| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Litmus test.. |
 |
|
http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/add91732-77c5 -4aa4-9d30-b07e4c905a4e
Smoke and Mirrors: 9/11 is the Litmus Test....
topic posted Fri, February 22, 2008 - 5:20 PM by Wayne
Smoke and Mirrors:
Friday, February 22,
There is one thing that defines everyone over the course of these early years of this new century. That thing is the 9/11 attack. Everyone in government and every field of endeavor the world over is defined by their position on this event. It is not necessary to know the truth. It is only necessary to know the extent of the lies in order to define any leader in any position anywhere in the world. By what they have said and by what they have not said, one can accurately judge who is an enemy of the people's of the world. One can accurately determine who is a tool of the psychopaths or one of them.
Think about what you allow yourself to know. Think about what you pass by; ignore, deny and defend ...that defines you. It defines the degree of your personal courage, your relationship to the truth, your values, your principles and what you will pass on to your children and everyone you meet. It tells you in that place where your conscience must once have lived whether you are a hypocrite and a fool or whether something greater still lives within you.
http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/add91732-77c5 -4aa4-9d30-b07e4c905a4e
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Therefore. therefore. here is what you must know, given that the official story is patently absurd. Anyone. anyone who promotes the official story; who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or too stupid to pat their head and chew gum at the same time. "
http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/add91732-77c5 -4aa4-9d30-b07e4c905a4e
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
I'm not sure what this is evidence of, other than an example of the rather simple-minded rhetoric that can come out of the truth movement. These points are all well and good as long as you actually believe that 9/11 was an inside job - if you don't, they are rather dangerous nonsense. Some 9/11 truthers would obviously like to be the new thought police.
But even then, within the truth movement there are many lines of disagreement. If somebody says that Al-Qaeda exists, are they one of the psychopaths? Because many within the truth movement accept that Al-Qaeda exists and is a terrorist organisation.
That's why the sort of patent nonsense you quote here can seem fine on the page, but utterly unapplicable in the real world.
PS: Your avatar seems to be inferring that the twin towers fell at freefall speed. Do you really believe this? And have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | I'm not sure what this is evidence of, other than an example of the rather simple-minded rhetoric that can come out of the truth movement. These points are all well and good as long as you actually believe that 9/11 was an inside job - if you don't, they are rather dangerous nonsense. Some 9/11 truthers would obviously like to be the new thought police.
But even then, within the truth movement there are many lines of disagreement. If somebody says that Al-Qaeda exists, are they one of the psychopaths? Because many within the truth movement accept that Al-Qaeda exists and is a terrorist organisation.
That's why the sort of patent nonsense you quote here can seem fine on the page, but utterly unapplicable in the real world.
PS: Your avatar seems to be inferring that the twin towers fell at freefall speed. Do you really believe this? And have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? |
Apparently, you are either "involved, or too stupid to pat your head and chew gum at the same time"
I guess I will have to put this very simply for you.
1) It is difficult to tell very exactly because of all the dust but those towers came down at a rate of + or - one second of free fall and you can deny that all you like.
2) A building (or anything) that falls would not do so through the path of most resistance – such as, the rest of the building in the way - not unless that material was blown out of the way, so as to offer practically no resistance.
3) Molten metal was seen coming out of one of the buildings and (no matter what people argue that metal was) it was at a higher temperature (as seen by the brightness and colour) than the flames of the fire. The only way this can happen is through another source of heat (than the fires) and at a very high temperature.
Now if you don't 'get it' perhaps you should learn about physics or simply ask someone who does have a little commonsense. Does a jet fuel fire melt steel? Would office burning furniture melt steel? No, you say (if you have a brain). So would a weakened steel structure fall through itself at anywhere near free fall? Would a weakened steel structure be inclined to fall through itself at all?
No doubt you have heard all this and much more before and I could go on but it appears that you will deny anything that anyone says in the 911 truth movement, as fitting with your handle of 9/11Truth critic.
The Litmus test of who people are is indeed upon people like you. So go ahead all you want, we know who we are and we know that people like yourself will show who they are.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: |
---
3) Molten metal was seen coming out of one of the buildings and (no matter what people argue that metal was) it was at a higher temperature (as seen by the brightness and colour) than the flames of the fire. The only way this can happen is through another source of heat (than the fires) and at a very high temperature.
|
Lead - melting point 327.46°C, much lower than typical office fires.
