Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 463350 Views
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1590 on: March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM »
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!


Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

*

Heiwa

  • 9314
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1591 on: March 01, 2017, 11:59:30 AM »
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!


Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

But the walls look pretty solid and intact. I wonder what could transform them into dust? A solid, rigid top part dropping down crushing them?

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11724
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1592 on: March 01, 2017, 01:02:19 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.

Logic is logic
Yes, and Rayzor is a shitpost fag.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1593 on: March 01, 2017, 01:07:31 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Hear, Hear!
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1594 on: March 01, 2017, 01:55:49 PM »
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!


Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

I do...

Thus another reason I call bullshit on the official story. (Add it on the bin of the 1000)
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1595 on: March 01, 2017, 04:01:57 PM »
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!


Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

I do...

Thus another reason I call bullshit on the official story. (Add it on the bin of the 1000)

So what do you think it is?   
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1596 on: March 01, 2017, 04:19:58 PM »
Molten steel.

You, yourself said you have a foundry.

I also have a small one made from a bucket.

I also have spent a bit of time on an oxy-acetylene torch and a Mig and Tig welder.

What does it look like to you?

Truth aside for a minute.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1597 on: March 01, 2017, 04:39:55 PM »
You are correct.

I was wrong.

The actual figure is 2498m2.

And there is not 4 fires per floor.

There is one fire per floor.

No shame in admitting you were wrong,    the thermal modelling for generic high rise office fires and  "cool"  travelling fires still stands.



So if the fires were only 25% ( ~600 sqm)  of just one floor then far field temperatures of 800 wouldn't be unexpected,  and with a duration of 10x13 = 130 minutes.

The video evidence shows clearly large fires on multiple floors.    So temperatures of 600C over large areas is conservative and not unreasonable.

BTW Aluminium melts at 470-650 depending on the alloy,   so any aircraft wreckage close enough to the fires would probably have melted.

I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.   I've seen theories that other stuff mixed in with (like partially burnt materials) the molten aluminium could make it look like that,

Maybe one of these days I'll do an experiment and see if it's true. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1598 on: March 01, 2017, 04:50:54 PM »
But the walls look pretty solid and intact. I wonder what could transform them into dust? A solid, rigid top part dropping down crushing them?

Your idea of intact is a bit different to mine.  LOL.   

And as surprising at it might seem,  I actually agree with you,  in the sense,  that the precise collapse mechanism needs further modelling,   the collapse initiation is a direct result of impact damage and fires,  but what happened after that is open for conjecture.    A new open and transparent enquiry would help.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1599 on: March 01, 2017, 05:08:33 PM »
I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.

Closest thing to an honest answer you've given, in actuality, it does look just like molten steel and nothing like what we would expect molten ally to look like.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1600 on: March 01, 2017, 05:11:00 PM »
Occams Razor.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1601 on: March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM »
-- Disclaimer: I haven't really kept up with this thread, and I have no clue what this challenge thing is about. I'm just responding to a few posts directed at me from a few pages back. --

For sure, I haven't argued for a minute that wtc 7 shouldn't have fallen at all, I am just arguing that the acceleration and plumb collapse is very suspicious for a collapse initiated in a single point causing the weakend structure to collapse as it did.

And I am just arguing that you are putting a lot of faith into some simplistic assumptions about an extremely complicated event. It's enough to slightly arouse my suspicion and curiosity, but not much more than that.

Quote
I think a more realistic prediction of what would happen given the OS is shown in NIST's physics models and predicted by my simplified equation.

1. No offense, but I suspect you would have a lot less faith in those simulations if you had actual experience working with them. Minor changes in the initial conditions can result in massively different outcomes. Given that the building burned for 7 hours, there were a LOT of unknowns.
2. Your "simplified equation" didn't predict anything. It's basically just a statement that the acceleration of the top will depend on the "resistance" of the debris below it. This much is obvious. The key is determining how large the "resistance" is, which your equation does nothing to predict.

But it is just that...All I do is demolish the official story..If that is a lie, then that means the true perpetrators have not been caught..Also means our own government lied to us.

I haven't seen you demolish the official story at all. All I have seen are weak arguments (model innaccuracy, squibs, direction of fall) and suspicious events (freefall, classified), which are a part of the official story anyway. Granted, I haven't read into your arguments for #3, 4, and 6 yet.

