Molten and Glowing Metal

Leifer

Senior Member.
Other metals have been mentioned that may account for the glowing solid object that are being pulled out of the pile. I'm thinking copper pipe is to small, aluminum siding doesn't glow when heated, nor does led. Soooooooo what is it ?

....the dripping metal on tower......
Pot-metal, magnesium, computer battery, motor housing, zinc amalgam, bronze, glass, etc....
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
and with a color chart



The photo on the right clerly shows a glowing object with no apparent flames present that is dripping some substance from it. Based on the size of the claw being used to raise the mass of wreckage and the shape of that wreckage is comprised of rebar, likely pulverized compressed concrete and I can clearly see bent steel beams. The photo on the right shows some type of molten metal that is bright yellow in color when in a liquid or near liguid state, Led and aluminum don't do this. But it could be something else, so I'll give it a strong maybe. picture on the right is a very very strong maybe steel.

discussed in all sorts of places - what makes you think it is steel in the first place?

Aluminium doesn't glow - but impurities in it can certainly still give "it" colour - as is discussed here

The shower of sparks in the photo on the left is discussed in a long thread - eg page 1 here on Metabunk, or page 6 here on Metabunk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
You guys might also find this interesting

from
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDwQrQMwCDg8



Test 6: The office demonstration test fire at Cardington:
A compartment 18m wide and up to 10m deep with a floor area of 135m2, was constructed on the second floor, using concrete blockwork. The compartment represented an open plan office and contained a series of work-stations consisting of modern day furnishings, computers and filing systems. The test conditions were set to create a very severe fire by incorporating additional wood/plastic cribs to create a total fire load of 9.4 pounds per square foot (46kg per square meter). Less than 5% of offices would exceed this level (mainly office libraries). The fire load was made up of 69% wood, 20% plastic and 11% paper.

The steel columns were fire protected but the primary and secondary beams (and their connections) were not. The maximum atmosphere temperature was 2215°F (1213°C) and the maximum average temperature was approximately 1650°F (900°C). The maximum temperature of the unprotected steel was 2100°F (1150°C) with a maximum average temperature of about 1750°F (950°C). The steel beams would have only have had 3% of their strength at 2000°F (1100°C), with such little remaining strength left in the steel, the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members. It is also clear that the concrete floors were supplying strength to the structural system by membrane action
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
....the dripping metal on tower......
Pot-metal, magnesium, computer battery, motor housing, zinc amalgam, bronze, etc....

The quantity would have to be sufficient to mimic the flow rate at the given location. IE thats one damn big bronze statue. I'd also question these metals ability to maintain any structural uniformity at temps that might cause glowing. The simple reality is that sure there were other metals in the buildings, but not other metals in the quantity of steel nor the size of some of these glowing pieces we see. Conclusion, given the preponderance of large glowing hot pieces of metal being removed from the rubble pile its reasonable to suggest that the majority of these samples are, in fact steel and do represent a given temp by virtue of the color evident.

Bronze was about your best suggestion except for one thing

the poring temp of bronze is about 1250°C and color is virtually identical with steel or maybe a bit duller .

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
discussed in all sorts of places - what makes you think it is steel in the first place?

Aluminium doesn't glow - but impurities in it can certainly still give "it" colour - as is discussed here

The shower of sparks in the photo on the left is discussed in a long thread - eg page 1 here on Metabunk, or page 6 here on Metabunk


OH hey Mike, the "discussed here" thread is one seriously abusive bit of work. I'd prefer being led to sites where there is some modicum of civility involved. Simply browbeating an apposing opinion is a sure sign of the weakness of ones own position. I stopped reading after the first section.

I would however be happy to review anything presented in a civilized manor. I'm not sure how anyone can expect anybody to read through that litany of abuse and gain anything from it. All I can suggest is thats one very poorly constructed argument which would never fly in any professional environment.

