everyone here by thinking everyone is too stupid to know any better. If you were actually being honest, you wouldn't need to come up with a special screen name for such a purpose, you would just be a normal person like everyone else asking questions. Everyone here asks such questions regardless of what they believe. But they don't dance around a screen name to justify their questions. And they don't pretend to be something they are not.

First off, as stated before, I was encouraged to ask questions. And I did.
I was attacked and falsely labeled from my first question. My very first one.
So how am I supposed to react to that?

I encourage you to ask questions.
You ask a question.
I call you a wolf in sheep's clothing CT clown.
And that is your fault? No.

What gives you the impression that I am "masquerading around on a screen name" ?
"Masquerading" is another implication that I am acting under false pretenses.

And I am pretending to be open minded? Qualify that remark. I am not pretending anything. I will not speak against evidence or facts.
But, when someone asks, "How can someone believe that..." I may put up something that may be for or against one side or the other to see what their thoughts, opinions, and stance is with regard to the question.

You have nothing but false logic and baseless assumptions. Maybe some have come and acted similar to me and were really on the CT side. But that is not my fault or problem. Someone just posted that just because Northwoods showed that people in government have purposed fake terrorist attacks in the past does not mean it is that way now.....How is that different from me and my situation?
Just because people have come in the past and were really on the CT side has nothing to do with me.

I do not see evidence to support the CT side, but I do not close my mind to the possibility that there may be things I have not seen, or that someone may speak out and blow the whole thing out of the water.
Do I expect it? No.
Do I think that it is possible? Yes.
Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments

Corsair 115

14th July 2007, 12:13 AM

Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or argumentsBut where do you draw the line about which ideas or possibilties can't be taken seriously? Would you, for example, be receptive to someone putting forth the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth?

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 12:46 AM

But where do you draw the line about which ideas or possibilties can't be taken seriously? Would you, for example, be receptive to someone putting forth the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth?

Where do you draw the line? At the evidence for or against.

A perfect example is in another thread.
One person made it seem as if it were impossible to get 32,000lbs of thermite/thermate into the towers.(Based on the amount of flow coming out of the south tower before it collapsed)
Formed as a question, that makes it open to theoretical possibility in reply to a theoretical problem.

I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.

Max Photon

14th July 2007, 08:46 AM

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 08:54 AM

---

Photo of a Fire Truck
About to Drive Through Molten Iron
Flowing From a WTC Tower (http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/17/photo-of-a-fire-truck-about-to-attempt-to-drive-through-molten-iron-from-a-wtc-tower.aspx)

Regards,

Max

---

Source of photo?
I trust unnamed sources of photo's as much as I'd trust a rattle snake with a baby.
I can photoshop myself riding a dragon.

DGM

14th July 2007, 09:05 AM

---

Photo of a Fire Truck
About to Drive Through Molten Iron
Flowing From a WTC Tower (http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/17/photo-of-a-fire-truck-about-to-attempt-to-drive-through-molten-iron-from-a-wtc-tower.aspx)

Regards,

Max

---
Is it my eyes, where is the glowing red molten iron?

Max Photon

14th July 2007, 09:09 AM

---

Good people,

There seems to be much confusion about pools of molten metal.

First, define your terms.

There were pools of molten iron on impact floors left over from the phreato-thermatic explosions of the jets. This is molten iron from the improvised-thermite reaction.

For more on improvised thermite, please visit:

The aluminum from Flights 11 & 175 was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86967)

There were also many hand-planted-thermite reactions in the WTC towers.

Thermite was hand-placed in perimeter-panel box columns and spandrel splices (and other steel connectors) - not to cut or melt steel - but to heat-weaken steel, so it would appear to fail naturally and spontaneously (uncatalyzed).

Please visit:

Max Photon Solves the Mystery of NIST Figure 9-45: Thermite was poured into perimeter-panel box columns (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86967)

The molten iron from the improvised thermite, and the hand-planted thermite, found its way - flowed ("like rivers of lava") - to the bottom of the debris pile, and collected as time passed.

