Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#646    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:40 PM

View PostQ24, on 02 November 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

On the contrary, I’m perfectly accepting that it’s possible to vaporise a whole battery.  However, creating a large quantity of 1,000oC+ molten metal, many times larger than a battery, is somewhat different.  Do the experiment, it’s easy enough.  Or did you already but don’t want to admit that it failed miserably?
I'm certainly not set up to do such a dangerous experiment, and I'd advise you not to try either.

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system.  Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more.  Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise".  There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#647    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,141 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:52 PM

View PostQ24, on 02 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:


But I am not afraid to answer the question.  Someone within the CIA chain of command was on the hijackers’ side (the top suspect being head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, who had a history of clandestine CIA operations as an arms-dealer to foreign terrorists - blood on his hands already), the aim to ensure that the prerequisite ‘transforming event’/‘new Pearl Harbor’ went ahead, providing a pretext for war in the Middle East, fulfilling long held and stated ambitions of individuals within the Neocon Bush administration.  It is clear to see when we have the full picture.

Let's take a look at Cofer Black, because he wanted to destroy al-Qaeda.

Quote

Cofer Black

Black also arranged for a CIA team, headed by "Richard", who was in charge of the CTC's Bin Laden unit, to visit Northern-Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, to discuss operations against bin Laden. The mission was codenamed "JAWBREAKER-5", the fifth in a series of such missions since autumn 1997. The team went in late October 1999, and stayed for seven days. Contemplated operations would be coordinated with the CIA's other prospective efforts against al-Qaeda. During the summer of 2001, Tenet, Black, and one of Black's top assistants, "Rich B" (i.e. "Richard"), were active in advertising the dangers of al-Qaeda to the new Bush administration.

One of the ways in which CIA/CTC surveiled Osama bin Laden in his Afghan base was with the Predator reconnaissance drone. A joint CIA-USAF program of flights in autumn 2000 (dubbed "Afghan Eyes") produced probable sightings of the Qaeda leader. Black became a "vocal advocate" of arming the aircraft with missiles to kill bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders in targeted killings. During the new Bush administration in 2001, Black and "Richard" continued to press for Predators armed with adapted Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Legal and technical issues delayed the program. Black urged Tenet to promote the matter at the long-awaited Cabinet-level Principals Committee meeting on terrorism of September 4, 2001. The CIA chief duly did so. The CIA was authorized to "deploy the system with weapons-capable aircraft"

By 1998, we developed substantial intelligence about bin Ladin, Mullah Omar, other terrorist leaders and on their training camps. Our efforts to capture him and disrupt al-Qa'ida grew increasingly intense from 1998 to the present.

http://www.fas.org/i...92602black.html

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cofer_Black

Definitely doesn't sound like Cofer Black was a man who slept with al-Qaeda. :no:

About the 'new Pearl Harbor.' What is that suppose to mean?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#648    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:52 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system.  Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more.  Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise".  There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

Q probably knows and is just being difficult about it...

I posted this in his "WTC7" thread back in May.

View PostCzero 101, on 07 May 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

They were probably batteries.

There was a data centre for Fuji Bank at WTC 2. There was a large UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) system for their computers located on the 81st floor. UPS systems utilaze large batteries that are typically large, often black, rectangular battery-like objects similar to these:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

These batteries are essentially the same as the lead / acid batteries in your car, and there could be upwards of a thousand batteries in a given system, depending on the unique raquirements for the individual installation.



Given that the installation of the floor modifications in the WTC and that this was a backup for a bank's computers, chances are it was a rather large number of batteries involved, and while the batteries were similar to car batteries in that they were lead acid batteries, the similarities typically end there in that they deal with much larger currents and higher voltage than the typical 12v, 700 CCA automotive battery.

It possible he didn't see my post, but again... I'm fairly sure that Q would have come across similar information in his study of this topic in general...







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 02 November 2012 - 05:59 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#649    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'm certainly not set up to do such a dangerous experiment, and I'd advise you not to try either.

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system.  Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more.  Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise".  There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

Meh, excuses… just setup a camera and run fast after you’ve shorted the circuit.

