Post by 8real on Aug 10, 2006 23:40:58 GMT -5
I am going to do everybody a favor and address the "Molten Steel" section of the site "Debunking Conspiracy Theories" Everything I say will be in GREEN
Source: www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
The molten metal conspiracy theorist point to are of a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Lets forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless.
Right off the bat, he starts off with a lie. There is thermite that explodes, it is refered to as "superthermites" and it uses nano technologies.
It uses "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive.
Nanoenergetics refers to a broad class of energetic materials and formulations that exploit mechanisms and properties that exist only at the nanoscale. For example, aluminum is a highly reactive metal when produced as nanopowder (size <100 nm). Metal powders are an important subset of nanoenergetics. Today it is well known that nanoenergetics can increase performance of explosives, propellants and pyrotechnic devices. The interest and appeal of nanoenergetic formulations lies in their ability to release energy in a controllable fashion, coupled with their higher energy density, relative to conventional organic explosives…. Recent advances in particle synthesis technology allow commercial scale production of nanoaluminum.
www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf (Detonation Properties of Explosives Containing Nanometric Aluminum Powder)
www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1 (regarding bombs)
The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Lets also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work.
Yet he continues to put his foot in his mouth about thermite not being explosive. Then he tells another lie! He says that we have to PRETEND thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical steel beams. We don't have to pretend. There are 2 US Patents that specifically address this. Both patents show how you can connect to and CUT THICK STEEL.
You can see both GOVERNMENT patents for the housing that would allow you to attach thermite to VERTICAL beams. If you don't like to read, at least scroll down and read the CONCLUSION of the patents:
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL &s1=6183569.PN.&OS=PN/6183569&RS=PN/6183569 (patent description)
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL &s1=6766744.PN.&OS=PN/6766744&RS=PN/6766744 (patent description)
Or you can find it at the US Patent Office...patent #6,766,744 and #6,183,569
www.uspto.gov/ (US patent official website)
While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is the a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work?
I can not believe he is trying to lie
Here are a few photos to give you a idea of how it looks. Here is a quote from the conclusion as well "Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and described herein, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that any arrangement that is calculated to achieve the same purpose may be substituted for the specific embodiments shown. Many adaptations of the invention will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, this application is intended to cover any adaptations or variations of the invention."
Even if did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns.
So, this is his "evidance"? He claims that since the charges would have to be placed "all over the columns", that it is evidance that it couldn't have happened?
Anyway, physicist aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chock this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse.
Ha, he decides to spew out a bunch of speculation then follows it up with a flat out lie, go figure. Please, watch these videos of interviews of 9/11 and you decide for yourself if explosions where going off BEFORE the buildings STARTED to collapse. Please note that during some of the interviews people where on the 8th floor! Did they get from the 8th floor to saftey before the collapse wave of 10 seconds reached them?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnbysiDFjNQ (9/11 Eyewitness Accounts Part 1 of 2)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJeqypJ5Z8 (9/11 Eyewitness Accounts Part 2 of 2)
From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts. I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...
How many times does he want to beat a dead horse? You are seeing him try to deny the existence, that there is anything capable of housing thermite to cut steel beams. Again, please look at my above remarks about patents #6,766,744 and #6,183,569
.
He also suggest that "thermite" would be hard "setting it off" or igniting it. The Patent specifically addresses this, I quote "The vented plug includes an adapter for a remote initiation fuse assembly and at least one vent. "
Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholar for 911 truth" we can continue...
After reading that top section, who sounds "ignorant"?
To be honest I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientist of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionist', of which I'm not one. Yet there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I wont pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. I only say the evidence points to it being aluminum.)
Again, he spews out more speculation. Then he says the EVIDENCE points towards it being aluminum. You decide on what he calls "EVIDENCE", because I haven't seen any that suggests that it's aluminum.
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a holt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catchers mitt.
Here are some graphics showing where the airliner ended up.
Again, we never said there wasn't damage in the area we say this "bright orange" molten metal pouring from. As a matter of fact, I am suggesting that BECAUSE of the plane wreckage that one of the incindeary devices got dislodged..AND PROBABLY caused the unexpected "tilting" of the top of the tower.