Aluminium - melting point 660.32 °C and known to have melted in the King's Cross fire.
Without a spectrometer or similar in action on the day we cannot tell the temperature of the falling "stuff" from photographic evidence. There was no such device involved in the photos.
Without an analysis of the "stuff"'s residues, we don't know what other substances were entrained within it. Burning. There has been no such analysis.
Next point?
| truthseeker john wrote: |
The Litmus test of who people are is indeed upon people like you. |
Still struggling to work out what this means. Might need to sleep on it.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
*lifts rock*
| truthseeker john wrote: | | Apparently, you are either "involved, or too stupid to pat your head and chew gum at the same time" |
If I ever learn to pat my head and chew gum can I join the truth movement?
| Quote: | | I guess I will have to put this very simply for you. |
Yes please. Or perhaps you could link me to a youtube video with some cool music.
| Quote: | | 1) It is difficult to tell very exactly because of all the dust but those towers came down at a rate of + or - one second of free fall and you can deny that all you like. |
Minus one second of freefall? That is quick. Nice to see the truth movement is striving for the highest possible standards - not just exact but 'very exact'!
| Quote: | | 2) A building (or anything) that falls would not do so through the path of most resistance – such as, the rest of the building in the way - not unless that material was blown out of the way, so as to offer practically no resistance. |
Try dropping a lead weight through a piece of tissue paper, and see if it finds it's way around the tissue to discover less resistance.
| Quote: | | 3) Molten metal was seen coming out of one of the buildings and (no matter what people argue that metal was) it was at a higher temperature (as seen by the brightness and colour) than the flames of the fire. The only way this can happen is through another source of heat (than the fires) and at a very high temperature. |
Lol. If only NIST had known this - they can tell the temperature of the fires by just measuring the brightness and colour. Or perhaps they had were storing some flourescent pens on that floor - once they caught fire all hell broke loose.
| Quote: | | Now if you don't 'get it' perhaps you should learn about physics or simply ask someone who does have a little commonsense. |
Dialling the Alex Jones show as I write...
| Quote: | | Does a jet fuel fire melt steel? Would office burning furniture melt steel? No, you say (if you have a brain). So would a weakened steel structure fall through itself at anywhere near free fall? Would a weakened steel structure be inclined to fall through itself at all? |
No, no, yes, yes.
| Quote: | | No doubt you have heard all this and much more before and I could go on but it appears that you will deny anything that anyone says in the 911 truth movement, as fitting with your handle of 9/11Truth critic. |
I would accept apologies.
| Quote: | | The Litmus test of who people are is indeed upon people like you. So go ahead all you want, we know who we are and we know that people like yourself will show who they are. |
The litmus test, as you rightly say, is upon people like me. We go ahead all we want, and you know who you are, and you know that people like us will show you who we are. Right on - another strike for freedom. Well done...
*gently replaces rock* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi John, I've read through that article and I hope you can help clear up a fairly major point for me (pretty much the basis of the argument put forward to be honest)? You see I'm slightly confused when "Wayne" says:
"I have included here only a very small portion of the damning evidence that runs counter to the official lies. The preponderance of evidence that refute the official lies is overwhelming"
The problem I have is Wayne doesn't actually supply any evidence, just wild claims.
So perhaps you can help me John - I take it you agree that the evidence that refutes the official lies is "overwhelming" - could you therefore please supply me any verifiable evidence which catagorically disproves any of the official 9/11 conclusions? That surely shouldn't be too difficult considering this evidence is overwhelming. One single piece will do. You see the "evidence" you have supplied so far does not seem to have any scientific basis - please can you supply sources and also it's scientific background (i.e. papers published etc).
Also if possible, would it be too much to ask for a single piece of evidence that proves someone other than the terrorists had a hand in 9/11. Surely that wouldn't be too difficult either.
If you don't have any evidence for either of these two cases, then perhaps you could also tell me why I should believe, as Wayne says, that "Everyone in government; in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool"? When in fact the official story is the only one with any evidence to back it up!