The chances of shorting a battery, nevermind a number of batteries, from randomly dropping a ceiling on them are not good.  Look at the pictures Cz posted - the batteries all have protective covers over the terminals for one.  In addition I have never seen (not for lack of searching) a battery “spew molten metal around”, do you have any examples or are you just trying to hype and exaggerate the theory with that description?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#650    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostQ24, on 02 November 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Meh, excuses… just setup a camera and run fast after you’ve shorted the circuit.

The chances of shorting a battery, nevermind a number of batteries, from randomly dropping a ceiling on them are not good.  Look at the pictures Cz posted - the batteries all have protective covers over the terminals for one.  In addition I have never seen (not for lack of searching) a battery “spew molten metal around”, do you have any examples or are you just trying to hype and exaggerate the theory with that description?

Right... and they're all made of that special composite "Unobtanium-Q24™" which makes them impervious to damage. :rolleyes:

Some of those "protective covers" seem to be nothing more than coloured rubber dust caps on the terminals (second picture) which I highly doubt were designed to protect the terminals from anything much beyond dust.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 02 November 2012 - 06:40 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#651    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 02 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Right... and they're all made of that special composite "Unobtanium-Q24™" which makes them impervious to damage. :rolleyes:

Some of those "protective covers" seem to be nothing more than coloured rubber dust caps on the terminals (second picture) which I highly doubt were designed to protect the terminals from anything much beyond dust.

I’ve never heard of it.  I think that the protective covers are plastic or rubber.  It messes terribly with the circuit when they get in the way you know.  And that was just for one problem.  Anyhow, I’m giving benefit of the doubt.  We can assume that chaotic aircraft crash damage and random ceiling collapse pries those covers off the batteries and collaborate nicely to provide a solid connection between the positive and negative terminals.  Events like that are always possible somewhere in the realm of oddity and coincidence which the official theories rely upon.  It doesn’t matter - the battery is still not going to “spew molten metal around” as flyingswan would like to imagine.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#652    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,141 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

Molten Metal


http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#653    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM

View PostQ24, on 02 November 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Anyhow, I’m giving benefit of the doubt.  We can assume that chaotic aircraft crash damage and random ceiling collapse pries those covers off the batteries and collaborate nicely to provide a solid connection between the positive and negative terminals.  Events like that are always possible somewhere in the realm of oddity and coincidence which the official theories rely upon.  It doesn’t matter - the battery is still not going to “spew molten metal around” as flyingswan would like to imagine.

Egads, pick a position on the meaningfulness of 'coincidence' and stick with it please.  When we're talking about an unknown advisor who correctly guesses the collapse time of WTC7 within a 2 hour window, there's no way that's just coincidental; when a molten flow pours out in the middle of a building fire in the spot where both plane wreckage and a room-filled of heavy, lead-filled power supplies just happen to be, so heavy the floor had to be reinforced to safely support it, this is merely a coincidence.  Because you personally find the idea that instead, an unspecified, unevidenced, shielded, remote-controlled side-cutting thermite device of unknown size that currently, and I'm seriously not exaggerating or saying this to mock you, exists only in your and other truther's imagination as far as I can tell, to be the explanation with the greater likelihood.  You find it entirely feasible that this device when dislodged by the plane impact did not either trigger the activation of the thermite reaction nor damage whatever receiver this unknown device had installed enabling it to be detonated remotely?  Here's what you replied with earlier, ha, "it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.".  Well then, "it appears that perhaps the required electrical events with the batteries actually did occur and caused the molten flow", that was easy. (Except I would also add, 'or perhaps it was something else')

And you're drawing these detailed conclusions and ruling out possibilities based on a video of a molten flow coming out a window.  Am I correct that you believe that to be steel coming out the window?  Where is the steel coming from, the outer columns of the WTC?  If so, you find it likely that this dislodged thermite charge just happened to end up close enough to one of these and angled the correct way to cut and melt that steel?  Wouldn't the charge/cutter need to be mounted to whatever it's cutting to be effective?  Don't know if we'll ever know since there is no example of this device to compare it to, which is, bewilderingly and I do say inconsistently, not an issue to you for some reason.

