911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[n0spam4me]

yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site.

Question is: what constitutes a "small" amount of melted metal and what was the composition of said metal. From the iron micro-spheres that were found at the site, some Iron/Steel must have been melted.

 

[Capstone]

Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be molten metal - not necessarily steel - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?

No, I'm admitting something I've never denied, specifically that some or all of the eyewitness accounts were based on perceptive assumptions that were later corroborated by other physical evidence (thanks to FEMA and the USGS, among other investigative efforts from the private sector). That's part of the reason I've consistently maintained that the best evidence for the CD hypothesis is physical (as opposed to anecdotal) in nature.

There's agreement on both sides of the debate that some amount of molten metal was witnessed. The question is: what does the physical evidence suggest might have constituted those "running, flowing, dripping, pool[ing] rivers [and] streams" of molten metals?

Here's a clue for you, SAYIT: corrosion based on a 'eutectic reaction' would support the CD hypothesis, not your preferred fairy tale.

Common features of the tactics used by members of opposing camps show that OCT apologists are often forced to deny or 'explain away' physical, anecdotal, and observational forms of evidence, while members of my preferred camp tend to form their hypotheses on much of that very same evidence. There's no need for us to 'explain away' things like swiss-cheesified girders, the inexplicably high prevalence of iron micro-spheres and other tell-tale particles in the WTC dust, fused-together formations of concrete and steel, or beams that somehow managed to weld themselves together in the form of a cross, because our common hypothesis would explain it all.

 

[Faun]

I hope the 'hit and miss' tactics of the OCT apologists haven't escaped the attention of anyone who's sincerely out to weigh the cases for and against the presence of molten steel at ground zero. The two most recent objections, namely that FEMA's documentation of swiss-cheesified steel was "due to corrosion" (by means of a 'eutectic reaction', BTW) and that aluminum can attain a yellow-orange color during melting, are spurious at best. Understanding what a 'eutectic reaction' is...is all it should take for people like Sayit to seek to avoid mentioning that aspect of the early official explanation at all costs. As for the color of molten aluminum, while it can reflect the color of the heat source during the melting process, it is invaribly silvery-grey when poured (as it should have appeared while pouring out from the south tower). The lack of response in reference to fused together formations of steel and concrete (which would have required previously molten states for both), the 3 independent dust studies that confirmed the presence of spherical iron particles (which again would have required a previously molten state), the numerous eyewitness accounts of rivers, streams, and pools of molten metal at the bottom of all three debris piles (completely unrelated to the molten metal seen pouring down from WTC2), should speak as loudly as the misleading nature of the responses that were offered.

Yeah, who ever heard of molten aliminum glowing oranage?

Oh ... wait ........

Again the distinction between molten aluminum reflecting the color of the heat source within whatever crucible is responsible for its molten state and the color attained while being poured (as it would have been in the case of the south tower) is ignored in order to prop up a misleading argument.

Had you watched the video, you would have seen it poured glowing orange. Next nonsense?

Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange.

Next misleading statement?

Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.

 

[n0spam4me]

A! does anybody other than me, dig the concept that the color of incandescence is a function of the temperature of said material regardless of the type of metal that is glowing.

 

[Capstone]

Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.

Thank you, for failing to acknowledge the obvious tint of the lighting that's shining down on the molds, which explains how so highly reflective a metal (both in liquid and solid form) might vaguely appear to have a twinge of orange as it's being poured out and as it's setting under those lighting conditions. That failure speaks volumes about your approach to this discussion.

Notice that I haven't denied that molten aluminum can appear to be yellowish/orange; I've simply asserted that its appearance as such is contingent upon its surroundings, unlike other less reflective metals of higher emissivity.

The molten metal that flowed out from the south tower fell away from the fires and therefore could not have been reflecting the color of the heat source, which means it's reasonable to believe that it wasn't purely molten aluminum from the aircraft's fuselage.

 

[Faun]

Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.

Thank you, for failing to acknowledge the obvious tint of the lighting that's shining down on the molds, which explains how so highly reflective a metal (both in liquid and solid form) might vaguely appear to have a twinge of orange as it's being poured out and as it's setting under those lighting conditions. That failure speaks volumes about your approach to his discussion.

Notice that I haven't denied that molten aluminum can appear to be yellowish/orange; I've simply asserted that its appearance as such is contingent upon its surroundings, unlike other less reflective metals of higher emissivity.

