Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject:
So jfk, you No Planer/TV Fakers are now reduced to having to produce your own faked videos to mentally masturbate to.
You people are sick.
Mods - can this jfk clown be banned for constantly, repeatedly, and gullibly and/or knowingly - it really doesn't matter - posting deliberate disinfo which can only be designed with the intent of poisoning any campaign for a new investigation and is therefore totally in conflict with the purpose of this site?
Thank you.
(For proof of forgery with intent to deceive, compare the original CBS footage on the left with jfk's promotion of this heavily manipulated and obviously composited "evidence" on the right. You might begin by making note of the new position of the lower baseline of the smoke in the forgery complete with its totally false and pathetic blur effect).
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:01 am Post subject:
jfk wrote:
actually chek it is a detroit public tv clip
try again
Jfk, how your suspect and contaminated sources refer to the clip is neither here nor there.
And be that as it may, even using the Hubble telescope I don't think Detroit TV could get that angle.
The fact that it's taken from syndicated Detroit TV leads me to believe it originates from the Webhag archive, for which they don't make bargepoles long enough.
You'll find the original - as can be easily deduced by comparing all the identical relative features of the scene - is the CBS 9 morning show.
Try again, indeed.
Hopefully you won't get the chance to peddle any more
self-maufactured nonesense. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Did you get it direct from them and are they backing you on this?
You see JFK; if you take something as true without research you are into a faith based research. It has value only for you.
I am saying video fakery extends everywhere and mostly on the Internet. I am saying your source material is suspect and you should not use it unless you have it DIRECT and verified from that source.
I have seen the leaders of this movement change and insert explosions into original video and people believe them. I KNOW it because it is my video. I KNOW first hand the capability of fraud in the leadership of the movements.
Your problems are source material that is from bogus archives on the net with no trail of evidence. No one has come to the table and bought original footage from the networks except Avery - and he quit the movement basically after he did. You are waving cartoons made from cartoons probably made from cartoons and then compressed several times in both PAL and NTSC - you are working with * and get * for the effort.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:48 am Post subject:
jfk wrote:
the smoke is faked, and it wasn't me wot dunnit
who did?
You're the one who lives and breathes this garbage, yet you expect us to believe you haven't the wit or intelligence to go to the original sources to double check? Actually, don't answer that. Taking a wild guess, I'd hazard that the author of the clip who 'discovered' the fakery helpfully also spills the beans on exactly how he/she cteated it. Right Fred?
This is the Year of our Lord 2008, and we should all know by now that anyone, anywhere can put anything up on the internet. Running a Youtube account is not beyond a semi-intelligent primate. There are no Editors or fact-checkers out there, just dim wide-eyed punters who'll believe anything presented to them. But oh no - you just post it anyway without referencing it whatsoever.
I think it was gruts who pointed out a while ago now, how many times does your fakery "evidence" have to be pawned before you twig you're being exploited every time and that logically something's very wrong with your theory?
In the meantime you take no responsibility at all, and it serves to poison the well admirably.
Mission accomplished, eh? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Try again, indeed.
Hopefully you won't get the chance to peddle any more
self-maufactured nonesense.
unfortunately, if this particular ID is banned I'm sure that he/she/it will simply come back with a different one before too long. you do have to wonder about what motivates these npt sheeple though....
are they disinfo merchants?
are they actually dumb enough to be fooled by such obvious frauds over and over again?
or are they just in denial about the fact that their "evidence" has been shown over and over again to be a mixture of lies and bs?
as I said on another thread, maybe they are quite happy to be fooled by the idea that they're some kind of 9/11 truth vanguard - even if they know that they're really only fooling themselves. _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
no - as usual the person who created the video you posted has deliberately and dishonestly manipulated the footage to sell you the illusion that it's fake.
are you actually dumb enough to be fooled by such an obvious fraud - yet again? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
gruts, this was shown on MSM, not doctored by a no planer/youtuber!
