|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Apr 24, 2006 14:23:11 GMT -4
Read the Jones Report article. Then compare this google video of the south tower collapse with this youtube video showing what a thermite reaction looks like. This would explain the sitings of molten steel in the remains of each building's footprint.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 24, 2006 16:53:32 GMT -4
Look at the close up of the corner of the building in that article you linked. See the huge debris pile smashed into the corner so hard that the building is literally bursting at the seams? See the orange flames coming off the whole pile? What you see falling from the building is burning embers from the raging bonfire in that corner.
To think that spectrographic analysis could be done from that uncalibrated video camera is laughable.*
There has so far been 0 evidence of any pools of molten metal, all I've been shown by CTs is a few quotes taken out of context and a picture or two of red-hot (far from molten) metal being pulled from the still burning rubble pile.
*edit: Worse, I'd be willing to bet they used a video off the web for their 'analysis'.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 24, 2006 17:21:47 GMT -4
You CTs are REALLY grasping at straws, mainly because the fact that there is absolutely NO credible evidence of controlled demolition makes your theory less plausible than the official story you hate so much.
When you start with a predisposed conclusion with no evidence, it is quite the scramble to rush to fill in the gaping holes in your theory with whatever you can, no matter how idiotic, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 24, 2006 17:47:32 GMT -4
Bonus questions for the CT (if it wasn't a hit & run):
When did they (who are they anyway) install the thermite in a corner office?
Did they aim the planes for those exact floors, did they plant thermite on many floors and only set off the bits where the plane crashed, or was it just a coincidence?
Since it was 'symetrical', did they put thermite in all the columns around that floor?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 24, 2006 18:19:59 GMT -4
Bonus questions for the CT (if it wasn't a hit & run): When did they (who are they anyway) install the thermite in a corner office? Did they aim the planes for those exact floors, did they plant thermite on many floors and only set off the bits where the plane crashed, or was it just a coincidence? Since it was 'symetrical', did they put thermite in all the columns around that floor? Being a -fence sitter- FS rather than a CT'er I will netheless put my two cents. Is it possible that is the - natural thermite reaction - caused by the molten aluminium from the plane Greening is talking about in his paper ?
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Apr 24, 2006 20:02:14 GMT -4
To think that spectrographic analysis could be done from that uncalibrated video camera is laughable.* *edit: Worse, I'd be willing to bet they used a video off the web for their 'analysis'. To think that spectrographic analysis could be done with any video recording is laughable. Simply put, a TV camera does not preserve the original spectral distribution of the light entering its lens. What it does is to decompose visible light into red, green and blue components by passing it through optical bandpass filters and provides an output which gives the amplitudes of each of those components. If you show a TV camera a narrowband, i.e., near-monochromatic, light source- let's say, for the sake of argument, one of the yellow sodium lines, what emerges from a monitor connected to it won't be near-monochromatic yellow light. It will be a mix of red and green light from the picture tube's red and green phosphors which shows the degree to which the original light source excited the red and green sensors of the camera. Since the human eye perceives color in a manner analogous to the way the TV camera works- by detecting the relative excitation of red-sensitive, green-sensitive and blue-sensitive receptors- your perception of what you see on the monitor will be what we call "yellow". It won't be a particularly accurate rendition of what you would experience by viewing the original source, because any near-monochromatic source will lie outside of the range of color saturation which the camera-monitor system can reproduce- outside its color triangle. If you point a spectroscope at the monitor, you won't see a yellow line or even yellow light- just a peak in the red and a peak in the green. If there are any other audio geeks here, an analogy would be that a video camera is like an octave band real-time spectrum analyzer and a spectrograph is more like a swept spectrum analyzer with a nice tight IF bandwidth. To be fair, the only reference to spectral analysis I noticed on the Jones Report page was to a satellite measurement of the temperatures in the smoldering rubble done by the USGS, by measuring the spectral distribution of the blackbody radiation coming from the rubble. Since the satellite was "seeing" the actual radiation from the site, that sort of measurement would be quite doable with the right sort of equipment aloft. If you KNOW that the light from a source is essentially blackbody radiation AND you KNOW the sensitivity-versus-wavelength curves of the camera's red, green and blue image sensors, you could do a sort of lewd rude and crude estimation of the temperature of the source, but that's probably the limit of the information you can derive from a video. It seems to be common for CTs to cite the high temperatures of parts of the buried debris some time after the towers' collapse as evidence of the use of explosives or thermite. This makes no sense to me because the nature of explosives is that they are, well, explosive. They release their chemical energy in a very short period of time, which is what gives them their high peak power, and once that happens, the show's over. There will be no further energy release from that source. Similarly, thermite burns very fast and hot, and once the reaction has gone to completion, it won't be yielding any more energy. I can't see how the fact that parts of the rubble remained quite hot for days after the attacks points to the use of explosives or pyrotechnics, especially not to the exclusion of the hypothesis that the quantities of flammable material which were carried down into the rubble pile, some of which was already on fire, continued to burn beneath the surface of the pile. Buried fires can go on for a long time and get pretty darned hot, as the remaining residents of Centralia PA can testify.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 24, 2006 20:14:09 GMT -4
Buried fires can go on for a long time and get pretty darned hot, as the remaining residents of Centralia PA can testify.
