Hi Bob, I intend to watch that, but don't have the time at this moment. As you know I'm totally onboard regarding the many falsehoods of the Official Conspiracy Theory. For the sake of discussion, might you condense the findings and/or conclusions by Mr. Cole regarding those observed extreme temperatures at WTC?
Cole experimented with thermitic products and found that it does cut thick steel beams and cause extreme temperatures. He also experimented with several "debunker" theories and found that they have no basis in reality. That the very general gist of Cole's experiments and findings.
Cole showed thst the thermite had to be configured in a proper manner so that the heat was focused to destroy the steel. You can't just lay a pile of thermite on some steel and ignite it a say, "See, thermite can't melt steel!" It is like so many people want accept simplistic arguments but if you make things just a little bit complicated their minds explode.
Thermite charge The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7555986B2/en
Those that think it was done by international terrorists, rather than domestic alphabet agencies are the insane ones.
I wouldn't call them insane just gullible and misguided. Some of them have another agenda and others who defend the official 9/11 narrative may be cognitive dissonant.
OK, so Bob's two videos above and the claim of "molten steel". Firstly who says it's steel? Observers? Secondly, this pile of rubble is as perfect as you can get to replicate the conditions of a blast furnace. We have a very well aerated pile of combustible material that is already burning. Thirdly, if you have a situation where steel is in a molten state for long periods, materials around it will also be molten such as aluminum, tin, lead, copper, glass. Clearly this was NOT the case. The implied claim is that magically, all the "thermite" has gathered in a pool, is still activating for some unknown reason and is not causing anything next to it to burn and/or melt. Scientifically, how the hell does that work? Suppose we take the upper limit of the thermite's heat combustibility. Then work out the duration of its natural cooling time. Oh wait, someone else did that here: "There is a tradeoff between the parameters M, the initial mass of molten steel, and T, its initial temperature. We can either let M be the mass of the thermite and T the thermite combustion temperature of about 2,500 C, or we can let M be the mass of (the thermite plus some melted structural steel), in which case T will be somewhere between 2,500 C and the melting point of steel, around 1,400 C. Either approach should give about the same answer, since in both cases we're dealing with the same amount of energy. Let's take the former approach. What is the greatest mass of thermite that could plausibly have been planted in one of the towers? I'm going to start with a figure of 10 tons, and make the further assumption that, even though the thermite is putatively distributed into a number of different charges in different parts of the building, all the molten iron flows down and collects in a single spherical blob. A large fraction of the thermite will turn to aluminum oxide and be lost, but we will ignore this and assume an initial 10-ton sphere of molten iron at 2,500 C. The density of molten iron is around 7,000 kg/m^3, so 10,000 kg of iron occupies about 1.3 m^3, in the form of a sphere with a diameter of about 1.2 m. This sphere is surrounded by rubble, mostly crushed concrete. Steve Dutch at the University of Wisconsin calculates (see https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM) that the crushed concrete fills the 18-m-deep bathtub below the towers and forms a pile about 15 m above the top of the bathtub. We can now simplify a bit. Steel is a good conductor (k = 50 W/m.C) compared with crushed concrete (k = 1 W/m.C), so we will assume that all the molten steel is at a uniform temperature at any moment. We neglect any heat lost due to radiation, since we assume the crushed concrete is opaque to radiation. Given the great thickness of the crushed concrete layer compared with the molten iron blob, I think we could approximate this as an infinite expanse of crushed concrete, initially at 0 C, surrounding a sphere of iron of diameter 1.2 m, initially at 2,500 C. (I accept that 0 C is too cold for the New York atmosphere, but it's a small adjustment and it makes the math easier.) So heat will flow out of the iron quickly at first, more slowly as the crushed concrete warms up. If we look at a time interval short enough that the temperature of the iron is still around 2,500 C, the temperature of the crushed concrete at a distance r meters from the centre of the iron blob is T = (0.6 * 2,500/r) erfc ((r-a)/2sqrt(alpha * t)) (This is equation 9.10.2 from Carslaw and Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, where "erfc" is the complementary error function, "alpha" is the thermal diffusivity of crushed concrete, 9*10^{-7} m^2/s, and t is time elapsed.) We plot this for a piece of crushed concrete at 0.01 m out from the surface of the blob: This looks reasonable: the concrete heats up, then approaches a steady-state temperature. If we evaluate the temperature at two points a short distance apart, we can also calculate the rate at which heat is flowing away from the blob: So the rate of cooling of the blob falls with time, and after 20,000 seconds (about 5.5 hours), it is cooling at about 100,000 W. How long would it take to congeal? It has to lose (10,000) * c * (2500-1400) J, where c is the specific heat of iron, about 400 J/kg.C. This is 4.4 GJ, so at a cooling rate of 100,000 W, it will congeal after 44,000 seconds, which is about 12 hours. This is a crude calculation, but most of the approximations have favored longer cooling times, so I think this is sufficient to show that we would not expect molten iron to be present weeks after the collapse."