No it wasn't (shown on MSM) and yes it most likely was (created by a no planer - specially for uncritical, simpering, technically bereft fanboys like yourself).
If you imagine for one moment that your amateurishly cropped, altered, filtered and fraudulent footage has been anywhere near a professional broadcast house, you're an even bigger idiot than we already take you for.
Which is saying quite something.
The original footage has already been illustrated and referenced, so stop squirming, give it a rest and ferque off.
Hopefully permanently. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject:
gruts wrote:
jfk wrote:
gruts, this was shown on MSM, not doctored by a no planer/youtuber!
so was this.
Always raises a grin that clip
It also occurred to me that the answer to the embedded question in jfk's fraud vid "What was the media trying to hide" is:
"a s**t public education system".
NPT isn't 50% of 'numpty' by accident. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject:
Obvious fake,(compare with all the other widely available footage) if it wasn't, almost anyone would have picked up on this years ago. _________________ http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2
gruts, this was shown on MSM, not doctored by a no planer/youtuber!
And your proof again is FAITH. Your claim means YOU TAPED THIS THAT DAY AND NO ONE TOUCHED THAT TAPE SINCE. Stating "not doctored" is a large step into faith based research and that does not seem to be what the forum is trying to be.
1) Detroit had a very bad view of the Trade Centers even on clear days.
2) If in fact it is Detroits TV Network that uploaded the video on Youtube (to publisize their TV channel I guess?) It could be distorted in uploading.
3) If it is CLAIMED to be from Detroit Television and uploaded by some "name" on youtube ARE YOU GOING TO BET YOUR LIFE ON IT? Call it original? REAL??
4) Video without certified source is uncertified and like beef, unfit for human consumption. But it can look real!
5) Detroit PBS could have altered the footage for any reason on their own.
Bottom line is it was found on the Web and not in the archives of Detroit PBS or the originating TV network. There are certain things 911 researchers do wrong and most of it revolves around relying on their leaders for bonifide information and fake evidence.
Having had his offerings exposed as the only apparent and provable element of fakery within his cult, jfk ignores all points of contention within his objects of worship by...just posting another one.
This is idolatry, pure and simple.
By continuing this behaviour, jfk not only displays the fundemental symptons of a cult follower but also adds to the incredulity of the Fakery cults' collective mind set with every post he makes.
Anyone with any doubts about the plausibility of the tv fakery issue should consider jfk's behaviour.
Is it the behaviour of someone who has applied the scientific method in their research?
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject:
If there were something to this video fakery,what better device than to have someone like jfk push obviously fake video to discredit the theory!
Similarly,on the "thermite theory" could that not be considered a cult following pushed by the previously Los Alamos (sp) research scientist on cold fusion Steven E Jones,and his "paint on thermite" theory,not
seriously pushed through the court system as evidence of an inside job.
Video fakery is already exposed in the "original planes merge into buildings" footage. _________________ http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject:
Newspeak International wrote:
If there were something to this video fakery,what better device than to have someone like jfk push obviously fake video to discredit the theory!
That's one possibility. Another possibility is that NPT always was a threadbare and bollox theory relying on extremely selective interpretation from the get go.
Plus you may have noticed, it seems to attract the deranged like flies to sh*t (a not inappropriate simile) thereby giving twice the negative PR bang for the buck.
Newspeak International wrote:
Similarly,on the "thermite theory" could that not be considered a cult following pushed by the previously Los Alamos (sp) research scientist on cold fusion Steven E Jones,and his "paint on thermite" theory,not
seriously pushed through the court system as evidence of an inside job.
The difference here is that "thermite theory" is based on empirical evidence (the filmed molten flow from WTC2, it's suspiciously high temperature indicated by its colour; the iron microsperes in the collapse dust indicating iron was molten during that phase; the FEMA sulphidated girders with holes like swiss cheese and almost evaporated flanges; the reports of flowing molten steel 'like a foundry' etc. etc.