Remember...

Thermite was not used to cut or melt steel.

That is the biggest misconception going at the moment and most of you are deeply - and possibly permanently - branded with this insidous, assinine idea that "thermite = cutting." (Talk about fixed thinking!)

Some steel did melt, but that was incidental. FEMA photos clearly show steel members that have been melted. Again, that was incidental.

The firemen et. al. refer to rivers of molten steel. Cut them a little slack. They can't know at that time that it's molten iron, not molten steel. That is a perfectly understandable mistake.

NIST's Gross did not lie when he said NIST found no evidence of melted steel. (Note that he was not asked if NIST found evidence of molten iron.)

It is all very simple. You are looking at molten iron, from thermite reactions.

Thermite = Controlled-Demolition

Steel yourselves people, for the possibility that MAX-MIHOP just might be correct.

Regards,

Max

---

Max Photon

14th July 2007, 09:12 AM

---

Devil's Advocate,

The source is listed below the photo.

I also added it in the PS of my post.

Max

---

Myriad

14th July 2007, 10:43 AM

---

Photo of a Fire Truck
About to Drive Through Molten Iron
Flowing From a WTC Tower (http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/17/photo-of-a-fire-truck-about-to-attempt-to-drive-through-molten-iron-from-a-wtc-tower.aspx)

Regards,

Max

---

Photo source: Video > WTC Explosions

That's odd, I didn't know palm trees grow in Manahattan.

I learn all kinds of interesting things here!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Jonnyclueless

14th July 2007, 10:48 AM

First off, as stated before, I was encouraged to ask questions. And I did.
I was attacked and falsely labeled from my first question. My very first one.
So how am I supposed to react to that?

I encourage you to ask questions.
You ask a question.
I call you a wolf in sheep's clothing CT clown.
And that is your fault? No.

What gives you the impression that I am "masquerading around on a screen name" ?
"Masquerading" is another implication that I am acting under false pretenses.

And I am pretending to be open minded? Qualify that remark. I am not pretending anything. I will not speak against evidence or facts.
But, when someone asks, "How can someone believe that..." I may put up something that may be for or against one side or the other to see what their thoughts, opinions, and stance is with regard to the question.

You have nothing but false logic and baseless assumptions. Maybe some have come and acted similar to me and were really on the CT side. But that is not my fault or problem. Someone just posted that just because Northwoods showed that people in government have purposed fake terrorist attacks in the past does not mean it is that way now.....How is that different from me and my situation?
Just because people have come in the past and were really on the CT side has nothing to do with me.

I do not see evidence to support the CT side, but I do not close my mind to the possibility that there may be things I have not seen, or that someone may speak out and blow the whole thing out of the water.
Do I expect it? No.
Do I think that it is possible? Yes.
Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments

Thanks for the rhetoric. I rest my case.

In the next post, maybe you can throw in some generic saying about people overlooking color and learning to love their neighbors too. I bet that will impress a lot of people. Thank you also for helping everyone here to be open minded because until you came along, no one here understood the concept. But you have educated us all thanks to your screen name. How can we ever repay you?

Max Photon

14th July 2007, 10:59 AM

A W Smith

14th July 2007, 11:18 AM

---

Devil's Advocate,

The source is listed below the photo.

I also added it in the PS of my post.

Max

---

Thats obviously sunlight , not molten anything.

HeyLeroy

14th July 2007, 11:28 AM

grmcdorman

14th July 2007, 12:24 PM

Eh, what? How much of the debris field was under water? :hypnotizeSonar, or the equivalent, can be used to map sub-surface structures (i.e. through a solid). I don't know if such was used at the WTC, though.

Ultrasound scans (e.g. of a fetus) works the same way; it's basically sonar.