Quote

In all I cannot see how the UPS batteries have any hope of creating the effect observed of the WTC2 molten metal flow and neither is it best fit to the features previously described.

I don't really find the 'features' argument that compelling.  The coloration is not only consistent with non-steel metals, it would be naive to think that we are getting an accurate color from the video clip.  Your lack of flame and dark smoke rely on you being able to see into the building or be able to see it in the video if it was being produced.  As far as light smoke, you tell me first how you have ruled out all other explanations for it, which will be tough to do given how little information we have to go on.  The location favors a non-demolition explanation, we have both plane debris and batteries there.  The timing we've covered, this is only unusual if we first beg the question that this was a demoltion in the first place.  I don't know why you find the sporadic nature unusual, welcome to chaotic events.  Yes your flow kinda matches a thermite reaction, but we don't know if that resemblance is superficial; how many other possibilities are there and what is your expertise that enables you to even determine and evaluate them?  Remember, 'we don't know' does not favor your position.

Quote

If you still believe otherwise then please set up a rack of batteries, light and sustain a bonfire under them (as much jet fuel as you like permitted) and throw as much metal debris at it as you like… you will never get a significant/observable quantity of 1,000oC+ molten metal spewing out. I’ll even waive points 1 and 2 - forget throwing metal debris; you can short the batteries deliberately - you still won’t get the effect. I’d do it myself but prefer not to waste my time - apparently flyingswan deduced the same when challenged also.

Gah, this one is just really straining my snarkiness levees.  Yes of course, this experiment will exhaust all possibilities as it's a perfect parallel to a fiery, plane damaged room of power supplies.  It kinda sounds like you're setting a standard here, let's see you apply it first.  You appear to be saying, and are certainly implying throughout, that unless someone can demonstrate the detailed specifics of exactly how this flow occurred, in the face of a large amount of missing detail, you are justified in believing it unfeasible.  Well then, demonstrate your device and show me how it can cut a large steel beam laterally, withstand the incredible energies of a plane collision and subsequent explosion, and still have operating electronics for the remote control detonation after being struck with enough force to dislodge it from a steel beam it must have been thoroughly mounted to.  And then, once we've cleared that hurdle and actually demonstrated that such a device is feasible, we can get to the minor task of actually seeing if there's any evidence it was actually used and is the cause of this flow.  Otherwise I am justified in believing it unfeasible, right?  And likewise should have you nowhere near evaluating your position as the 'best' or 'likely' one if you are being consistent.  My apologies if this is a strawman, but I have trouble seeing this absurd request in any other light.  I've read several proposals now for this flow, and almost all of them seem to realize and acknowledge how little data there is and how much is unknown about what exactly was going on in the building by the flow.  But only you seem to be trying to use this fact, invalidly IMO, against all theories except your own.

Thanks to you and swan for the links to the past discussions about the flow, those were interesting reads.  There was one point of swan's that I don't know if you really addressed or I may be misunderstanding your point.  If you agree that a battery can vaporize from these shorts, including the lead (boiling temperature - 1750 C), what is so unlikely about the possible production of molten metal?  What happens to the lead in adjacent batteries when this short occurs, wouldn't they melt being next to that much heat?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#654    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:05 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Egads, pick a position on the meaningfulness of 'coincidence' and stick with it please.  When we're talking about an unknown advisor who correctly guesses the collapse time of WTC7 within a 2 hour window, there's no way that's just coincidental; when a molten flow pours out in the middle of a building fire in the spot where both plane wreckage and a room-filled of heavy, lead-filled power supplies just happen to be, so heavy the floor had to be reinforced to safely support it, this is merely a coincidence.

I think I recall stating this already on the thread but allow me go through the logic again.  Obviously coincidences can and do happen - I think that when the answer ‘coincidence’ is relied upon so frequently, only then may it be more accurately described as a pattern and take on meaning.  Is one or a few apparent coincidences meaningful?  Probably not.  Are many apparent coincidences meaningful?  Quite possibly.  To paraphrase psychiatrist Carl Jung: “When coincidences pile up, one cannot help being impressed - for the greater the number of terms in such a series, the more improbable it becomes.”  In this way alone the official story is improbable in the extreme.  I hope this explains how I judge the meaningfulness of ‘coincidence’.