Edit: "Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post." + sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong:

Closest thing to an honest answer you've given, in actuality, it does look just like molten steel and nothing like what we would expect molten ally to look like.

How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1602 on: March 01, 2017, 06:32:10 PM »
How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of. 
 

« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 06:35:30 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1603 on: March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM »
Rayzor actually covered it.

It's the colour.

We wouldn't predict molten Aluminium at that color and temperature.

I respect you Totes we can agree to disagree.

Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Here is a drill bit that I ruined drilling through stainless steel, it got red hot as I got frustrated and very quickly cooled in the atmosphere.



The steel was weakened by heat and I ruined the bit, now I have to sharpen it.

If we go by NIST's numbers the fires shouldn't have got hot enough to make massive lumps of steel glow red hot.

Pulling red hot steel from ground zero months after smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.



If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Edit. I am glad you are suspicious that is all I ask, you are very intelligent and critical and I have no doubt you can make your own decisions, I won't push you on this but am happy to have a friendly debate if you wish.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 06:45:48 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1604 on: March 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM »
I don't expect anyone to even say anything about a conspiracy. After 43 pages I have, at the very least, shown that building 7s collapse was very unlikely and NIST's report doesn't even attempt to cover it.

That's just truth sorry.

@ Totes this is where me and Evar left our debate for reference, I accept I can't irrefutably prove my controlled demolition hypothesis, but we have shown some gaping holes in the official story.

Which, as you say, is suspicious.
This is enough.

You are much brighter than me, I'm not delusional, if you want to debate anything we can, of not then I'm happy to leave it there.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1605 on: March 01, 2017, 07:03:37 PM »
How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Something something steel beams can't melt dank memes. I haven't looked too much into this argument, so I have no idea. One of these days I'll look into it seriously.

Quote
If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Not really. So... grain of salt.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1606 on: March 01, 2017, 07:10:11 PM »
2. Your "simplified equation" didn't predict anything. It's basically just a statement that the acceleration of the top will depend on the "resistance" of the debris below it. This much is obvious. The key is determining how large the "resistance" is, which your equation does nothing to predict.

I 100% pay this, we can however use NIST's numbers of how much the structure was weakened and estimate a collapse acceleration from there.

That's why I originally picked 75% because it works with NIST's "hellfire" idea. Not even factoring in the support from concrete.

How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Something something steel beams can't melt dank memes. I haven't looked too much into this argument, so I have no idea. One of these days I'll look into it seriously.

Quote
If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Not really. So... grain of salt.


BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1607 on: March 01, 2017, 08:20:41 PM »
A simpler analysis of Master_Evar's challenge.

The four fixed bolts form two orthogonal axes, NS and EW,  so they can be resolved separately.

Imagine the East West fixed bolts as an axle running through the disc and the 100 kg weight is placed  3m  on the north side of the axle,  it should be obvious that the South bolt takes no load,  the triangle formed by the E-W-N bolts take the load.

Now balance the torque about the East West "axle"   the weight is 3m from the axis,  so the torque is 3 * 100 = 300 kgm,  this must be balanced by the torque applied to the disk by the north bolt,  and  as it's 5 meters from the East West axle it takes  300/5 = 60 kg,    So we now have N=60kg, and S=0kg

Moving to the North South "axle"  the weight is 2m from the axis on the west side of the North South "axle" so the torque is  2 * 100 = 200 kgm,   this must be balanced by the torque applied by the West bolt,  which is 5m from the axis, so  W = 200/5  = 40kg,  and as before East=0kg

Adding back the weight of the disc.

So  N= 60 + 25 = 85kg   S = 0 + 25 = 25kg,    W= 40+25 = 65kg  E = 0 + 25 = 25kg,

Which is once again the same answer Master_Evar got.

This assumes as before that the bolts locations are fixed.   Which makes the experimental design a bit trickier,   

« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:35:49 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1608 on: March 01, 2017, 08:48:12 PM »
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o
Yes, the bet is on:
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.

And other than small things that will only change the result by maybe a percent, I'm very sure I haven't forgotten anything. Oh, and it would be nice if you could record the experiment or take some photos.