Thanks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: |
---
3) Molten metal was seen coming out of one of the buildings and (no matter what people argue that metal was) it was at a higher temperature (as seen by the brightness and colour) than the flames of the fire. The only way this can happen is through another source of heat (than the fires) and at a very high temperature.
|
Lead - melting point 327.46°C, much lower than typical office fires.
Aluminium - melting point 660.32 °C and known to have melted in the King's Cross fire.
Without a spectrometer or similar in action on the day we cannot tell the temperature of the falling "stuff" from photographic evidence. There was no such device involved in the photos. |
| Alex_V wrote: | | Lol. If only NIST had known this - they can tell the temperature of the fires by just measuring the brightness and colour. Or perhaps they had were storing some flourescent pens on that floor - once they caught fire all hell broke loose.. |
Despite a couple of red herrings (Alex's flourescent materials - and I'll also rule out a mass of melting LED's while I'm at it, which do not use heat to emit light - and the other suggested molten metals, aluminium and lead) TJ is quite correct to point out that the colour of the metal cascade indicates it's temperature.
The principle of blackbody radiation, courtesy of Max Planck, ties the emitted (as opposed to reflected) heat and colour scale together accurately enough to base an entire sub-branch of astonomical analysis on.
It can be seen in the photo below
that the metal (whatever it's composition is) is emitting yellow/white light
which the scale below
reliably indicates to be around the 1100°C mark.
But steel melts at 1500°C you say?
Well, we've already been through this from the Wood anti-science faction.
Firstly, we don't know by how much the material cooled on it's journey into freefall, and secondly, Prof. Jones has shown that sulfur will lower the melting point of iron by almost 600°C. Iron plus sulphur forms a eutectic, which will turn to a molten state at 1000°C.
So whether it's lead or aluminium or iron from the steel or thermite, it still remains to find an explanation for that temperature source, regardless of what the flowing metal is.
Spectroscopic analysis would have nailed it objectively, but that technique can't be used indirectly.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Despite a couple of red herrings (Alex's flourescent materials - and I'll also rule out a mass of melting LED's while I'm at it, which do not use heat to emit light - and the other suggested molten metals, aluminium and lead) TJ is quite correct to point out that the colour of the metal cascade indicates it's temperature.
The principle of blackbody radiation, courtesy of Max Planck, ties the emitted (as opposed to reflected) heat and colour scale together accurately enough to base an entire sub-branch of astonomical analysis on.
But steel melts at 1500°C you say?
Well, we've already been through this from the Wood anti-science faction.
Firstly, we don't know by how much the material cooled on it's journey into freefall, and secondly, Prof. Jones has shown that sulfur will lower the melting point of iron by almost 600°C. Iron plus sulphur forms a eutectic, which will turn to a molten state at 1000°C.
So whether it's lead or aluminium or iron from the steel or thermite, it still remains to find an explanation for that temperature source, regardless of what the flowing metal is.
Spectroscopic analysis would have nailed it objectively, but that technique can't be used indirectly. |
It's a very imperfect process trying to nail down this molten stuff, to the point where investigation is almost rendered useless. I don't accept that the colour is yellow/white for a start, though I can appreciate that the truth movement would like it to be. We are talking about frames of a video shot from a distance, not in a lab - trying to nail down the actual colour is, I would say, impossible. As I understand it the very likely presence of impurities affects any analysis of colour and temperature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | I don't accept that the colour is yellow/white for a start, though I can appreciate that the truth movement would like it to be. |
Really?
Normally critics are quite content to argue that black is white, so perhaps that yellow-white is red-orange is something of a step forward.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
It can be seen in the photo below
that the metal (whatever it's composition is) is emitting yellow/white light
which the scale below
reliably indicates to be around the 1100°C mark.
|
Based on your analytical techniques - outlined above - would you care to take a stab at the temperature represented here : ?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | Based on your analytical techniques - outlined above - would you care to take a stab at the temperature represented here : ?
|
As you can see - disregarding any camera artefacts for now - the surrounding embers are about 300° cooler than the inner gas temperature.
Do you know why that is? You may confer.