Firstly why are you even asking when you know the answer? Multiple EYEWITNESSES corroborating each other's claims are the "who". It's not Mick West, you or anyone else who wasn't actually there. And the FEMA investigator in the video below says he "saw the melting of girders at the World Trade Center". Are girders made of steel or pasta? Are you implying they're all lying (or have no clue what they saw) because Mick West said so and you want to go with Mick West over multiple eyewitnesses? And even if they didn't see 100% pure molten steel and it was mixed with other stuff, how does that change anything? They saw huge pools of this superheated molten stuff that they couldn't get near to for weeks. You think that's "routine" like the 12 war games on the morning of 9/11? And why do you figure John Gross is bald faced LYING that he never heard of it when NIST claims they allegedly interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses? Why are you not asking THAT question instead of trying to sidetrack the point? All rhetorical questions, I know the answer to all the above. There is no secondly, thirdly, fourthly or whatever nonsense you want to peddle. Nothing Mick West or you have to say changes what these eyewitnesses saw no matter how desperate you both are to try sidetrack the point.
I already did and you well know it. Of course you do, you know exactly what I mean, who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself of course.
I don't own any witnesses. Eyewitnesses are courtroom level evidence, they speak for themselves. You are not a witness of any kind, never mind an eyewitness, and you speak for no one but yourself. Keep fooling yourself if it makes you feel better, you fool no one else.
I'm not the one who's in denial, you are. You deny every single eyewitness claim, all the evidence, science and the hundreds of convenient coincidences and impossible anomalies that challenge the official 9/11 narrative and question none of it. I have no reason to deny or challenge multiple corroborating documented eyewitness claims, that's your M.O. You keep coming up with ready made excuses from Mick West and his metabunk cult that purport to challenge multiple experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers. Even setting aside the experts, the official 9/11 narrative makes no sense on any level. Sorry, but questioning me about what eyewitnesses saw, heard, felt and were injured by isn't going to change what these eyewitnesses saw, heard, felt and were injured by on 9/11 no matter how much you want to try to change their testimony to support and defend the phony official 9/11 narrative. I have zero interest in playing along with your denial game. I'll post all the evidence as I find it and make my own personal comments when and if appropriate. You want to challenge every minutia of it? You are certainly free to pursue your agenda.
They saw the "molten" something. The problem being that they did not take samples or measure any temperatures, so it's just guesswork. Describe in exact detail how molten steel can stay molten for weeks without melting everything around it. Video two has him talking about "molten lava" - not a very impressive observation. What steps did you or they take to verify whether it was molten aluminum mixed with copper, zinc, tin or glass? The aerated vast amount of compressed combustible material is almost a perfect setup to create a forge-like environment. Magic pools of thermite all gathered together and not actually heating things right next to it. Yeah right! Regarding witnesses - In any legal sense, an eye-witness giving an opinion on something they have not verified, or something they have no qualification on is totally useless. THIS is why they call EXPERT witnesses in courts. On my needing to have witnessed the molten material : The great thing about science is that it works whether I am there or not. Steel still gets molten around temperatures higher than copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, glass(!) and any one of a whole series of other substances. So when someone tells me "it looks like molten steel", I have a whole load of readily available data to verify this! Explain how all the "thermite" congregates and stays "molten" for weeks. Do you deny that numerous metals (that must have been at ground zero) that melt at much lower temperatures are far more likely than steel, thus not melting surrounding concrete and steel? Do you deny that Patrick Dillon referred to the stuff as "molten lava"?
So according to you, NIST are in on this somehow and deliberately lied and deceived about the "demolitions"? Is that correct? I can just imagine the meetings: Right everyone, let's keep it tight. No leaks, no mistakes and make sure we dispose of all the samples. Oh, and make sure none of you stand there like a muppet posing against some obviously "chemically altered" thin steel panelling. This looks very much like the piece they analyzed. Would you like me to point you towards the report?