HeyLeroy

14th July 2007, 12:51 PM

I was under the impression that radar was used for solids (eg., ground-penetrating radar) and in air; sonar (eg., sonograms) is the preferred technology for imaging through liquids.

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 01:42 PM

---

Devil's Advocate,

To me, you are (at least in this little exchange) the epitomy of a normal person applying the scientific process properly and with integrity.

You are keeping an open mind, and you are open to changing your position.

You are truly rare.

Whether we ever agree or not, I admire that you are keeping an open mind.

Others would do well to emulate you.

With that said, may I request that you spend your energy not on defending yourself (because there is no need to), but on trying to wreck my hypotheses (because there is a need to - I need critical input from peers).

Regards,

Max

---

How can you be closed minded and follow even the idea of science? You can't.
But yeah, I'm done with all that.
If people want to call me names, falsely judge me, be childish, then that is fine. Enjoy.
I am just honest. And if I feel I am being slighted, then of course I'll defend myself, or anyone else I feel is being slighted.
But if they start name calling and all that, then I will not take up for them.
Some people deserve what they get, others do not.

I appreciate what you said, Max....even if I do not agree with your positions. I will look over your stuff more though. Just a warning, I am a hard sell. :D

calebprime

14th July 2007, 02:11 PM

The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.

Belz almost always works the same way. He does line-by-line rebuttals.
He chooses his targets with some kind of woo radar, or by smell, or by the vibrations of distant woo he hears deep in his underground lair.

He's good at what he does.

If you don't want to play with Belz, stop playing d's arse, and just tell him what you think. As soon as you start sounding reasonable, he'll get bored.

Thanks for the warning/ info.
I think I have an idea what someone is trying to do. And I hope they realize it will not work.

I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.

This is a kind of creativity that is misplaced and will cause mistrust around here, and rightly so. Lay off the "it's theoretically possible that x" stuff, because almost anything's theoretically possible.

There's an issue of taste with 9/11.

Thousands of pounds of thermite placed in a hijacked passenger plane is a far-fetched scenario, and you know it. If you don't you ought to.

Alt+F4

14th July 2007, 02:16 PM

One person made it seem as if it were impossible to get 32,000lbs of thermite/thermate into the towers.(Based on the amount of flow coming out of the south tower before it collapsed)
Formed as a question, that makes it open to theoretical possibility in reply to a theoretical problem.

I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.

Well let's take UA175 for example. That plane was a Boeing 767-200. Do you know how many cargo containers that plane held? Do you know what the maximum weight was for each container? Do you know how many cargo containers were filled with passenger's luggage and regular cargo? Do you know what metal the cargo containers were made of? The model number maybe?

If you haven't done the math how do you know if it's possible or not?

grmcdorman

14th July 2007, 02:18 PM

I was under the impression that radar was used for solids (eg., ground-penetrating radar) and in air; sonar (eg., sonograms) is the preferred technology for imaging through liquids.Depends on the densities and scale involved, I believe. Mind you, the only specific technologies I am absolutely sure of are ultrasound (since my work is developing medical imaging software) and "sound" used for geophysical research. Note that ultrasound is not through liquid. (Small explosives are set off, or large weights are thumped, and microphones pick up the reflected sound transmitted through the ground. Similar, but on a much larger scale, is the "imaging" of the Earth's interior by earthquake waves; P-waves are essentially sound waves.)

Belz...

14th July 2007, 04:42 PM

Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

That applies to both sides.

Yeah, by DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

You're trying to be both at the same time, which is not the definition of Devil's Advocate. Of course, I don't mind the name, I just mind that you can't be bothered to actually state your position. But hey, if it's all a game to you, go right ahead.

Being falsely accused and expected to accept it as if I did something wrong I cannot accept.

Toughen up.

Belz...

14th July 2007, 04:43 PM

That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.

What about my pink elephant ?