In any case I doubt you have the information (if you intend to insist that temperature/colour scales are bogus) to say my answer would be correct or not.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | sam wrote: | Based on your analytical techniques - outlined above - would you care to take a stab at the temperature represented here : ?
|
As you can see - disregarding any camera artefacts for now - the surrounding embers are about 300° cooler than the inner gas temperature.
Do you know why that is? You may confer.
In any case I doubt you have the information (if you intend to insist that temperature/colour scales are bogus) to say my answer would be correct or not. |
I see you have avoided the question.
chek - maybe you're guilty of "a little learning" or maybe of sophism, but you clearly don't understand the idea of "black body radiation". Try this :
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html
Amongst the maths it'll tell you what you need to know.
Meanwhile a simple example will illustrate. Molten lead is upwards of 320°C. It's silvery grey in colour. There is no "silvery grey" on your chart. Basically, the eye and the camera will tell you very little about the temperature of a body. Your chart is worthless here.
Here's another photo - guess the temperatures again :
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | I see you have avoided the question. |
I also see you avoided confirming that you had the correct, accurate information to begin with too.
Sam - maybe you're guilty of attempting to muddy the water to obfuscate your grasp of the principle. As material gets hotter, it begins to emit light, rising up through the spectrum from red to orange to yellow to what we perceive as white hot (white being a combination of all colours). It's really quite straightforward - material that is yellow hot will always be at a higher temperature than material that is red hot.
| sam wrote: | | Meanwhile a simple example will illustrate. Molten lead is upwards of 320°C. It's silvery grey in colour. There is no "silvery grey" on your chart. Basically, the eye and the camera will tell you very little about the temperature of a body. Your chart is worthless here. |
The chart starts illustrating coloured light emission at 500°C, which is 180°C above the temperature that your lead example becomes molten. Aluminium (melting point 660ºC) possesses similar low emissivity. Both can be heated until they emit light - but when is it ever necessary to do so?
| sam wrote: | Here's another photo - guess the temperatures again :
|
Your burned down fire illustration is in its charcoal phase - look at the previously supplied colour chart if you want to determine the temperature. Just remember to be aware of the difference between temperature and heat.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Your burned down fire illustration is in its charcoal phase - look at the previously supplied colour chart if you want to determine the temperature. Just remember to be aware of the difference between temperature and heat. |
It's the same fire. The second photo was taken about 1 minute after the first (or vice-versa) - as long as it took me to adjust some settings on my "expensive new" digi camera, which was having trouble with certain light situations that my "cheap old" camera sorted out for itself. I was experimenting.
chek - these examples we are discussing are not "black bodies" and they didn't have a diffraction grating or spectrometer - or whatever it is we need to measure *actual* wavelength vs. *perceived* wavelength - handy on 9/11.
Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
If eyes and cameras are no help when analysing photos, then feet and desserts are no good when seeing if you can get shoes on filled with trifle.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Your burned down fire illustration is in its charcoal phase - look at the previously supplied colour chart if you want to determine the temperature. Just remember to be aware of the difference between temperature and heat. |
It's the same fire. The second photo was taken about 1 minute after the first (or vice-versa) - as long as it took me to adjust some settings on my "expensive new" digi camera, which was having trouble with certain light situations that my "cheap old" camera sorted out for itself. I was experimenting.
chek - these examples we are discussing are not "black bodies" and they didn't have a diffraction grating or spectrometer - or whatever it is we need to measure *actual* wavelength vs. *perceived* wavelength - handy on 9/11.
Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
| chek from three posts up wrote: |
As you can see - disregarding any camera artefacts for now |
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | sam wrote: | | Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
If eyes and cameras are no help when analysing photos.. |
I didn't say eyes (and cameras?) are no help analysing photos. I said they're no help *here* where the analysis relates to "*actual* wavelength vs. *perceived* wavelength ". chek is quoting black-body science. Here we don't have a black-body scenario nor the instruments to do the job anyway. That much was perfectly clear.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek from three posts up wrote: |
As you can see - disregarding any camera artefacts for now |
[/quote]
Your original shot is from a camera, is it not? Casually disregard "camera artefacts" with a wave of your hand and you also disregard your entire so-called evidence with the same wave.
