Litmus test..

[sam]

[truthseeker john]

[sam]

[quote="truthseeker john"]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

sam

Of course, you are free to interpret the syntax and dynamics of any interchange where opinion is applicable, however there are occasions where other aspects are injected such as direct questions. This means, instead of spouting, you just give a simple answer.

You are regularly asked a specific point, such as 'What colour is it sam?' Instead of saying something like, 'It is blue', you would respond 'The thermal radiation isn't defined as 'colour', more its surface is mired (in micro-reciprocal degrees). The thermal radiation emitted from it may differ from its actual surface temperature. If iridescent, a light bulb of thermal origin is very close to that of an ideal black-body radiator. This should be obvious if you had read The Scheimpflug Principles Of Advanced Directional Avoidance Techniques.'

It therefore appears that you are incapable of normal debate - I bet Sunday lunch is a superb event at your house. 'Before I pass the spinach as requested, I am going to check its nutritional content on the internet and then give a short speech about its origins, obviously only then passing it on providing you can complete a short questionnaire I will then compile'.

There is no doubt to readers of your posts, that you are a devoted waffler, one who loves to stack the variables in a myriad of long-winded shapes. I conclude that this is just 'your way', but negotiating the more difficult aspects of interchange like 'questions' by treating them like semantic chicanes - disregards the basic laws of communication.

You have spent your entire time in this thread saying what the yellowy stream isn't - but you have been asked what it is? This doesn't seem to appear on your radar, instead, head-down you regurgitate the same old tired diatribe without ever once considering that this is an information board and not 'Sammy Boy's Googled Copy & Pasted Showcase'.

There is nothing wrong with well-researched accurate information, but acknowledge that this is a two way street - traffic flows both ways, not just out of Sammyville.

[truthseeker john]

[sam]

Dearie me you're quite rattled aren't you? So many words with so little content. But let's try to interpret your points and answer them.

[truthseeker john]

[quote="sam"] How much molten lead have you seen bouncing against the side of a building? Molten zinc? Molten aluminium? Films would do, it's not like I'm expecting you to have seen it yourself in person.

1) The main reason molten steel sparks so much is because of the carbon content - even in low carbon steel there is some carbon. The 'flint' of a cig lighter has lots of carbon and gives lots of sparks by friction.

2) Lead does not spark, cold or molten. Even if it did, where did the amount come from??

3) Unlike most metals molten aluminium does not glow brightly in broad daylight. We can see it glow in the dark but in daylight, it looks shiny much as before.

4) It's very doubtlful that Zinc would cause sparks and we have no evidence of large amounts of Zinc anyway. What next, molten Copper? You are cluching straws...

Even if you argue against what I said above, there is no way that the brightness and colour can be showing such high temperatures if another source of heat wasn't involved.

[truthseeker john]

[telecasterisation]

sammy wrote

[Bushwacker]

A number of points worth making here:

1. Judy Wood is particularly good on the this subject, the scholars only real strength seems to lie in knocking each other's theories! She points out that "NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists." We might remember here the notorious photograph of clean-up workers peering into the debris pile, which Jones altered to make it appear that it was white heat was coming from it. We can tell little from the colour of whatever is falling from WTC2.

2. She also shows that all pure metals have the same colour at the same temperature, so there is no basis for stating that the stream, if it is metal, is steel rather than aluminium or indeed lead.

3. That corner of the building contained not only the aluminium debris from the aircraft, but also that floor housed the enormous stand-by batteries for uninterruptible power supply for Fuji Bank. What a very strange coincidence it would be if the one single point where molten steel flowed from the building, was also the point in the building with by far the greatest concentration of low-melting point metal.

4. If the argument is that thermite was necessary to cut the enormous thickness of the core columns (using it horizontally in a way previously unknown) then it seems very odd that:
a) There was only place where the metal from this process is visible, and it was also where the building was burning.
b) This is at a height where the core columns were substantially thinner than they were lower down. Lower down far more molten metal would be produced.
c) The molten metal should appear at a corner of the building, at the furthest possible distance from the core columns.

5. It occurs to me that battery cells are normally built in very thick plastic boxes. In a fire those would be liable to both melt and burn, and the plastic would float on top of any molten metal. That stream we see could be molten and burning plastic. This is only speculation of course, but it is speculation that accounts for that stream being seen only at that location, which the steel-melted-by-thermite speculation does not.

I doubt if we shall ever know for certain what that stream was, but it is quite inadequate evidence for the use of thermite.

[sam]

[sam]

[chek]

[Chris Walsh]

What an interesting thread!

I've just read through all of it, and although I don't see how proving the use of thermate/thermite is intrinsic to proving 9/11 is a fraud, I have always felt that the molten metal cannot be explained by it being lead.

Of course, even if the naysayer feels confident with his or her scientific reasoning and can believe that office combustibles comprised part of the flowing material, they then have to try and debunk the many other glaring contradictions cited in the original article in question.

I am not a scientist, but live with two lads that have Masters degrees in Physics. Both reject the official story and think controlled demolition of some sort makes more sense than the official version of events. However, like me, both agree that there are less scientific reasons why the official story is a lie.

The reason why I believe 9/11 was an inside job is that you have to have a LOT of faith in 19 Arabs and Bin Laden doing what they allegedly did to think otherwise. You also have to have faith in the US government not lying about something in order to start a war. (Hmm, did they ever do that before?) And since there are inconsistencies across the entire spectrum - from piss poor pilots to altering official stories, to the strange collapse of WTC7 - you have to cling to the notion that tolerating such massive perplexities is fine and that all America's aggression towards Afghanistan and Iraq is morally justified in some way.

I'm sick of telling people - we don't know what happened on 9/11, and we might never know, but clinging to the official story is dangerous and makes you complicit in the cover up.

[Chris Walsh]

Anyway, sorry to move away from the molten metal stuff. It's really interesting evidence that needs more criticism.

I just wanted to touch upon the other aspects of that article and try and touch upon some of the more 'human' aspects of 9/11, such as faith in the various narratives.

Ding, round two.

[pepik]

[sam]

[KP50]

[sam]

[KP50]

[sam]

[Jonnolad]

[KP50]

[pepik]

[sam]

[Chris Walsh]

[sam]

[A Sharp Major]

[Alex_V]