Cheers
B
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
You can discuss whatever you think was wrong with that link on here in a civilized manner if you want - was there something that is ACTUALLY WRONG that needs correction in your view?


and how about the thread here on MB that says the same things?
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
I'm also going to have to call BS on the "page 6" reference

The following video is presented to support the aluminum theory, if you notice, it uses a steel color chart to describe the color of molten aluminum. My next issue is that aluminum does become liquid at an indistinguishable color from its solid state. While it is possible to superheat aluminum to color that color represents very very hot temps, which is again the whole point. That excessive heat was evident.

There was most likely "some" melted aluminum, after all it was the second most available metal in the towers, ( course I'm not going to be roped to far into discussing the towers as I much prefer to stick to WTC 7 ) And its certainly possible the flow of metal from the tower was in fact aluminum, however, its still evidence of temps much much higher than the 825°C available under ideal conditions in an office fire.

See

Trouble is that super heated molten aluminum in the color range seen in the photographic evidence brings up right back to where we started, excessive heat in the buildings above and beyond what might be expected in an office fire.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think you missed the point about the page 6 part of the
I'm also going to have to call BS on the "page 6" reference

The following video is presented to support the aluminum theory, if you notice, it uses a steel color chart to describe the color of molten aluminum.

You missed the point of the page 6 reference then, which is not that aluminium would have that colour, but that there was a lot of stuff that could have had that colour and been falling either mixed with aluminium or on its own.
 

Boston

Active Member
You can discuss whatever you think was wrong with that link on here in a civilized manner if you want - was there that is ACTUALLY WRONG that needs correction in your view?


and how about the thread here on MB that says the same things?

as I said I didn't read much past the first section. Maybe if you'd like to rewrite it in a more civilized tone I'd give it a shot but I'm not much into any self imposed abuse. Although I do have a party to attend sooooooo I'm out for the evening.

you guys have fun with it but the evidence for extremely high temps significantly higher that what exists in a typical office fire is extensive. There is also ample evidence of glowing hot steel and possibly some aluminum ( you convinced me its certainly possible ) as well.

Cheers
Off to a blues jam

:cool:
 

MikeC

Closed Account
If you aren't going to read the evidence that contradicts you then you can hardly claim that there is "ample evidence" - your choice.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Still no pictures of those 'glowing red hot beams'. I am beginning to think that there are none, except in the minds of some folks.

Really 'ample evidence" an odd picture of a backhoe, with something that is glowing, but that doesn't seem to be effecting the debris next to it (I don't see something falling either-there might be a reflection there) and the hot metal should have fried the hydraulics in that Backhoe. I have never seen a claim of that happening.

I would love know more about that picture, Who took it, when and where.

I don't seen your ' ample evidence' the falling material is quite consistent with aluminum or other materials with a lower melting point

There is also ample evidence of glowing hot steel and possibly some aluminum ( you convinced me its certainly possible ) as well.

:cool:
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
WTC fires.jpg It seems the WTC scenario was somewhat larger than the Cardington one.

Each damaged floor was 210' square and fed by a 20 mph breeze through the cleared windows, turning six floors into an elevated brazier feeding a central chimney leading to a roof.

Even without a kerosine fireball starter, this scenario is more like a very large muffle furnace. Any engineer would confidently expect temperatures of 1200 deg C to be generated and maintained here, especially where aircraft fragments had piled up office furnishings.

Many tons of the aircraft's aluminum alloys were melted, and some of those tons were seen to pour out as the local floor dropped away.

Denialism, as has so frequently been pointed out here, is not the pathway to truth.
 

Boston

Active Member
More than enough evidence has been provided to show temps in the 1100°C range and higher, likely as high as 1200+°C. So whats going to be the max temp of the basic office fire ignited by jet fuel :cool:

In determining the heat release rate, a combustion efficiency factor must be
allowed for. The fire compartment is assumed to be a well stirred but
imperfect reactor. At a given instant, the fire zone is unlikely to cover
the entire floor space, thus some of the oxygen throughput will miss the
fire. And the effective calorific value of the oxygen and the fuel will
vary across the fire zone depending on the deviation of the local fuel-air
mix from stoichiometric conditions. The following analysis aims to
quantify the actual WTC mean flame temperatures and combustion efficiency of
both the kerosene-based and office furniture/fittings stages of the fires.

This assumes of course we're discussing the towers, which I really wasn't but oh well.