One of the arguments for thermite conspiracy theorist use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum which suggest they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet airliners aluminum outer skin have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Never once has Professor Jones(since he seems to quote Professor Jones throuought this disinfo campaign) or anybody I know that is in the truth movement say the fires couldn't have reached 660 degrees(melting point of aluminum). We are completely aware that planes can melt. What we have said is that the fires did not burn LONG enough or HOT enough to MELT or EVEN WEAKEN the steel support columns.
Then he goes on to show pictures that prove nothing besides that the plane was hotter than 660 degrees. Do you see any pools of molten metal?
Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.
Again, we understand aluminum can melt at 660 degrees. We also understand that the fires could of reached around 1100 degrees. But after a hour it is more likely they where around 3-400 degrees.
Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorist fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. He mentions it but does not source it. That is curious? He sources other reports, why not this one?
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
He also doesn't seem to mention how, during those very same test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark. The molten metal that he is claiming to be aluminum, it starts to pour out of the building 2 minutes prior to collapse!
These test ALONE prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough to weaken the structural steal. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from "structural weakening"... Do they expect us to believe that the fires in WTC 7 where hotter than the fires in the WTC towers?
More evidence normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
He can stop right there. He doesn't need to explain that the fires reached 1000 degrees..Why does he insist that we questioned that the temperatures can reach this high?
I'll tell you why, because he wants to TRY to make the reader believe that normal fires can ESCALATE to 1100 degrees in as early as 10 minutes and then HOLD THAT TEMPERTURE for a total of 120 minutes!....That is a sick and twisted way of trying to fool the reader into believing that Professor Colin Bailey's analysis was meant to represent a designed fire scenario.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smoldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
Here is a picture of "Figure 1"
Please note, the TIMES are irrelevant. I repeat the times are irrelevant. These are not actual floor models of the WTC towers! There is a warning directly on the page:
"* Note: This fire curve was developed so that materials such as intumescent coatings which rely upon chemical reactions could be subject to a test that addressed possible concerns regarding their intumescing behavior. It was not meant to represent a design fire scenario (PD7974-3: 2003)."
On the other hand, the NIST report still clearly indicates that the fires COULD HAVE reached 1100 degrees and I agree with that report.
The next piece of evidence they point to is the color which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
Stop right there! Does he mention how high the temperatures would have to be to see aluminum as "bright orange" in daylight conditions? Nope, he just tries to lead the reader to believe the fires in the building would be sufficient to get the aluminum "bright orange".
I agree that aluminum can turn "bright orange" However, I don't agree that 1100 degrees is hot enough. This image shows what molten aluminum looks like in daylight conditions.
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
This guy just loves to lead the reader to dead ends. I agree that molten STEEL would turn almost black after it cools :roll: But who in the WORLD said it was molten steel? Does thermite produce molten steel? No! The author should knows this if he is supposedly debunking the "thermite" hypothesis. I suggest that he just wants to lead the reader to believe that the "truth movement" believes that it IS steel.
Notice how he will quote Professor Jones in some sections and then doesn't quote him in areas like this. It's because Professor Jones NEVER claimed that it was "molten steel". As a matter of fact, he just says, It is clearly not "molten aluminum". And it looks AWFULLY similar to the thermite reaction. How can anybody disagree with that?
.jpg)
.jpg)
Can anybody else see the similarities?
Jones writes: "This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.)
First off, Professor Jones does not omit data, he has not "changed" any of the pictures in his paper since it was made public. What is the author trying to make the reader believe?
Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me. I still wouldn't CONCLUDE it's aluminum. But as I said, the evidence points to it.
:lol: He states that it doesn't "conclude" that it is aluminum but the EVIDENCE points towards it...I ask, WHAT EVIDENCE? Did any of you see any EVIDENCE? The only thing he has proven, is that it probably isn't STEEL. What is the very next thing he says?
The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a thingytail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed it's color.
Ohh yea, what other kind of "properties" could of changed it's color from silvery to "bright orange"?...Possibly other metals? This guy acts like the towers where a giant goop of molten metals. :roll:
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectroscopyhow.html
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
What videos has he been watching? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles "silvery" molten metal. You judge for yourself, don't let him force feed you what a video shows.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing
Does any of that molten metal look SILVERY at ALL? Just because he post a blurry picture that shows a few dots that appear a different color than "bright orange" doesn't mean anything. We can just watch the video.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Now, I am glad he emphasized this point. If the molten metal was silvery, don't you think by raising the "intensity levels", it would of appeared more silvery? The pictures he is talking about are on pages 86-91 in this NIST report.