The molten metal that flowed out from the south tower fell away from the fires and therefore could not have been reflecting the color of the heat source, which means it's reasonable to believe that it wasn't purely molten aluminum from the aircraft's fuselage.

Your bullshit is already exposed. As pointed out, the molten aluminum continued to glow even after the crucible was moved to fill other molds. But I give you credit where it's due -- you certainly cling tenaciously to your delusions even after they're debunked. Good for you and the psychologist who prescribes your meds.

 

[Capstone]

A! does anybody other than me, dig the concept that the color of incandescence is a function of the temperature of said material regardless of the type of metal that is glowing.

Yes, but the apparent color and the incandescence are two different aspects of the glowing material in question.

You raise a good point though. The molten material that poured out from the south tower must have retained a sufficiently high temperature all the way down.

 

[Capstone]

Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.

Thank you, for failing to acknowledge the obvious tint of the lighting that's shining down on the molds, which explains how so highly reflective a metal (both in liquid and solid form) might vaguely appear to have a twinge of orange as it's being poured out and as it's setting under those lighting conditions. That failure speaks volumes about your approach to his discussion.

Notice that I haven't denied that molten aluminum can appear to be yellowish/orange; I've simply asserted that its appearance as such is contingent upon its surroundings, unlike other less reflective metals of higher emissivity.

The molten metal that flowed out from the south tower fell away from the fires and therefore could not have been reflecting the color of the heat source, which means it's reasonable to believe that it wasn't purely molten aluminum from the aircraft's fuselage.

Your bullshit is already exposed. As pointed out, the molten aluminum continued to glow even after the crucible was moved to fill other molds. But I give you credit where it's due -- you certainly cling tenaciously to your delusions even after they're debunked. Good for you and the psychologist who prescribes your meds.

The biggest problem with basing your argument on that video is that the effects of the lighting (and possibly the tampered-with tint of the video itself) are easily seen on the molds even prior to the pouring out of the molten aluminum. The visible lights on the storefront in the background, as well as that emanating from what appears to be an adjacent garage, all glow with reddish-orange halos, which might indicate that the tint of the original recording was purposely adjusted by the uploader in order to mislead the intended audience on YouTube. Anyone who views it should be able to see exactly what I'm talking about, a fact that renders the video suspect from the giddyup.

However, even if the tint wasn't purposely manipulated by the uploader, the extremely high reflectivity of aluminum (which is known to be on the order of 95%) and the reddish-orange lighting that's visible throughout the exercise collectively account for the vague twinge of orange that's barely apparent on the aluminum in the video.

Now go take your chill pills and have a nice nap.

 

[Capstone]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit" Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.

AS BEFORE It's based on a false assumption. so any conclusion or observation based on that false assumption is also false..
yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site...my post explains it all...

My sense of fair play would normally prevent me from responding to individuals who aren't here to defend themselves, but it really should be said: that the only thing proven by the wall of text copied and pasted by Daws (without explicitly crediting the original author, as usual) is that the NIST group had ample cause to test for explosives, which only deepens the mystery as to why they chose not to do so.

 

[SAYIT]

Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be molten metal - not necessarily steel - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?

No, I'm admitting something I've never denied, specifically that some or all of the eyewitness accounts were based on perceptive assumptions that were later corroborated by other physical evidence (thanks to FEMA and the USGS, among other investigative efforts from the private sector). That's part of the reason I've consistently maintained that the best evidence for the CD hypothesis is physical (as opposed to anecdotal) in nature.

There's agreement on both sides of the debate that some amount of molten metal was witnessed. The question is: what does the physical evidence suggest might have constituted those "running, flowing, dripping, pool[ing] rivers [and] streams" of molten metals?

Here's a clue for you, SAYIT: corrosion based on a 'eutectic reaction' would support the CD hypothesis, not your preferred fairy tale.

Common features of the tactics used by members of opposing camps show that OCT apologists are often forced to deny or 'explain away' physical, anecdotal, and observational forms of evidence, while members of my preferred camp tend to form their hypotheses on much of that very same evidence. There's no need for us to 'explain away' things like swiss-cheesified girders, the inexplicably high prevalence of iron micro-spheres and other tell-tale particles in the WTC dust, fused-together formations of concrete and steel, or beams that somehow managed to weld themselves together in the form of a cross, because our common hypothesis would explain it all.