See

http://www.takeourworldback.com/911/911fires1.htm

1761 K is an increase of 1463 K from the ambient temperatures of 298 K
usually assumed in AFT calculations. If the increase for the exiting gases
is half of the 1463 K due to slightly more than half of the released heat
escaping to the surroundings, then this 732 K increase places the exiting
gas temperature at 757 C
and we have, say, 6 kJ/g available to heat the
building floors, spandrels, columns, concrete, etc. The remaining 5.4 kJ/g
is then vented out with the plume.


I'd note the polite and concise manor of this links rebuttal, there are no personal attacks against detractors of the hypothesis and there is no ridicule of people who might not comprehend the data or the methods of deriving it. It is a concise and clear description using well established formula and its direct and to the point.

Just pointing out the rather obvious differences with "that other" link I was asked to consider. :rolleyes:

Just for fun, lets continue reading

If we take the case of combustion products for a stoichiometry that would
produce the average adiabatic flame temperature for the fire, calculations
based on JANAF tables should provide quite an accurate guide as to the
proportion of the adiabatic temperature rise that would remain given some
specified proportion of heat outflow. The change in specific heat with
temperature is accurately allowed for, and the error from dissociation
becomes small as the temperature approaches 1250 K.

So we have 835 C to 1000 C as the fire temperatures transmitted to the
steel, with 17.82 MJ/kg being available from the kerosene and 6.84 MJ/kg
available from the wood. The actual temperatures reached by the steel core
column members would depend on their mass and the heat absorbed. The amount
of heat absorbed by the core columns rather than the perimeter columns,
steel decking, or concrete slabs, depended on their volume. An object
extending from floor to ceiling and taking up a great proportion of the
floor area would absorb a high proportion of the heat which did not flow out
with the plume; a tiny object would absorb a small proportion. Before
determining the mass and volume of steel and concrete in the WTC, we shall
consider the power output of the fires, and total heat released.

and this only in areas of active fire at its maximum potential. 835°C being gas temp and 1000°C being flame temp.

Unfortunately this work was not completed, however it may be completed in the future, but in a nut shell the uncompleted portion of the work considers the volume of the material to be heated, its surface area, its radiation rate and its absorption rate as well as the amount of time it had to absorb the heat applied by fire. Thus determining its average max temp of the steel before collapse.

I think its fairly easy to draw at least one conclusion, at max possible absorption temp and considering no radiation occurred ( which is impossible ) the max possible steel temps under ideal conditions were according to this guy at least, 1000°C. at the point of ideal flame contact and 835°C in saturated ideal gas conditions.

If we assume, and its a pretty darn safe assumption due to the fact that we can see black smoke indicating oxygen starved fires and sparse flames spread out in random pockets throughout all three structures that collapsed that something wildly less than ideal conditions existed within these structures, then we come up with a percentage of heat transfer from the idea at some significantly reduced percentage of the ideal.

Which brings us back to square one, and temps that at best could not have exceeded 825°C

Soooooooo, where does the extra 3~400°C come from ?????? :eek:
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
There is no absence of evidence, there is only an absence of effort to review the evidence. Cairenn seems to think its everyone elses job to do her homework for her, when in fact, all the required evidence has already been presented. Myself, all I require is that evidence be provided in a polite and concise manor, and I'd be happy to review whatever, but apparently that is not the case reciprocally.

Its becoming quit apparent that there is a discrepancy of aprox 3~400°C which has no explanation within the gubment diatribe.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Then tell me which post they are in here, because I LOOKED. Others have asked you the same question and you are dancing around not giving us and links.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

Its becoming quit apparent that there is a discrepancy of aprox 3~400°C which has no explanation within the gubment diatribe.

Then what hypothesis can you concoct to account for it?
Do you think there was a heat accelerant present, a high technology heat ray was used to melt the steel beams, or are you proposing something relatively plausible and mundane?
Why are high temperatures, which you say are impossible to exist legitimately, proof for sabotage?