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Source: www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
The molten metal conspiracy theorist point to are of a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Lets forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless.
Right off the bat, he starts off with a lie. There is thermite that explodes, it is refered to as "superthermites" and it uses nano technologies.
It uses "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive.
Nanoenergetics refers to a broad class of energetic materials and formulations that exploit mechanisms and properties that exist only at the nanoscale. For example, aluminum is a highly reactive metal when produced as nanopowder (size <100 nm). Metal powders are an important subset of nanoenergetics. Today it is well known that nanoenergetics can increase performance of explosives, propellants and pyrotechnic devices. The interest and appeal of nanoenergetic formulations lies in their ability to release energy in a controllable fashion, coupled with their higher energy density, relative to conventional organic explosives…. Recent advances in particle synthesis technology allow commercial scale production of nanoaluminum.
www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf (Detonation Properties of Explosives Containing Nanometric Aluminum Powder)
www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1 (regarding bombs)
The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Lets also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work.
Yet he continues to put his foot in his mouth about thermite not being explosive. Then he tells another lie! He says that we have to PRETEND thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical steel beams. We don't have to pretend. There are 2 US Patents that specifically address this. Both patents show how you can connect to and CUT THICK STEEL.
You can see both GOVERNMENT patents for the housing that would allow you to attach thermite to VERTICAL beams. If you don't like to read, at least scroll down and read the CONCLUSION of the patents:
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL &s1=6183569.PN.&OS=PN/6183569&RS=PN/6183569 (patent description)
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL &s1=6766744.PN.&OS=PN/6766744&RS=PN/6766744 (patent description)
Or you can find it at the US Patent Office...patent #6,766,744 and #6,183,569
www.uspto.gov/ (US patent official website)
While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is the a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work?
I can not believe he is trying to lie
Here are a few photos to give you a idea of how it looks. Here is a quote from the conclusion as well "Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and described herein, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that any arrangement that is calculated to achieve the same purpose may be substituted for the specific embodiments shown. Many adaptations of the invention will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, this application is intended to cover any adaptations or variations of the invention." Even if did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns.
So, this is his "evidance"? He claims that since the charges would have to be placed "all over the columns", that it is evidance that it couldn't have happened?
Anyway, physicist aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chock this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse.
Ha, he decides to spew out a bunch of speculation then follows it up with a flat out lie, go figure. Please, watch these videos of interviews of 9/11 and you decide for yourself if explosions where going off BEFORE the buildings STARTED to collapse. Please note that during some of the interviews people where on the 8th floor! Did they get from the 8th floor to saftey before the collapse wave of 10 seconds reached them?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnbysiDFjNQ (9/11 Eyewitness Accounts Part 1 of 2)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJeqypJ5Z8 (9/11 Eyewitness Accounts Part 2 of 2)
From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts. I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...
How many times does he want to beat a dead horse? You are seeing him try to deny the existence, that there is anything capable of housing thermite to cut steel beams. Again, please look at my above remarks about patents #6,766,744 and #6,183,569
.
He also suggest that "thermite" would be hard "setting it off" or igniting it. The Patent specifically addresses this, I quote "The vented plug includes an adapter for a remote initiation fuse assembly and at least one vent. "
Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholar for 911 truth" we can continue...
After reading that top section, who sounds "ignorant"?
To be honest I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientist of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionist', of which I'm not one. Yet there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I wont pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. I only say the evidence points to it being aluminum.)
Again, he spews out more speculation. Then he says the EVIDENCE points towards it being aluminum. You decide on what he calls "EVIDENCE", because I haven't seen any that suggests that it's aluminum.
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a holt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catchers mitt.
Here are some graphics showing where the airliner ended up.
Again, we never said there wasn't damage in the area we say this "bright orange" molten metal pouring from. As a matter of fact, I am suggesting that BECAUSE of the plane wreckage that one of the incindeary devices got dislodged..AND PROBABLY caused the unexpected "tilting" of the top of the tower.
One of the arguments for thermite conspiracy theorist use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum which suggest they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet airliners aluminum outer skin have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Never once has Professor Jones(since he seems to quote Professor Jones throuought this disinfo campaign) or anybody I know that is in the truth movement say the fires couldn't have reached 660 degrees(melting point of aluminum). We are completely aware that planes can melt. What we have said is that the fires did not burn LONG enough or HOT enough to MELT or EVEN WEAKEN the steel support columns.