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 04:58 PM

Yeah, by DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

You're trying to be both at the same time, which is not the definition of Devil's Advocate. Of course, I don't mind the name, I just mind that you can't be bothered to actually state your position. But hey, if it's all a game to you, go right ahead.

Toughen up.

It does apply to both sides, because I do not play devils advocate against evidence or facts. But I do take that role towards theory, ideas, and speculation. It is not a game, this is how I am. The name fits who I am in real life. Sometimes I'll do it just so someone can see another perspective.

And, if you do not know my position, then you have not been reading a lot of what I have stated.
I have found no evidence that supports the CT claims. That should clearly state where I stand on the issue.

And you misunderstand me, by not accepting I mean that I will not let it pass like some suggested I do. I do not let something go if I feel I am being falsely labeled. I doubt you would either.
Someone questioning my honesty and honor is not a little thing to me.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 05:24 AM

It does apply to both sides, because I do not play devils advocate against evidence or facts.

Then you shouldn't play Devil's advocate in this instance at all, because there is no evidence or fact on the truther side.

In fact, you say so, yourself:

I have found no evidence that supports the CT claims.

So how are you NOT playing against evidence or facts ?

Someone questioning my honesty and honor is not a little thing to me.

Well, I've surmised that you are most probably not a truther, but you have to admit that your initial posts didn't help you.

Max Photon

16th July 2007, 09:34 AM

---

Devil's Advocate,

I think one of the most beautiful aspects of the scientific process is that it incorporates - (when done properly) - that highest-of-human-responses - empathy.

A real scientist observes - takes in the world.

A real scientist generates - or gathers from others - hypotheses, models, cartoons, metaphors, stories - they are all basically the same thing - to explain the observations.

A real scientist must be empathetic, for that is what it takes to absorb a shockingly-different hypothesis without judging it, long enough to actually be able to see clearly that which is to be (later) judged for fit against the observations.

A real scientist constantly checks and rechecks the fit of these hypotheses to the observations, as new awareness and insight intervene.

There are no "right answers". All the demands on this site for "prove it, prove it, prove it" are truly imbecilic.

There are no "right anwers." There is only the relative fit - the relative consistency - of each hypothesis to the observations. (Just because a hypothesis fits best for decades, or centuries, still does not make it "right".)

I see pseudo-scientists, and hence pseudo-skeptics, as far as the eye can see in this Conspiracy section.

Why?

Because it seems that at JREF there is tremendous pressure to conform to the notion that only one hypothesis should exist (the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Theory), and that that hypothesis is fact, until proven otherwise - of course, using standards that this selection was not subjected to.

All you one-hypothesis people - you are fakes. You are like zombies from Nazi Germany.

DA, I really know nothing about your position or your work, but I do see the monopoles - the psuedos - pressuring you to conform to a one-hypothesis world.

Is that a world you want to live in?

-----------------------------------------------

There are two hypotheses:

- NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
- CONTROLLED DEMOLITON

All that matters is which fits ALL of the observations with the fewest anomalies.

(Interesting that most here see ZERO anomalies, and actually put it in writing. Wow!)

-----------------------------------------------

Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd aim your energy at providing me with real critical input, rather than wasting it on trivial nonlinear resistors.

If you feel they make you hot, that is what resistors do - generate resistance, friction, heat. They dissipate energy. They are energy sinks. Conserve energy.

Max

Utililty Department
---

calebprime

16th July 2007, 10:04 AM

---

Devil's Advocate,

I think one of the most beautiful aspects of the scientific process is that it incorportate - (when done properly) - that highest-of-human-responses - empathy.

A real scientist observes - takes in the world.

A real scientist generates - or gathers from others - hypotheses, models, cartoons, metaphors, stories - they are all basically the same thing - to explain the observations.

A real scientist must be empathetic, for that is what it takes to absorb a shockingly-different hypothesis without judging it, long enough to actually be able to see clearly that which is to be (later) judged for fit against the observations.