And please actually prove that molten or glowing steel beams existed, or admit you are just assuming and speculating.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
More than enough evidence has been provided to show temps in the 1100°C - 1200°C. So whats going to be the max temp of the basic office fire ignited by jet fuel?
You then make this quote:
And say "This assumes of course we're discussing the towers, which I really wasn't but oh well".

Well, it's an interesting point. Tell you why you made it. You had confused yourself.

WTC 7 burnt for seven hours before it collapsed, due to an over-expansion of its long beams causing detachment and destabilization of a crucial column. When this occurred the temperatures were nowhere near 1100-1200 deg C.

Just for fun, lets continue reading (switching our attention to the towers):
After which you say
and this only in areas of active fire at its maximum potential. 835°C being gas temp and 1000°C being flame temp. Unfortunately this work was not completed, however it may be completed in the future, but in a nut shell the uncompleted portion of the work considers the volume of the material to be heated, its surface area, its radiation rate and its absorption rate as well as the amount of time it had to absorb the heat applied by fire. Thus determining its average max temp of the steel before collapse. I think its fairly easy to draw at least one conclusion, at max possible absorption temp and considering no radiation occurred ( which is impossible ) the max possible steel temps under ideal conditions were according to this guy at least, 1000°C. at the point of ideal flame contact and 835°C in saturated ideal gas conditions. If we assume, and its a pretty darn safe assumption due to the fact that we can see black smoke indicating oxygen starved fires and sparse flames spread out in random pockets throughout all three structures that collapsed that something wildly less than ideal conditions existed within these structures, then we come up with a percentage of heat transfer from the idea at some significantly reduced percentage of the ideal. Which brings us back to square one, and temps that at best could not have exceeded 825°. So where does the extra 3~400°C come from?
What you have just done, apart from confusing two entirely different fire scenarios, is prove that a blast furnace cannot produce liquid iron unless the air blast is turned on.

You completely ignored my points about the prevailing wind, the height and interconnection of the burning floors, the absence of glazing, and the internal chimneys.

Why do furnaces have chimneys?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just saying.
Keep on saying it. Keep on looking for it, and one day you will find it. Eyes wide shut, or confusion, ain't gonna crack it.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Aluminium doesn't glow
Not when it has just melted, true.

But keep raising its temperature and it glows just like every material must. It follows the chart. There are no exceptions to this in the physical world. It's black body radiation.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
You then make this quote:
And say "This assumes of course we're discussing the towers, which I really wasn't but oh well".

Well, it's an interesting point. Tell you why you made it. You had confused yourself.

WTC 7 burnt for seven hours before it collapsed, due to an over-expansion of its long beams causing detachment and destabilization of a crucial column. When this occurred the temperatures were nowhere near 1100-1200 deg C.

Just for fun, lets continue reading (switching our attention to the towers):
After which you say

What you have just done, apart from confusing two entirely different fire scenarios, is prove that a blast furnace cannot produce liquid iron unless the air blast is turned on.

You completely ignored my points about the prevailing wind, the height and interconnection of the burning floors, the absence of glazing, and the internal chimneys.

Why do furnaces have chimneys?


Keep on saying it. Keep on looking for it, and one day you will find it. Eyes wide shut, or confusion, ain't gonna crack it.
And we come back to this...you know you're arguing your point based off an unlikely hypothesis, right? Should I bring this up? It's not like you have any more evidence than me.
 

Boston

Active Member
Then what hypothesis can you concoct to account for it?
Do you think there was a heat accelerant present, a high technology heat ray was used to melt the steel beams, or are you proposing something relatively plausible and mundane?
Why are high temperatures, which you say are impossible to exist legitimately, proof for sabotage?

And please actually prove that molten or glowing steel beams existed, or admit you are just assuming and speculating.

Sorry, there are lots of questions in science that remain unanswered, doesn't mean that ideas haven't been forwarded, just that none have withstood scrutiny. Could you please note where if ever any person up for panel review ever responded to having there paper rejected by insisting that the panel provide the answer. Doesn't happen, they sometimes don't even tell you what part they had a problem with. Many publishers don't detail what they believe the flaws are, they simply reject the work, particularly if its pertaining to concepts that remain vague within the known science.