Also I don’t think the fact that the molten metal flow came from the vicinity of a UPS (which could not create the observation anyhow) is a noteworthy coincidence in the first place.  Before you were even aware of the UPS, or at least mentioned it, you claimed it must be coincidence in my theory that the molten metal flow came from where the plane debris was located.  This tells me that you would frame it as coincidence everytime, wherever that flow came from, or however you think it created.  Whether there was or was not a UPS in the vicinity doesn’t change anything in your argument – so how important is the coincidence?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Because you personally find the idea that instead, an unspecified, unevidenced, shielded, remote-controlled side-cutting thermite device of unknown size that currently, and I'm seriously not exaggerating or saying this to mock you, exists only in your and other truther's imagination as far as I can tell, to be the explanation with the greater likelihood.

You may not be saying that to mock me, but the list of features you mention, through your perception of their unlikelihood and characterization as ‘imagination’, is intended to discredit the demoltion charge, no?  Oh wow... ‘side-cutting’...




View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

You find it entirely feasible that this device when dislodged by the plane impact did not either trigger the activation of the thermite reaction nor damage whatever receiver this unknown device had installed enabling it to be detonated remotely?  Here's what you replied with earlier, ha, "it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.".  Well then, "it appears that perhaps the required electrical events with the batteries actually did occur and caused the molten flow", that was easy. (Except I would also add, 'or perhaps it was something else')

Where your argument here fails is that survival of a thermite charge and trigger is quite feasible - it is well known that aircraft ‘black boxes’ can survive a crash, and I can take my argument for the demolition charge unit/casing to that level of survivability if need be.  On the other hand, batteries have not been shown to have the desired effect of creating the molten metal flow.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Am I correct that you believe that to be steel coming out the window?  Where is the steel coming from, the outer columns of the WTC?  If so, you find it likely that this dislodged thermite charge just happened to end up close enough to one of these and angled the correct way to cut and melt that steel?  Wouldn't the charge/cutter need to be mounted to whatever it's cutting to be effective?  Don't know if we'll ever know since there is no example of this device to compare it to, which is, bewilderingly and I do say inconsistently, not an issue to you for some reason.

No, not steel, it appears to be some form of thermite reaction, commonly iron oxide and aluminium, though other elements can be used in their place.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

I don't really find the 'features' argument that compelling.

Usually the single answer which can explain all observation is most compelling.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yes your flow kinda matches a thermite reaction

When you say ‘kinda’ it implies a vague resemblence.  How could the flow appear more of a match to thermite?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Gah, this one is just really straining my snarkiness levees.  Yes of course, this experiment will exhaust all possibilities as it's a perfect parallel to a fiery, plane damaged room of power supplies.  It kinda sounds like you're setting a standard here, let's see you apply it first.  You appear to be saying, and are certainly implying throughout, that unless someone can demonstrate the detailed specifics of exactly how this flow occurred, in the face of a large amount of missing detail, you are justified in believing it unfeasible.

I’m not asking for a recreation, that would be unreasonable.  I’d only like an experiment or example or some sort of precedent to reasonably demonstrate it is possible for a battery to “spew molten metal around”, preferably a match to the molten metal flow observed.  All we have so far is a handwaving response - “Ah batteries did it” – where I don’t know of any battery to have ever created the effect before.  Of course there are many examples of thermite which create the effect.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Well then, demonstrate your device and show me how it can cut a large steel beam laterally, withstand the incredible energies of a plane collision and subsequent explosion, and still have operating electronics for the remote control detonation after being struck with enough force to dislodge it from a steel beam it must have been thoroughly mounted to.  And then, once we've cleared that hurdle and actually demonstrated that such a device is feasible, we can get to the minor task of actually seeing if there's any evidence it was actually used and is the cause of this flow.  Otherwise I am justified in believing it unfeasible, right?

