The Truther Challenge

[NorthernSoul]

Ok bare with me here, perhaps this has been done before, I used search and couldn't find an example.

I've browsed this forum for a couple of days now, on and off, and have found very few examples of Truthers presenting evidence for their claims.

So I'm going to challenge the Truthers here, present one piece of evidence that you feel supports your claims. I'm only asking for one piece at the moment and references would be appreciated.

For now I'm posting this in the Critics Corner in order to keep the peace, I have been greeted with some E-Hostility here.

So, Truthers, one piece of evidence that supports your claim...it's that simple. Expect to be questioned, contradicted, and proven wrong, I plee with Truthers and Debunkers/Critics/Skeptics a like to keep Ad Hominem out of this.

[Stefan]

The first that comes to mind:

The surface temperatures recorded after 9/11 by thermal image photography from a Nasa plane, along with the multiple reports of molten metal by various witnessess at "ground zero" have no remotley credible explanation from defenders of the official story within the jet fuel/impact damage (1 & 2) and diesel fuel/debris (7) explanations of collapse.

[scubadiver]

WTC 7

Please keep your explanations for the collapse within the bounds of "commonsense".

[NorthernSoul]

I'm not familiar with these thermal images, I would appreciate a source if it pleases you, however...

According to Truthers the fires in WTC 1 and 2 reached between 800 and 900 degrees celsius.

The WTC Towers contained numerous Uninterupted Power Supplies (UPS). UPS are emergency power supplies that run off of lead batteries, these kick in in the event of a power failure to prevent data loss and such. Their presence in the towers tells us that there was Lead. We also know that a plane, a huge aluminium tube, crashed in to each tower (Not WTC 7 obviously)

Lead melts at 327 degrees celcius.

Aluminium melts at 660 degrees celcius.

Now unless I have misunderstood you, and I apologise if I have. That demonstrate that it was more than possible for molten metal to be present at WTC's 1 and 2

What alternative theory would you suggest?

[NorthernSoul]

[Leiff]

[NorthernSoul]

You actually want a link to the NIST report?

That really shows how much research you have done.

NIST FAQ

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST Final Report

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Cambridge Professor rejects conspiracy theories

K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: Simple Analysis", (2008) ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 134(2), pp. 125-132

[Leiff]

Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Centre Towers
To identify the probable collapse sequences, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) adopted and approach that combined mathematical modeling, statistical-based analysis methods, laboratory experiments, and analysis of photographs and videos. The approach accounted for variations in models, input parameters, analyses, and observed events. It included the evaluation and comparison of possible collapse hypotheses based on various damage states, fire paths, and structural responses to determine the following:

The probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf page 285

[Stefan]

Here's a deal Northern Soul - why don't you go to this site http://journalof911studies.org - read through all the articles there and then come back when you're a little more informed?

I'm getting the migrane which comes when you try and have a conversation with someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, and you don't seem partiuarly willing to find out more.

You watched Loose Change 2, you told a few people about it and they made fun of you, then you watched Screw Loose Change and were happy to be convinced there was nothing in it. Perhaps you spent some time on the Screw Loose Change forum and started to feel superior and part of a gang who ridiculues what you call "truthers".

The people here have done extensive research on both sides of the argument - we know the official story to the last detail and we know all the arguments against it - we know the debunking arguments and we know the aruments against those arguments. That's why we have a "critics corner" - because a lot of people are bored of the game by now.

For instance - you haven't heard of the Nasa thermal images? Just type it into google and start doing some SERIOUS research for your self. That you come here with a patronising "let me teach you" attitude and don't even know the basic facts of 9/11 make you appear a waste of time.

You say NIST "and others" explained the WTC collapses - NIST explained only the collapse INITITATION - and recently stated they could not fully explain the complete collapse - NIST and FEMA both offered hypotheses for global collapse without following through with any serious analysis or modelling - but since THEY BOTH GAE DIFFERENT REASONS - how can you say "NIST and others" - you choose one of the other - NIST or FEMA - both can't be right.

Instead of wasting your time here - go to the journal and read all the articles. It'll take you less than a week. Not all of them are "right" - but they will give you a good idea of the actual level of argument against 9/11 - which if your time has been spent on "Screw Loose Change" you will have no idea of - being fed a crude characature of 9/11 Truth.

I'll see you a week from now.

[NorthernSoul]

May I remind you with all due respect that the first poster focused on molten metal and if possible I'd like to stick with that topic but...

You have put that sentence in bold as some kind of statement saying "Well why didn't they do the entire collapse?"

NIST have clearly stated it would be impossible to model the entire collapse, their is simply too much data for a computer to handle. We are dealing 100+ storie buildings, there are an incalcuable number of variable to consider. It is as simple as that, a computer can't do it. Now the other reference I presented calculated the collapse times in a much simpler way, no computer modeling involved.