Simply because we can be reasonably assured of what didn't happen, doesn't mean we know what did. Questions remain unanswered, but that doesn't mean that an answer offered must be accepted simply because its the only one being offered. I'm afraid that logic is about as flawed as possible. Not being able to provide an answer is no proof of an answer that defies the known science.

I'm going to have to call that classic straw man argument.

Also it looks like you fell into the other trap being set here. If you actually have been following along, you'd quickly realize I'm not detailing molten metal, I'm detailing excessive heat beyond that which could be reasonably expected within the combustibles known present at the sight. Glowing "material" obviously matalic in nature has been noted multiple times.

Its pretty interesting that a few of you are insisting on exactly what Mick has asked that we not do, which is be redundant in our conversations.

But just for fun

This is obviously metal and obviously of a size that precludes it being anything but a steel component, or at least to a degree of reasonable certainty



and again in a pile of metal and dust, right next to an unscortched piece of paper we see objects radiating in spectrum that indicate very high very localized heat is present



I would also reference this page which is a polite debunking of the presumed debunked hypothesis of excessive heat at the site

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/09/open-letter-to-ryan-owens.html

in which it states

The idea that the fires in the South Tower could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely. It is very difficult for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach these sorts of temperatures. Thomas Eager, who supports the official story and therefore cannot be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist,” has written that:

“In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types…. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C [1832°F]…. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.” -Thomas Eager

One thing that we must agree on is that the fires in the South Tower were clearly weaker than the fires in the North Tower. Also, NIST has no evidence for these kinds of temperatures in either building. The idea that the fires in WTC 2 could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely which, as we will see, essentially refutes the entire notion of your video.

Claim 2: Aluminum glows “light orange” at 1800°F.

Misleading: Although aluminum does glow light orange at 1800°F, the color of the material at the front indicates that, if it was aluminum, it was heated to temperatures higher than this.




So even if this material was aluminum, it would still need to be explained what heated it to over 2000°F to get to glow that bright. You should make this clear in your video.

Which I might add nearly exactly corroborates my previous references http://www.takeourworldback.com/911/911fires1.htm"

So all this hogwash about no references or people insisting on being led by the thumbs through the work is obviously specious at best and entirely unfounded in reality. All facts have been presented which support the hypothesis that excessive heat is present at WTC site and it is not required to know how that heat was generated to be able to review the evidence and show it in fact was present. It remains an unanswered question, although there are some fairly obvious likely sources.

Love :rolleyes:
B
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
And we come back to this...you know you're arguing your point based off an unlikely hypothesis, right? Should I bring this up? It's not like you have any more evidence than me.

Jazzy seems to have comprehension problems, and really likes to argue what he thinks you've said, rather than what you actually said, I haven't found a scientifically based rebuttal in any of it so I just kinda ignore most of it at this point. I'd refrain from wasting your time until something meaningful is offered for review. Oh and I'd say you have lots more evidence or more accurately better evidence. NIST and its devotee's tend to forward arguments based on invisible interior collapses and invisible buckling, refusing to review or accept physical abnormalities evident in photographic evidence. Pointing out those abnormalities within the photographic evidence is far more effective than simply arguing hypothetical laboratory constructs which in the end fail entirely to model the actual collapses.

I'd stick to your guns and keep at the photographic evidence, which unfortunately is about the only evidence we have, something else thats entirely unique about this event as well. Why exactly was it that "someone" thought it so important to "scrub" this crime scene as clean as possible as fast as possible ? And delay for years any detailed if half assed analysis.

Everything about this is very very fishy
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
and again in a pile of metal and dust, right next to an unscortched piece of paper we see objects radiating in spectrum that indicate very high very localized heat is present

You mean this?


What you have there is a photo of some burning debris. It's a fire.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Photo colors are vastly dependent on exposure, relative light balance in the scene, and film type. Here I've adjusted the levels so that the fire engine lights are less washed out.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Previously I had just stated that WTC 7 had burnt for seven hours before it collapsed due to an actual soak temperature of less than 600 deg C. The inference being that high temperatures weren't necessary to bring it down in the first place. That there might be higher temperatures present in the wreckage would be due to the heat gained from the potential energy latent inside WTC7's steelwork.