Not really, because the technology comprising the devices is quite mundane, only pieced together in an unusual way.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 02 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Thanks to you and swan for the links to the past discussions about the flow, those were interesting reads.  There was one point of swan's that I don't know if you really addressed or I may be misunderstanding your point.  If you agree that a battery can vaporize from these shorts, including the lead (boiling temperature - 1750 C), what is so unlikely about the possible production of molten metal?  What happens to the lead in adjacent batteries when this short occurs, wouldn't they melt being next to that much heat?

Either the energy rapidly overloads the battery/components and it vaporises with an explosion, or the energy builds gradually and the battery/components melt at a lower temperature.  Both result in destruction of the battery, circuit and ability to continue generating energy.  To create the near white hot 1,000oC+ temperature observed of the molten metal flow we need the battery to vaporise, rather than melt and cease working at 300-400oC.  However, if the battery vaporises then there is no concentration of molten metal.  Let’s say that some level of vaporisation occurs and passes heat to adjacent components or batteries – just how efficient will that transfer be in the midst of an explosion?  It’s going to cause fire and destruction rather than a large quantity of molten metal at the temperature observed.  So in all, it is possible to create molten metal, but I see no possibility of the quantity and temperature observed.  And here we are talking about a single battery in the chain initially failing or vaporising (I can’t accept there are no fuses or weak points within the circuit), yet by my estimate we need over 20 such batteries to fully liquefy all of the lead far beyond its melting point to produce the estimated 200kg molten metal flow.  I do remember previously labelling this the ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory and now I remember why – a more convoluted and poor fitting theory is hard to find.  I don’t see how it can work to produce the desired effect.

I have looked and found examples of batteries creating rapid external temperatures in excess of 1,000oC without fully liquefying the material and it is always short lived after the melted component disconnects the circuit and the element cools rapidly.  This is nothing like we see of the WTC2 flow which maintains a molten state for a long duration, throughout the expulsions... like a thermite charge would be expected to.

Can you more specifically explain the process that you imagine?  How exactly might the short be created in the first place (and remember it was not during the impact but 7 minutes prior to the collapse)?  Is the heat generated internal or external to the battery?  What happens when the first battery or shorting element fail and the circuit ceases to generate further energy?  How on Earth do we end up with this large quantity and duration of molten metal which releases sporadically from the building?

Edited by Q24, 08 November 2012 - 04:10 AM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#655    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:30 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 November 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

Oh wow... ‘side-cutting’...

As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions.  Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge?  How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column?  Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be?  Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?

Quote

I’d only like an experiment or example or some sort of precedent to reasonably demonstrate it is possible for a battery to “spew molten metal around”, preferably a match to the molten metal flow observed.  All we have so far is a handwaving response - “Ah batteries did it” – where I don’t know of any battery to have ever created the effect before.
It's happened since, last year in fact:
  • (1) The NAS battery system is made up of 40 battery modules. In one of these modular batteries, which are made up of 384 battery cells, 1 battery cell was faulty. That battery cell had a breach and leaked hot molten material.
  • (2) This molten material flowed over the sand filler portion between blocks inside the battery module, causing a short between battery cells in an adjoining block.
  • (3) Because there was no fuse installed between the battery cells that shorted, the short circuit current flowed continuously and emitted heat, which destroyed a number of other battery cells, which in turn caught on fire. This fire spread to the whole battery module in question.
  • (4)The combustion of the particular battery module released flames and hot molten material that melted battery cell casings inside battery modules installed above and below, causing the fire to spread further.
http://www.ngk.co.jp.../2012/0607.html

Edited by flyingswan, 08 November 2012 - 11:38 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#656    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.


#657    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:11 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 08 November 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions.  Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge?  How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column?  Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be?  Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?
you are well aware of Jon Cole's experiments because I showed them to you years ago when you claimed it was impossible for thermite to cut horizontally. you are asking questions whose answers you know do not support your position.


#658    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:25 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 08 November 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions.  Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge?  How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column?  Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be?  Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?[/size]

It’s a thermite charge.  It cuts horizontal.  It’s an example of how simple it is.  Your other questions have been addressed in previous discussion, but as Little Fish said, you keep repeating them even after the answers are provided; maintaining that mundane concepts are impossible in your non-progressive thinking and being proven wrong repeatedly.  For all your confusion, the concept of a thermite charge is very simple.