Of course, common to the "Truthers" here would be an obvious disregard for the truth and a cynical propensity to cover that lack of veracity with verbosity. In post #767 you specifically referred to "molten steel at ground zero" but later switched to the more honest "molten metal."

 

[SAYIT]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit" Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.

AS BEFORE It's based on a false assumption. so any conclusion or observation based on that false assumption is also false..
yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site...my post explains it all...

My sense of fair play would normally prevent me from responding to individuals who aren't here to defend themselves, but it really should be said: that the only thing proven by the wall of text copied and pasted by Daws (without explicitly crediting the original author, as usual) is that the NIST group had ample cause to test for explosives, which only deepens the mystery as to why they chose not to do so.

Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
And you wonder why rational peeps refer to you "Truthers" as foil-haters?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

 

[Capstone]

Soooo, now you are admitting that what was believed to be molten metal - not necessarily steel - was seen. We were talking about damaged steel, remember?

No, I'm admitting something I've never denied, specifically that some or all of the eyewitness accounts were based on perceptive assumptions that were later corroborated by other physical evidence (thanks to FEMA and the USGS, among other investigative efforts from the private sector). That's part of the reason I've consistently maintained that the best evidence for the CD hypothesis is physical (as opposed to anecdotal) in nature.

There's agreement on both sides of the debate that some amount of molten metal was witnessed. The question is: what does the physical evidence suggest might have constituted those "running, flowing, dripping, pool[ing] rivers [and] streams" of molten metals?

Here's a clue for you, SAYIT: corrosion based on a 'eutectic reaction' would support the CD hypothesis, not your preferred fairy tale.

Common features of the tactics used by members of opposing camps show that OCT apologists are often forced to deny or 'explain away' physical, anecdotal, and observational forms of evidence, while members of my preferred camp tend to form their hypotheses on much of that very same evidence. There's no need for us to 'explain away' things like swiss-cheesified girders, the inexplicably high prevalence of iron micro-spheres and other tell-tale particles in the WTC dust, fused-together formations of concrete and steel, or beams that somehow managed to weld themselves together in the form of a cross, because our common hypothesis would explain it all.

Of course, common to the "Truthers" here would be an obvious disregard for the truth and a cynical propensity to cover that lack of veracity with verbosity. In post #767 you specifically referred to "molten steel at ground zero" but later switched to the more honest "molten metal."

Not nearly as common as the tendency of certain advocates of the OCT to purposely mischaracterize their opponents' statements for maximum emotional effect.

I've used both phrases throughout this and other discussions on the board, because various eyewitnesses used both of those phrases.

I've also granted a point I never denied in the first place, namely that some of the eyewitness accounts of "molten steel" were based on perceptive assumptions, which were only later corroborated by hard physical evidence.

 

[Capstone]

Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
And you wonder why rational peeps refer to you "Truthers" as foil-haters?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

NO, clear and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that was further supported by hard physical evidence that explosives/incendiaries were used.

All further implications of those bodies of evidence would have been scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Faun]

Thanks for revealing how vacuous your position is that you feel the need to lie to preserve your delusions. Not only does the molten aluminum glow from the heat as it's poured, but it continues to glow as it sits in molds even after the crucible is moved away to pour molten aluminum into other molds.

Thank you, for failing to acknowledge the obvious tint of the lighting that's shining down on the molds, which explains how so highly reflective a metal (both in liquid and solid form) might vaguely appear to have a twinge of orange as it's being poured out and as it's setting under those lighting conditions. That failure speaks volumes about your approach to his discussion.

Notice that I haven't denied that molten aluminum can appear to be yellowish/orange; I've simply asserted that its appearance as such is contingent upon its surroundings, unlike other less reflective metals of higher emissivity.

The molten metal that flowed out from the south tower fell away from the fires and therefore could not have been reflecting the color of the heat source, which means it's reasonable to believe that it wasn't purely molten aluminum from the aircraft's fuselage.

Your bullshit is already exposed. As pointed out, the molten aluminum continued to glow even after the crucible was moved to fill other molds. But I give you credit where it's due -- you certainly cling tenaciously to your delusions even after they're debunked. Good for you and the psychologist who prescribes your meds.