Unlike a cult, this evidence doesn't require a 'belief' - it demands a mechanism which explains the data.
Thermite (or a derivative) as used for demolishing steel structures like disused oil rigs, is a good estimated candidate for the observed (not interpreted) phenomena.
Even so - and I'm no lawyer - that alone is probably not enough to pursue a successful case without the strongest possible supporting evidence. There's no point in taking a half-baked, half-arsed, hare-brained case to court as Reynolds and Wood have already proved unequivocally.
Newspeak International wrote:
Video fakery is already exposed in the "original planes merge into buildings" footage.
There was no gentle 'merging' occurring over the space of 1/8th of a second in what sounds to me like the most violent impact I've ever heard, according to one soundtrack.
You appear to confuse lo-rent video capture, especially when (over) viewed in slow-mo as being what actually happened as opposed to an incomplete record of events (mpeg being a (very) lossy compression format designed for entertainment purposes rather than scientific record). And yes I've even seen one no planer describe the plane as 'floating into the building'. How divorced from reality is that?
On top of that you can then discard a further 90% of the information in converting to web format to reach a wider audience and lo! - you have enough artefacts and misperceptions to create a cult using the power of suggestion aimed at the easily impressed and suggestible who don't require much in the way of supporting evidence. A pre-existing belief system will take care of that particular lack for you.
You're right though.
WTC video fakery is already exposed - as a complete crock.
It's interesting (and I am aware of a certain irony here) that not a single video engineer anywhere in the world has ever supported even one of it's claims.
Not one.
Think on that. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
The difference here is that "thermite theory" is based on empirical evidence
No. It is not based upon evidence. Theories are never based upon evidence. They are proposed to explain that evidence. The evidence can never be turned round and used as evidence that the theory is correct. That would amount to a circular argument. Only other, independent data that supports the theory can do that.
chek wrote:
(the filmed molten flow from WTC2, it's suspiciously high temperature indicated by its colour;
Are you so expert a metallurgist that you can be sure that no cocktail of metallic elements, plastics & other contaminants suspended in a molten mixture would create the colour of the molten metal flowing out of the South Tower? If not, you have no grounds for regarding with certainty its colour as indicative of temperatures that office fires cannot reach. According to NIST:
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Not only that, aluminium is only silvery at its melting point. At higher temperatures, it looks yellow. Prof. Jones's arguments assumed that the molten metal pouring out of the tower was pure (very implausible!) and that the aluminium from the plane that landed up in the very area from which molten metal poured out, never got heated above its melting point. The colour of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminium. The emissivity of aluminium oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminium. Jones' 'theory' is so riddled with inconsistencies that no metallurgist would touch it. His evidence for 'thermite' is flimsily based upon 'sulphidation' (which could have had other causes) and colour guessing from videos. Moreover, if the metal had been molten steel created from the effect of thermate distributed throughout the tower, why did it not leak out of the tower from many more places? It poured out only in the area where the plane ended up, not in other areas of the floors that were on fire.
As Christopher Bollyn revealed
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
based upon a communication with a former Fujii Bank employee (Stanley Praimnath)
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Stanley-Praimnath.html
and now confirmed by the evidence presented at
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.htm
the reinforced 81st floor, out of which the molten metal flowed, was loaded with banks of lead batteries for a UPS (Uninterrupted Power Source) for Fujii Bank's computers. Photographs of comparable banks of batteries used by a company not in the WTC can be seen at this link. When they melted, the lead mixed with molten aluminium from the plane that had crashed into the 81st floor, as well as with other detritus, and poured out of the face of the tower, this floor having subsided because its trusses had given way, despite having been reinforced to take the tons of weight of the banks of lead batteries housed on this floor. It is this molten material that was most likely filmed, not molten steel. That is why the molten material flowed out only in the area where the racks of lead batteries were housed on the reinforced floor. The thermite hypothesis cannot explain that and is made redundant by information that Jones never considered when he made it.