Bottom line - my first photo of the fireplace shows white heat *according to your analysis*. The second shows a much cooler fire. But they're the same fire separated by a minute. Your analysis of the falling material's temperature is scientifically worthless.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given that it could have been lead heated well above its melting point that originated from the racks of batteries on the very floor from which the molten metal poured (that ought to tell you something, but some never get the message), we don't need to consider the more extravagant and otherwise unsupported hypothesis that it was steel heated by thermate, nor do we require Jones's ad hoc face-saver that it was an eutectic mixture of iron and sulphur.
I guess some people here have not heard of Occam's Razor. 
I don't know what topic Jones researched for his PhD, but it most certainly was not scientific methodology.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | sam wrote: | | Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
If eyes and cameras are no help when analysing photos.. |
I didn't say eyes (and cameras?) are no help analysing photos. I said they're no help *here* where the analysis relates to "*actual* wavelength vs. *perceived* wavelength ". chek is quoting black-body science. Here we don't have a black-body scenario nor the instruments to do the job anyway. That much was perfectly clear. |
Despite your doomed capaign to argue otherwise with your poorly exposed flaring intial photo, what we're really comparing it to is a properly exposed daylight movie still.
The stream of material pouring from the corner of WTC2 is bright yellow-white in daylight, indicating a temperature which can be approximately calculated from a known scale at which heat emits light.
You'll notice that in both your correctly and over exposed decoy examples, the actual colour temperature of your fire hasn't changed, but rather only the perceived extent of the hot zones which are camouflaged by the white ash in the later photo. Judy Wood tried something similar to show that molten aluminium really does glow - which indeed it does, in low light conditions.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | sam wrote: | | Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
If eyes and cameras are no help when analysing photos.. |
I didn't say eyes (and cameras?) are no help analysing photos. I said they're no help *here* where the analysis relates to "*actual* wavelength vs. *perceived* wavelength ". chek is quoting black-body science. Here we don't have a black-body scenario nor the instruments to do the job anyway. That much was perfectly clear. |
No clue why you question your own use of 'and cameras', I quoted your own words.
| Quote: | | Eyes and cameras are no help here. The first photo shows white heat the second yellow/orange/salmon etc. But they're exactly the same damn fire. |
Your paragraph refers to photographs, the first line says 'eyes and cameras'. You were supplying photographs as examples, then you commented upon them - now you say the subject wasn't relevant?
What is perfectly clear is that flooding a scene with daylight balanced flash will unquestionably alter the apparent colour eminating from a fire.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | What is perfectly clear is that flooding a scene with daylight balanced flash will unquestionably alter the apparent colour eminating from a fire. |
I would modify that statement slightly to say that in the second photo, it seems that the more intense light from the flash reflects back from the whitish ash and bleaches out the lower intensity reddish light emitted by the surrounding embers.
While the central hot areas of the fire continue to emit light with the same yellow-white colour.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | What is perfectly clear is that flooding a scene with daylight balanced flash will unquestionably alter the apparent colour eminating from a fire. |
I would modify that statement slightly to say that in the second photo, it seems that the more intense light from the flash reflects back from the whitish ash and bleaches out the lower intensity reddish light emitted by the surrounding embers.
While the central hot areas of the fire continue to emit light with the same yellow-white colour. |
A few remarks here and I'll leave you to cosy-up with Gordon Ross (the man who proposed that the falling sections of WTC would "bounce" off the lower sections and quietly come to rest) :
"The emission of radiation of a non-reflecting ideal black surface is defined by Planck's radiation law. It states that the emitted radiation power increases with increasing temperature and that the maximum of the radiated spectrum is shifted towards shorter wavelengths with rising temperature."
Is the film of WTC2 subject to black-body radiation analysis?
Is the falling material non-reflecting?
Do you have any evidence that the falling material was even metallic?
What the hell would therm?te be doing in this part of the building anyway, a long way from the core and well away from the exterior corner? What do you propose it could be 'usefully' weakening?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | What the hell would therm?te be doing in this part of the building anyway, a long way from the core and well away from the exterior corner? What do you propose it could be 'usefully' weakening? |
What we see in the Camera Planet clip is a localised light, far more intense than the surrounding fires, emitting a white smoke plume and a molten flow of a lot of material (gallons) with a yellow-white colour exiting the building in the region of the structurally important corner column area.