Now if you can, or you can find someone to model the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 (The report for 7 is still being worked on I believe) then please PM when you get the results.

[NorthernSoul]

Well I did ask that we keep Ad Hominem out of this, but clearly you couldn't help yourself and resorted to insults.

The Journal of 9/11 stuides is rejected by the majority of the scientific community, the "papers" there aren't peer reviewed and a lot of them are actually "open letters"

Now instead of ranting and raving why not prove what I said earlier to be incorrect, if you are so confident of your claims you should have no problem doing so.

[Stefan]

[NorthernSoul]

Ok give me a moment and I'll find that for you, but let's hang on a second here, where are your sources for the thermal imaging you mentioned?

If you feel I am wasting your time, don't reply, it is your choice of course.

You still have not rebutted what I said earlier about the molten metal...

[Stefan]

[Stefan]

[NorthernSoul]

I presented my case for molten metal based on Truther temperature claims. If you are not willing to rebut, then I must invariably assume that you cannot...

NIST reply to Steven Jones: We cannot computer model the collapse

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/b]

[NorthernSoul]

You claimed molten metal could not possibly have been there, I opened this thread as a source of debate, not "Go look at this"

I have visited the Jounal of 9/11 studies on several occasions, and as mentioned it is falsely titled (it is not a Journal of any sort) and a large portion of the papers and letters. Moreover the vast majority of papers are written by one man.

For someone who claims to have researched so much you seem very adament and defensive, I have been polite and forthcomeing, yet you are unable to even post a simple response to my earlier post about molten metal. Even though you can post several times telling me to read a website that has no credentials. You do not research by buying in to what others tell you.

[Leiff]

[Stefan]

Northern Soul,
NIST say they could not compute an explanation for collapse - they say this is because it is too complicated - they do not make a case for it being impossible to compute it, or that no computer is capable of creating a physics engine simulation of collapse. What we actually have here is an admission that it is impossible to explain the collapse within the official story. Your willingness to take a failure of NIST (an admission that they cannot explain the collapse) and creatively interperet this as "it is physically impossible to computer model the collapse" speaks volumes. As with most critics, you accept excuses in the "dog ate my homework" level as acceptable when they come from official reports.

Re. the Molten Metal: It is far more productive to the conversation that you do your own research. Have you even google searched the thermal images yet???

Since you are so resistant:

Auluminium is silvery in colour when molten - ruling it out as the molten metal which came pouring out of the south tower before collapse. Through logic it rules it out as the much sighted molten metal in the debris as well. Descriptions included terms such as "like a foundry" "like lava" and some even presumed molten steel.

Now did you know that aluminium was silver when molten? I didn't before I entered research into this subject - most people would not expect a molten metal to look like mercury. So might that warrent some mention in the testimones of it? It would be the first thing that would be mentioned yet none of the reports mention it.

Lead? In all the photos I have seen it is silver when molten as well - although I have heard it can turn orange or red when hotter. I've had trouble finding anything about this on the internet. If you can tell me at what temperature lead would have to be to appear orange or reddish it would firm up your argument.

It is arguable that the temperatures would be met to melt any of the metals in an ordinary office fire in which kerosene was only the "wick" so to speak - a 1000 degree fire does not turn a metal to 1000degree temperature just by proximity - it needs a long exposure and no way for the metal to conduct the heat away - here we had short burning office fires, by all signals oxygen starved.

[NorthernSoul]

[Busker]

[NorthernSoul]

[NorthernSoul]

[Busker]

[Leiff]

NorthernSoul

I looked at the pictures.

What does the first one depict?

On the other two I can see no black metal or silvery glow just red hot molten metal.

The fires in the tower were oxygen starved which is why there is so much smoke and not many flames visible.

The holes in the side of the towers do not appear to be sucking in vast quantities of air either, as smoke would be seen being sucked into the holes as well. Nor is there any indication of air being sucked in through the lobby in the Naudet brothers documentary.

[Micpsi]

The floor of the South Tower out of which molten metal poured shortly before it 'collapsed' was the 81st, which housed banks of lead batteries used by Fuji Bank as a back-up source of electrical power, according to what Christopher Bollyn claimed a former employee of the bank told him
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
It is therefore highly likely that the molten metal was lead. Bollyn's own suggestion that the batteries were dummies holding thermate is plainly absurd and unnecessary, as this hypothesis was invoked to explain how iron could have become molten, whereas if it was lead, it would not be needed. If this is true, then it renders redundant the explanation of thermate offered by Professor Steven Jones, because lead melts at 327.5 degrees Centigrade
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pb/heat.htm
- a temperature easily within the range of office fires. Jones' explanation was a complete red herring. However, as the leaked molten lead would have cooled and solidified within minutes, it cannot explain the hot spots in the WTC recorded by satellite infra-red images, nor the many anecdotal reports of pools of molten metal.

[Bushwacker]

[Leiff]

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]