A possible scenario for how the UPS batteries now known to have been on the 81st floor underwent melting is analyzed here:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.htm l
I quote: "Isn't it remarkable that the same floor, in the same "two-way" part of the South Tower, exactly where the mysterious flow occurred, was occupied by "UPS United Parcel Service" in 1991 (according to NIST) and by Fuji Bank Limited in 1999 (again according to NIST), and that Fuji Bank carried out reinforcement work "to accommodate new UPS workspace"? It may well be so, but my personal suspicion is that the acronym "UPS" was misinterpreted as referencing the international courier company but actually referred to one of Fuji's IT resources. Several sources confirm that data processing equipment related to the computer center was located on that floor: survivors have testified to this, and even pro-conspiracy sources (Christopher Bollyn, some months later) mention an unnamed "deep throat" who claims to have worked in this very facility" and "the 81st floor of the South Tower apparently had a large portion of its area occupied by the batteries of a UPS which belonged to Fuji Bank."
chek wrote:
the iron microsperes in the collapse dust indicating iron was molten during that phase;
But it does not automatically point towards thermite/thermate. Iron microspheres created by the close-proximaty blast of high-explosives absorb enough energy to be melted, absorbing sulphur dioxide from the burning gypsum in wallboard. This, not thermate, was the more plausible source of the sulphur.
chek wrote:
the FEMA sulphidated girders with holes like swiss cheese and almost evaporated flanges;
Any high concentration of sulphur, such as sulphur dioxide in the smoke of burning gypsum, will cause sulphidation. It does not have to be thermate. The holes do pose a serious challenge to the official account of 9/11. But thermate need not be their only explanation.
chek wrote:
the reports of flowing molten steel 'like a foundry' etc. etc.
Like a loyal Jones acolyte, you again assume the metal was steel. It's called 'begging the question'. Actually, it amounts to clutching at straws, because no one knows with certainty what the composition of the molten metal was. All these reports are, anyway, anecdotal and cannot be treated as objective evidence supporting the thermite theory. Even if they are true, there could be a host of other explanations for the molten metal and hot spots in the WTC, such as mini-nukes or other exotic weapons.
chek wrote:
Unlike a cult, this evidence doesn't require a 'belief' - it demands a mechanism which explains the data.
But in scientific research, one never invokes a more far-fetched hypothesis if a simpler one will suffice. It's called "Occam's Razor."
chek wrote:
Thermite (or a derivative) as used for demolishing steel structures like disused oil rigs, is a good estimated candidate for the observed (not interpreted) phenomena.
Is an unnecessary, less natural candidate that raises more questions than it answers 'good'?
chek wrote:
Think on that.
Unlike Jones and his acolytes, who never question the words of their master, some of us have thought on it and have rejected his theory as neither required by the available evidence nor consistent with it because, among other objections, it fails to explain, if thermite was spread on the steel beams throughout the floors that were on fire, why molten material poured out only from one area of the tower (there is no evidence that this was the hottest part).
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:55 am Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
chek wrote:
The difference here is that "thermite theory" is based on empirical evidence
No. It is not based upon evidence. Theories are never based upon evidence. They are proposed to explain that evidence. The evidence can never be turned round and used as evidence that the theory is correct. That would amount to a circular argument. Only other, independent data that supports the theory can do that.
Whatever. Although if Ms Wood were to try an evidence-based approach, maybe she wouldn't be flogging dead hurricanes though, eh?
chek wrote:
(the filmed molten flow from WTC2, it's suspiciously high temperature indicated by its colour;
Micpsi wrote:
Are you so expert a metallurgist that you can be sure that no cocktail of metallic elements, plastics & other contaminants suspended in a molten mixture would create the colour of the molten metal flowing out of the South Tower?