Those characteristics match a demonstration of thermite that I've seen fairly well.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | sam wrote: | | What the hell would therm?te be doing in this part of the building anyway, a long way from the core and well away from the exterior corner? What do you propose it could be 'usefully' weakening? |
What we see in the Camera Planet clip is a localised light, far more intense than the surrounding fires, emitting a white smoke plume and a molten flow of a lot of material (gallons) with a yellow-white colour exiting the building in the region of the structurally important corner column area.
Those characteristics match a demonstration of thermite that I've seen fairly well. |
Given that the scene we can witness is well away (and internal) from the "structurally important corner column area" I'd just like to point out that you've answered exactly none of the four reasonable questions posed.
Not long ago you were singing the praises of linear, gangable thermite delivery systems (patented).
Soon after you were telling us that thermite powder could simply be chucked down "inspection holes" in the columns (never minding the drywalling and fireproofing)
Either way - your precious thermite would be pretty damned adjacent to its target metal. Now, however, several yards away will do nicely?
Do you have no shame? Do you see absolutely no need for a consistent narrative? Are you actually happy to make it up day to day, moment to moment?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | chek wrote: | | sam wrote: | | What the hell would therm?te be doing in this part of the building anyway, a long way from the core and well away from the exterior corner? What do you propose it could be 'usefully' weakening? |
What we see in the Camera Planet clip is a localised light, far more intense than the surrounding fires, emitting a white smoke plume and a molten flow of a lot of material (gallons) with a yellow-white colour exiting the building in the region of the structurally important corner column area.
Those characteristics match a demonstration of thermite that I've seen fairly well. |
Given that the scene we can witness is well away (and internal) from the "structurally important corner column area" I'd just like to point out that you've answered exactly none of the four reasonable questions posed.
Not long ago you were singing the praises of linear, gangable thermite delivery systems (patented).
Soon after you were telling us that thermite powder could simply be chucked down "inspection holes" in the columns (never minding the drywalling and fireproofing)
Either way - your precious thermite would be pretty damned adjacent to its target metal. Now, however, several yards away will do nicely?
Do you have no shame? Do you see absolutely no need for a consistent narrative? Are you actually happy to make it up day to day, moment to moment? |
Your demand for all the answers laid out neatly is quite touching, but unrealistic. As is your expectation that the same application technique be used in all locations. I can speculate a theory or two as to the reasons why that glowing flow emerges from two adjacent locations over its burn time, but so what?
Maybe you can suggest what other candidates might burn with a brilliant white light releasing white vapour upwards while dropping glowing globs that fall like a stone while looking like bright sparks for several hundred feet.
But I doubt it.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test.. |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
---
I can speculate a theory or two as to the reasons why that glowing flow emerges from two adjacent locations over its burn time, but so what?
---
|
Fire away then. Speculate. It might give an indication as to whether even you have a clue what your theory is, because nobody else has.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there IS light yellow/white hot molten(as seen during daylight) material flowing from the WTC.
are you denying this? or just the cause of it?
if you denying the material is flowing out at all then you are denying a fact.
if you are denying the cause, then fair enough. however does the offical theory account for this material? what is their evidence as to what it is and does that evidence match the observed facts?
most people tend to go with what matches the observed facts more closely or more accuratly. is there anything that matches more closely than the thermite theory?
just denying it without an alternative explaination is'nt very convincing.
if it is'nt thermite then what is it? can your proposed 'material' or theory cause or account for the observed color and molten flow coming from the tower? etc.
i have heard a few proposed theorys before, but they simply don't match what is observed, so whats yours? have people missed it? or is it the same rubbish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have to agree with marky on this - chek clearly asked sam to present alternatives that might identify/account for the characteristics of the 'flowing' material.
However, true to form, sam simply ignores such issues for the old switcheroonery ploy once again, plain old avoidance of anything that is unexplainable. His favourite ruse is to frantically google via a scattergun search and return things along the lines of;
| Quote: | | Amongst the maths it'll tell you what you need to know. |
Sammy Boy is a flim-flam man of gigantic proportions.
So, do you have any evidence what the falling material is?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