View Postflyingswan, on 08 November 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

It's happened since, last year in fact:
  • (1) The NAS battery system is made up of 40 battery modules. In one of these modular batteries, which are made up of 384 battery cells, 1 battery cell was faulty. That battery cell had a breach and leaked hot molten material.
  • (2) This molten material flowed over the sand filler portion between blocks inside the battery module, causing a short between battery cells in an adjoining block.
  • (3) Because there was no fuse installed between the battery cells that shorted, the short circuit current flowed continuously and emitted heat, which destroyed a number of other battery cells, which in turn caught on fire. This fire spread to the whole battery module in question.
  • (4)The combustion of the particular battery module released flames and hot molten material that melted battery cell casings inside battery modules installed above and below, causing the fire to spread further.
http://www.ngk.co.jp.../2012/0607.html

A sodium-sulfur battery which operates at 300oC+ maintaing the sodium in a molten state in normal usage anyhow, leaked hot molten material?  Wow.  Why am I not impressed?  I suppose you are going to come back with a lithium battery next?  Why not just use a nuclear bomb as an example and declare, ‘ha that’s what lead-acid batteries can do!’  Nice try but given the dissimilarities between your example and the WTC2 case, in battery specification and effect, and giving benefit of the doubt that you didn't try to deceive us on purpose, this is quite embarrassing for you.

:lol:


View PostLittle Fish, on 08 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

That is a good question.  It’s a wonder the vaporisation of whole cars isn’t a regular occurrence what with the frequency of road crashes and vehicles containing the ‘unimaginable thermal effects’ of lead-acid batteries.  But no.  Apparently requesting precedent like that is too specific a demand for evidence of the theory.


View PostLittle Fish, on 08 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.

Yes that one was weird – like Gross denying any evidence of molten steel, or Bush/Cheney claiming they never linked Iraq to 9/11.  All demonstratable falsehoods intended to reshape and avoid the clear facts.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#659    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 08 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.
It certainly cools to silver as it falls, a similar colour to the aluminium cladding of the tower.
Posted Image

Quote

you are well aware of Jon Cole's experiments because I showed them to you years ago when you claimed it was impossible for thermite to cut horizontally. you are asking questions whose answers you know do not support your position.

And the same questions apply to his demos as well.  How big, how loud, would it work on an element that was part of a structure?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#660    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:50 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 November 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

It’s a thermite charge.  It cuts horizontal.  It’s an example of how simple it is.  Your other questions have been addressed in previous discussion, but as Little Fish said, you keep repeating them even after the answers are provided; maintaining that mundane concepts are impossible in your non-progressive thinking and being proven wrong repeatedly.  For all your confusion, the concept of a thermite charge is very simple.
If you think any of my questions were answered, dream on.

Quote

A sodium-sulfur battery which operates at 300oC+ maintaing the sodium in a molten state in normal usage anyhow, leaked hot molten material?  Wow.  Why am I not impressed?  I suppose you are going to come back with a lithium battery next?  Why not just use a nuclear bomb as an example and declare, ‘ha that’s what lead-acid batteries can do!’  Nice try but given the dissimilarities between your example and the WTC2 case, in battery specification and effect, and giving benefit of the doubt that you didn't try to deceive us on purpose, this is quite embarrassing for you.
You didn't specify the type of battery, in your words "any battery" - yet another goal-post shift.  The incident certainly shows your claims about the damage not spreading through a battery bank are incorrect.  All three types of battery are known to pose risks when shorted, and car batteries are no exception.

"I have seen molten lead fly out of exploding batteries"
http://www.upcraft.it/archives/528

And other examples:
http://www.thechargi...taxi-crash.html
http://www.sfltimes....8623&Itemid=185
http://www.ehow.com/...es-explode.html

Quote

Yes that one was weird – like Gross denying any evidence of molten steel.
What evidence of molten steel?  Plenty of molten metal, no indication that any of it was steel.

You just love making these claims, but you never back them up.

Edited by flyingswan, 08 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users