Yes - or to be clearer, I've consulted with those whose judgement I trust. Your other suggested possibilities are, at best, based on poor observation of what happened.
Micpsi wrote:
If not, you have no grounds for regarding with certainty its colour as indicative of temperatures that office fires cannot reach. According to NIST:
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NIST said that - but they provided no evidence that their assertion was actually the case. And as previously noted, that theory is based on poor observation backed up by an appeal to accept their authority to it being the case. There is no floating, glowing carbonated 'mixture' as careful observation of the flow's progression shows.
Micpsi wrote:
Not only that, aluminium is only silvery at its melting point. At higher temperatures, it looks yellow. Prof. Jones's arguments assumed that the molten metal pouring out of the tower was pure (very implausible!) and that the aluminium from the plane that landed up in the very area from which molten metal poured out, never got heated above its melting point. The colour of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminium. The emissivity of aluminium oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminium. Jones' 'theory' is so riddled with inconsistencies that no metallurgist would touch it.
Despite numerous attempts by various sources to obfuscate this issue, the relationship of colour to temperature is well understood. And for the record, aluminium oxide appears white not because of the light it's emitting, but rather its reflectivity of the ambient light. Like white ash on a fire for instance.
For aluminium to emit yellow orange light means it's at the same temperature that any other metal would be to emit those wavelengths of light. Except you now have to explain not only the temperature source but also the nature of the containment that prevented the aluminium (or lead, or whatever) from flowing away from the heat source once liquid.
Micpsi wrote:
His evidence for 'thermite' is flimsily based upon 'sulphidation' (which could have had other causes) and colour guessing from videos. Moreover, if the metal had been molten steel created from the effect of thermate distributed throughout the tower, why did it not leak out of the tower from many more places? It poured out only in the area where the plane ended up, not in other areas of the floors that were on fire.
Erm, not really. The evidence for thermite (or similar) does not rely on sulphidation alone. It is a suggested and resonable explanation for the remarkably high temperatures associated with Ground Zero, and the unquenchable fires that were only extinguished eventually by applying a specially formulated wetting agent (Pyracool) designed to deal with self-oxygenating fires.
Perhaps the plane impacts were not as random as they first appear and further the plan depended on creating the illusion with enough precision to explain the subsequent collapses by talking up the fire temperatures and playing down the inherent strength of the structure.
Which is just what happenened.
As I've previously pointed out to you, it never has been the molten state of the flow that is the issue; it's the temperature indicated by the colour whatever the constituent was. In addition, Gordon Ross and others have good reason to believe that cutting the stronger corner elements of the Towers was necessary to achieve the destruction.
chek wrote:
the iron microsperes in the collapse dust indicating iron was molten during that phase;
Micpsi wrote:
But it does not automatically point towards thermite/thermate. Iron microspheres created by the close-proximaty blast of high-explosives absorb enough energy to be melted, absorbing sulphur dioxide from the burning gypsum in wallboard. This, not thermate, was the more plausible source of the sulphur.
Well that's a conjecture for which you provide no evidence beyond a bald assertion.
I'd also take a wild guess that this experiment has only actually taken place in your head, and you've no real idea what form the debris from such use of explosives might actually take.
Whereas the spheres are an actual observed by-product from the energetic reaction of thermite throwing out liquid iron globules.
chek wrote:
the FEMA sulphidated girders with holes like swiss cheese and almost evaporated flanges;
Micpsi wrote:
Any high concentration of sulphur, such as sulphur dioxide in the smoke of burning gypsum, will cause sulphidation. It does not have to be thermate. The holes do pose a serious challenge to the official account of 9/11. But thermate need not be their only explanation.
I believe that's more conjecture on your part for the sake of it - i.e. you have no alternative explanation beyond the mere assertion of some vague and unspecified possibility.