My post was deleted because I posted 2 videos without commentary, my apologies. So I will re-post, as usual, to continue the purpose of this thread, that is to expose NIST's scam. The following video is a compilation of eyewitness testimony of seeing molten steel following 9/11 and describing lava-like lakes and rivers of it and the intense heat they encountered. The video is sandwiched by John Gross's (lead NIST engineer and spokesperson) obviously false claim that he never heard of any molten steel claims despite NIST's claims that they interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses. The next video is the very recent testimony of Patrick Dillon, another first responder eyewitness to molten steel following 9/11 and in proximity to WTC7. It should be noted that these many corroborating eyewitness claims of large pools of molten steel described as running like lava are unprecedented in building fires. Note the above are just some recorded testimony, there are many others, including but not limited to John Skilling, chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.
I don't know exactly what they're "in on" but the rest is correct except it's not just me who knows that's obviously true. That has been proven in great detail throughout this and other threads beyond the shadow of any doubt. Why do you think this thread exists? I'm not going to re-post all the evidence, just one quick video from a former NIST employee. For me the NIST reports are a crime against humanity. One of the biggest scams ever perpetrated in support of and in collusion with whoever those are responsible within the US government.
Correct. However in any legal sense, multiple corroborating eyewitness claims weigh quite heavily. And when expert witnesses add their supporting testimony, that is almost always a slam dunk. Neither Mick West, Oystein, you or anyone at Metabunk (the "experts" you often rely on to deny anything and everything that challenges the official 9/11 conspiracy theory) have any qualifications required for expert witnesses. The same is not true for the many experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a scientific impossibility and a massive fraud.
What I find incredibly amazing about this country, especially with all of the discussion about education, is how little the word CURIOSITY is mentioned. It is like Education is turned into Work. Like learning isn't supposed to be the fun of satisfying one's curiosity. It is like that guy is guilty about not doing his JOB, not disturbed that he did not find the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers fascinating. When I was with IBM before 9/11 I had to write my own benchmarks to test a new machine. It had nothing to do with my JOB. I wanted to know. It is like so many people can keep their minds in boxes and regard that as normal.
Utter nonsense. You can line up 100 people who all claim that they saw an Elephant because they saw a lot of droppings, it doesn't alter anything. NONE of the witnesses gave anything more than an opinion on what the great-big-fat-strawman molten material was! Your very un-scientific conclusion is "big blobs of molten-something, that is 100% completely NOT verified, therefore it must be steel, therefore it must be magic thermite because of reasons." It's all so rather hopeless as a theory. I have listed reasons that you have once again ignored! None of the witnesses saw "molten steel" they all claim to have seen molten something. Since nothing surrounding the molten material was melted, it can be concluded that it wasn't at a high enough temperature to do that. Numerous metals in large quantities were in abundance in the building, not least a number of tons of aluminium from the airplane!
Totally false! He says quite clearly that it was what looked like something from a science fiction movie, MOLTEN LAVA! Bright orange and moving slowly.
Yes the "reasons" you personally listed amount to utter nonsense in a court of law. They carry no weight whatsoever because you are neither an eyewitness nor an expert witness, just an anonymous denier of corroborating eyewitness and supporting expert testimony posting your personal opinion in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. No one on earth would ask you for your opinion in any court of law deliberating/litigating the events of 9/11.
Interesting. When 9/11 happened I was a computer consultant converting a legacy system into what is known today as lawyers.com. I started my career programming IBM mainframes. I often would test out various programming techniques even though it wasn't part of my job also because I wanted to know. It's the best way to learn.
Repetitive noise. None of the witnesses tested the material or the temperature. Some said it was lava, some said it was orange, slow, solid etc. Incidentally Bob, the same observations about anonymity and forums apply to you. But it's good that you finally recognize that this is about people's opinions? A court of law would throw out this strawman hogwash. Then again the strawman premise wouldn't even get that far. "It's molten, therefore it's steel, therefore it's thermite, because of reasons."
Correct. The difference is what I post comes from verifiable credentialed experts, their papers, incontrovertible evidence and eyewitnesses. What you post challenges everything these experts and eyewitnesses claim using just your opinion and anonymous sources as well as sources that have no associated credentials or standing and whose only purpose is to deny everything. My opinion may not mean anything in a court of law as your opinion wouldn't either, but neither would the opinions of most of the sources you use to support your opinions. Of course you're just making that up because that's what you want to believe.
