Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryX

If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

1,212 posts in this topic

And how on earth is the UK going to find the budget to take over the World?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a picture of water. We all know it.

Do you need me to explain why the WTC2 molten flow was not water?

Next…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 letters in your comment above was not designed to take long.

It was destined to show the source has no substance and its only purpose to exist is to reveal no substance.

Good job, you have accomplished your life's purpose.

.

23 if you count punctuation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you need me to explain why the WTC2 molten flow was not water?

Next…

Wow. You ALMOST got away with deflecting that... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showing a picture of water DOES NOT make the case that water was what we saw at WTC. Yes, it would require 'miraculous' actions. Of course miracles are what the events of the day are all about, if one accepts the OCT. Miraculous aviation events, miraculous physics events at WTC. Ye gads! :blink:

The major and overwhelming conclusion reached from studying closely the events of the day is that the Official Narrative is a lie, a complete fabrication and story fed to the public perception.

And there is a huge psychological barrier to overcome so that an open mind can be kept. Having gone through it myself, it's very difficult to come to terms with the fact that no matter who planned and executed the attacks, the government and media actively cover up the truth. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you need me to explain why the WTC2 molten flow was not water?

Next…

You've completely missed the point. The point is not that anyone thinks the WTC flow was water. The point is that you cannot know the makeup of that flow simply by looking at the videos and pictures which are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showing a picture of water DOES NOT make the case that water was what we saw at WTC.

I just want to check that I have got this right - Your friend Q posts pictures of Thermite in use, and that is used as a piece of evidence to prove thermite was used, Boony posts a picture of water, showing the same colours, and now all of a sudden pictures are longer used as evidence, have I got that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that the government leaks like a sieve yet we are to believe that thousands of separate individuals were involved in one of the greatest conspiracies known to man....and not ONE person leaked the info?

And the other point that occurs: If the government is THAT capable of sabotage and control then how would a person go about resisting anyway?

I worked for the Federal government for 5 years in a VA hospital. This organization is NOT that capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey and then.

I personaly dont think thousands of people knew. I think this was done (or at least allowed to happen) by a very small hanful of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point. The point is not that anyone thinks the WTC flow was water. The point is that you cannot know the makeup of that flow simply by looking at the videos and pictures which are available.

The exact composition of the WTC2 molten flow cannot be known.

But a lot can be deduced from observation, along with knowledge of material properties and applying logic. And not just in the material per se, but the sporadic nature of the flow and timing of its appearance.

For instance…

I can say there is no way it can fit water, or aluminium, or lead.

I can say the observation is a perfect match to thermite in every regard.

I can say I don’t know what else it could possibly be.

There is only one conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one conclusion.

No matter how many times you say this, it will not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many times you say this, it will not make it true.

Your continued denial of observation, material properties and logic certainly does not make for truth.

Sorry booNy, do you have an alternative that fits or not?

If so then we can talk about it. If not then you may as well continue to cover your eyes, plug your ears and shake your head whilst repeating, “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong” for no other reason than you cannot handle the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to check that I have got this right - Your friend Q posts pictures of Thermite in use, and that is used as a piece of evidence to prove thermite was used, Boony posts a picture of water, showing the same colours, and now all of a sudden pictures are longer used as evidence, have I got that right?

No sir, you do not have that right.

I would ask you the same thing I've asked Boo--in the scheme of alternative metals that Boo mentioned, what are the most likely candidates? Which metals were present in sufficient quantity to make the place look like a foundry inside, according to those firemen who saw it?

What metal OTHER THAN steel is a candidate, using common sense, considering that this was a STEEL building?

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say there is no way it can fit water, or aluminium, or lead.

I can say the observation is a perfect match to thermite in every regard.

I can say I don’t know what else it could possibly be.

There is only one conclusion.

You can say it can't fit anything else, but how many molten flows of mixtures of aluminium or lead and other building materials have you compared it too? Anything other than Steve Jones mixture of aluminium with wood shavings?

You can say it's a perfect match to thermite, but only if you ignore the colour, the lack of damage to the building and the sheer volume of the flow compared with your proposed thermite charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that the government leaks like a sieve yet we are to believe that thousands of separate individuals were involved in one of the greatest conspiracies known to man....and not ONE person leaked the info?

And the other point that occurs: If the government is THAT capable of sabotage and control then how would a person go about resisting anyway?

I worked for the Federal government for 5 years in a VA hospital. This organization is NOT that capable.

Your premise that thousands of government employees or elected officials were in on the planning or execution is flawed.

An intimate knowledge of how the system works was all that was required in order to manipulate the system for the desired results.