Rather in the same way as shredded aircraft aluminium alloy and rusty girders do not magically form 'natural thermite', high temperature steel beam eating eutectics do not just happen by chance. This is worse than Bush science - this is JREF "science".
chek wrote:
the reports of flowing molten steel 'like a foundry' etc. etc.
Micpsi wrote:
Like a loyal Jones acolyte, you again assume the metal was steel. It's called 'begging the question'. Actually, it amounts to clutching at straws, because no one knows with certainty what the composition of the molten metal was. All these reports are, anyway, anecdotal and cannot be treated as objective evidence supporting the thermite theory. Even if they are true, there could be a host of other explanations for the molten metal and hot spots in the WTC, such as mini-nukes or other exotic weapons.
It seems to me that the statements of multiple experienced witnesses present at the scene, taken as a whole, might provide a better insight than someone speculating from the end of their keyboard. Anecdotal as those statements might be, in the face of a determined effort to dispose of the physical evidence they remain still as a clue to be corroborated.
chek wrote:
Unlike a cult, this evidence doesn't require a 'belief' - it demands a mechanism which explains the data.
Micpsi wrote:
But in scientific research, one never invokes a more far-fetched hypothesis if a simpler one will suffice. It's called "Occam's Razor."
That rather depends on how well the allegedly 'simpler' explantion does suffice, does it not?
chek wrote:
Thermite (or a derivative) as used for demolishing steel structures like disused oil rigs, is a good estimated candidate for the observed (not interpreted) phenomena.
Micpsi wrote:
Is an unnecessary, less natural candidate that raises more questions than it answers 'good'?
Given the public explanation was to be aircraft crashes causing damage further weakened by fire leading to catastrophic collapse, a silent incendiary intensifying the effect of fire seems a pretty good candidate to me. Far from making it unnecessary - it makes it highly desirable.
Micpsi wrote:
Unlike Jones and his acolytes, who never question the words of their master, some of us have thought on it and have rejected his theory as neither required by the available evidence nor consistent with it because, among other objections, it fails to explain, if thermite was spread on the steel beams throughout the floors that were on fire, why molten material poured out only from one area of the tower (there is no evidence that this was the hottest part).
That's two fallacious assumptions in a row.
Firstly, Steve Jones is not a guru but a member of a group of scientists and engineers that find his early (and let us not forget groundbreaking) observations useful in terms of establishing an ongoing understanding of how the disaster was engineered.
I'd go so far as to say that without Steve Jones' involvement, the search for the truth about what happened on 911 would have remained a subject that only conspiracy theorists would have taken an interest in, and even then only on the nights when they weren't discussing when exactly Paul McCartney was replaced by a Rothchild annunuki.
And lastly but not leastly, that the thermite flow was observed in one location only does not exclude it's unobserved presence elsewhere. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
(the filmed molten flow from WTC2, it's suspiciously high temperature indicated by its colour;
Micpsi wrote:
Are you so expert a metallurgist that you can be sure that no cocktail of metallic elements, plastics & other contaminants suspended in a molten mixture would create the colour of the molten metal flowing out of the South Tower?
Yes - or to be clearer, I've consulted with those whose judgement I trust. Your other suggested possibilities are, at best, based on poor observation of what happened.
[/quote]
Not poor at all. Just SIMPLER explanation (.i.e., FEWER assumptions). Referring to anonymous "authorities" does not cut it, I am afraid.
Micpsi wrote:
Not only that, aluminium is only silvery at its melting point. At higher temperatures, it looks yellow. Prof. Jones's arguments assumed that the molten metal pouring out of the tower was pure (very implausible!) and that the aluminium from the plane that landed up in the very area from which molten metal poured out, never got heated above its melting point. The colour of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminium. The emissivity of aluminium oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminium. Jones' 'theory' is so riddled with inconsistencies that no metallurgist would touch it.