Well, empathy is a good thing for normal social interaction. People without capacity for empathy either have to learn to overcome the handicap, or accept that other people don't interest them. However, empathy as such has little to do with most science. In fact, a lot of useful science involves suppressing normal empathy and normal sentiment.

Being a good therapist or parent requires empathy. On the other hand, being a good actor or even being a good teacher (playing a role) can involve suppressing empathy or lacking it to begin with.

Also, real science as the term is normally understood doesn't involve collecting stories or cartoons. It involves a hypothesis and testing it. With controls. Maybe you were thinking about folklore or standup comedy.

A real scientist constantly checks and rechecks the fit of these hypotheses to the observations, as new awareness and insight intervene.

There are no "right answers". All the demands on this site for "prove it, prove it, prove it" are truly imbecilic.

There are no "right anwers." There is only the relative fit - the relative consistency - of each hypothesis to the observations. (Just because a hypothesis fits best for decades, or centuries, still does not make it "right".)

I see pseudo-scientists, and hence pseudo-skeptics, as far as the eye can see in this Conspiracy section.

Of course, no one is forcing you to post here. But it may be the case that what you are saying doesn't merit scientific inquiry or response. Often, it takes a few posts with some technical claims before the relevant experts here respond. It takes a while. There are many different kinds of people here with different expertise.

I'm neither a scientist nor a 'true skeptic'--whatever that means.

The idea that there are no "right answers" is really absurd. Even you, Max Photon, live your life constrained by reality. Some questions have more uncertain answers than others. The vast majority of questions have right or wrong answers.

Why?

Because it seems that at JREF there is tremendous pressure to conform to the notion that only one hypothesis should exist (the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Theory), and that that hypothesis is fact, until proven otherwise - of course, using standards that this selection was not subjected to.

All you one-hypothesis people - you are fakes. You are like zombies from Nazi Germany.

DA, I really know nothing about your position or your work, but I do see the monopoles - the psuedos - pressuring you to conform to a one-hypothesis world.

Is that a world you want to live in?

This part overstates your case with nearly every word. Um, Nazis?

Actually, this is an internet forum. No salaries are being made, no physical force exists, and no one is really in charge. So any pressure you feel is just yours to own. There are people here you could learn from.

-----------------------------------------------

There are two hypotheses:

- NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
- CONTROLLED DEMOLITON

All that matters is which fits ALL of the observations with the fewest anomalies.

(Interesting that most here see ZERO anomalies, and actually put it in writing. Wow!)

Actually, there are way more than these two. Also, anomalies will exist in any complex situation. If you look at the preponderance of evidence, it supports the idea that terrorists flew planes into the buildings, which damaged them and started fires which weakened the structures, causing them to fall.
-----------------------------------------------

Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd aim your energy at providing me with real critical input, rather than wasting it on trivial nonlinear resistors.

If you feel they make you hot, that is what resistors do - generate resistance, friction, heat. They dissipate energy. They are energy sinks. Conserve energy.

Max

Utililty Department
---

Nice bit of hypomanic whimsy at the end there. I'm all for it, elsewhere. Problem is, this is generally the wrong subject for that.

Max Photon

16th July 2007, 10:08 AM

---

Finite element analysis produces cartoons - nothing more.

Max

---

negativ

16th July 2007, 10:51 AM

---

Finite element analysis produces cartoons - nothing more.

Max

---

Why does this sound like the caption of a comic from http://xkcd.com ?

e^n

16th July 2007, 12:26 PM

Finite element analysis produces cartoons - nothing more.

No, FEA provides a way of approximating real world situations by calculating the result of thousands of different computations thanks to differential calculus. If it provided only cartoons, why is it used in industry to such a huge extent?

Max Photon

16th July 2007, 12:44 PM

---

Because cartoons are useful.

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

Max

---

beachnut

16th July 2007, 12:48 PM