The unnamed fighter pilot who reported that he saw nothing at the Pentagon resembling 757 debris is an example of an honest report by an honest officer. In all probability, his testimony was NOT heard or considered by the Commission. Barbara Honegger worked for the Justice Dept, yet she tells little factoids of truth that are not included in the official reports.

It did not take thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say it can't fit anything else, but how many molten flows of mixtures of aluminium or lead and other building materials have you compared it too? Anything other than Steve Jones mixture of aluminium with wood shavings?

I have never seen another molten flow in the same situation and matching that of the WTC2 molten flow. So not only are there no examples for your proposal in all the building fires that have occurred but, when a scientist attempted to recreate the flow (using more than wood shavings Swanny, please read it properly), experiments demonstrated it was not possible to be aluminium with a fine and consistent mix of building debris.

However, the flow can be easily recreated everytime, and is perfect match, to thermite, and supports what a huge number of people (architects, engineers and scientists included) have been saying for years: that devices were planted in the WTC buildings to intentionally demolish them.

I will ask again, can anyone provide an alternative that fits or not?

You can say it's a perfect match to thermite, but only if you ignore the colour, the lack of damage to the building and the sheer volume of the flow compared with your proposed thermite charge.

The colour match is ideal (I honestly think your bias has affected your eyesight/perception).

Any damage or lack of to the building at that location (however you think that can be seen) fits fine.

The volume of the flow is absolutely consistant with the size of charge that I have proposed.

You are grasping for ‘problems’ that do not exist, simply to protect your worldview as per usual. That is not science or logic, but imagination and sheer faith in defiance, like some type of religious belief held to the OCT.

I personaly dont think thousands of people knew. I think this was done (or at least allowed to happen) by a very small hanful of people.

Your premise that thousands of government employees or elected officials were in on the planning or execution is flawed.

I also determine that only a handful of U.S. nationals (no more than twenty) were involved.

The suggestion that “thousands” were involved is a weak yet all too common tactic of OCTs (similar to that used by Swanny above). They take the theory, deliberately change something to make it impossible, and then point out that impossibility in their own flawed theory. Nevermind that those who understand the theory did not propose the impossible element in the first place.

It’s called a strawman, and apparently can be used to trick oneself so much as others.

There did not need to be “thousands” or even “hundreds” involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sir, you do not have that right.

Why are you you not pulling others up then on posting pics that support their ideas? Why are you only choosing those that don't fit your world view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baiscally then, it's the usual all-encompassing Conspiracy theory that They (in this case, it seems, They also extends to include Turkey) are, on ce again, plotting to Take over the World . Plus the usual stuff about Planned Depopulation and FEMA Camps and all the usual rest of it.

None of this, whatever you may think about being the only one to see the Truth and the rest of the Sheeple are unable to see it, etc, is new. There's literally, I've no doubt, hundreds of threads about these topics.

Maybe they can be played off against each other. For example it's been said that there's no way a plane could have enough fuel to burn down the towers. But if we add in all the chemicals they're spraying in the air using chemtails... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will ask again, can anyone provide an alternative that fits or not?

Found this, from an engineer with practical metalworking experience:

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

The colour match is ideal (I honestly think your bias has affected your eyesight/perception).

The rapid change to a reddish colour indicating a temperature well below that of molten iron or steel is clearly apparent. This is unlike any of your pictures of thermite.

Any damage or lack of to the building at that location (however you think that can be seen) fits fine.

All your thermite pictures show it cutting through metals, but the WTC flow continues from the same place on the building. It is clearly doing no damage.

The volume of the flow is absolutely consistant with the size of charge that I have proposed.

You don't have to rely on my estimate, people on your side have also come up with "many tons" of material. Here's Christopher Bollyn:

One cubic meter of iron weighs about 8.5 tons and it certainly looks like several cubic meters poured from the 81st floor...

Hardly consistent with your proposed charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your continued denial of observation, material properties and logic certainly does not make for truth.

Sorry booNy, do you have an alternative that fits or not?

If so then we can talk about it. If not then you may as well continue to cover your eyes, plug your ears and shake your head whilst repeating, “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong” for no other reason than you cannot handle the truth.

You are yet again missing the point. I'm not saying “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong”. I'm saying that you can't definitively make the claim that it is molten steel (or iron, or whatever) based on the available evidence. The available evidence is insufficient to make such a definitive determination.

In the end, you are still just making an assumption, and delivering it with a notable measure of smarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* snipped *

Never mind... not worth it...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IHowever, the flow can be easily recreated everytime, and is perfect match, to thermite, and supports what a huge number of people (architects, engineers and scientists included) have been saying for years: that devices were planted in the WTC buildings to intentionally demolish them.