Despite numerous attempts by various sources to obfuscate this issue, the relationship of colour to temperature is well understood. And for the record, aluminium oxide appears white not because of the light it's emitting, but rather its reflectivity of the ambient light. Like white ash on a fire for instance.
[/quote]
Nope. Molten aluminium is only white near its melting point. It becomes yellow at higher temperatures.
For aluminium to emit yellow orange light means it's at the same temperature that any other metal would be to emit those wavelengths of light. Except you now have to explain not only the temperature source but also the nature of the containment that prevented the aluminium (or lead, or whatever) from flowing away from the heat source once liquid.
[/quote]
Office fires could have easily heated lead enough until it became yellow in colour.
Micpsi wrote:
His evidence for 'thermite' is flimsily based upon 'sulphidation' (which could have had other causes) and colour guessing from videos. Moreover, if the metal had been molten steel created from the effect of thermate distributed throughout the tower, why did it not leak out of the tower from many more places? It poured out only in the area where the plane ended up, not in other areas of the floors that were on fire.
Erm, not really. The evidence for thermite (or similar) does not rely on sulphidation alone. It is a suggested and resonable explanation for the remarkably high temperatures associated with Ground Zero, and the unquenchable fires that were only extinguished eventually by applying a specially formulated wetting agent (Pyracool) designed to deal with self-oxygenating fires.
[/quote]
No. Thermate could not have continued to burn for weeks after 9/11. So it is NOT a "reasonable" explanation except to those like you who stretch evidence to fit your hypothesis.
As I've previously pointed out to you, it never has been the molten state of the flow that is the issue; it's the temperature indicated by the colour whatever the constituent was. In addition, Gordon Ross and others have good reason to believe that cutting the stronger corner elements of the Towers was necessary to achieve the destruction.
[/quote]
But the colour depends upon the identities of the constituents in the melt, so you cannot infer that the temperature was very high because this begs the question that it was steel. In other words, your argument is circular.
chek wrote:
the iron microsperes in the collapse dust indicating iron was molten during that phase;
But that does not necessarily indicate thermate. The microspheres could have been melted by the high temperatures generated briefly by explosives.
Micpsi wrote:
But it does not automatically point towards thermite/thermate. Iron microspheres created by the close-proximaty blast of high-explosives absorb enough energy to be melted, absorbing sulphur dioxide from the burning gypsum in wallboard. This, not thermate, was the more plausible source of the sulphur.
Well that's a conjecture for which you provide no evidence beyond a bald assertion.
[/quote]
That's rich, seeing that you do the same when it comes to seeing thermate everywhere. I am unimpressed.
I'd also take a wild guess that this experiment has only actually taken place in your head, and you've no real idea what form the debris from such use of explosives might actually take.
[/quote]
Yes, it WAS wild. And totally wrong. As a qualified professional physicist, I don't need to consult experts (unlike you) and I know what I am talking about.
Whereas the spheres are an actual observed by-product from the energetic reaction of thermite throwing out liquid iron globules.
[/quote]
True. But so could they be a natural byproduct of high explosives.
chek wrote:
the FEMA sulphidated girders with holes like swiss cheese and almost evaporated flanges;
Micpsi wrote:
Any high concentration of sulphur, such as sulphur dioxide in the smoke of burning gypsum, will cause sulphidation. It does not have to be thermate. The holes do pose a serious challenge to the official account of 9/11. But thermate need not be their only explanation.
I believe that's more conjecture on your part for the sake of it - i.e. you have no alternative explanation beyond the mere assertion of some vague and unspecified possibility.
Again that's rich, seeing that thermate is itself a conjecture!!! Contamination by sulphur in the atmosphere released by burning is FAR more natural and simpler an explanation than thermate.
Rather in the same way as shredded aircraft aluminium alloy and rusty girders do not magically form 'natural thermite', high temperature steel beam eating eutectics do not just happen by chance. This is worse than Bush science - this is JREF "science".