The biggest problem with basing your argument on that video is that the effects of the lighting (and possibly the tampered-with tint of the video itself) are easily seen on the molds even prior to the pouring out of the molten aluminum. The visible lights on the storefront in the background, as well as that emanating from what appears to be an adjacent garage, all glow with reddish-orange halos, which might indicate that the tint of the original recording was purposely adjusted by the uploader in order to mislead the intended audience on YouTube. Anyone who views it should be able to see exactly what I'm talking about, a fact that renders the video suspect from the giddyup.

However, even if the tint wasn't purposely manipulated by the uploader, the extremely high reflectivity of aluminum (which is known to be on the order of 95%) and the reddish-orange lighting that's visible throughout the exercise collectively account for the vague twinge of orange that's barely apparent on the aluminum in the video.

Now go take your chill pills and have a nice nap.

Holyfuck!

Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing.

 

[Capstone]

...Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing. ...

First of all, it's not a foregone conclusion that the producer of the video and the individual who uploaded it to YouTube are one and the same person, but, in any case, the bizarre tint and reddish-orange halos around the lighting fixtures that are visible in various spots during the video are undeniable.

Secondly, this isn't just about the capacity of molten aluminum to incandesce (I.E. "glow") both near and away from a given light/heat source; it's about its capacity to appear yellowish-orange while its being poured through the open air in broad daylight (as it would have been in the case of WTC2).

That you're apparently either unable or simply refuse to acknowledge the above facts and distinctions (due to delusional incorrigibility, maybe?)...speaks only of your mindset and/or emotional well being, not anyone else's.

Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Have to ask why faking a foreign terror attack bringing down a rather important structures in NYC was more worthwhile than just faking a US citizen abduction, making a video of their execution, then going on air every day and night for weeks speculating about how she was raped and tortured...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Anyone who's seen thermite cook off knows it's anything but silent and discreet.

 

[SAYIT]

Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).

Now that's rich! A flaming 9/11 CT "Truther" judging the emotional stability of others! Thanks for starting my day with a good belly laugh.

 

[Capstone]

Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).

Now that's rich! A flaming 9/11 CT "Truther" judging the emotional stability of others! Thanks for starting my day with a good belly laugh.

Just trying to make sure that Faun has ample opportunity to taste a nibble or two of what he or she has so often dished out.

All in good fun, right?

 

[Faun]

...Yeah, it's not that the molten aluminum is glowing, it's that the producer of the video tinted the aluminum to appear glowing so that the video could be used as evidence to twooffers who moronically deny that aluminum can be heated to the point of glowing. ...

First of all, it's not a foregone conclusion that the producer of the video and the individual who uploaded it to YouTube are one and the same person, but, in any case, the bizarre tint and reddish-orange halos around the lighting fixtures that are visible in various spots during the video are undeniable.

Secondly, this isn't just about the capacity of molten aluminum to incandesce (I.E. "glow") both near and away from a given light/heat source; it's about its capacity to appear yellowish-orange while its being poured through the open air in broad daylight (as it would have been in the case of WTC2).

That you're apparently either unable or simply refuse to acknowledge the above facts and distinctions (due to delusional incorrigibility, maybe?)...speaks only of your mindset and/or emotional well being, not anyone else's.

You're a ******* nut. The fact that you defend your hallucinations with such furor reveals that as well as revealing a common psychosis which appears common among you twoofers -- the need the twist reality into your distorted world view to accommodate the conspiracy you've married.

Here's a perfect example. In your world, aluminum can't glow when heated enough. You must believe that and defend that at all costs (even at the cost of your sanity) because your goal is to remain faithful to your idiotic notion that the molten metal seen pouring out of the tower cannot possibly be aluminum. Even when shown an example of molten aluminum glowing red hot, your instincts kick in, block all abilities at sound reasoning and logic, and spit forth a string of empty and worthless denials. All key, mind you, to being the quintessential twoofer (i.e., batshit crazy).

sorry twoofer, your lock step denials fail to alter that video. The molten aluminum seen it is most certainly glowing from the heat. It's amazing, disturbing & revealing you would try to deny something as clear as that; but again, that's what earns you a blue ribbon twoofer award.

Good for you and the psychologist who prescribes your meds.

Listen, you might want to look into switching doctors, since your current psychotherapist apparently hasn't found the right mix of anti-psychotics and mood stablizers for your personal imbalances and disorder(s).

Polly, want a cracker?