Since 175 pounds of thermite could not cut through a simple steel box beam and more than 1000 pounds of explosives was unable to bring down the WTC in 1993 and 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two, then what makes you think that someone is going to plant thousands and thousands of tons of thermite above the 77th floors of the WTC buildings and not expect the impacts of the aircraft to set off planted thermite? Most of all, who in their right mind is going to transport thousands and thousands of tons of thermite up more than 70 floors up to the areas of impacts where the impacts would have set off any planted thermite? There are no secondary explosions evident after the impacts.

The colour match is ideal (I honestly think your bias has affected your eyesight/perception).

Considering that more than 100,000 pounds of aluminum was used in the construction of the B-767 that struck the WTC builidngs, where do you think all of that molten aluminum from the aircraft was going to flow?

The volume of the flow is absolutely consistant with the size of charge that I have proposed.

That is false, There are estimates that it would have taken tens of thousands of tons of thermite to bring down the WTC building.

Nanothermite: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!

Hightower has further calculated that if conventional explosives (such as TNT or RDX) acting alone were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the quantity necessary would have been hundreds of tons of explosives per tower. On July 27, 2011, Niels Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres). He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives.

His "conservative" estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. Let's be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to do unnoticed.

What does other peer-reviewed scientific literature have to say about nanothermite? "Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials," Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the WTC dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, and this velocity is much too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is false, There are estimates that it would have taken tens of thousands of tons of thermite to bring down the WTC building.

Q24's position is actually wrong for the opposite reason. He is claiming that the molten flow is due to a single thermite demolition charge that got knocked away from its column by the aircraft impact, yet still managed to go off on cue. He wants this charge to be small, so it can be plausibly fitted in the building without anybody noticing. His problem with the molten flow is that it contains far too much material to fit his scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Glass? What, was there a whole glass factory up there? The engineer is basing his judgement on a single photo – the fellow obviously hadn’t seen the video footage and realised the volume and uniformity of the flow (and quantity of glass that would be required). And sorry, experimentation (which trumps simple hypothesis) has proven that glass and “trash” will not mix/entrain consistently with molten aluminium.

But let me get this straight… due to the diffuse flame of an office fire, the aircraft melted and oxidized orange, and the glass melted orange, the two somehow ‘hung around’ waiting for one another (after you, no after you), were somehow finely mixed/entrained in the building (perhaps by those invisible ninja elves people tell me about), and then somehow sporadically flung themselves out of the tower in the minutes prior collapse, somehow initially as a lemon colour.

I’ve never heard such nonsense in my life. I don’t mean to criticize the guy too much – afterall, he admitted to not having seen the video footage; I wouldn’t expect him to understand what we are dealing with - but an informed hypothesis would be preferable with experimentation/example to prove it were somehow possible. Except, a scientist has already done the experiment and found it impossible.

He did get one thing right – the WTC2 flow is not fake.

The rapid change to a reddish colour indicating a temperature well below that of molten iron or steel is clearly apparent. This is unlike any of your pictures of thermite.

The WTC2 flow falls between the colours of a known thermite reaction.

It can be lemon, darker orange or grey: -

1yisy.jpg

All you achieve in claiming the images are “unlike” one another is to reveal your bias/eyesight condition (whichever it is).

All your thermite pictures show it cutting through metals, but the WTC flow continues from the same place on the building. It is clearly doing no damage.

Which is irrelevant – thermite can flow over materials without doing major damage - it depends on the ejection/setup.

You don't have to rely on my estimate, people on your side have also come up with "many tons" of material. Here's Christopher Bollyn:

One cubic meter of iron weighs about 8.5 tons and it certainly looks like several cubic meters poured from the 81st floor...

Hardly consistent with your proposed charge.

I don’t care what Bollyn thinks on this issue... the same as I don’t care what Balsamo or Reynolds or Fetzer think on other issues. I definitely don’t care how much material you think there was. I don’t need to rely on anyone’s estimate…

I have determined through my own observation and comparision with known thermite reactions that the WTC2 thermite charge was considerably less than 1m3. I have previously provided reason for my estimation using the Thermite vs. Car video above for comparison (a little bit of thermite goes a long way), demonstrating why the flow was less than “tons”, and you were unable to show otherwise. It is another area where you want to imagine a ‘problem’ that is in fact non-existent.

I'm not saying “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong”. I'm saying that you can't definitively make the claim that it is molten steel (or iron, or whatever) based on the available evidence. The available evidence is insufficient to make such a definitive determination.

Are you saying we could be right?

I can claim that the WTC2 flow is some form of 1,000oC+ thermite reaction, because it matches that perfectly and deduction tells us it cannot be anything else. That is why still no one has provided an ‘alternative’ that fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.