Ah yes, but there is a conspiracy theory here too. Apparently some die hard residents think that the whole thing is a hoax designed to get to rich coal deposits without having to pay royalties.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Apr 24, 2006 21:12:31 GMT -4
Based on the above comments, I can see that no one read the article or its links very carefully. - The government admitted that the substance dripping off the tower was molten metal: "Government investigators claimed that this was aluminum from Flight 175 but Jones is adamant that aluminum is silvery in appearance and doesn't turn yellow."
- ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."
- Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
- This article Thermite and the WTC Collapses explains in greater detail why thermite provides the best explanation for the known facts of the 3 WTC implosions. For example, The wreckage of WTC 2 radiated the greatest heat on September 16, 2001.
- The smoke coming off the wreckage should have been black from any remaining low-oxygen fires inside the rubble. Instead it was white, the characteristic color of thermite combustion.
- The collapse of the buildings would tend to extinguish any burning fires as they were buried in concrete dust and the oxygen was forcibly removed. Instead the core temperatures got hotter in the succeeding days. Thermite supplies its own oxygen, which is why it is difficult to extinguish.
- White smoke was caught on video rising from the base of WTC 1 seconds before its collapse.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2006 22:02:20 GMT -4
and around and around and around.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Apr 24, 2006 22:15:50 GMT -4
and around and around and around. That's the last shred of credibility the official 9-11 "explanation" had going down the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2006 22:47:41 GMT -4
That's the last shred of credibility the official 9-11 "explanation" had going down the toilet.
No it's a sign of frustration that the "911 was done by the US Govt" group just keep recycling their arugments time and time again. Everything you have posted has been discussed here and on the BAUT forum several times and it got old about the 6th time.
It's the equivanlent of the Apollo Hoax crew rushng in and screaming "Apollo was a hoax because there's no stars in the sky." At least read the other threads on the subject before returning to the very begining of previous debunked stuff.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 24, 2006 22:55:33 GMT -4
Everything you have posted has been discussed here and on the BAUT forum several times and it got old about the 6th time. The funny thing was when this paper -about thermite reaction caused by the molten aluminium from the plane- by Greening which is supposed oppose Jones paper was - litteraly- cut in piece by Jay Utah and other BAUT members. By the way where is Sky King?Who have bring Greening papers. www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2006 23:15:31 GMT -4
Well just because you have two people disagreeing doesn't actually make one of them right in their conculsions. If you have two people, one of whom claims that the water is really made of Chlorine and Hydrogen, and one that claims that it's make of Sodium and Oxygen, just because they can both show why the other is wrong, doesn't mean that one of them is right. This is why science isn't based on what CT's (not just 911 ones but all) do in trying to tear down an opposing theory so their's "wins" it's all about proving your thoery is better than the other ones. For Thermite to be a better answer to the 911 collapses that Fire and Plane damage, then it's up to the 911: Inside Job and Dr Jones of this world to come up with a consistant and viable theory, backed with evidence and proof that is more than conjecture and then show that it better fits the facts using less assumptions, than the Official Planes + Fire Theory. So far the 911 CT group has done little but cause FUD, make assumptions and dig up what they claim are Anomolies all while accusing anyone that won't agree of being blind or in on it. That's not Science.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 24, 2006 23:28:27 GMT -4
Based on the above comments, I can see that no one read the article or its links very carefully. - The government admitted that the substance dripping off the tower was molten metal: "Government investigators claimed that this was aluminum from Flight 175 but Jones is adamant that aluminum is silvery in appearance and doesn't turn yellow."
No, NIST suggested that it could be molten metal. It did not admit, with all the guilt that word conjures up, anything. You might want to actually read the NIST report.[/li][li]ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."[/quote] Which is NOT explained by the presence of thermite unless you are going to come up with a quantity of thermite that could do this. Either the insulation of the upper layers can keep an underground fire very hot or it cannot. If it cannot and therefore requires thermite to do this then that requires enough thermite to keep it very hot for a long time and as your video shows, thermite is consumed very quickly. Where are your numbers to show it had to be thermite. No more hand waving, lets see some real numbers[/li][li]Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."[/quote] ,,,, and agin , no numbers to back this up. Yet Jones is also quite disingenuous in this statement since no offcial report ever said that the steel melted to cause this failure yet Jones brings up thermite which actually does melt steel. NIST and others bring up the common(amoung engineers) knowledge that steel loses its strength as function of temperature of that steel well before it reachs anything close to its melting point.[/li][/ul]
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 24, 2006 23:35:27 GMT -4
For Thermite to be a better answer to the 911 collapses that Fire and Plane damage, then it's up to the 911: Inside Job and Dr Jones of this world to come up with a consistant and viable theory, backed with evidence and proof that is more than conjecture and then show that it better fits the facts using less assumptions, than the Official Planes + Fire Theory. So far the 911 CT group has done little but cause FUD, make assumptions and dig up what they claim are Anomolies all while accusing anyone that won't agree of being blind or in on it. That's not Science. Difficult to find evidence than thermite can be used at the basement for weakening the central core pillars after all the steel not needed for the elaboration of the official story was removed and destroyed.
|
|