Then he goes on to show pictures that prove nothing besides that the plane was hotter than 660 degrees. Do you see any pools of molten metal?
Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.
Again, we understand aluminum can melt at 660 degrees. We also understand that the fires could of reached around 1100 degrees. But after a hour it is more likely they where around 3-400 degrees.
Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorist fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. He mentions it but does not source it. That is curious? He sources other reports, why not this one?
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
He also doesn't seem to mention how, during those very same test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark. The molten metal that he is claiming to be aluminum, it starts to pour out of the building 2 minutes prior to collapse!
These test ALONE prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough to weaken the structural steal. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from "structural weakening"... Do they expect us to believe that the fires in WTC 7 where hotter than the fires in the WTC towers?
More evidence normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
He can stop right there. He doesn't need to explain that the fires reached 1000 degrees..Why does he insist that we questioned that the temperatures can reach this high?
I'll tell you why, because he wants to TRY to make the reader believe that normal fires can ESCALATE to 1100 degrees in as early as 10 minutes and then HOLD THAT TEMPERTURE for a total of 120 minutes!....That is a sick and twisted way of trying to fool the reader into believing that Professor Colin Bailey's analysis was meant to represent a designed fire scenario.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smoldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
Here is a picture of "Figure 1"
Please note, the TIMES are irrelevant. I repeat the times are irrelevant. These are not actual floor models of the WTC towers! There is a warning directly on the page:
"* Note: This fire curve was developed so that materials such as intumescent coatings which rely upon chemical reactions could be subject to a test that addressed possible concerns regarding their intumescing behavior. It was not meant to represent a design fire scenario (PD7974-3: 2003)."
On the other hand, the NIST report still clearly indicates that the fires COULD HAVE reached 1100 degrees and I agree with that report.
The next piece of evidence they point to is the color which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
Stop right there! Does he mention how high the temperatures would have to be to see aluminum as "bright orange" in daylight conditions? Nope, he just tries to lead the reader to believe the fires in the building would be sufficient to get the aluminum "bright orange".
I agree that aluminum can turn "bright orange" However, I don't agree that 1100 degrees is hot enough. This image shows what molten aluminum looks like in daylight conditions.
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
This guy just loves to lead the reader to dead ends. I agree that molten STEEL would turn almost black after it cools :roll: But who in the WORLD said it was molten steel? Does thermite produce molten steel? No! The author should knows this if he is supposedly debunking the "thermite" hypothesis. I suggest that he just wants to lead the reader to believe that the "truth movement" believes that it IS steel.
Notice how he will quote Professor Jones in some sections and then doesn't quote him in areas like this. It's because Professor Jones NEVER claimed that it was "molten steel". As a matter of fact, he just says, It is clearly not "molten aluminum". And it looks AWFULLY similar to the thermite reaction. How can anybody disagree with that?
Can anybody else see the similarities?
Jones writes: "This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.)
First off, Professor Jones does not omit data, he has not "changed" any of the pictures in his paper since it was made public. What is the author trying to make the reader believe?
Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me. I still wouldn't CONCLUDE it's aluminum. But as I said, the evidence points to it.
:lol: He states that it doesn't "conclude" that it is aluminum but the EVIDENCE points towards it...I ask, WHAT EVIDENCE? Did any of you see any EVIDENCE? The only thing he has proven, is that it probably isn't STEEL. What is the very next thing he says?
The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a thingytail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed it's color.
Ohh yea, what other kind of "properties" could of changed it's color from silvery to "bright orange"?...Possibly other metals? This guy acts like the towers where a giant goop of molten metals. :roll:
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectroscopyhow.html
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
What videos has he been watching? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles "silvery" molten metal. You judge for yourself, don't let him force feed you what a video shows.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing
Does any of that molten metal look SILVERY at ALL? Just because he post a blurry picture that shows a few dots that appear a different color than "bright orange" doesn't mean anything. We can just watch the video.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Now, I am glad he emphasized this point. If the molten metal was silvery, don't you think by raising the "intensity levels", it would of appeared more silvery? The pictures he is talking about are on pages 86-91 in this NIST report.
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