Previous to that I had explained that the initial explosions had removed the glazing from several floors, allowing direct impingement of the prevailing 20 mph wind over a seventy foot height, allowing several floors to function as a brazier, that the blast-exposed tower cores provided a chimney hundreds of feet high, and this was far different from the Cardington test area (or from any test area in the world), and had asked Boston what he thought the purpose of a chimney was.

And we come back to this...you know you're arguing your point based off an unlikely hypothesis, right? Should I bring this up? It's not like you have any more evidence than me.
An unlikely hypothesis? Is that really what you think? I do have more evidence than you. Really.

I know how to use just old plain coke to melt steel. You use a T-A-L-L chimney. You can save on bricks and use a fan. A wind speed of 50 mph will make a dramatic difference to the way the coke burns. The chimney will generate it by itself if tall enough.

If you stare carefully at the flame/smoke exit speed in the conflagration videos, you can check out the time some identifiable feature within it takes to rise a set number of floors, and work out the exit speed for yourself. That's more evidence than you had previously gathered.

Then you can look up the tables for the flame temperature at that wind speed, and see what you can get.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Photo colors are vastly dependent on exposure, relative light balance in the scene, and film type. Here I've adjusted the levels so that the fire engine lights are less washed out.
Wouldn't fire be accompanied by smoke?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Previously I had just stated that WTC 7 had burnt for seven hours before it collapsed due to an actual soak temperature of less than 600 deg C. The inference being that high temperatures weren't necessary to bring it down in the first place. That there might be higher temperatures present in the wreckage would be due to the heat gained from the potential energy latent inside WTC7's steelwork.

Previous to that I had explained that the initial explosions had removed the glazing from several floors, allowing direct impingement of the prevailing 20 mph wind over a seventy foot height, allowing several floors to function as a brazier, that the blast-exposed tower cores provided a chimney hundreds of feet high, and this was far different from the Cardington test area (or from any test area in the world), and had asked Boston what he thought the purpose of a chimney was.


An unlikely hypothesis? Is that really what you think? I do have more evidence than you. Really.

I know how to use just old plain coke to melt steel. You use a T-A-L-L chimney. You can save on bricks and use a fan. A wind speed of 50 mph will make a dramatic difference to the way the coke burns. The chimney will generate it by itself if tall enough.

If you stare carefully at the flame/smoke exit speed in the conflagration videos, you can check out the time some identifiable feature within it takes to rise a set number of floors, and work out the exit speed for yourself. That's more evidence than you had previously gathered.

Then you can look up the tables for the flame temperature at that wind speed, and see what you can get.
Good to know that you know exactly what I know. Really.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
Photo colors are vastly dependent on exposure, relative light balance in the scene, and film type. Here I've adjusted the levels so that the fire engine lights are less washed out.

what s the issue here. this is not molten? This appears to me to be molten and not normal fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marcus Mudd

Member
Mick is posting evidence for the controlled demolition and saying its not at this point. hes literally posting the 'smoking' gun
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
what s the issue here. this is not molten? This appears to me to be molten and not normal fire.

Marcus you need to move beyond what thing "appear" to be to you personally, and try to get some objective evidence beyond your personal opinion. Like maybe find a similar photo of something that is "not normal fire".

I encourage you to move up the pyramid.
 
Last edited:

Marcus Mudd

Member
Marcus you need to move beyond what thing "appear" to be to you personally, and try to get some objective evidence beyond your personal opinion. Like maybe find a similar photo of something that is "not normal fire".
im sorry but your case for evolution in another thread I remember involving embryos 'looking like fish'. The photo is made to be examined and upon examination it is not a normal fire and appears to be molten metal of some sort. This, coupled with the testimony on the scene from experts and firefighters, corroborates any inquiry into the nature of the collapse of all three buildings. this claim is validated.
 

Boston

Active Member
You mean this?