Northwest of this line there is a pivot and the platform wants to tilt.

On this line for a fixed structure with four bolts supporting it, there should be no increase in load?

Wait but does this only work with a theoretical point load?

Say for example we have a 300mm x 300mm press applying a 100kg point load to the exact spot.

The cross-section of the press, regardless of the point load, will naturally want to push the platform down as a whole. Especially if it is pinned level which is assumed in your experiment.

Which logically follows that a real world object would apply extra load to bolts S and E but only a minimal amount.

Or not?

All I know is everytime Bhs has made a claim here he has been able to back it up.

I have a strong feeling this is why he asked for dimensions.
The half of the press which is pushing to the south-east will apply load to the south and east bolts, but the half of the press which is pushing to the north west of the axis will use the north and west bolts as an axis to tilt the floor away from the south and east bolts. Both of these forces should cancel each other out.

I'm am very confident that dimensions do not matter, a long as the load is stable on the floor and the center of mass is at the specified position.

Alright I see that. It does make sense.



We are well past that, thanks...

Now I wanna see the math vs reality.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:51:12 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1609 on: March 01, 2017, 08:55:43 PM »
I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Having done my fair share of Aluminium casting I can say that I've never seen any other colour than silver,  but that doesn't say anything about what happens at much higher temperatures,  what I do know is that taking pictures of hot objects that emit lots of near infrared light up brighter on digital cameras,  the ccd sensors are more sensitive to infrared than the human eye.   

Others have said that molten alumnium can look reddish in low light,  but is always silvery in daylight.   That might be a clue.

Still unresolved,  but I suspect the sensitivity of video camera's to near infrared might be a factor.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1610 on: March 01, 2017, 09:14:31 PM »
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 09:47:57 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1611 on: March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM »
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.

To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

If it was molten steel, where did it come from?  and,  Why was it in seen in an area where there was a concentration of  aircraft debris?   Was red glowing molten metal seen anywhere else before collapse?

I'm not saying I have an answer to the puzzle,  just that molten steel seems an unlikely possibility given the weight of evidence.

Contaminated molten aluminium and sensitivity of digital ccd's to infrared seems a more likely avenue to investigate.   But I wouldn't rule anything out.




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1612 on: March 01, 2017, 10:37:42 PM »
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.

To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I value your honesty and accept the possibility it is not molten steel.

It does neatly explain why the buildings initial point of collapse was where the plane hit it.

It also neatly explains the subsequent (close to) free-fall and plumb collapse.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 10:42:51 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1613 on: March 01, 2017, 11:07:03 PM »
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 11:08:34 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1614 on: March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM »
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight

I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight. 


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20111
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1615 on: March 01, 2017, 11:41:10 PM »
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1616 on: March 01, 2017, 11:47:55 PM »
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

I'll just tell the customer,  that a friendly moose on the internet talked me into doing his job early.   I can see uses for this approach already.  :)


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1617 on: March 01, 2017, 11:50:20 PM »
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight

I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight.

Actually sounds like a good experiment.

This interests me, I'm willing to do it with some ally and carbon also. Would be interested to see if we can change the colour by eye.

Furthermore taking pictures with digital cameras eliminates the possibility it is a trick of the camera.

I appreciate your change of tact Rayzor however I am not sure what brought it on.



How do you rationalize the fires burning for months after the towers fell?

Edit. Typo.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 11:52:14 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20111
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1618 on: March 01, 2017, 11:54:27 PM »
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

I'll just tell the customer,  that a friendly moose on the internet talked me into doing his job early.   I can see uses for this approach already.  :)


Screw work.  ;)

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1619 on: March 01, 2017, 11:58:59 PM »
Here is a drill bit that I ruined drilling through stainless steel, it got red hot as I got frustrated and very quickly cooled in the atmosphere.

...

Pulling red hot steel from ground zero months after smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

I think you just debunked yourself. Yes, friction can make steel red hot. How much friction do you think is generated by a falling skyscraper? Friction causes heat. Deforming metal causes heat. High pressure causes heat. Concrete and steel falling from 1000+ feet causes heat.

I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight. 

+1

Very curious to see the results. Quick research shows that they predicted a temperature of ~1000 C though. Crank it up!