I never suggested it happened by chance. The cocktail of chemicals released in the explosion caused the suphidation. We do not need the extra hypothesis of thermate.
chek wrote:
the reports of flowing molten steel 'like a foundry' etc. etc.
Micpsi wrote:
Like a loyal Jones acolyte, you again assume the metal was steel. It's called 'begging the question'. Actually, it amounts to clutching at straws, because no one knows with certainty what the composition of the molten metal was. All these reports are, anyway, anecdotal and cannot be treated as objective evidence supporting the thermite theory. Even if they are true, there could be a host of other explanations for the molten metal and hot spots in the WTC, such as mini-nukes or other exotic weapons.
It seems to me that the statements of multiple experienced witnesses present at the scene, taken as a whole, might provide a better insight than someone speculating from the end of their keyboard. Anecdotal as those statements might be, in the face of a determined effort to dispose of the physical evidence they remain still as a clue to be corroborated.
But it YOU who is speculating about the reason for these statements about molten metal. There could be other explanations. You have simply grabbed at one.
chek wrote:
Unlike a cult, this evidence doesn't require a 'belief' - it demands a mechanism which explains the data.
Micpsi wrote:
But in scientific research, one never invokes a more far-fetched hypothesis if a simpler one will suffice. It's called "Occam's Razor."
That rather depends on how well the allegedly 'simpler' explantion does suffice, does it not?
Yes. And it suffices far better than the redundant hypothesis of thermate.
chek wrote:
Thermite (or a derivative) as used for demolishing steel structures like disused oil rigs, is a good estimated candidate for the observed (not interpreted) phenomena.
Micpsi wrote:
Is an unnecessary, less natural candidate that raises more questions than it answers 'good'?
Given the public explanation was to be aircraft crashes causing damage further weakened by fire leading to catastrophic collapse, a silent incendiary intensifying the effect of fire seems a pretty good candidate to me. Far from making it unnecessary - it makes it highly desirable.
But thermate would not have intensified the effects of fire. It merely cuts steel. And the burning is short-lived.
Micpsi wrote:
Unlike Jones and his acolytes, who never question the words of their master, some of us have thought on it and have rejected his theory as neither required by the available evidence nor consistent with it because, among other objections, it fails to explain, if thermite was spread on the steel beams throughout the floors that were on fire, why molten material poured out only from one area of the tower (there is no evidence that this was the hottest part).
That's two fallacious assumptions in a row.
Firstly, Steve Jones is not a guru but a member of a group of scientists and engineers that find his early (and let us not forget groundbreaking) observations useful in terms of establishing an ongoing understanding of how the disaster was engineered.
Well, Jones has BECOME a sort of guru, don't try to pretend this is not the case - it won't wash.
I'd go so far as to say that without Steve Jones' involvement, the search for the truth about what happened on 911 would have remained a subject that only conspiracy theorists would have taken an interest in, and even then only on the nights when they weren't discussing when exactly Paul McCartney was replaced by a Rothchild annunuki.
Sarcasm cannot avoid the fact that Jones has led the 9/11 truth movement astray by making an unnecessary explanation for why molten metal poured out of the South Tower.
And lastly but not leastly, that the thermite flow was observed in one location only does not exclude it's unobserved presence elsewhere.[/quote]
So where's the evidence it was used elsewhere? You are being highly selective about the evidence and ignoring the problems the thermate theory poses, i.e., why is there NO visible evidence of it causing melting elewhere in the towers? Your approach, mirroring that of Jones himself, is totally unscientific.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The colour of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminium. The emissivity of aluminium oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminium. Jones' 'theory' is so riddled with inconsistencies that no metallurgist would touch it. His evidence for 'thermite' is flimsily based upon 'sulphidation' (which could have had other causes) and colour guessing from videos. Moreover, if the metal had been molten steel created from the effect of thermate distributed throughout the tower, why did it not leak out of the tower from many more places? It poured out only in the area where the plane ended up,