What you have there is a photo of some burning debris. It's a fire.

several objects maintaining geometric form radiating of white/yellow hot band widths right next to a piece of paper in the foreground

Obviously metal and obviously extremely hot. Most likely steel, possibly aluminum but either way its in the 1200°C range if not a bit higher.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Photo colors are vastly dependent on exposure, relative light balance in the scene, and film type. Here I've adjusted the levels so that the fire engine lights are less washed out.

However you expose it there is no flame associated with this radiation. Fire would imply gaseous conversion, requiring flame, this material is obviously not exhibiting flame, nor is there smoke associated with it, another inevitable result of flaming hydrocarbons in open atmosphere. Of course doesn't mean its imposible to produce flame with no smoke, but in this environment, its unlikely in the extreme

Its pretty obvious this represents glowing metal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Gotta get

Its munch time, but keep fighting it, as far as I can see, each and every post resisting the photographic evidence just makes it more and more clear to the casual reader who's interpretation is most likely and who's is less.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Sorry, there are lots of questions in science that remain unanswered, doesn't mean that ideas haven't been forwarded, just that none have withstood scrutiny.
Your idea, that steel fell to earth in all circumstances, without ever striking any steel beneath it, is one of those ideas.

Not being able to provide an answer is no proof of an answer that defies the known science.
It is just as well that that isn't the case with the WTC, in that answers are provided which are covered by the known science.

I'm detailing excessive heat beyond that which could be reasonably expected within the combustibles known present at the site.
The "combustibles known present at the site" were in all cases sufficient to their task, in physical and engineering terms.

I would also reference a polite debunking of the presumed debunked hypothesis of excessive heat at the site which it states
Well, you know, garbage in gives you garbage out.

If you must insist that the tower fires were "diffuse flames", and that the Cardington fire test was a representative example, then you cannot fail to reach the conclusions you do.

I'm looking at 50 mph exit speeds and whistling through my teeth.

One thing that we must agree on is that the fires in the South Tower were clearly weaker than the fires in the North Tower.
Nope. It clearly had a taller chimney through its center. That would give the exhaust gases a greater induction pressure and higher exit speeds. The wind blowing up through the fire would be faster.

The idea that the fires in WTC 2 could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely which, as we will see, essentially refutes the entire notion of your video. Misleading: Although aluminum does glow light orange at 1800°F, the color of the material at the front indicates that, if it was aluminum, it was heated to temperatures higher than this.
This refutes all notions of unnatural collapse if you pay attention to it.

All facts have been presented which support the hypothesis that excessive heat is present at WTC site
Its pretty interesting that a few of you are insisting on exactly what Mick has asked that we not do, which is be redundant in our conversations.

Jazzy seems to have comprehension problems, and really likes to argue what he thinks you've said, rather than what you actually said
Well I believe I'm arguing with what you actually say, which never quite has the meaning you think it has. For example, are you meaning "temperature" when you are using the word "heat"? It makes you appear way out to an engineer like myself.

I haven't found a scientifically based rebuttal in any of it so I just kinda ignore most of it at this point.
Present me some "science" and you will get your "scientifically based rebuttal. At the moment I'm dealing with your refusal to acknowledge science, in the form of kinetic energy transfer and vertical column instability.

NIST and its devotees tend to forward arguments based on invisible interior collapses and invisible buckling
Would that be the penthouse?

refusing to review or accept physical abnormalities evident in photographic evidence. Pointing out those abnormalities within the photographic evidence is far more effective than simply arguing hypothetical laboratory constructs which in the end fail entirely to model the actual collapses.
Unbelievable for many reasons.

Everything about this is very very fishy
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
However you expose it there is no flame associated with this radiation. Fire would imply gaseous conversion, requiring flame, this material is obviously not exhibiting flame, nor is there smoke associated with it, another inevitable result of flaming hydrocarbons in open atmosphere. Of course doesn't mean its imposible to produce flame with no smoke, but in this environment, its unlikely in the extreme

Its pretty obvious this represents glowing metal.

Look at photos of similar sized campfires on the internet. about 95% of them have no smoke.
https://www.google.com/search?q=campfires&tbm=isch

And when a fire is in the end stages, it does not necessarily have much in the way of flames. Is this person walking on molten metal?
upload_2013-8-23_11-24-57.png
 

Related Articles

Top